DECEMBER MEETING, 1897.

A Stated Meeting of the Society was held in the Hall of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences on Wednesday, 15 December, 1897, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President in the chair.

In the absence of the Recording Secretary, Mr. Henry H. Edes was chosen Secretary pro tempore.

In accordance with the suggestion of the President, in his Address at the Annual Meeting, and for the reasons then given, the tributes to the memory of those Members who died during the summer recess which their former associates wished to pay had been postponed until this meeting.

Mr. William Watson Goodwin spoke feelingly of his friend, George Martin Lane, Pope Professor Emeritus of Latin in Harvard University. He referred to Professor Lane’s graduation at Harvard, in 1846; to his thorough preparation abroad for his life work; to his study there of classic Philology; and to the fact that he was the first and only American scholar to prepare himself for the work of teaching at Cambridge by a systematic course of study at a German University since the memorable days, thirty years before, when Joseph G. Coggswell, Edward Everett, George Ticknor, and George Bancroft studied at Gottingen and returned to fill important offices in Harvard College,—three of them bearing the then strange title of Doctor of Philosophy.

Professor Goodwin said that Lane brought to Harvard all the best traditions of German scholarship, with no trace of pedantry or affectation. He spoke also of Lane’s deep influence upon those who were his pupils, especially in the days when he had the whole instruction in Latin of the three upper classes. Continuing, he referred to Lane’s strict and conscientious regard for accuracy, even in the smallest matters, which, he said, was one of his most striking characteristics as a scholar, and one of the most valuable lessons which he taught to his pupils. In closing, he referred to the fact that Professor Lane maintained, to the end of his life, his keen interest in the questions of classical scholarship to which he had devoted his best years, and said that with him and Professor Child Harvard University had bidden farewell to the last of the great teachers who came down to us from the first half of the century.

Mr. S. Lothrop Thorndike then said:—

Mr. President: The shortness of the time since I learned that to-day was to be partly devoted to the memory of those who have left us since our last meeting in the spring must be my apology for the crudeness and imperfection of anything which I may try to say about our dear friend, Judge Lowell. But perhaps no preparation ought to be necessary for at least bearing witness to the respect and esteem in which he was held by all who knew him, and the warm affection and regard felt for him by those who knew him best. That witness ought especially to be borne here, in this Colonial Society, in the Articles of Association of which his name stood the second, and of which he was, from its beginning, four years ago this very month, until his death, the senior Vice President. Indeed, no name could be more fit to hold high place in a society formed to commemorate our Colonial ancestors and to trace their blood and their influence in the men and the institutions of to-day. In the generations that have come and passed, from the time when Percival Lowell first settled in Newbury, in 1639, down to the days in which we live, the name of Lowell has always been one of prominence and distinction; and no one who hears me now, no one who has known John Lowell as he has gone in and out among the people of Boston, quietly, familiarly, steadfastly, for fifty years, will hesitate to say that he has maintained and carried forward the distinction of blood, of culture, and of character, which came to him as an inheritance.

Judge Lowell’s life was not marked by any grand demonstration in the eye of the public. There were no feats of oratory or statesmanship. Although widely known as a lawyer, one does not find in his record any of the remarkable forensic exploits which spread the fame of a brilliant advocate throughout the English-speaking world. He will be known to the jurists and civilians of the future as the author of some volumes of lucid, learned, wise, and righteous judicial decisions. To us he stands for somewhat more than this,—he stands as a fit example of the simple integrity in matters public and private, of the sound sense, the intellectual breadth, the moral weight, which mark and set apart the few from the many.

Lowell was born in Boston, 18 November, 1824, graduated at Harvard in 1843, and spent the usual term at the Law School. Here he is mentioned by one of his classmates as devoting much time to Admiralty and Shipping, laying the foundation for that knowledge of maritime law in which he was afterwards so distinguished and so sound an authority. He took his law degree in 1845, was admitted a year later to the Suffolk Bar, and started at once upon his profession. He continued in practice for nineteen years, trying his cases with great ability and abundant learning.

When Judge Sprague resigned the office of United States District Judge, in 1865, Lowell’s reputation was already such that a number of the leading members of the Bar at once named him for that office. Richard H. Dana, Jr., took the nomination in person to Washington, Senator Sumner earnestly advocated it, and President Lincoln promptly made the appointment.

Of Judge Lowell’s career upon the Bench I have some hesitation in speaking, for my professional life has taken me but little into courts, and I never appeared as an advocate before him. I wish, however, that I could place upon our Records all the good things that were said about him by lawyers of four New England States, at the Bar meeting held in his memory; and I especially wish that our dear friend George Hale were still here to repeat to you what he said on that occasion. One thing was particularly noteworthy in the speeches,—a recognition of Lowell’s remarkable skill in making his legal learning and acumen work out substantial justice in every case that came before him. Hale quoted Bishop Burnet’s words about Sir Mathew Hale,—

“As great a lawyer as he was, he would never suffer the strictness of the law to prevail against conscience; as great a chancellor as he was, he would make use of all the niceties and subtilties in law when it tended to support right and equity.”

When the resolutions were presented in court, Judge Gray, who received them, quoted William G. Russell’s remark that—

“Judge Lowell had a remarkable instinct in perceiving on which side lay the real justice of any case, and an equally remarkable ingenuity in showing that a decision in favor of that side was in accordance with the settled rules of law.”

As I have already said, it was in Admiralty that Judge Lowell was especially fitted by study and experience to direct the trial of causes. He would have had no occasion, when he took his seat upon the Bench, for such a hope as was recently expressed, in the words of Tennyson, by an English judge on like occasion,—

“May there be no moaning of the bar

When I put out to sea.”

I do not know whether he was practically an amateur sailor, but he tried his cases as if he had graduated from cabin boy to shipmaster. This nautical sense lent greatly to the literary and picturesque quality of his maritime decisions. As one of his friends said,—“They smell of the sea; you can almost smell the tar, almost hear the wind whistling through the rigging.” I ought to remark in passing that the same literary, and sometimes picturesque, quality characterized all Judge Lowell’s decisions, all his conversation, and all his modest speeches on whatever subject,—often enlivened by a fine and delicate humor.

I said that I felt hardly in position to speak of Judge Lowell upon the Bench. Of this statement I must make one modification. When the Bankrupt Law of 1867 was passed, I had the pleasure of being named by him as one of the Registers whom the law provided to assist the Judge in the performance of his administrative duties. This Bankrupt Law, by the way, was mainly draughted by Judge Lowell himself, and for it he drew from the great store of his study of the English statutes and of his experience in those of Massachusetts. I ought to say that this law was a far better statute as it came from the hands of Judge Lowell than after successive Congresses had amended it; and had it been allowed to stand in its original shape, it might have served the Country to this time as usefully as its prototype, the Statute of Massachusetts, has served this Commonwealth. In Judge Lowell’s administration of this law I saw him for ten years from week to week, almost from day to day; and the longer I knew him the more did my admiration increase for the constant patience and the untiring fidelity with which he strove in every case to arrive at real equity and to accomplish all practicable relief. A poor debtor or a poor creditor always had easy personal access to him. He listened to them as the Judges of Probate used to listen, paternally, to orphans and widows, and like them he was ready to advise, whenever the question was not such as to require the presence of an opposing party.

Perhaps I have said enough about Judge Lowell as a lawyer. One might go on indefinitely. Let me at least add what Whittier once wrote about another:—

“Skilled in its subtlest wiles he knew

And owned the higher ends of Law:

Still rose majestic on his view

The awful Shape the schoolman saw:

“Her home the heart of God; her voice

The choral harmonies whereby

The stars, through all their spheres, rejoice,

The rhythmic rule of earth and sky.”

We sometimes hear it asserted that the Bar of the present day has deteriorated. Even within a day or two a tempest of discussion has been raised by the declaration of a learned judge that the practice of the law had ceased to be a profession and had become a mere business or trade. I do not believe this. I should be sorry to believe it. On the contrary, I believe that in all parts of our country where scholarship is of any account young men come to the Bar better equipped than ever before; that among lawyers in active practice the average of intellectual qualification, of scientific learning, and of general ability, is as high as ever; and that, with the simplification of procedure and the abandonment of antiquated technicality, cases are tried with more commonsense now than fifty years ago, and justice is, upon the whole, better wrought out. Still it is probably true that the most important and lucrative function of the lawyer of to-day consists in the organizing and defending, or in the attacking, of great combinations of Capital or great combinations of Labor; and that his intimate association with the enterprise in hand has sometimes a mercantile aspect. The faculties he employs are the same as of old, but the conditions of his work change the atmosphere. Coelum non animum mutant. But this modern atmosphere, if I am right in recognizing its existence, was never breathed by John Lowell. He was of too old a school. He never bore, either in his earlier or his later days at the Bar, the attitude of putting himself into partnership with the business in hand, but was content to be, almost judicially, the adviser of his client, the adviser of the Court, the adviser of the jury.

One sometimes hears the question asked by elderly persons, who remember the great names of two generations ago, “Who and where are now the great lawyers?” Perhaps, Mr. President, you would at once answer, “On the List of Honorary Members of The Colonial Society;” and the answer would be fair enough. Still, the question is significant. Perhaps the true answer is that there are fifty great lawyers now, where there were five of old; and that no one, as of old, “sticks fiery out indeed” in comparison with others. I cannot but think that in the old days there were certain men who stood in a different relation to their clients, to the public, and to their brethren of the Bar,—in a position a little apart from and above the rest,—which difference of kind as well as of degree does not exist now. To these men of an elder day, as I remember them, I always seemed to find in John Lowell a certain relationship.

In a profession happily not allied to the law the Germans speak of Mendelssohn—who had stronger birthmarks of descent from the great composers of an earlier generation than have most of the noted musicians of to-day—as one of the ἐπίγονοι. So we may remember John Lowell,—if not one of the heroes, at least one of the sons of the heroes.

Mr. Philip H. Sears paid the following tribute to the memory of his friend and classmate:—

Mr. President: I should not say anything on this occasion if I had not understood that the speaking to-day was to be wholly informal and not requiring preparation. Others will speak more at large. In what I have to say of George S. Hale I shall confine myself mainly to one point, namely,—the character and influence of his professional practice.

When I was a student of law in the office of the late Hon. Charles G. Loring of Boston I heard many conversations between him and the late Judge Benjamin R. Curtis upon the importance, and the means, of maintaining the high character for integrity, honor, and fair dealing of the legal profession in Boston, and upon the necessity of frowning down any appearance of questionable practices at the Bar. These two gentlemen were then leaders of the Boston Bar and maintained effectively in their day its high character.

At a somewhat later time there came to the Suffolk Bar from other Counties and other States practitioners of a different kind; but still the high character of the Bar in Boston was well maintained by the example and influence of such leading lawyers as Sidney Bartlett, Richard H. Dana, Francis E. Parker, William G. Russell, Charles Theodore Russell, Judge Hoar, our late associates Judge Lowell, George O. Shattuck, George S. Hale, and Darwin E. Ware, and others, not to mention any now living. All the men whom I have named were graduates of Harvard College and had had their characters developed under the influences of that Institution and under the ministrations of such men as Henry Ware and James Walker; and all had practically taken for their motto in life the motto of the College itself,—“Veritas.” Among these lawyers the influence of the example of Mr. Hale—especially in the later years of his life—upon the young men coming in great numbers annually to this Bar was by no means the least.

I remember very well the trial of a case in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk in which Mr. Hale was Counsel on one side and Darwin E. Ware on the other side, and in which I was summoned as a witness by both sides. I watched the trial from beginning to end and was impressed by the absolute fairness shown by the Counsel on both sides throughout the trial. What Mr. Hale showed in that case he showed in his practice generally, and its influence upon the Bar cannot be over-estimated.

The high character of the Boston Bar has been, and is to-day, a controlling factor in the high civilization of Massachusetts, and a most powerful influence in elevating and sustaining the civilization of the whole country. In my opinion the maintenance of our national character and civilization depends more upon the members of the legal profession than upon any other men or agency whatever.

I ought to say further that Mr. Hale held his legal abilities and acquirements as a trust for the good of humanity, and therefore he was always ready to render gratuitous service to any important educational, charitable, or philanthropic cause that applied to him for aid.

Mr. Hale was a member of the Harvard Class of 1844 which has always been noted for its strong Class feeling and for the friendships prevailing among its members. This feeling was cherished by none more highly than by him. He always attended the meetings of the Class, and contributed his share in awakening those enthusiastic emotions and sentiments always aroused on such occasions and in perpetuating those friendships which never grow cold.

Mr. John Noble followed Mr. Sears, in these words:—

Much as we feel in every way the loss of our late associate George S. Hale, it is perhaps at a time like this that we realize it with especial vividness. We miss the ever ready tribute which he was wont to bear, with such grace and delicacy, to the memory of those whose vacant places appealed to us as we again came together. No one who has heard him speak on such occasions, or at the meetings of the Bar, can forget the just appreciation, the calm judgment, the scholarly felicity, and the fitting expression so characteristic of all he said. The last time, I think, when he thus spoke, was at the meeting of the Bar, last summer, in the United States Court, on the death of Judge Lowell. To-day, we bring our tribute to him and to the one of whom he then spoke,—our late associate and our first Vice-President.

This is not the time to attempt to speak with any fulness of such a career as that of Judge Lowell,—one of service in so many capacities and identified with so many interests. I can but touch here and there upon a few out of many characteristics, and leave it to your memories, in that freshness of recollection which death always brings, to fill the gaps. What he was to this Society we all know,—and what the loss his death has brought to us.

Judge Lowell’s public services were many and most important. A judge in the Federal Courts for nearly twenty years, his decisions have become a part of the law of the land,—well grounded, sound in judgment, impartial, keen and clear. Full of sturdy common-sense, independent, of absolute moral integrity, with the courage of his convictions, he found—as was once said of his decisions—the established law, as he construed the authorities, coincident with justice as he understood it. Learned not only in the law, but in the workings of human nature and in the eternal principles of right, he filled his high place with honor and distinction.

Upon his retirement from the Bench, Judge Lowell resumed the practice of law, and, at his death, left behind him a reputation as a lawyer not inferior to that which he had gained as a judge. Indeed, he may well have been considered the leader of the Boston Bar.

Of the Bar Association of Boston he was one of the leading members. Vice President for two years, President for three, a member of its Council from the time of his admission to his death, he did much in shaping its policy and guiding its administration. Not among the least of his services were those before the Legislature in the hearings touching amendments of existing laws or new legislation. As a citizen, he was full of public spirit, alive to every issue of the day, ready to take his part and to give the weight of his influence and service whenever he felt that right and propriety demanded it and the public welfare would be promoted by his presence or by his voice.

For two terms he was a member of the Board of Overseers of Harvard University, where his father was, for forty years, a member of the Corporation; and, had he been willing to accede to the earnest wishes of the College and its graduates, his service would have been indefinitely prolonged.

The ancestral distinction of his family lost nothing at his hands, and he, with others of this generation, well sustained that often weighty burden,—the honor and responsibility of an illustrious name.

Mr. Samuel Johnson spoke of his long acquaintance with Judge Lowell, which dated from their school days, and remarked upon his extreme conscientiousness. He also cited some interesting and characteristic incidents in the later life of our associate which illustrated his exalted sense of justice and honor.

The Rev. Edward G. Porter, having been called upon, said:—

Mr. President: It is not often that we can record a visit from a descendant of a British officer known to have been in action at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Twice this has happened to me in former years, and now a third case can be reported.

In the month of September last, a letter from Commander Goodrich of the Naval War College at Newport informed me that Lieutenant-General George Digby Barker, C. B., Governor of Bermuda, was then in Newport and would shortly come to Boston, hoping to see the places once familiar to his grandfather, Lieutenant John Barker, who was stationed here from 1774 till 1776 as an officer of the Fourth, or King’s Own, regiment. Accordingly, I made an appointment to meet General Barker, and I soon found him to be unusually well informed in regard to all Revolutionary events, though he had never been here before. I confessed my surprise that such a hale and vigorous gentleman was only the grandson of a man who fought here so long ago, but he told me that his grandfather obtained his commission at a very early age and was but a youth when he came out to America. And, indeed, by a little calculation of years, one can see how it is quite possible.

General Barker was accompanied by his aide-de-camp, Lieutenant H. E. Platt, who went about with us to most of the places. We visited the Old South, the Old Town House, and Faneuil Hall, and then went over to Bunker Hill. The day was uncommonly fine and the greensward on the embankments seemed as fresh as in June. We stood for some time on the upper corners, studying the situation, laying out the line of the intrenchments, and, by the aid of a map, locating the place of the attack.

With the trained eye of an engineer, the General soon comprehended the various movements of the battle and made several entries in his note-book.

I then inquired whether our guest cared to undergo the fatigue of ascending the Monument, fearing that, as there was no “lift,” he might consider it too formidable a task. But he assured me he was quite equal to it, and said he must certainly go to the top. So we entered our names and slowly proceeded, stopping at each of the narrow interstices to get the ever-widening view. We were amply rewarded, for at the top, as nowhere else, we could see the whole area covered by the hostile armies, from Dorchester Heights and Roxbury around by Cambridge and Medford, while Copp’s Hill and Molton’s Point and the two rivers were immediately below us.

The tide being high, General Barker naturally inquired why his “people” did not send the ships up the Mystic, and prevent the formation of the line at the rail-fence. He was soon satisfied when told that the fine broad river was largely mud flats at low water. He then asked me why General Gage failed to occupy Charlestown Neck, and so cut off Prescott’s retreat. I told him of the discussion on that point in Gage’s Council of War, and of the strong, though ineffectual, arguments that were presented in favor of the plan. Here our guest gave his unqualified opinion that that was the thing to have done.

The next day General Barker visited Lexington and Concord under the escort of our associate Mr. Theodore F. Dwight of Kendal Green. He also inspected our Public Library, Harvard University, and the United States Arsenal; and on leaving us for Bermuda, he sent grateful expressions of the rare pleasure which this visit had afforded him.

In this connection I may refer to the Diary of a British Officer in Boston in 1775, which was published, with an introduction by the late Richard H. Dana, Jr., in the Atlantic Monthly for April and May 1877. Mr. Dana told how the manuscript had come into the hands of his daughter bearing no signature, but giving evidence that it was written by a Lieutenant in the Light Infantry company of the Fourth regiment. Careful investigation reduced the list of possible authors, they thought, to two, Lieu tenants Thorne and Hamilton, both of the Fourth. But a year or two later Miss Dana applied to the British War Office, and obtained information which left very little doubt that the writer of the Diary was Lieutenant John Barker of the same, King’s Own, regiment,—the grandfather of our recent guest. Thorne and Hamilton were ruled out, because it was found that they were not in the Light Infantry company as the writer certainly was. He could not have been an ensign, as ensigns were not attached to the Light companies. Gould and Barker were the lieutenants of Captain Balfour’s company in April, May, and June, 1775, and Balfour, who is mentioned in the Diary, commanded the Light company of the Fourth. Gould was wounded and taken prisoner on the nineteenth of April.1

It is not quite clear how Lieutenant Knight (who was killed) came to be in the expedition to Concord, as he did not belong to the flank companies; but subalterns were liable to be transferred from one company to another by order of the regimental commander; and, as Gould appears to have been in command of the Light company of the Forty-Third that day, perhaps Knight was ordered to take his place in the Fourth. The best men from the whole regiment were selected for the Light company, and to be in that or in the Grenadiers was a special distinction. Lieutenant Browne is excluded from the authorship of the Diary, as he was in the Grenadiers.

Much credit is due Miss Dana for her enterprise in securing this Diary and in ascertaining its authorship. In the winter of 1875–76, she attended a class in American history conducted by Mr. Hale, who urged upon the members the possibility of so utilizing the Centennial enthusiasm as to bring to light original documents that might be lying about in private families utterly forgotten. The Siege of Boston, he said, needed further illustration, and especially from British sources, which had yielded us very little as yet. Miss Dana mentioned this to her cousin, Miss Daggett, of New London, who chanced to be visiting her, and who was one of a committee to collect relics for the Philadelphia Exhibition. On her return, she called upon two ladies,2 the daughters of General Burbeck, an artillery officer of the Revolution. They said they had sent all their father’s papers to Colonel Asa Bird Gardiner of West Point, who was writing a history of the American Artillery. They had nothing left, they said, but an old manuscript which was found among their father’s papers and thrown aside as having no connection with him. This they allowed Miss Daggett to see and to forward to her cousin for inspection. It proved to be the very thing that was wanted, and gave great delight to Miss Dana and Mr. Hale, who, with the owner’s consent, offered it for publication. Mr. Howells, the editor of the Atlantic, accepted it for the following year with the privilege of eliminating such portions as he considered unimportant.

Miss Dana now purchased the Diary and prepared some explanatory notes. She endeavored to learn more about the writer, whom she then supposed to be Robert Willmott, as that name was written upon the document; but she soon found that Willmott was an American officer, while the Diarist was in the King’s Own regiment and in the Light Infantry company. An examination of the British Army Lists, which could then be found only at the Astor Library, showed that Barker was transferred, 16 January, 1776, to the Tenth as Captain. The Diary does not mention this, and the inference was that he was not the writer, though it was noticed that there were no entries between 20 December, 1775, and 2 March, 1776.

The manuscript was also deficient in having no account of the expedition to Lexington and Concord. The only explanation of this was that the writer was too busy to describe it. A closer inspection, however, showed that the Diary was paged in tiny figures, so small and faded that they had been overlooked. Four pages (two sheets) were thus found to be missing. Inquiry was made of Miss Burbeck, who replied that she had nothing more. Miss Dana then wrote to Colonel Gardiner, asking if by any possibility the missing leaves had come to him among the Burbeck papers. To her great joy they were found and returned to her, bringing the longed-for narrative of the nineteenth of April,—the fullest and most important part of the whole Diary.

This was all that was known when the document was published in 1877. Colonel Gardiner, however, suggested that it might have been lost by the writer and captured by Willmott at the evacuation of Philadelphia. By the advice of Mr. Samuel A. Drake, application was made through our minister, Mr. Pierrepont, to the Right Hon. Gathorne Hardy, Secretary of State for War, for information regarding Lieutenants Thorne and Hamilton. The reply was that they were neither of them in the Light Infantry company. Our friend now seemed to be more at sea than ever, but she was determined not to give up the search, and so she prepared a list of eight definite questions and sent them to the War Office for answers. After considerable delay, caused by their being sent to the King’s Own regiment, then stationed at Gibraltar, the Office sent her very courteously two sets of answers,—one from the Regimental, the other from the War Office, records. From these answers she constructed the theory that Lieutenant John Barker must have been the writer of the Diary. The fact that he was transferred to the Tenth in January was no objection, as the entries made no mention of the Fourth after that date; and the long blank alluded to was probably caused by his new duties as Captain, leaving him no time for writing. Barker’s father died that same month of January, though he does not allude to it; but news travelled slowly in those days and the items are all very fragmentary toward the close of the Diary, which ends at Halifax 20 April, 1776.

Having thus established the authorship to her satisfaction, Miss Dana sought to obtain information from some of the Barker family. She stated her case in the English Notes and Queries, but received no reply. She then sent inquiries to several officers bearing the name, and had two or three answers, one being from Colonel G. Digby Barker; but unfortunately he had nothing in his possession known to be in his grandfather’s handwriting, though there were some of his sketches of the defences at Philadelphia. The Burbecks had never heard their father mention either Barker or Willmott, and had no idea how the manuscript came into his hands; and Colonel Gardiner found nothing among his papers to shed any light upon it. A few facts, however, point to a theory which seems conclusive. Burbeck’s father3 was an engineer in the British service before the breaking out of the “War, and stationed at Castle William, having frequent intercourse with the officers in Boston. The son was born here in 1754, and was naturally-acquainted with many of them at the beginning of the Siege. It was not long before both escaped,—the father becoming Lieutenant Colonel, and the son Lieutenant in the Gridley-Knox regiment of artillery. At the evacuation of Philadelphia the Fourth and the Tenth regiments were both there, and the Tenth, in which Barker was Captain, was the last to depart the City, having to cover the retreat. The movement was a hurried one, and as the orderly-book at General Headquarters was left behind we can easily believe that this Diary shared its fate. Lieutenant Willmott of Captain Dorsey’s Company of the Maryland artillery—the first to enter the city—probably found it. Willmott and Burbeck must have met not long after, and, as the Siege of Boston was a much more interesting event to the latter, Willmott doubtless let him have the Diary. There are scrawls4 on the back of it showing that its possessor had something to do with a company from Baltimore, which was Willmott’s home. Incidentally I may add that this Willmott’s brother William is said to have been the last man wounded in the Revolutionary War.

Under date of 18 January, 1775, the Diarist mentions a meeting of The Loyal and Friendly Society of the Blue and Orange, to which he belonged. Miss Dana pursued this clue also as far as she could. The British Museum had the constitution, rules, and list of original members of the Society,—which was founded by officers of the King’s Own in commemoration of the Revolution of 1685 and the accession of the House of Hanover in 1714,—but the list does not include the members of 1775.

This unique story would not be complete without a final word concerning the elusive writer, whom we have at last hunted down and invested with a distinction in literature which he never anticipated. Lieutenant Barker was the son of Admiral John Barker,5 who was third in command at the taking of Havana in 1762. The son married Caroline, daughter of Lady Henrietta Conyers, whose sister, Lady Juliana Fermor, married Thomas Penn of Stoke Park, Bucks, son of William Penn, one of the hereditary-proprietors of Pennsylvania. These ladies were daughters of the first Earl of Pomfret. Lieutenant Barker, as we have seen, afterward became Captain in the Tenth and finally retired as Lieutenant Colonel of the Twenty-seventh, and lived at Clare Priory, near Clare Castle in Suffolk. This estate is now held by General Barker, who told me that when he leaves Bermuda he hopes to enjoy some degree of leisure in his ancestral home.

Mr. Andrew McFarland Davis reported the incorporation of these Historical Societies in Massachusetts:—

lynn historical society.

An organization with this title was incorporated 27 April, 1897, for the purpose of investigating, recording, and perpetuating the history of the town of Lynn, and collecting, holding, and preserving documents, books, memoirs, relics, and all other matters illustrating its history, or that of individuals identified with it.

holbrook historical society.

A Society known by this name was incorporated 29 September, 1897, for the purpose of collecting and preserving such publications, manuscripts, pictures, memorials, and specimens as may illustrate local and general history, and providing a safe repository for the same.6

On behalf of Mr. Abner C. Goodell, Jr., who was unavoidably absent, Mr. Davis also presented the following communication:—

At a Meeting of this Society four years ago,7 I ventured to express the opinion that a Resolution of the Bristol County Convention of September, 1774, in which the members pledged their “utmost endeavour to discountenance and suppress all mobs, riots, and breaches of the peace,” was in keeping with the sentiment generally entertained by the wisest patriots and best men of the day; and I further ventured to declare that it was doing a great injustice to the sober, sensible men who thought out and wrought out the problem of Independence to impute to them responsibility for, or sympathy with, such lawless proceedings as the affray in King Street in March, 1770, and the destruction of the Tea in December, 1773.

Since my assertions before this Society and elsewhere upon this subject have been more than once publicly questioned, I have thought it possible that I might sometime bring together the testimonies of contemporary patriots in support of my statements, and I may, in the near future, ask that such a symposium be admitted to a place in our Publications. But a circumstance which occurred during our summer vacation induces me to anticipate this purpose, in part, and to give now one instance in point of such a character as to require that its publication be not delayed. Through the kindness of Mr. Wilberforce Eames of the Lenox Library, I have been put in possession of an exact copy of a letter by Franklin on the doings of the Tea Party, Avhich, since it is not included in his Works, as edited by Sparks, nor elsewhere given in print8 to my knowledge, I deem worthy to be contributed to our printed Transactions, and I ask that it be submitted to the Council for that purpose. The letter, which was addressed to Thomas Cushing and three other leading patriots of Massachusetts, and, for a time, was evidently in the possession of Samuel Adams, is as follows:—

London, Feb. 2, 1774.

Gentlemen,

I received the Honour of your Letter dated Dec^ṛ 21. containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same Import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceeding is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.—As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General Court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act of violent Injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim of Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been erected at a great Expence was violently destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation.—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being ever with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,

Gentlemen,

Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B Franklin

Hon^ble

Thomas Cushing

Sam^ll Adams

John Hancock

William Phillips

[Endorsed, in the handwriting of Samuel Adams,]

Letter from D^r Franklin to a Com^e Lond. Feb. 2–74.

Mr. John Noble exhibited some original papers, including a Bill for meals and lodging furnished the Jury which tried the British Soldiers who quelled the Riot in King Street, Boston, on the night of the Fifth of March, 1770, and spoke as follows:—

These old papers, relics of Revolutionary days, have a certain interest in themselves and in their connection with the events of that period, and also in the information they incidentally give us of the life and conditions and circumstances of the time.

The first is the original Bill for meals and lodging furnished by the keeper of the Jail to the Jury which sat in the trial of the British soldiers concerned in the Riot called “the Boston Massacre.” It is made out on a sheet of paper darkened and discolored by time and rude handling, with the lower half torn off and one corner of it missing, but with enough left even of that to be easily intelligible. It covers two pages, and the remaining two are blank. The items show that the Jury fared somewhat differently from those of to-day. This, as will appear later on, was the first occasion on which such a bill was incurred or became necessary. It appears to have been examined with careful scrutiny down to its minutest details, and to have gone through every stage with due official formality and precision. The startling figures of the Old Tenor subside into insignificant modesty in the final process of reduction into Lawful Money, and we get a hint of the state of the currency at that time. The Bill is as follows:—

Mr. Joseph Mayo To Joseph Otis on Acc^t of the Soldiers Tried of y^e 29^th Reg^t

1770						O		Ten^r—
Nov. 27^th	To Biskett & Cheese & Syder					£1	“		0	“
	To Suppers for 14 Men @ 11/3					7	“		17	“	6
	To Lodging 12 Men @ 2/					1	“		4	“	0
28	To Breakfast 14 Men @ 6/					4	“		4	“	0
	To Bread Cheese & Syder								18	“	4
×	To Supper 14 Men @ 11/3					7	“		17	“	6
	To Lodging 12 Men @ 2/					1	“		4	“	0
29	To Breakfast 14 Men @ 6/					4	“		4	“	0
	To Bread, Cheese & Syder					1	“		6	“	–
×	To Supper for 14 Men @ 11/3					7	“		17	“	6
	To Lodging 12 Men @ 2/					1	“		4	—
30	To Breakfast 14 Men @ 6/					4	“		4	—
	To Bread Cheese & Syder					1	“		6	—
	To Supper for 14 M[				]1/3	[					]
	To Lodging 12 Men [				]	[					]
Dec. 1	To Breakfast 14 M[				]	[					]
	To Bread Cheese & [				]	[					]
×	To Pipes & Tobacco [				]	[					]
×	To Supper 14 M[				]	[					]
6d	To Lodging 12 N[				]	[					]
2	To Breakfast 14 [				]	[					]
×	To Supper 14 V[				]	[					]
	To Lod[				]	[					]
3^d	To Brea[				]	[					]
	To Bread [				]	[					]
×	To Pip[				]	[					]
×	To Supp[				]	[					]
	To Lodg[				]	[					]
1770	Brought Forward					£95	:		10	:	10
Dec^r 4	To Breakfast 14 Men @ 6/					4	“		4	—
	To Bread Cheese & Syder					1	“		6
×	To Supper 14 Men @ 11/3					7	“		17	“	6
	To Lodging 12 D^o @ 2/					1	“		4	—
5	To Breakfast 14 Men @ 6/					4	“		4	—
	To Bread Cheese & Syder					1	“		6	—
	To Fireing 8 Nights for y^e officers					115	:		12	:	4
	who Attended @ 7/6					3	“		0	—
					old Ten^r	£118	“		12	“	4
					Is Lawful Money	£15	“		16	“	4
	To Sperites Licker						0	=	19	=	5
					Joseph Mayo		£16	=	15	=	9
	[				]r Ac^t haveing Considered the Same
	[				] pounds fifteen Shillings & Six pence old Ten^r—
	[				] over Charged which is Equal to 18/1^d lawfull
	[				]llowd & paid out of the County Treasury the
	[				]teen pound Seventeen Shillings & Eight
	[				] In full to Discharge the above acount
					Eliph^t. Pond
					[		]illiams—
					[		]Miller
					Boston in & for said County on the
				[	]rdered that the same be and hereby
			[		]ual Order on the County Treasury for
		[			]ight pence Lawful Money to the
					Ez. Price Cler
	[Filed] Makoas Account 1770.

The Bill bears the approval of Eliphalet Pond, Joseph Williams, and Ebenezer Miller, three of the Justices of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, and the order of the Court for its payment out of the County Treasury, signed by Ezekiel Price, the Clerk of the Court.9

Joseph Otis was the Keeper of the County Gaol in 1770, as appears from entries in the Selectmen’s Minutes,10 and from many orders in the Records of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace11 for reimbursement from the County Treasury for “Subsistence of Sundry poor Persons, Prisoners in said Gaol, who have pot the where withal to support themselves,” as well as for many other outlays in his official capacity. He was also Keeper of the Court House, having allowances “for his time in Tolling the Bell, Sweeping the Court Chamber, making Fires for the Courts & taking care of the Court House,” in “bottoming Chairs for Jurymen,” and for “Cash paid for Candles for the Court.” He also gets an extra allowance in February, 1771, of “Four Pounds for his extraordinary care & trouble in attending the several Courts of Justice, for the Year past, they having sat a much longer time than usual.”12 From these and other entries he would seem to have had a varied field of duty, and to have been an essential, though subordinate, instrument in the due administration of justice. From these entries there also comes a glimpse of the primitive conditions of that day.

Capt. Joseph Mayo was a prominent citizen of Roxbury, where he was born 28 February, 1720–21,—a son of Thomas and Elizabeth (Davis) Mayo, and grandson of the emigrant ancestor, John Mayo, who was brought over, a young child, in 1633 by his step-father. Impressed into service as one of the twenty men from Roxbury, in the expedition against Louisburg, in 1745, he thus got his first military experience. In the stormy times before the breaking out of the Revolution, he served on many Committees of the Town, often with William Heath, later a Major-General in the War. He was on the Committee of 7 December, 1767, to procure signers to the Non-Importation Resolution; on that of 26 May, 1769, to draft Instructions to the Town Representative, Col. Joseph Williams, to “proceed in a cool, calm and steady manner . . . to cultivate and maintain a good harmony and union between Great Britain and her Colonies,” but still to maintain their “invaluable Charter rights,” and to inquire as to the quartering of troops in Boston,—instructions somewhat remarkable for their calmness and conservatism; on a like Committee 16 November, 1772; and again, 3 December, 1773, to draft Resolutions on the Tea Act, wherein it was resolved—

“to Stand fast in that Liberty wherewith the Supream Being hath made them Free . . . to join with the Town of Boston and other Sister Towns in such Constitutional Measures as shall be Judged proper to preserve and hand down to Posterity Inviolate those Inestimable Rights and Liberties handed down to us under Providence by our worthy Ancestors.”13

The Record of the Trial of the Soldiers who were concerned in the affair of the Fifth of March shows Mayo to have been the Foreman of the Jury.14 Drake quotes from a letter written by Governor Hutchinson to Sir Francis Bernard, after the latter’s return to England:—

“Capt Joseph Mayo, one of your Roxbury Neighbors, was foreman of the jury at the trial of the Soldiers. I am much inclined to make him a Major.”15

Mayo, accordingly, was appointed Major of the First Suffolk Regiment, in 1771. He died 11 February, 1776.16 In the various prominent positions in which he was placed, he seems to have shown himself a calm, cool, conservative, and patriotic citizen throughout, though he died too early for anything more than a share in the preliminary movements of the great struggle.

The next Term of the Superiour Court after the Riot came in on the thirteenth of March. It is stated that the Judges, sensible of the injustice of an immediate trial at a moment of such excitement, at first determined to continue it over to the next Term, but, overawed by the attendance of a large Committee with Samuel Adams and Joseph Warren at its head,17 rescinded their decision, and at once named a day to which they adjourned the Court. This is stated on the authority of Hutchinson.18 As a matter of fact, however, the Trials did not come on till the August Term, and even then at an adjournment of it. There is no entry of the proceeding in the Records of the March Term, nor upon the Minute Boole or Docket. The Records of the Trials, at the next term, refer to the several defendants “being indicted at the last term, with sundry other persons, in five several Indictments, etc.,” in which the Soldiers are described as “labourers,” and “resident of Boston.”

In the Boston Public Library, in the Chamberlain Collection,19 so called, is the original Petition of the Soldiers addressed to the Superiour Court of Judicature praying to be tried with their leader, Captain Preston,—a request which was denied by the Court, their Trial taking place a month later.20 The following is the text of the Petition, which is here printed for the first time:—

To the Honourable Judges of the Superior Court.

May it please Y^r, Honours we poor Distressed Prisoners Beg that ye Would be so good as to lett us have our Trial at the same time with our Captain, for we did our Captains Orders & if we don’t Obay is Command [we] should have been Coufine’d & shott for not doing of it—We Humbly pray Y^r, Honours that you would take it into y^r serious consideration & grant us that favour for we only desire to Open the truth before our Captains face for it is very hard he being a Gentelman should have more chance for to save his life then we poor men that is Oblidged to Obay his command—we hope that Y^r Honours will grant this our petition, & we shall all be in dut[y] Bound ever to pray for Your honours.

Dated Boston Goal

October ye 24^tḥ 1770

Hugh White

James Hartigan

Math^w Killroy

The Trial of the Soldiers occupied nine days, and that of Captain Preston,21 the month before, six days. These Trials seem to have been the first in the history of the Province which lasted more than a single day. As a consequence of their mere length they raised several perplexing questions, for the solution of which precedents had to be sought, analogies traced, and judicial interpretation and decision brought to bear. At the outset one question had to be decided at once in order to prevent any flaw in the proceedings,—that as to keeping the Jury together till they should be discharged of their verdict,—an every-day proceeding at the present time.22 The novel situation here, accordingly, required a special order of the Court, which appears in the margin of the Record of Captain Preston’s23 trial:—

“N. B. The Court being unable to go through this Trial in one Day, the King’s Attorney and the Prisoner consent that the Court shall adjourn over Night during the Trial; the Jury being kept together by two Keepers, one chosen by the King’s Attorney, the other by the Prisoner or his Council; besides the Officer appointed by the Court.”24

In the margin of the Record of the Trial of the Soldiers is a similar memorandum of the order of the Court in that case, differing only in this, that the Jury were to be “kept together by proper Officers appointed & sworn by the Court.”25 The Bill shows that there were two officers, and that they fared like the Jury, unless one item in the charges was for their special benefit; and there is some indication of an effort by the Jailer to lessen the inevitable discomforts of the situation.

Another question arose later, which affected only the County Treasury, but which gave rise to even more anxious deliberation and deeper legal investigation; indeed, it seems to have been regarded as “of very extensive Concernment.” The Report of the Decision of the Court of Sessions upon it is given in full by Quincy.26 This, together with the remarks thereon,—delicately but somewhat sharply suggestive in some respects,—were published by Josiah Quincy, Jr., as appears by the Editor’s Note, in the Boston Gazette, 20 May, 1771. Only a brief reference, therefore, is necessary.

In view of the length of these trials, unprecedented at that early day, the Justices of the Superiour Court of Judicature, at the same August Term,—

“Ordered, that it be recommended to the Court of general Sessions of the Peace to make the Jurors that were impannelled and sworn for the Trial of Thomas Preston, Esq., and the Soldiers, as also the officers who kept them, a reasonable allowance for said Service, said Prestons trial holding six Days, and said Soldiers nine Days, said Jury’s being kept to-gether every night by two or more officers.

Boston Decemb^ṛ 14^th 1770.	The Court is adjourn’d without Day.
	Att Sam Winthrop Cler”27

The Jurors consequently petitioned the Court of Sessions,28 but—

“the Court having a Doubt of their Power touching the Grant of the Prayer thereof, ordered the Petition to stand over for Argument at the Sessions in April; . . . the Power of the Court . . . was argued by four Gentlemen of the Bar (pro & con) by Desire of the Honourable Justices of the Sessions. It seemed agreed by Bench and Bar that the only Power of the Sessions to grant Monies must be derived from provincial Law; that such a Power could be derived from no where else. And the Question was, whether the Act of 4 W. & M. c. 12 (3) gave the Court a Power to grant Monies for the Allowance before mentioned. The Debates at the Bar took up the Day. And the Justices after this Solemn Hearing, (only Mr. Justice Dunbar doubting) were unanimously of Opinion that the Prayer of the Petition of the Jurors should not be granted; and the Petition was accordingly dismissed.”29

These Trials and their result have become historic. Of the eight soldiers, six were acquitted. Two, Montgomery and Killroy, Avere found guilty of manslaughter.30

“Each of them prayeth that the benefit of Clergy be allow’d him . . . Whereupon . . . It is Considered by the Court here that . . . each of them be burned in his left hand, and was delivered according to the form of the Statute.”31

The four Judges who sat at the trial were, Benjamin Lynde, John Cushing, Peter Oliver, and Edmund Trowbridge.

Lynde sat as the presiding Justice, Hutchinson having retired from the office of Chief Justice after taking the head of the Government, upon the departure of Governor Bernard for England, in 1769. He was born in Salem, 5 October, 1700, and graduated at Harvard College in 1718. The second of the name to fill the place of Chief Justice,32 Lynde came upon the Bench, 24 January, 1745–46, after some seven years’ service as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Essex, having been appointed a Special Justice, 28 June, 1734, and Justice, 5 October, 1739. He was also in the Council, 1737–1740 and 1743–1766. Of liberal views, and inclined to the side of the people, rather than encounter the storm which was gathering about the payment of judicial salaries by the Crown, he resigned his seat, and was directly appointed Judge of Probate for the County of Essex, 15 January, 1772, holding that office till his death, 3 October, 1781,33 at the age of 81.

John Cushing, likewise the second of the name in the same position, the son of a Justice and the father of a Chief Justice, had been on the Bench since 16 February, 1747–48, having been previously a Special Justice, 19 August, 1747. He was a Justice of the Common Pleas in Plymouth, appointed 8 July, 1738, and at the same time was Judge of Probate, appointed 12 January, 1738–39. He was a Commissioner of Oyer and Terminer for some trials in Nantucket, 23 June, 1743, and 9 August, 1746. He was also in the Council, 1736–1763. He, like Lynde, resigned from the Superiour Court, in 1771, and died in Scituate—where he was burn, 17 July, 1695—on the nineteenth of March, 1778, at the age of 82 years.34

Peter Oliver, belonging, like his associates, to a family of distinction, was, on the resignation of Richard Saltonstall, appointed on the Court, 14 September, 1756. He also had had an experience on the Bench of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas of some nine years, having been appointed in Plymouth County, 12 December, 1747. From 1759 to 1765 he was also in the Council. When Lynde resigned, he was made Chief Justice of the Superiour Court.

The provision which made the Justices dependent for their salaries upon the Crown and not upon the local government had increased that of the Chief Justice from £200 to £400. The hostility of the people to what seemed to them an alarming and dangerous measure appears by the Boston Town Records;35 the attitude of the Judges was jealously watched. Oliver was ready to brave the storm; impeachment was threatened;36 juries were defiant. By a Resolve of 14 February, 1774, the Superiour Court to be holden “on the morrow” was adjourned to the twenty-second, or to the seventeenth, according to one record and as given by Hutchinson, as grave charges in a remonstrance and petition from the House were pending before the Governor and Council, against Oliver, and it was uncertain what opinion and resolution the Chief Justice might have formed or would form as to the propriety of his sitting and acting in the Court.37 The Governor, however, withheld his consent to the Resolve, and the Court came in on its regular day, 15 February,38 with only Trowbridge, Foster Hutchinson, and William Cushing on the Bench; and thereafter for the next two successive terms (Middlesex and Worcester) only the same three appear. William Browne was added at the next term (Essex), and the four names appear for the next two terms (York and Cumberland and Lincoln). Finally, at the next (Suffolk) term, 30 August, 1774, Chief Justice Oliver again appears at the head of the sitting Bench.39 He also appears, for the last time, at the February term (Suffolk), which was the only term held in any county in 1775. The Record of the term consists of two pages, and stops abruptly without adjournment or further entry, containing only the caption and the record of a single case.40

Removed by the Revolution, Oliver left the Province, in 1776, at the Evacuation of Boston,—where he was born 26 March, 1713,—and died in Birmingham, England, 13 October, 1791, at the age of 79. The last of the Chief Justices under the Crown, a Loyalist by birth, education, and instinct, a man of courage, firmness, learning, and character, and an able magistrate, there is a somewhat dramatic fitness in the close of his connection with a Court which, since the beginning of the Province, had been one of the chief impersonations and embodiments of Royal authority. Like Lynde and Trowbridge he was a graduate of Harvard,—his Class being that of 1730; and Oxford gave him the degree of D.C.L. in 1776.

Edmund Trowbridge, the youngest of the Bench in service, was appointed, 25 March, 1767, to succeed Chambers Russell, who had died in England, 24 November, 1766. He had been Attorney General41 from his appointment by Shirley, 29 June, 1749, to his judicial promotion. He, too, was in the Council, in 1764 and 1765. Though of Loyalist proclivities and inclined to the side of prerogative, his learning, ability, and character insured him the respect of the people. He resigned his seat on the Bench in 1775. His name is identified with our system of Common Law. His career at the Bar was distinguished, and he was said to command the practice of every County which he visited.

Trowbridge was born in Newton in 1709,42 the son of Thomas and Mary (Goffe) Trowbridge. He graduated at Harvard College in 1728. His mother was the great-granddaughter of Edward

Goffe43 who came from England in 1635. His sister Lydia was the mother of Chief Justice Dana.

Washburn says that Trowbridge’s name was not to be found in any “Biographical Dictionary of American names” in 1840, and that “during a part of his life he bore the name of Goffe, after that of an uncle.”44

John T. Morse, Jr., says:—

“At different times he had two names, and appears during a part of his life, at least, to have been known by them both indifferently. He was the adopted child and heir of Col. Edmund Goffe, and took the name of Goffe in early youth; but afterward, toward the time of the Revolution, he reassumed his original name of Trowbridge. It has been suggested in explanation of this, that Col. Goffe was a connection of the regicide judge, and that the Tory proclivities of Trowbridge made him unwilling in such times of revolt to bear the disloyal name. But the theory is a mere surmise, resting on no sufficient authority.”45

The authority for these statements is somewhat vague, and there are indications of at least inaccuracies in the latter, like another error which makes him ninety-four years old when he died.46

Edmund Trowbridge was the grandson of Edward Goffe, an elder brother of Col. Edmund Goffe who was Trowbridge’s guardian in his minority, having been appointed as such 7 March, 1725; and, singularly, in 1740, he in turn became the guardian of Col. Goffe, who died 16 October of the same year. In public records he appears at various periods as Trowbridge. In the Records of the Superiour Court there is a suit brought, in 1726, by “Edmund Goffe, Lidia Barnard, widow, Edmund Trowbridge, Lidia Trowbridge and Mary Trowbridge, Infants, by the said Edmund Goffe their Guardian, appellants v. William Jennison, appellee.”47

The name of Edmund Trowbridge appears also as one of the Selectmen of Cambridge, 1743–1746; as an Assessor and a member of the School Committee in 1744; as Representative of Cambridge at various times from 1750 to 1764; and as one of the subscribers for building the new Meeting-house in Cambridge, in 1753.48

It is evident, nevertheless, that at some time Judge Trowbridge was called by both names or either,—whatever the occasion of it. This appears by various Court papers.49 In the Court Records previous to 1740 are a number of cases where Edmund Goffe of Cambridge appears, but examination shows him to have been the uncle.

Judge Trowbridge died in Cambridge, 2 April, 1793, at the age of 84.

Aside from the momentous interest of the occasion,—now become one of the landmarks of our history,—the character of the tribunal and the eminence of the chief actors engaged would make the Trial memorable. There is a certain irony of situation in the relation of the Prosecution to the Defence,—the Crown having with it the passions and feelings of the people, and the Defendants standing, for the time being, as the representatives of Royal Authority; and none the less in the position of the Counsel,—upon one side Robert Treat Paine and Samuel Quincy,50 and upon the other John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr.

Mr. Henry H. Edes communicated an unpublished letter of Cotton Mather, and spoke as follows:—

In looking over some old manuscripts a few days ago I came upon an original letter of Cotton Mather which has been long in my possession, and have brought it with me this afternoon. It is curious, like almost everything else which came from the pen of this eminent Bostonian, whose vanity and hypocrisy were great, and whose accuracy of statement, or the lack of it, was of a kind that would not pass current to-day.

The letter was written to the Rev. Timothy Woodbridge of the Harvard Class of 1675, who is known to have been a correspondent of Mather as early as 1684.51 Woodbridge was a son of the Rev. John Woodbridge of Newbury and Andover, and a grandson of Gov. Thomas Dudley. He was settled over the First Church in Hartford, where he soon connected himself with one of the most influential families of the Connecticut Colony by marrying a daughter of Samuel Wyllys. He was a man of ability, and active and influential in the affairs of Yale College, as I shall endeavor, upon another occasion, to show. When it was proposed to remove that Seminary to New Haven, Woodbridge opposed the plan and urged the selection of Wethersfield as the seat of that nursery of learning. So strenuous was this opposition that, in September, 1718, on the same day that the regular Commencement was held at New Haven, something like Commencement exercises were carried on at Wethersfield with five of the students by Woodbridge, his friend Stephen Buckingham of the Harvard Class of 1693, who is mentioned in this letter, and others of the clergy of the Colony, This contention, however, soon ceased, and Woodbridge joined cordially in the efforts made to advance the interests of the College.

Stephen Buckingham was the minister of Norwalk, Conn., and a son of the Rev. Thomas Buckingham of Say brook. He married Sarah, daughter of the Rev. Samuel Hooker (H. C.1653) of Farmington, and granddaughter of the Rev. Thomas Hooker.

The Mr. Edwards referred to in the letter was the Rev. Timothy Edwards (H. C. 1691) of East Windsor, Conn., the father of Jonathan Edwards.

The most interesting feature of this letter, however, is the evidence which it affords that the leading men of the Province kept themselves fully informed of all that was occurring in England which might in any way affect public affairs here.

It will be remembered that for the last dozen years—and especially during the last four years—of Queen Anne’s reign there were plots in high places to secure the restoration of the exiled Royal family upon the demise of the Crown, and that Bolingbroke was a principal figure in these plots. The contest for supremacy in the Cabinet between Oxford and Bolingbroke is well known. It culminated in the dismissal of Oxford at a Cabinet Council—the last, I believe, which the Queen attended52—which was held on the twenty-seventh of July, 1714. The session lasted far into the night. The Queen, in consequence of the excitement attending this meeting, became suddenly ill, and on the thirtieth suffered a stroke of apoplexy. She lingered until the morning of the first of August, when she expired.53 With her last words and the presentation of the White Staff, she had invested Shrewsbury with the office of Lord High Treasurer, thus dealing a fatal blow to the hopes of the Jacobites. Bolingbroke’s supremacy was shortlived, and he dared not act upon the advice of Atterbury, who would have proclaimed the Pretender at once, saying, with an oath, that there was not a moment to be lost. Wiser counsels prevailed, the Elector of Hanover was proclaimed, and the Crown of England passed peacefully to the House of Brunswick. The text of the letter is as follows:—

Boston. 20^d xi.^m

17 14/15

Reverend S^r.

Until just now, I was not appriſed of any opportunity, to do anything towards anſwering your Deſire, that I would com̄unicate o^r last Intelligence, about the state of affaires on the other ſide of the Water.

And now I have this Opportunity, it must be complained, That y^e com̄unication we have had from thence has been ſo ſlender, as to leave us capable of saying very little, but what you have in the public News-Letter, and what every body has heard of.

The King arrived,54 I think, on the day when we proclamed Him here. And this is the laſt Advice we have.

A mighty & wealthy Tory, S^r Matthew Dudley55 writes to one here—

“We were on the very Brink of Ruine & on y^e very point of being delivered up to France. But it pleaſsed Almighty God mercifully to Infatuate y^e miniſtry, & to take the Queen to Himſelf, and to give us in y^e ſucceſsion a King, of whom we have a reaſonable proſpect, that he will deliver not us only, but all Europe alſo, from y^e French Tyranny.”

S^r Matthew has now given you the summ of all the Intelligence yett arrived unto us.

’Tis a Great Thing, that we have ſo great a King, so little in the French Intereſts.

It appears evidently that he is looking about for a ſtick, to beat the Dog. And so probable is his finding it, that your politicians expect the breaking out of a New War in a little while.

One of the moll expreſsive Things, which diſcover the Temper and Freedom of a Great many people, is a Book enntitled, The Conventicle.

Becauſe I cannot send you the Book itſelf, I will Transcribe & encloſe a few select paſsages; which doubtleſs you will count bold enough, & coarſe enough; but they are ſome of the Roars of the Waves of ye Betrayed & enraged nations.

The Memorable Firſt of Auguſt makes a Revolution, rather greater than that of November twenty ſix years ago.56 And it is made hitherto, ſo peaceably, & in ſo ſtrauge a manner, that your common News-Writers, who do not uſe to burden their papers with too much piety, can’t forbear frequent Confeſsions, That it is y^e work of Almighty GOD.

What o^r share is like to be in the conſolations & advantages of it, is as yett unknown unto us.

I wiſh, none of o^r people have written Letters home, unto y^e Late Miniſtry, which were ſo far from dictated by a prophetic Spirit, that when they come to be expoſed, the writers will find very inconvenient conſequences.

You will com̄unicate unto o^r worthy Brothers Mr. Buckingham & Mr. Edwards,—

May the glorious Lord continue you at your good work, & graciouſly direct & proſper you in it all.

I am

ſr,

Your Brother

& Serv^ṭ

Co. Mȃther.

Mr. Woodbridge.

The Hon. James Coolidge Carter, LL.D., of New York, was elected an Honorary Member.

The Rev. Dr. Charles Carroll Everett communicated a Memoir of Governor Russell which he had been requested to prepare for the Transactions.

POSTSCRIPT.

Since the Transactions of this Meeting were printed, Mr. Noble has sent to the Committee of Publication the following extract from the record in the Minute Book of the Trial of Captain Preston:—

Thomas Preston Esq^ṛ now resident in Boston in the County of Suffolk, being indicted,57 at last term, with sundry other persons, in five several Indictments, for being present at, and aiding & abetting the murder of Samuel Maverick, Samuel Gray, Crispus Attacks, James Caldwell, & Patrick Carr, at the time & place, and in the manner, set forth in the said five several Indictments, is now in this present term, brought & set to the Bar, and arraigned, and upon his arraignment, pleads to each of the said several Indictments, not guilty and for Trial puts himself upon God & the Country. A Jury is thereupon sworn to try the said five several Issues, Mr. William Frobisher foreman, & fellows, namely Joseph Trescot, Neal M^cIntire, Thomas Mayo, Josiah Sprague, Joseph Guild, Jonathan Parker, Gilbert Deblois, Phillip Dumaresque, William Hill, William Wait Wallis, and James Barrick, who having fully heard the Evidence for the King with the prisoners Defence, go out to consider thereof, and return with their Verdicts and upon their oath say that the said Thomas Preston is not guilty of aiding & abetting the murder of Samuel Maverick, and that he is not guilty of aiding & abetting the murder of Samuel Gray, & that he is not guilty of aiding & abetting the murder of James Caldwell, & that he is not guilty of aiding & abetting the murder of Patrick Carr, and that he is not guilty of aiding & abetting the murder of Crispus Attucks. It is therefore Considered by the Court that the s^d Thomas Preston go without Day (Minute Book, No. 91, of the Superiour Court of Judicature, covering the August Term (Suffolk), 1770).

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts from a photography from life.

MEMOIR OF THE HON. WILLIAM EUSTIS RUSSELL, LL.D.

CHARLES CARROLL EVERETT.

William Eustis Russell was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 6 January, 1857. He was the son of Charles Theodore and Sarah Elizabeth (Ballister) Russell. He inherited from his mother’s side a strain of French Huguenot blood, but in other respects his ancestors were of New England stock. His father’s family had lived in New England for six generations.

Mr. Russell was educated in the public schools of Cambridge, and graduated from Harvard College in 1877. His career in college was in no respect a marked one. Though not especially brilliant as a scholar, he was a man whom his instructors liked to see in their class rooms. The opinions expressed by his classmates vary according to the personal relations in which they stood to him. One says that though he was not very prominent in the class, his classmates were not surprised at his later success. Another speaking from a warmer intimacy exclaims: “He was the class!” At graduation his class separated without electing the usual class officers. Russell remained as Class Secretary,—its only special representative.

After graduation, our late associate studied law with his father and in Boston University. The study of law appealed perhaps more to his practical interest than collegiate studies, and he graduated, in 1879, with the highest honors. He was admitted as an attorney at the Suffolk Bar in 1880, and entered upon the practice of his profession as a member of the firm of C. T. and T. H. Russell, the firm being then composed of his father, uncle, and elder brother. For some years he continued the successful practice of his profession. He was from the first, however, greatly interested in politics. His earliest political speeches were made in the presidential campaign of 1880, the year in which he graduated from the Law School. In 1881 he was elected as an independent candidate to the Common Council of the City of Cambridge. His nomination was wholly informal. It is said that he knew nothing of the matter till he went to the polls to cast his vote. He then found that friends were circulating what were called “stickers” hearing his name. He was elected by a majority of one vote. The next year he was elected a member of the Board of Aldermen, which position he held for two years.

At the time when Mr. Russell became an active worker in the municipal affairs of Cambridge, there was great need of reform in the administration of the City government. Taxes were high, the public debt was rapidly increasing, and the whole management of affairs was lax. This at least was the view of Russell and of those who acted with him. As a member of the Board of Aldermen, he opposed so forcibly the methods by which the affairs of the City were managed, that he was recognized as the natural leader of the Reform movement; and in 1884 he was elected Mayor upon a wholly non-partisan ticket.

This election forms an epoch in the history of Cambridge. It was the beginning of that system of non-partisan administration of municipal affairs which has been followed ever since. It thus introduced business methods in the place of political methods. One of the chief mottoes of the new movement was “Pay as you go.” This principle the reformers did not apply to expenses incurred for permanent works, like the water main or the bridge to Boston; they meant that each year should pay for its own proper expenditures. The principle is an obvious one, but it had, at the time, a special and important significance. It shows the prevalence of a healthy sentiment in Cambridge that an election could be won on the strength of a platform so abhorrent to the easy-going methods that are too common both in public and in private life.

Mayor Russell’s administration justified his selection as the representative of the new movement. In his Address at the beginning of his second year of office he said,—

“The year began with an almost empty treasury, with unpaid bills of over $20,000, with a floating debt for current expenses of $206,040 (including a deficiency of $35,040 to the City Sinking-fund), and with the example before us of a year when expenses had largely exceeded appropriations, and a higher tax-rate had been fixed than for five years.”

He went on to picture a very different state of things,—a surplus in the treasury of nearly $45,000, the bills for the year wholly paid, and the floating debt funded. The Address states further that—

“More money has been spent on our schools, more work done on our streets, more lamps have been set, more sewers have been laid, more has been done for health, fire and police protection, and more for the gentle, kindly care of our helpless poor during the past year than for many years.”

The administration of Mayor Russell was in many respects an interesting and an important one. It was while he was Mayor that the City voted that no licenses should be granted to sell intoxicating liquor to be used as a beverage. Mayor Russell did not believe in such legislation, and of this he made no secret. He felt, however, that since the law existed, it was his duty to see that it was carried out. He said to his colleagues that they were not responsible for the law, but that they were responsible for its enforcement. It was a remarkable testimony to the fairness and firmness of his administration that the believers in Prohibition were among his warmest supporters. They preferred him as Mayor to a No-License man in whose executive ability they had less confidence.

Mayor Russell, in his earlier Inaugural Addresses, had urged, as some of his predecessors had done, the need of a suitable building for the Public Library, and had expressed the wish that money might be given to the City for that purpose. His appeal was responded to with a large generosity that gave more than had been asked. His friend, Frederick H. Rindge, though no longer a citizen of Cambridge, gave not only the site and building for the City Library, but also founded a Manual Training School, gave the site for the High School, and gave to the City the money needed to build a City Hall that should be worthy of it. Mayor Russell was a member of the Committee named by Mr. Rindge to carry out the plans that his splendid munificence had suggested, and the beauty and satisfactoriness of the architectural results are, at least in part, due to his influence.

Another incident of the administration of Mayor Russell should be noticed. It was during the second year of his mayoralty that a Strike occurred among the employés of the Company that owned and controlled the Cambridge system of street cars. This was then distinct from the Boston system, and thus the Strike concerned Cambridge alone. It was conducted with all the passion that is common in such movements. The large number of men who were concerned in the Strike were full of rage and threatened violence. They vowed that no car should be run until their demands were satisfied. A large part of the populace sympathized with them, and were ready to join with them in any conflict that should occur. In the midst of this excitement the President of the Company notified Mayor Russell that at a certain hour he proposed to run a car to Boston, and that he demanded protection. It seemed as if the attempt would introduce a bloody conflict. Mayor Russell doubted the expediency of the attempt while the excitement was so fierce. The Company, however, insisted on carrying out the plan. Finding that the collision could not be avoided, Mayor Russell showed his energy and good judgment by taking measures that would prevent the worst results. He imported a large police force from without by which the would-be rioters were overawed, and the car accomplished its circuit. I refer to this incident on account of its importance as illustrating the methods of the man, and also because his momentary hesitation has been severely criticised. It seems to me, however, to have been natural, if not commendable, on the part of a young man unused to scenes of blood. One of the fairest and most intelligent of his political opponents has said to me that he considered it only praiseworthy. Nothing could better illustrate the character of Russell’s career than that this incident should have been the occasion of the only criticism of his official conduct that I remember to have heard from any whose blame was not equivalent to praise.

Mr. Russell was elected Mayor for four successive years, filling the office from 1885 to 1888 inclusive. Two years he was the only candidate.

In the Presidential election of 1884 Mr. Russell took a prominent part, and was made President of the Middlesex Democratic Club.

During the last year of his Mayoralty he was nominated for the office of Governor by the Democratic State Convention, but failed of election. The following year he was renominated with the same result, except that he lacked much less of election. In 1890 he was elected Governor of Massachusetts by nearly ten thousand plurality. In the same election the majority of the democratic candidates for Congress were also successful. He was re-elected in 1891 and 1892. If, in his first election, he was borne into office by a great tide of Democratic success, to which, indeed, he had given much of its impetus, his success continued after this tide had ebbed. In 1892 he was the only Democrat upon the State ticket elected.

Although, during the three years of his administration, Governor Russell was hampered by a Council in which only one member was a Democrat, and although the Legislature had a large Republican majority, few Governors have made their influence more strongly felt. All his vetoes were sustained and some of his recommendations were adopted. His Messages to the Legislature omitted the summaries of the statistics and recommendations contained in the accompanying Reports of other officials by which such documents are so often burdened. They were mainly devoted to the discussion of fundamental principles of legislation and administration, and thus they became State Papers of real value. He found the State largely governed by Commissions. These Commissions were independent of one another and of the Executive. Nowhere was there personal responsibility and subordination. Even the Warden of the State Prison had not the power to dismiss one of his subordinates. If the State had been, as he admitted it had been, on the whole well governed, it was in spite of this system. For nothing did he strive more earnestly during his administration, than for the introduction into the management of the State of the personal responsibility that was so conspicuously absent. It is not strange that his own experience led him to reckon the Governor’s Council one of the elements in the machinery of government that tended to make impossible the personal administration of public affairs that was his ideal.

The corrupting influence of the Lobby was the object of some of Governor Russell’s most earnest paragraphs, and he urged legislation that should restrict its activity. He urged also the abolition of the tax qualification for the voter and the property qualification for the Governor. Among his positive recommendations, none was urged with more force than the substitution of general for special legislation. These recommendations, and others made by him, were directed towards the securing of personal responsibility in officials from the Governor down, of democratic equality before the law, and of automatic simplicity of administration. By means of this last he would avoid the necessity of a multiplicity of laws, costly and sometimes corrupt in their making and contradictory in their tenor, permitting here and forbidding there, with little cause for enactment save chance or favoritism.

The career of Russell, as I have imperfectly indicated it, shows that he possessed unusual popularity. Indeed, when it is remembered that his public career was confined to his own State, the extent as well as the intensity of his popularity seems something phenomenal. In processions in other States where he represented this State as Governor, he was followed by special and enthusiastic applause. In Chicago, as in New York, wherever he went, there was always great pressure to catch a sight of “Billy Russell,” as he was familiarly called. It is impossible to account fully for this wonderful popularity. To say that he deserved it is, unhappily, not to explain it.

Governor Russell was extremely fortunate in the time of his political activity. The Democratic party had had a revival, and a revival under its best form. Under the leadership of Cleveland it promised the country an administration the object of which should be, not the advantage of partisans or of certain classes, but of the Nation. Russell was believed to be a man of the same stamp as Cleveland, whose personal friend he became. He was believed to be both capable and honest. This Democratic revival does not, however, explain his special popularity; for, as we have seen, he was elected when his party was defeated. He was elected when even Cleveland failed to carry the State.

Mr. Russell was doubtless a politician, and a politician who understood the business better than many who pride themselves on being practical. His chief art, so far as I can learn, was an unfailing tact by which he was able to adapt himself to the persons and the communities with which he was brought into relation. He could be young with the young and mature with the thoughtful. This was perhaps his nature no less truly than his art. He had a wonderful memory for faces and for persons. If he had once met a man, he not only recognized him on a second meeting, but recalled the circumstances of their former interview, and was able to take up the conversation where it had been left. When he was to speak in a town, he made himself thoroughly familiar with its affairs, so that men wondered that this young politician knew things about their business that they did not know themselves. He not only made such preparation for special occasions, he was all the time eager for facts. A friend who travelled with him in the South tells me that he was unwearied in gathering information in regard to the region that they visited. A fact once learned was his forever. What he knew, he knew, and he knew why he knew it. If in a public meeting one of his statements was questioned, he was ready with his authority. On one such occasion he referred a Republican objector to Blaine’s History, which he recommended to him as extremely interesting reading.

His adaptation to circumstances and persons does not mean that he stooped to cater to the passions and prejudices of those to whom he spoke. He insisted that the management of his political campaign should be kept at a high level. If at any time when the party leaders were in council a proposition was made to take advantage of some story in regard to a political opponent by which his reputation might be injured, Russell would put his foot on the plan in a moment. He would say that he would rather be beaten than to win by such means; and he would add, “Think of the man’s family; and perhaps the story is not true, after all.”

The theme to the discussion of which Mr. Russell’s political speeches were most largely directed was the policy of Protection. The fallacy of this doctrine he exposed and its unfairness he denounced. His campaigns were campaigns of education. His hearers were instructed as well as charmed. His Speeches that have been collected and published are filled with thought and information. He attacked Protection just as openly in a manufacturing town as he did in a commercial centre. He denounced the Silver heresy no less strongly in Virginia, in the midst of a population that had been carried away by it, and with one of its prominent defenders on the platform by his side, than he did in Massachusetts.

Russell early learned that frankness is the best policy,—a lesson that many politicians never master. A delegation once called on him to urge the appointment of their candidate to an important office. Russell heard all they had to say, and then told them that he agreed with them in having a high estimation of their candidate, but that he considered him not up to the position for which they urged him. They went out without a word of reply, but were heard to say among themselves that the Governor was about right. Upon another occasion a delegation of colored men came to protest against the treatment they had received from him. He had asked them to name a candidate for some office; they had sent in their recommendation, but their man had not been appointed. Russell put them into good humor by a witty if inelegant characterization of their man, and then lectured them soundly for having recommended such a person. He told them that they had insulted him in so doing. They, too, went out, feeling that the Governor knew what he was about.

Such things, instead of lessening Governor Russell’s popularity, seem to have increased it. They went to confirm the impression upon which his popularity to a good degree rested. If I may use the word that means so much in the dialect of the New Englander, men recognized the fact that Russell was “smart.” He was so young to be Mayor, so young to be Governor, so young to know so much and to have such self-assertion. All this pleased the people greatly. It was not merely the fact that he was young; he seemed the impersonation of youth. He was so lithe and fresh. His face was interesting rather than handsome. His speech was winning and convincing rather than eloquent. His voice had great carrying power rather than strength. Nothing could be more unconventional than his attitude on the platform. He would sometimes stand with his arms akimbo, and as he turned from side to side, would do it, swinging round upon his toes. I have seen him in this way address a University audience in Cambridge. Another favorite attitude was to stand with his right hand on his hip while he made gestures with his left. These things sound grotesque in the telling. They would have driven a teacher of oratory wild; but somehow, whatever he did, became him. He put a certain grace into it all; at least his personality was felt through it.

After all, it was this personality that affected those with whom he came into contact, and this no analysis can present. Wherever he went, he carried this charm with him. Young men were wild with enthusiasm for him. Life-long Republicans would sometimes say to their sons, “Yes, you may vote for him. I cannot; but I will not vote against him.” Every triumph thus accomplished helped to swell the story of his success; so that those who had not seen him were eager to meet him and put themselves under the same spell.

At the close of his term of office as Governor, Mr. Russell returned to the practice of his profession, and into it he threw the same energy that had marked his public service. The confidence which men had in his sagacity and skill brought him an immense practice, and he was equally successful with the Court, with the Jury, and in consultation. His legal business was, however, often interrupted by calls which were too attractive to be resisted. In 1894, he delivered the annual Oration before the Yale Law School. The next year he addressed the students of the University of Michigan. In April, 1896, he addressed the National Association of Democrats at Monticello, upon The Work and Principles of Jefferson. He contributed to The Forum for May, 1894, a valuable paper entitled A Year of Democratic Administration.

In the spring of 1896 Mr. Russell declined to be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention at Chicago, and refused to be thought of as a candidate for the Presidency. Later he decided to attend the Convention, hoping to be able to exert some influence. It was probably the most painful experience of his life. He had been a Democrat from his childhood up. His father held an honorable place in the party as well as in civic life, and from him young Russell learned the lesson of party loyalty, and doubtless learned to honor the party in him. He was a partisan, but he loved his party as no mere partisan could do. He saw it assuming the position in which the best hopes of the country could be placed upon it. His patriotism and his partisanship became one. He went to Chicago to find his dearest hopes disappointed. The politicians who had unwillingly followed the lead of Cleveland till they secured power, turned against him in Congress, and thwarted his most cherished plans. Now, in the Convention at Chicago, they were wild with joy because they could cast Lira off forever. Russell found the party that had been his hope and his pride stooping to alliance with the most extravagant elements of American politics, and, for the sake of success, adopting the most perilous financial heresy. He strove vainly to check the disastrous plunge of his party into disgrace and ultimate failure. Never did he appear nobler than when he rose to protest against the mingled fanaticism and demagogism that were the rulers of the hour. He had always spoken his real thought without regard to the prejudice of his hearers, but never had he addressed so hostile a body as this. Respect for him secured a hearing. His words were at the time vain, but they deserve and will receive study and admiration. In his speech he said,—

“The Mother State has taught us, her children, to place principle above expediency, courage above time-service, and patriotism above party; and in the cause of right and justice not to flinch, no matter what the majority or however overbearing its demands.”

The Convention listened, but swept on in its mad career. He wrote to his wife:—

“I had no idea how hard and distasteful this task would be. I have but one comfort in it. I know that I have done my duty with fidelity.”58

Shortly after his return to Boston, Mr. Russell started with two friends for a salmon-fishing excursion in Canada. He arrived in the camp in the evening of the fifteenth of July, 1896, and the next morning was found lifeless in his bed. The end had come apparently without pain or premonition. His grief at the downfall of his party completed the work which too great assiduity in his profession had begun.

Mr. Russell resided all his life in Cambridge. As a citizen he was charitable and public-spirited; as a friend and neighbor he was respected and beloved. On the third of June, 1885, he married Margaret-Manning, a daughter of the Rev. Joshua Augustus Swan, and left two sons and a daughter.

I will not venture to speak of what Governor Russell’s death meant to his family and to the multitude of his personal friends. It meant not less to the State. Though some of the principles for which he contended seem to be forgotten by most, they are as true and important as ever. The Nation will doubtless at some time again recognize their worth; but where is the statesman as young, as strong, and as well beloved, who will rally the people to their support?

1 In January, 1897. Publications, iii. 317–326.

2 Suffolk Court Files (Essex), No. 134,242.

3 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1740–1742, xiv. 11.

4 Ibid. 1740–1745, xv. 89.

5 Ibid. 1740–1742, xiv. 206.

6 The Records for this Term are lost,—probably they were consumed in the Fire of 1747,—but the Judgment and Record with some of the other papers are in Suffolk Court Files, ccclxii. 57,045.

7 Suffolk Court Files, ccclxvii. 57,842.

8 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1743–1747, xvi. 79.

		Group No.
Suffolk Court Files,	cccxliv.	53,460
“	cccxlix.	54,532
“	cccliii.	55,352
“	ccclxii.	57,015
	ccclxvii.	57,842
“	ccclxxv.	59,625
“	ccclxxxiii.	61,196

10 Records of the Supreme Judicial Court, June, 1791, xiii. 163.

11 Records of the Supreme Judicial Court, November, 1791, xiii. 311.

12 Suffolk Court Files, ccclxxxiii. 61,196.

13 “And now Mr. Andrew Henshaw being present in Court, is appointed Clerk of said Court and he is sworn accordingly.” (Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1775–1778, xxxiii. 212.)

14 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Suffolk ss.

At the Supreme Judicial Court, of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, begun and held at Boston, within and for the County of Suffolk, on the third Tuesday of February (being the 20^tḥ day of said Month) Anno Domini 1781.

And now Commissions under the seal of the Commonwealth, appointing William Cushing, Esq^r. Chief Justice, and Nathaniel Peaslee Sargeant, David Sewall and James Sullivan Esq^ṟs̱ Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of this Commonwealth, were read and published in Court, and the Court thereupon appointed M^ṛ Andrew Henshaw, Clerk of the late Superiour Court of Judicature &c. to be Clerk of the said Supreme Judicial Court.

By the Hon^blẹ William Cushing, Chief Justice

Nath^l. Peaslee Sargeant

David Sewall, and

James Sullivan, Esq^rs. Justices

(Records of the Supreme Judicial Court, 1781–1782, i. 1.)

15 The exact date does not appear, but the appointment is in the following words:—

“And now Charles Cushing Esq^r. is appointed a Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court, in the room of Mr. Oliver Peabody who has resigned, and he is sworn accordingly.”

Then follows the closing paragraph of the Record of this Term—adjourning the Court—which is dated 6 March, 1781. (Ibid. i. 11.)

16 Sewall’s Diary, iii. 213.

17 To Samuel Tyley, Jun^r. & Benjamin Rolfe Gent^m.

Whereas you are appointed Clerks of the Superiour Court of Judicature Court of Assize and General Goal Delivery within this Province with full power to Act Joyntly or Severally. You Swear by the Everliving God that you will well & truly Grant all Writs Warrants and Executions, not delaying Justice, That you will make true Entrys and keep fair Records of the Courts proceedings, and faithfully & safely keep all Books files and papers com̄itted to your care. And Generally you shall deal seriously faithfully and Impartially in all things proper to your office and shall well and truly Execute the same without any Sinister respects of favour or displeasure taking no other than lawful Fees. So help you God.

Samuel Tyley Jun^e.

Benj^a Rolfe

Council Chamber in Boston

February 26^tḥ 1718.

Signed & Sworne Cor: Nobis

Sam^l. Sewall

Benj^ạ Lynde

Addington Davenport

Paul Dudley

Edm^ḍ Quincey.

Justices of the Superiour Court.

Entred & Examined

⅌ Samuel Tyley Cler—

Benjamin Rolfe Cler.

(Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1715–1721, iv. 1.)

Previous to 1718 the Clerks of this Court had been, successively,—

(1) Jonathan Elatson, appointed 20 December, 1692. (Council Records, ii, 211.)
(2) Addington Davenport, appointed 7 November, 1695.

Upon the motion of Jonathan Elatson Clerke of the Court to be discharged of his Office being by some important Affaires of his owne obliged to take a Voyage to the West Indies, and thereupon praying a Clerke may be appointed to receive the records of this Court.—

The Court do appoint M^ṛ Addington Davenport to be Clerke of the Superiour Court, and that he be accordingly Sworne. The s^d Addington Davenport was accordingly Sworne the Seventh day of Novemb^ṛ. 1695, to which day the Court was adjourned.

The Court do order the s^ḍ Jonathan Elatson to deliver up all the Records in his Custody unto the s^d. Addington Davenport he giving him a receipt for the same whereupon he is discharged.

Attest. Jon^a̱ Elatson, Cler

(Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1692–1695, i. 226.)

(3) Elisha Cooke Jr.

Boston October 24 1698

Mr Elisha Cooke was admitted and sworne Clerk of the Superiour Court of this Province;

Sworne before Me Sam^ll Sewall, one of the Justices of s^d Court at the House, and in the presence of Elisha Cooke Esq^r his Father Annoq. Domini 1698. (Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1696–1700, ii. 199.)

Cooke’s appointment was subsequently continued as will be seen by the following extract from the Court Records:—

Middlesex ss: Charlestown Jan^ṟy̱ 29^ṯẖ. 1716.

The Court being opened. The Judges being all present and their Respective Comissions published they were pleased to Continue & Appoint Elisha Cooke Esq^ṛ to be Clerk of the said Court to which Office he was Sworn Accordingly As

Attest^ṛ P. Dudley Att. Gen^ḻḻ.

(Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, iv. 105.)

18 In General Council May 8^th. 1776.

Ordered, That the Justices of the Superiour Court of Judicature &c. be Arranged in the following manner viz.

Hon^blẹ John Adams, Esq.

W^ṃ Cushing, Esq.

James Warren, Esq.

Jed^h Foster, Esq.

James Sullivan, Esq.

A true Copy from the Minutes

John Lowell Dp^y Sec^v P.T.

In the House of Representatives May 10^th 1776.

Whereas some doubts may arise about the appointment of a Clerk of the Superiour Court of Judicature Court of Assize and General Goal Delivery out of Term Time.

It is therefore Resolved that the Justices of said Court or any three of them be and they hereby are authorized and Empowered out of Term Time to Appoint a Clerk to said Court which Clerk when so appointed and being duly sworn to the faithful discharge of said office by Either of the said Justices shall have all the powers to a Clerk of said Court belonging any Law or usage to the Contrary notwithstanding

Sent up for Concurrence

Sam^l. Freeman Speak^r P.T

In Council May 10^th. 1776

Read and concurred.

Perez Morton D. Secry

Consented to

W. Spooner	J Prescott
Caleb Cushing	Eldad Taylor
J Winthrop	J Palmer
B Chadbourn	M Farley
John Whetcomb	B White
T Cushing	Jed^ḥ Foster
	Moses Gill
	S Holten
	Ja Fisher

A true Copy

Attest

John Lowell Dp^y Sec^y P.T.

Colony of the Massachusetts Bay May the 10^th A. D. 1776.

“We the Subscribers Justices of the Superiour Court of Judicature, Court of Assize & General Gaol Delivery in & for said Colony hereby appoint Samuel Winthrop of Boston in the County of Suffolk Esq^ṛ Clerk of the same Court

W^ṃ Cushing

Jed^ḥ Foster

Ja Sullivan

May the 30^ṯẖ 1776—Then the ^sd Winthrop made oath for the faithful discharge of his duty & office as Clerk of said Court, before me

W^m Cushing a Justice of s^d Court.

(Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1775–1778, xxxiii., page 3 of a fold of small sheets at the beginning of the book.)

19 For a long period Ezekiel Goldthwait was active in all town affairs. He was elected Town Clerk (see his autograph in Memorial History of Boston, ii. 537) in 1741, and held the office continuously by annual election, and often by a unanimous vote, until 9 March, 1761, when he retired, and it was “Voted, unanimously, that the thanks of the Town be and hereby are given to Ezekiel Goldthwait, Esq., for his faithfull services many years past as Town Clerk” (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xvi. 46). Though advanced in years as the Revolution drew on, he served on many Committees,—to wait upon the Lieutenant Governor after the affair of the Fifth of March; to visit the Schools, associated with the leading citizens; superintending various municipal interests and concerns,—and he was often Moderator of the Town Meeting. (Reports of the Record Commissioners, xviii., xx., xxiii., and xxv., passim)

He also filled many County offices:—(1) Notary Public, 24 June, 1741 to 1770; (2) Justice of the Peace, 12 August, 1749, and (3) made of the Quorum, 5 November, 1761 (Whitmore’s Civil List); (4) Clerk of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace (see “account of Ezekiel Goldthwait and Middlecott Cooke, Clerks,” etc., against the County of Suffolk “for making Warrants for County Tax,” etc., 11 February, 1754, and their “Memorial” for services after the Fire of 1747, given, post’, p. 25; Suffolk Court Files, ccccvi. 65414, ccccxliv. 72364, and also Boston Town Records as late as 1774); (5) Clerk of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas for many years (see Records, xxxviii., in which he attests many entries, although there is no attestation for the Terms, except in a single instance, where he affixed his signature, and the writs are signed by him. The Records of this Court from 1752 to 1776 are missing, “supposed to have been carried off by the Tories in 1776”). The two Clerks of this Court were divided in political opinion at the Revolution,—Goldthwait siding with the Tories and Ezekiel Price with the Whigs. (Cf. Footnote on pages 61, 62, post.) (6) Register of Deeds from 1740 till 1776. A Deposition appears in the case Fletcher v. Vassall, 11 February, 1752, by “Ezekiel Goldthwait, Register of Deeds and Conveyances of Houses & Lands within the County of Suffolk” (Suffolk Court Files, ccccxxxiii. 70118:15). In 1771, he was chosen, by a heavy majority, over Samuel Adams, and on the counting of the votes in the Court of Sessions,—having received 1123 out of 1590 cast,—he was declared by the Court “to be duly elected, and he was, accordingly, sworn into office.” (Minute Books of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, No 5 (Suffolk) 1769–1773, under date of 16 May, 1771.) “Ezekiel Goldthwait Esq^r having made a Present to this County of his Majesty’s Arms Carved, Gilt & Painted in a handsome Manner, in order to be placed in the County Court Room, The Justices of this Court Thanked Mr. Goldthwait for the same in open Court, and ordered that a Record thereof be made.” (Ibid.—Session of first Tuesday of October, 1771). He seems to have been somewhat of a patron of Letters, as his name is found in the List of Prince’s Subscribers in 1730 (Memorial History of Boston, ii. 561). He figures, too, in the List of-Loyalists (Ibid. iii. 176), in that of the Addressers of Hutchinson,—“Ezekiel Goldthwait, County Register & Clerk of the Inferiour Court”—(I Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1870, xi. 393), and also as a Protester against the Solemn League and Covenant (Ibid. xi. 391).

20 Suffolk Court Files, June Term (York), 1762, No. 137,143.

21 This deed is printed in Willis’s History of Portland (1865), p. 885.

22 Suffolk Court Files, No. 137,143, July Term (York), 1766. Suit of Haskell v. Waldo.

23 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 70.

24 Ibid. i. 73.

25 Wonder-Working Providence (Poole’s edition), p. 37.

26 Memorial History of Boston, i. 237.

27 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 74.

28 Ibid. i. 75.

29 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 78.

30 Ibid. i. 81.

31 Winthrop’s History of New England (edition of 1853), i. 158.

32 Plain Dealing (Trumbull’s edition), p. 64.

33 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 275.

34 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 94.

35 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 171; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, x. 1.

36 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 132.

37 Ibid. ii. 134.

38 Among the Suffolk Court Files (xxvii. 2233) is a collection of papers, forty-six in number, relating to Capt. Keayne’s estate, his family, etc. Among them is an Inventory of the contents of his house, at his death, from attic to cellar, room by room. There is also a copy of a Record of the Court of Assistants, 1 March, 1658, of the divorce suit of his daughter. This is curious as bearing the certification “A true copy taken out of the Court’s booke of Records (being therewith compared).” This copy is attested by Edward Rawson; again attested as copied by Addington; Addington’s copy attested by Rawson again; and that again by Addington; thus showing successive copies of the original and its copy. It proves the existence of a first volume of Records, which has been missing since before the memory of man.

39 Mr. William H. Whitmore, in his Address at the Re-dedication of the Old State House, 11 July, 1882, with elaborate and exhaustive Appendices, wherein he has set forth about all that is known on the subject, with copious authorities cited for every material point,—a work giving another illustration that a gleaner after him in any field will find few heads of grain left to be gathered up.

40 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 327.

41 Re-dedication of the Old State House, Boston, 1882 (Fifth edition, 1889), p. 31.

42 Cf. Publications of this Society, iii. 71–77.

43 Re-dedication, etc., p. 133.

44 Re-dedication, etc., p. 135.

45 Whitmore, in Re-dedication, etc., p. 49.

46 Ibid. p. 173. In confirmation of this opinion see ante, p. 7, and post, p. 25.

47 The History of New England. Containing an Impartial Account of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Country to the year of our Lord 1700. To which is added The Present State of New England, London, MDCCXX, ii. 587.

48 This is referred to by Whitmore, in Re-dedication, etc., p. 52. The whole proceeding is given in Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xiii. 9.

49 Re-dedication, etc., p. 59.

50 There are numerous papers relating to the building of this Court House in the Suffolk Court Files, ccccvi. 65,414; dxv. 88,991.

Edmund Quincy, John Avery, and Samuel Pemberton, three of the Justices of the Court of Sessions, were appointed a Committee to audit the account of the Building Committee of the New Court House, in 1769. Their Report approves the accounts and gives the cost, including the compensation to the Building Committee, £45,—£2418. 19. 10¾, Lawful Money. (Minute Books of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, No. 5 (Suffolk), 1769–1773, Session of 1 May, 1770.)

Much interesting information concerning “The Court House, The Jail, and The City Hall” has been brought together by Mr. Whitmore in Appendix L in Re-dedication, etc. which also contains a reproduction of the Plans by Osgood Carleton, in 1800, and John G. Hales, in 1814, of the Square bounded by Court, Washington, School, and Tremont Streets, showing these public buildings.

51 Quoted in the Re-dedication, etc., Appendix M, p. 189.

52 Inaugural Addresses of the Mayors of Boston, i. 147.

53 Re-dedication, etc., pp. 191, 192.

54 The corner stone was laid 28 September, 1833, and the Building was completed 20 December, 1836. It occupies, substantially, the site of the Court House of 1765–1769, above mentioned.

55 See Minute Books of the Superiour Court of Judicature, Nos. 91, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102; and Catalogue of Records and Files in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk, Boston, 1890, p. 94.

56 Province Laws, 1775–76, ch. 4, v. 420.

57 Ibid. 1775–76, ch. 22, v. 484, 538.

58 For a copy of the Order, etc., see ante, p. 12, note.

59 Province Laws, 1775–76, ch. 12, v. 455, 526.

60 Province Laws 1776–77, ch. 19, v. 593, 677.

61 One such volume still (1897) remains unbound.

62 The Boston Weekly News Letter of 10 December, the Boston Evening Post of 14 December, and the Boston Gazette or Weekly Journal of 15 December, 1747. (Re-dedication, etc., pp. 57, 58, 169.)

63 Suffolk Court Files, ccccvi. 65,414.

64 Hutchinson’s History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, iii. 212.

65 Re-dedication, etc., p. 91.

66 Publications of this Society, iii. 317–326.

67 At a Stated Meeting of the Council, held in Boston, 6 December, 1897, it was—

Resolved, That it is with great regret that the Council of The Colonial Society of Massachusetts accedes to the wish of Andrew McFarland Davis to retire from the Committee of Publication where, for five years, with ability and success, he has filled the position of Chairman, and of which his good taste, his independence of opinion and judgment, his acute criticism, his wide and various information, his many-sided knowledge and his indefatigable discharge of laborious duties, have made him an invaluable member whose place can scarcely be filled.

Voted, That the Council enter upon its Records an expression of its appreciation of Mr. Davis’s services, and—not only for itself, but also on behalf of the Society which owes him so much—a vote of cordial thanks.

1 His name, by the way, was Edward Thoroton Gould, not Thornton, as it is sometimes printed. Mr. Scull speaks of him and his fellow officers in The Evelyns in America.

2 Miss Dana states that Miss Daggett’s call was upon only one of General Burbeck’s daughters,—Miss Charlotte Augusta Burbeck.

3 William Burbeck, son of Edward and Martha Burbeck, was born in Boston 22 July, 1716 (Boston Town Records); baptized at King’s Chapel 4 October, 1721; married Jerusha Glover, of Boston, 7 October, 1749 (King’s Chapel Registers); and had seven children baptized at Christ Church, among them Henry Burbeck, 9 June, 1754 (Christ Church Registers). See Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 167, 168, 600; and New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1849, iii. 101, and for 1858, xii. 351.

4 The name of Clement Skerrett was also scrawled on the Diary. Pie was an American officer of the same regiment as Willmott and also from Maryland. He afterward belonged to the Maryland Society of the Cincinnati.

5 General Barker has the Admiral’s portrait, painted by an American artist whose name he does not remember.

6 A genealogical Society called the Society of Descendants of Walter Allen was incorporated 16 July, 1897. Among the declared purposes of the Society were those of “furthering historical and genealogical research.”

The Raynham Public Library was incorporated 22 October, 1897. To the general functions of a Library were added, in the list of purposes of the corporation, “promoting antiquarian, historical and literary purposes among the inhabitants of said Raynham.”

Among the religious Societies incorporated in 1897, is The Spiritualists’ Progressive Union Church, which received its Certificate of incorporation 11 May, 1897. The purposes of this Corporation not only comprehend those ordinarily to be found in similar organizations, but add thereto “encouraging religious, art, literary, musical, historical, and scientific education.”

7 In December, 1893. Publications, i. 166, 167.

8 After Mr. Eames had given to Mr. Goodell the copy of Franklin’s letter which he communicated at this Meeting the document was printed in the Bulletin of the New York Public Library, i. 244.

9 Eliphalet Pond, of Dedham, “farmer,” was subsequently an Addresser of Hutchinson. He was one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, appointed 4 January, 1748–49, and was made a Justice of the Quorum, 4 February, 1762.

Col. Joseph Williams was one of the wealthiest and most eminent citizens of Roxbury in his day, active in town affairs, many years a Selectman, Representative in the General Court, Clerk of the First Parish nearly fifty years, and one of the foremost in the various measures adopted on the eve of the Revolution. He was the Moderator of the Town Meeting, 7 December, 1767, where it was resolved to “take all proper and legall measures to encourage the produce and manufactures of this Province, and to lessen the use of Superfluities imported from abroad,” and, with Capt. Mayo and others, upon the Committee to solicit subscriptions. He was one of a Committee appointed 8 March, 1770, to wait on Governor Hutchinson with the petition of Roxbury citizens praying for the removal of all troops out of Boston, and desiring “in a peculiar manner” to express “astonishment, grief and indignation at the horrid and barbarous action committed there last Monday evening by a party of those troops.” On the sixteenth of November, 1772, at a meeting held to consider “the late alarming report that the Judges were to receive their salaries direct from the Crown,” he was made one of a Committee,—again in company with Major Mayo,—to draw up instructions to their Representative, Capt. William Heath, which, on 23 November, reported an Instruction to propose an Act for the Support of the Judges independent of the Crown, and providing for the power of removal by the Legislature; and again, on this later date, he was one of a Committee to consider and report upon a letter from the town of Boston, inviting a communication of sentiments “on our common danger.” This Committee, reporting 14 December, “made great uneasiness in the meeting.” It was divided in its Report,—the majority seeing nothing new in the premises, in view of the Instruction already given and the “probability” that the various officials “are to receive their support from the revenues of America,” and finding no need of further action; and the minority, whose Report was accepted, setting out the grievances, and resolving that they “view these infringements and innovations as insupportable burdens to which they cannot submit.” At a Meeting, 3 December, 1773,—which voted to pass over in silence the soldiers “about the streets of this town, with their arms, equipt in a warlike posture,”—he was appointed upon a Committee to draw Resolutions on the Tea Act, which declared “that the disposal of our own property is the inherent right of free men; . . . that the claim of Parliament to tax America is, in other words, a claim of right to levy contributions on us at pleasure; [and that] a virtuous and steady opposition to this plan of governing America is absolutely necessary to preserve even the shadow of liberty, and is a duty every free man owes to his country.” On the twenty-sixth of December, 1774, at a Town Meeting held to adopt measures to “carry into execution the agreement and association of the late Continental Congress,” various votes were passed for raising its quota of Minute-Men, and Col. Williams was chosen one of a Committee of three, with Col. William Heath and Lieut. Robert Pierpont, to “draw up the Articles of Inlistment for the said Company of Minutemen.” In a letter of General Heath to Harrison Gray Otis, 21 April, 1798, which is quoted by Drake, this is spoken of as “the first company of minute-men raised in America in 1775.”

Williams had been a Colonel in the old French wars, serving in the Campaigns of 1758–1760 in Canada, and at Lake George and in the Mohawk region. He was one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, appointed 26 June, 1755, and again 5 November, 1761; and 1 October, 1772, he was made a Justice of the Quorum. He was born in Roxbury, 10 April, 1708, the son of Joseph and Abigail Williams, and died 26 May, 1798, at the age of 90. (Roxbury Town Records; Drake’s The Town of Roxbury, and his chapter (xi.) on Roxbury in the Provincial Period in the Memorial History of Boston, vol. ii.)

Ebenezer Miller had long held a commission as one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, his appointment dating from 11 January, 1758.

Ezekiel Price seems to have been a man in general request in all Town affairs, and most active, efficient, and prominent wherever the interests of Boston were concerned. He was for many years Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, and served on innumerable committees of importance, often with Hancock, Adams, Warren, and other leading citizens. (Reports of the Boston Record Commissioners, xvi, xviii, xxv and xxvi passim.) He was a member of the Committees of Correspondence and Safety. He seems to have been especially relied on in financial concerns of the town, and this quality is recognized in the Acts of the General Court. (Province Laws, v. 735, 741, 961.) He was a Notary Public, from 19 June, 1753, to 18 January, 1764 (Whitmore’s Civil List, p. 163), and had his office on the first floor of the Old State House. Resigning the position of Crier of the Court of Sessions, he was appointed and sworn as Clerk of that Court, 14 April, 1771, “Mr. Middlecott Cooke, one of the Clerks of this Court having lately dyed.” (Minute Book of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, No. 5 (Suffolk), 1769–1773.) He was also one of the two Clerks of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas. In his Diary (p. 205), referred to below, he says: “Tuesday Aug. 22, [1775]. . . . met Mr. Joseph Otis, jun., on the road, who informed me that Benjamin Gridley was appointed one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas, and that Mr. Goldthwait, as clerk of that court, officiated, and did business in court; that several actions were defaulted, two against Mr. Hancock; also that Gridley moved in the sessions that my office be broke open to get the Session’s Book, &c, out of it; but some of the other members of the court opposed it, so that it could not be carried; but that Mr. Goldthwait was very angry at my leaving the town, and not delivering the Court Book.” At the April Term, 1776, for Suffolk, held at Braintree, “Messrs. Ezekiel Price and Daniel Bell are appointed Joint Clerks of this Court, and were each sworn to the faithfull Discharge of their Duty in said Office.” (Records of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas, xxxix. 1.) At the October Term, Bell asked “to be discharged” from further duty, and “Ezekiel Price is to continue sole Clerk until this Court shall otherwise Order” (Ibid., p. 29); and thereafter the Records are attested by him. As Clerk of these Courts he served some twenty years. Before the Revolution he was the Confidential Secretary of several Provincial Governors. He was chosen into the Massachusetts Historical Society, 30 April, 1793, and died 15 July, 1802, at the age of 74. (1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 85.) He left Boston with his family in May, 1775, and went to Stoughton, where he was all the time alert as to events in Boston. He afterward took a house in Dorchester, where he remained till it was safe to return, keeping up daily visits to town. A Diary kept by him from 23 May, 1775, to 18 August, 1776, contains much interesting matter relating to affairs at that time. It is printed in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for November, 1863, vii. 185–262. Many of his papers are in the Boston Athenaeum. See Appendix to the Librarian’s Annual Report for 1896, pp. 6, 7.

10 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiii. 73, et al.

11 Minute Book, No. 5 (Suffolk), 1769–1773, passim.

12 Minute Book, No. 5 (Suffolk), 1769–1773, passim.

13 Drake’s The Town of Roxbury, pp. 20–28; Memorial History of Boston, ii. 236.

14 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1770, xxix. 55.

15 Drake’s The Town of Roxbury, p. 441.

16 The authority for this date is a manuscript in the Library of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, entitled “Town and Parish Records copied appertaining to the Families of Child with others connected by marriage, 1847,” p. 42, where it is also stated that Mayo’s wife was Esther Kenrick, born 26 August, 1726, to whom he was married 14 November, 1745, and that she died 26 August, 1775. The compiler states that these facts were copied “from a memorandum borrowed of Mrs. Elizabeth Child.”

Administration on Joseph Mayo’s estate was granted, 4 March, 1776, to Joseph Mayo of Warwick, in the county of Hampshire (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 15,837).

17 Cf. The Diaries of Benjamin Lynde and of Benjamin Lynde, Jr., under date of 14 March, 1770, p. 194; and Hutchinson’s History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, iii. 285, 286.

The Boston Town Records bring out many points as to the Riot itself, the temper of the people, and the Trials. See Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii, passim.

18 History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, iii. 285, 286, and his Letter in the Remembrancer for 1775, p. 181. See also Life and Works of John Adams, i. 103; and the Diaries of Benjamin Lynde and of Benjamin Lynde, Jr., p. 194.

Hutchinson is in error in his statement as to the adjournment of the Court as the following extracts from the Minute Book (No. 91) clearly show:—

The March Term in Suffolk began 13 March, 1770, as already stated.

“April 20^th. The Court is adjourn’d to Tuesday the 29^th of May next, at 10 ^oClock a. m.

“Tuesday May 29^th The Court is further adjourn’d by “Writ under the hands & Seals of two of the Justices of the Court to thursday next May 31^s̱ṯ at 10 o/Clock a. m.

“Thursday May 31^st. The Court meets according to the adjournment.

. . . . . . . . . . .

“Boston May 31^st 1770.

“Judgment is enter’d up according to the Verdicts, and the Court is adjourn’d without Day.

“Att.

Sam Winthrop, Cler.”

19 There is also in the Chamberlain Collection a Plan of the Scene of the Riot, said to have been made by Paul Revere, probably by order of the Court, and to have been used at the Trial. It is on a sheet of linen paper 13 × 8 inches. A copy of it is in Judge Chamberlain’s chapter (i.) on The Revolution Impending,—in the Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 48.

The Brief of John Adams is also preserved in the Public Library. It is described in the Memorial History of Boston (iii. 38), and is printed in Kidder’s History of the Boston Massacre (p. 10).

A bibliography of the various Reports of the Trial of the Soldiers may be found in the Memorial History of Boston, iii. 38–40, notes; and in the Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 85–88 and notes.

20 Captain Preston’s Trial began on Wednesday, the twenty-fourth of October, at eight o’clock in the morning, and ended on the thirtieth; the Soldiers’ Trial began on Tuesday, the twenty-seventh of November, and continued till the fifth of December. (The Diaries of Benjamin Lynde and of Benjamin Lyude, Jr., pp. 194–200.) See Postscript, post, p. 82.

There is a very misleading error in Kidder’s History of the Boston Massacre wherein it is stated (pp. 125, 135) that the Trial of the Soldiers began on Saturday, 27 November, 1770, which date actually fell on Tuesday. After mentioning that it was impossible to go through the Trial in one day and that, by consent of counsel, the Court adjourned “over night,” Kidder states that on “Wednesday, nine o’clock, the Court met according to adjournment.” This error occurred in the original edition of the “Trial” printed by John Fleming in Boston, 1770, and Kidder blindly perpetuated it. I am indebted to Miss Elizabeth H. Connolly for calling my attention to this blunder.

21 The Indictment was drawn by the Attorney General, Jonathan Sewall, but he did not appear,—“disappeared,” as John Adams said. See an interesting letter concerning the Trial in the Life and Works of John Adams, x. 211.

There is a narrow strip of paper slipped into Minute Book No. 91 of the Superiour Court of Judicature, covering the August Term (Suffolk), 1770, evidently made by the Clerk at the trial of Capt. Preston, and placed where it has remained securely tucked away for more than a century. It reads as follows:—

Cap^t Preston in his Trial challenged peremptorily nineteen Jurors viz. 15 of the Country’s Jury, & four talis men; he also challenged two other of the Country’s Jurors, but by agreement of the Council for the Crown they were not considered as peremptory Challenges, by reason that s^d Preston had not the names of the s^d two Jurors before he was brot to Trial

N. B.

several Talis men were returned by the Sherif who were excused by the Court for reasons by them offer’d viz Henry Bromfleld Esq^r., he having a Comission for the peace; and William Boardman he having been on the Jury of Inquest & . . . . . Procter he declaring himself under Biass

22 See Quincy’s Massachusetts Reports, p. 383. A note by Samuel Miller Quincy, the learned Editor, speaks of a list of “Tryals by Jury cont’d for several Days,” found among the papers of Judge Trowbridge, which it is suggested—

“may have been drawn up for this case, and which comprises the trials of John Lilburne, 2 Hargr. St. Tr. 19 & 7 Ib. 534; Peter Cook, 4 Ib. 738; Capt. Kidd, 5 Ib. 287, and quotes from the trial of Elizabeth Canning, as follows: ‘Emlyn in his Opinion says y^e Law will not allow a Jury to go at Large in a Criminal Case while y^e Tyral is depending. . . . Perhaps . . . may be Cause for arresting Judgm’t. 10 Vol. State Tryal, 407.’”

The note also contains an interesting letter from Judge Oliver to Governor Hutchinson during the trial taken from Massachusetts Archives, xxv. 414.

23 Judge Andrew Oliver, Jr. (H. C. 1749), one of the Founders of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, married Mary Lynde, a daughter of the Second Chief Justice Benjamin Lynde, who presided at the Trials of Preston and the Soldiers. In a letter to Judge Lynde, written the day after the Riot, Oliver describes it and the excited state of the people. Referring to Preston he says that he “bears the most amiable character of any one in the Army, and it is said he endeavored to prevent the exasperated Soldiers from firing, even at the Risque of his own Life.” (The Diaries of Benjamin Lynde and of Benjamin Lynde, Jr., pp. 226–228.)

The Massachusetts Gazette for Monday, 10 December, 1770, contains the information that “His Majesty’s Ship Glasgow sailed Wednesday for England: In her went Passengers . . . Capt. Preston of the 29th Regiment.”

24 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1770, xxix. 52.

25 Ibid. xxix. 55.

26 Quincy’s Massachusetts Reports, p. 382, et seq.

27 Minute Book No. 91 of the Superiour Court of Judicature,—the last entry in the August Term (Suffolk), 1770.

28 The Act of 1692 (chap. 9), dividing the powers of the old County Courts under the Colonial Charter, gave civil causes to the Courts of Common Pleas, which were called “the County Courts or inferiour Courts of Common Pleas,” and the inferior criminal causes to the General Sessions of the Peace, “this act to continue untill other provision be made by the general court or assembly.”

This was followed by the fuller Act of 1692 (chap. 33) establishing “Judicatories and Courts of Justice within this Province.” This provided for Justices’ Courts, Courts of Quarter Sessions of the Peace, Inferiour Courts of Common Pleas, and “a Superiour Court of Judicature over this whole Province.” This Act was disallowed by the Privy Council, 22 August, 1695, as not providing for the appeal of real actions to the King in Council; as was likewise the Act, chap. 9.

The Act of 1697 (chap. 9) touching the same Courts was likewise disallowed, 24 November, 1698, as being too broad in one of its provisions for a trial by jury.

The Acts of 1699 (chap. 1, 2, 3), providing for the same Courts, stood. (Province Laws, i. 37, 72, 283, 367, 417, note.)

By various statutes, authority in many civil matters was given to the Court of Sessions, and in its civil capacity it had charge of houses of correction, licenses to innholders, highways, the general financial concerns of the County, and many of the present duties of County Commissioners. “The Justices of the Peace of the same County, or so many of them as are or shall be limited in the commission of the peace” constituted the Court (Province Laws, i. 367).

29 Quincy’s Massachusetts Reports, pp. 384, 385. The “four Gentlemen” who argued were the two Quincys, James Otis and John Adams.—Life and Works of John Adams (Diary), ii. 263.

30 A part of Judge Lynde’s Charge to the Jury at the Trial of the Soldiers is printed in The Diaries of Benjamin Lynde and of Benjamin Lynde, Jr., pp. 228–230. Cf. Ibid. p. 200, note 2.

31 The Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature for 1770 (xxix) give all the Trials in full. A full account of the Trials may be found in the Life and Works of John Adams, ii. 229–236, and references to it in i. 98, 104, 110; and ix. 617. Hutchinson, too, gives an account of the Riot and the Trials in his History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, iii. 270–280, 285–289, 327–330. See also Gordon’s History of the American Revolution (edition of 1788), i. 282–300; Edward G. Porter’s chapter (i.) on The Beginning of the Revolution, in the Memorial History of Boston, vol. iii., and Winsor’s Bibliographical Note thereto (pp. 38–40), which refers to the Report of the Trials published in Boston, 1770, 12 mo. pp. 217, containing the evidence and arguments; reprinted in London in three editions the same year, and in Boston in 1807, 1824, and again in Kidder’s History of the Boston Massacre, Boston, 1870. There is also an account of the Riot in the Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 49–52, 85–89. Various accounts of it were sent “to our friends in England,”—among others, to “Hon^ble. Isaac Barree, Esq. Thomas Pownal, Esq. Dennis Deberdt, Esq. D^r. Benjamin Franklyn Esq. William Bollan, Esq. Barlow Trecothick, Esq.” (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 10, 15, etc.) See Postscript, post, p. 82.

32 His commission as Chief-Justice was dated 21 March, 1771, and published on the fifth of April following.

33 This date is taken from his gravestone in Salem. It is elsewhere stated that he died on the ninth of October.

34 See a notice of Judge Cushing in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1854, viii. 44.

35 This matter of the payment of salaries was taken up at a Town Meeting in Boston, 28 October, 1772, upon “The several Petitions relative to a Report that Stipends are affixed by order of the Crown,” etc., and a Committee—Mr. Samuel Adams, Dr. Joseph Warren and Dr. Benjamin Church—was appointed “to draw up an Address to the Governor.” The Draught submitted in the afternoon sets out “that a Report has prevailed, which they have reason to apprehend is well grounded, that Stipends are affixed to the Offices of the Judges of the Superior Court of Judicature of this Province, whereby they are become Independents of the Grants of the General Assembly for their support, contrary to antient and invariable usage,” and refers to the “alarm among all considerate Persons . . . in Town and Country [it] being view’d as tending rapidly to compleat the System of their Slavery;” that “this Establishment appears big with fatal evils,” and requests information from his Excellency as to the fact. The Draught was approved. On the thirtieth the Committee reported his Excellency’s Reply “delivered to them in Writing,” wherein he declines to answer their question. A Committee—“The Hon^ble James Otis Esq., Mr. Samuel Adams and The Hon^ble Thomas Gushing Esq.”—was then appointed to “prepare a Petition to his Excellency,” relative to the meeting of the General Court. The draught of this Petition, at once reported, again reverts to this matter, setting forth that “Such an Establishment is contrary not only to the plain and obvious sense of the Charter of this Province, but also some of the fundamental Principles of the Common Law,” and entering at length into the subject. The Reply of the Governor, presented 2 November, refers only to the meeting of the General Assembly. The action on this Reply is vigorous and spirited.

On the twenty-third of March, 1773, the matter again came up, and the Report of Samuel Adams is an elaborate discussion of the whole subject, and of the right of petition, generally. The “Report was accepted by the Town nemine contradicente, and Ordered to be Recorded on the Towns Book, as the sense of the Inhabitants of this Town;” and also to “be printed in the several News Papers,” and transmitted “to such Towns and Districts as they have or may Correspond with.”

The matter again appears in a Town Meeting, 26 July, 1774, when a Committee—Josiah Quincy, Esq., Mr. Samuel Adams (afterward excused), Joseph Greenleaf, Esq., and William Phillips, Esq.—appointed “forthwith to draw up & report . . . a Letter to be sent to the other Towns, relative to the Two Bills for Altering the Constitution of this Province, . . . Reported a Draught, which was accepted Paragraph by Paragraph,” one of which read: “When we consider the Conduct of our late worthy House of Representatives, relative to our Superior Court Judges, & their Impeachment of the Hon^ble Peter Oliver Esq. for his accepting a Salary from the Crown, in his Office of Chief Justice, & when we consider the uniform Spirit and Conduct of the several Grand Jurors thro’ the Province, Touching the same Grievances since that Impeachment; we cannot but suppose the aforementioned Acts will bring on a most important & decisive Trial.” (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 89–93, 120–125, 186, 187.)

36 As to Oliver’s Impeachment, etc., see Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 95, and the authorities there cited; Life and Works of John Adams, i. 138; iii. 513; and Hutchinson’s History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, iii. 443–445. Hutchinson refers at length to the attitude of the Judges—and especially of Trowbridge—on the question of Salary. Ibid. iii. 442.

37 Court Records at the State House, xxx. 160; Catalogue of Records and Files in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court, p. 93.

38 As some confusion exists in the several records at the State House concerning the dates of this Term of the Court and the adjournments thereof, the following extracts from the archives of the Superior Court of Judicature are here printed:—

“Tuesday Feb^ry 15th the Court met and adjourn’d to Tuesd^y February 22.^nd” (Marginal entry in Minute Book No. 98 (Suffolk), 1773, 1774.)

“Tuesday Feb^y 22^nḍ The Court met & adjourn’d to the first Tuesday of June next at 10 o’clock a. m. having first affirmed Judgm’ on the above Complaints, except No. 21, 22 & 73.” (Ibid.)

June 7th 1774. The Court met according to adjournment, and on the same day adjourned without day. (Ibid.)

39 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1773–1774, xxxii. 181–238.

40 Ibid. 1775–1778, xxxiii. 1; Catalogue of Records and Files, etc., p. 94, and the Minute Books therein cited.

41 For an account of the controversy as to the method of filling this office by appointment or election, and the proceedings in 1749, see Mr. Goodell’s Complete List of the Attorneys General and Solicitors General of Massachusetts, 1686–1780, in 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for June, 1895, x. 285–291.

42 This date, usually given in the published accounts of Judge Trowbridge as that of his birth, is taken from the Newton Town Records which give only the year, with a note referring to “Cambridge record.” This may indicate that Judge Trowbridge was born in Cambridge, or that this date is taken from the guardianship papers, now at East Cambridge, issued 7 March, 1725, after the death of his father, in New London, Conn., in 1724, in which Edmund is said to have been then “in his sixteenth year.” As Thomas Trowbridge and Mary Goffe were married 3 March, 1709, it is not improbable that 1710 is the actual date of Judge Trowbridge’s birth. Unfortunately the Records of the First Church in Newton, which may have preserved the facts concerning Trowbridge’s baptism, have perished.

43 Cf. Publications of this Society, iii. 451; and Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 173, 215, 561.

44 Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts, pp. 308, 309.

45 The Bench and Bar in Boston, in the Memorial History of Boston, iv. 580.

46 Ibid. iv. 580. John Adams calls him, indiscriminately, by either,—Goffe, Works, ii. 196, 200, 201, 204, 282, 284; and Trowbridge, ii. 195, 284, 301, 331,—and so in various other places; and a note on p. 196 states that he changed his name. Sabine quotes Adams.

47 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, July Term (Middlesex), 1726, vi. 72.

48 See manuscript in Harvard College Library. See also Province Laws, v. 1057–1064, Notes to chap. 50, Act of 1 May, 1779, on the Memorial of . . . “Inhabitants of the First Parrish in Cambride Living on the North side of Charles River in s^d Town . . . Owners of Considerable Tracts . . . on South side,” afterward incorporated as the town of Brighton, as to setting off the South Precinct in Cambridge,—an Act “for the greater conveniency of attending the public worship of God and the promotion of the Christian religion;” and Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 133, 214, 292, 375, 460, 461, 465, 467, 562, and 671 and note.

49 (1) An Execution in favor of “Edmund Goffe al^s Trowbridge of Cambridge, Middlesex County, gent.” against James Lowdon, in September, 1735; and receipt thereon signed “Edm^d Goffe al^s Trowbridge” in his own handwriting.

(2) Execution, Hdbere Facias Possessionem, in favor of “Edmund Goffe alias Trowbridge of Cambridge, Middlesex County, Adm^r &c” v. Buckminster, 1737.

(3) An Execution in favor of “Edmund Trowbridge of Cambridge &c. Esq. otherwise called Edmund Goffe al^s Trowbridge, gent. Adm^r &c.,” 1740; and receipt thereon signed “Edmund Trowbridge” in his own handwriting.

(4) A Deposition of Nathaniel Gamage, in Church v. Crackbone, mentions “Mr. Goffe” also “M’ Edmund Trowbridge, (within called Goffe),” January, 1740–41.

The Record of the case first above referred to also runs: “Edmund Goffe alias Trowbridge &c” v. Lowdon. (Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, x. 237. See also Suffolk Court Files, cclxxviii. 40890; ccxcv. 44136; cccxli. 52932, 52957.)

There are also numerous papers where his name appears at this same period as Trowbridge,—a joinder of issue in a case, signed by him as Counsel for plaintiff, powers of attorney, letters, pleadings, cases, etc. (Suffolk Court Files, cccxlvi. 53944; cccliv. 55486; ccclvi. 55963; ecccxii. 66300; ccccxci. 83181.) He also appears as Trowbridge in Whitmore’s Civil List, and in Goodell’s List of Attorneys General, already referred to.

The following testimony upon this point, from the pen of one of his associates at the Council Board and upon the Bench is of interest:—

“1766. May 28th. Election; I sent a resignation of my seat at Council Board. The Lieut. Gov^r., Secretary Oliver, Judge Oliver and the Attorney General Goffe, left out. . . . I was 28 yrs. a Counsellor.”

“1767. May 13th. Edmund Goffe, alias Trowbridge, Esq., sat as a Judge at Barnstable Superiour Court, being appointed in Judge Russel’s room in March last.” (The Diaries of Benjamin Lynde and of Benjamin Lynde, Jr., p. 191.)

50 For a fragment of the Diary of Samuel Quincy, Solicitor-General of the Province, kept in London, in 1776, and an appreciative and discriminating notice of the author, see 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for January, 1882, xix. 211–223.

51 See 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 638.

52 In a letter recently received from Thomas Preston, Esq., F. S. A., Clerk of the Privy Council, referring to Cabinet Councils, he says: “I believe Queen Anne was the last of our Sovereigns who attended them in person.” Mr. Preston also remarks upon the frequency with which historical writers confound Cabinet Councils with sessions of the Privy Council.

53 The following is extracted from a contemporary announcement of the Queen’s death:—

“London, August 1. [Sunday.]

“This Day, at half an Hour past Seven in the Morning, died our late most Gracious Sovereign Queen Anne, in the Fiftieth Year of Her Age, and the Thirteenth of Her Reign; a Princess of exemplary Piety and Virtue. Her Majesty complain’d on Thursday last of a Pain in Her Head: The next Day She was siezed with Convulsion Fits, and for some time lost the use of Her Speech and Senses, which, tho’ She afterwards recovered upon the Application of proper Remedies, She continued in a very weak and languishing Condition till She expired.”—(The London Gazette, No. 5247, From Saturday, July 31, to Tuesday, August 3, 1714.)

54 The King landed at Greenwich, on the eighteenth of September, 1714. The news of Anne’s death reached Boston on Wednesday, 15 September (Boston News-Letter, No. 544). The obsequies of the Queen were celebrated on the morning of Wednesday, the twenty-second, by the discharge of minute-guns at Castle William. At eleven o’clock Governor Dudley came hither from Roxbury, with a military escort, and was met at the Town House by Lieutenant Governor Tailer, members of the Council, and a great number of prominent citizens and merchants, “besides a very great concourse of People. . . . The Regiment of the Town, and another Regiment of Foot, being drawn up under Arms on the Parade in Kings-Street, before the Town-House. The Balcony of the Council-Chamber being Hung with Scarlet Cloth, at 12 a Clock His Majesty was . . . Proclaimed with loud acclamations.” This was followed by the discharge of three volleys by the troops of horse and foot, and three rounds of artillery from the Castle, the Batteries, and the Ships in the harbor, amid the ringing of bells. At two o’clock a public Dinner was served to the Governor and the vice-regal Court, who returned in the evening to the Council Chamber, where healths were drunk to the King and the Royal family. “The Town-house, and several Principal Streets [were] finely Illuminated beyond what ever was known in the English America.” On the twenty-third, in accordance with an order of the Governor and Council, Cotton Mather preached, at the Thursday Lecture, “a very good sermon” from Isaiah vi. 1, appropriate to the “Solemn Occasion” of the Queen’s death. The Governor and Council then went into mourning. On the evening of the same day (Thursday) Jonathan Belcher, afterward Governor of the Province, “made a very Splendid Entertainment for His Excellency the Governour and Council, with a great many other Gentlemen, at his House in Hanover Street, where were drunk His Majesties Health, the Prince, Royal Family, &c. the House being all over very finely Illuminated.” (Ibid. No. 545.) This house occupied a part of the site of the present American House. Here, formerly, lived Judge John Saflin (see ante, i. 87, note) who, with wife Rebecca (Lee), for £350 “in current money of New England,” sold the estate, then said to contain three quarters of an acre, to Francis Foxcroft, 24 September, 1691 (Suffolk Deeds, xix. 237). Foxcroft sold to Jonathan Belcher, 31 December, 1705, the consideration named in the deed being £600 “in current money of New England” (Ibid. xxii. 389). While occupying the Executive Chair of the Province Belcher sold this property, for £3,600, “in good publick Bills of Credit of the province,” to Joseph Green, 15 March, 1734 (Ibid. 1. 113).

55 Sir Matthew Dudley was of the Clapton, Northamptonshire family. His father, William Dudley, was created a Baronet 1 August, 1660. Matthew, his eldest son and successor, was baptized 6 October, 1661; married Lady Mary O’Brien, youngest daughter of the Earl of Thomond; was several times returned to Parliament, at one time representing the County of Huntingdon; appointed a Commissioner of the Customs in 1706, turned out in 1712, but was reinstated by George I.; and died in office and in London, 13 April, 1721. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society to which he was admitted 26 January, 1703–4. To the Society’s Transactions (Vol. XXIV.) he contributed, in February, 1705, a paper giving An Account of Insects in the Barks of Decaying Elms and Ashes. (Bnrke’s Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies; Province Laws, vii. 50–52, 308, 434, 685.)

56 The Great Revolution in England. The Prince of Orange landed at Torbay, 5 November, 1688.

57 The original Indictment is preserved in the Suffolk Court Files, dxciv. 101,788. See ante, pp. 60–70.

58 This extract from the last letter that Governor Russell wrote to his wife is taken from the Memorial Address delivered by Professor Charles Eliot Norton at the invitation of the City of Cambridge. This is published in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for December, 1896, v. 177–194.

1 Since this paper was read to the Society another impression of this plate has been discovered in the collection of our associate Mr. Denison Rogers Slade. The inscription on Mr. Slade’s copy is identical with that on my own except that Mr. Slade’s print bears the following additional words,—in the space between the names of Smibert and Pelham: “Sold by J: Buck in Queen street Boston.”

2 Provincial Banks: Land and Silver, communicated at the Stated Meeting in January, 1895, Publications, iii. 1–40.

3 Currency Discussion in Massachusetts in the Eighteenth Century. Quarterly Journal of Economics for October 1896, and January 1897, xi. 70–91, 186–160.

4 A Model for Erecting a Bank of Credit: With a Discourse In Explanation thereof. Adapted to the Use of any Trading Countrey, where there is a Scarcity of Moneys: More Especially for his Majesties Plantations in America. Quò Communiùs eò Melius. London, Printed by J. A. for Thomas Cockeril at the Three Leggs in the Poultrey, over against the Stocks-Market, 1688.

Hutchinson refers to this pamphlet as having been printed in 1684, and the evidence is conclusive that it was in possession of the person who prepared the Scheme for the proposed Bank of 1686. It was reprinted in Boston in 1714. See ante, iii. 6, note.

5 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 390.

6 History of New London, by Frances Manwaring Caulkins (edition of 1852), pp. 242, 243.

7 Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, iv. 270.

8 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 410.

9 Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, iv. 268, 269.

10 Ibid. iv. 269, 270.

11 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 421.

12 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 422.

13 Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, iv. 279.

14 As Public Printer, Green printed the public bills of credit. It is not much of an assumption to say that he must have printed the bills of the New London Society. His conclusion that there had been about Fifteen Thousand Pounds printed may therefore be regarded as authoritative. See Memorial History of Boston, ii. 406, note.

15 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 422.

16 The Governor and Company of Connecticut.

17 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 449.

18 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 450–452.

19 Ibid. vii. 453. This proceeding may have been the basis for Miss Caulkins’s statement that loans upon mortgage were obtained from the public treasury and the capital employed in trade.

20 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 560; viii. 69.

21 Ibid. viii. 234.

22 In addition to “the losses at sea & disappointments at home” which had absorbed a great part of their stock, Miss Caulkins gives references to one or two special ventures.

23 Colonial Records of Connecticut, viii. 24.

24 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 491, 492.

25 Ibid. ix. 309, 438, 445, 490.

26 Ibid. vii. 478.

27 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 508

28 A Discourse Concerning the Currencies of the British Plantations in America. Especially with Regard to their Paper Money: More Particularly, In Relation to the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England. Boston. S. Kneeland & T. Green, 1740, p. 13.

29 Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society for October, 1884, New Series, iii. 302, Note D.

30 Historical Account of the Connecticut Currency, by Henry Bronson, M. D., in Papers of the New Haven Colony Historical Society, Vol. I. See Notes, pp. 42, 43, of Dr. Bronson’s monograph.

31 Patent Roll 13 George I., part 4, no. 3, dorso. The reference to this Commission in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for October, 1872, xxvi. 402, is to the incomplete draught in the Journals of the Lords of Trade. The enrolment of the Patent Mr. Sainsbury, apparently, failed to discover. A second Commission to Gibson, 1 George II. (29 April, 1728), is printed in Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, v. 849.

32 The full Latin text of the Patent will be found in Volume II. of this Society’s Publications, which contains the Commissions and Instructions of the Royal Governors of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay.

33 See Mr. Noble’s communication at the November Meeting, ante, pp. 5–26.

34 Suffolk Court Files, dliv. 98, 506^a.

35 Publications, iii. 207.

36 The bracketed references in broad-faced type throughout this document are to the printed volumes of the Massachusetts Colony Records.

37 So in the original.

38 Repeated in the original.

39 The name Walderne would seem be an error in the original record for Walker. The name of Richard Walker appears in the lists on pp. 117, 131; Walderne or Waldron appears as a Deputy in neither. See also Secretary Nowell’s record, Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 265.

40 This appears to have been first written 20 and changed to 10.

41 These six entries and the entries in the margin against them, except the first, are in the handwriting of William Torrey.

42 Cf. post, p. 132.

43 These two paragraphs and one marginal entry are in Torrey’s hand.

44 Spegall?

45 Probably May 11, 1649.

46 So in the original.

47 Written over “Capt.”

48 This entry is in the handwriting of Governor John Endicott. Cf. ante, p. 122,—the sixth paragraph, which records a different disposition of the Winthrop grant.

49 This name appears to be in a different, though ancient, hand.

50 So entered and starred in the margin of the original.

51 This appears to be cancelled in the original.

52 An Address delivered in the Old South Meeting-House in Boston, November 27, 1895, before the Society of Colonial Wars in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in commemoration of the Six hundredth Anniversary of the First Summoning of Citizens and Burgesses to the Parliament of England, wherein the History of the House of Commons is sketched and a comparison made of the development of the Legislatures of Great Britain and of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pp. 25–27.

53 In February, 1896. Publications, iii. 205–207.

54 At the Stated Meeting in April, 1895, ante, iii. 101–103.

55 At the Stated Meeting in February, 1896, ante, iii. 205–207.

56 See the sixth paragraph on page [6], the seventh paragraph on page [11] and the fourth paragraph on page [14], ante, pp. 122, 128, and 130.

57 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 178.

58 Massachusetts Colony Laws of 1660 (Whitmore’s edition), p. 148 (original p. 26). See also p. 76 and note, where the important vote of the General Court of November, 1647,—relating to the manner of printing the Laws and the discretion given to the Committee—is reprinted from the Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 209.

59 Massachusetts Archives, xlvii. 11.

60 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part 1) 116.

61 Ibid. Volume ii.

62 Ibid. iii. 157.

63 Richard Bellingham and Increase Nowell. Captain William Tyng and Captain Hugh Prichard were the members appointed by the House.

64 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 161. See also, Ibid. ii. 274, and the Vote as it appears in the Fragment, page [6], ante, p. 122.

65 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 226, and iv. (Part 1) 44.

66 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 35.

67 The Governor’s marriage settlement with Mrs. Coytemore, dated 20 (10) 1647, may be read in the Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 232–236. After Winthrop’s death she married John Coggan, whom she survived, and after mourning the lack of suitors for her hand in a fourth marriage she committed suicide (John Davenport’s letter to John Winthrop, Jr., in 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, x. 45).

68 Records of First Church in Boston; Life and Letters of John Winthrop, ii. 381, note; and Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 29.

69 Life and Letters of John Winthrop, i. 177, 246; ii. 369; Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England, iv. 606–614; and New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1877, xxxi. 117.

70 Boston Town Records; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 34.

71 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 381. There is also a record of this action in Ibid. iv. (Part 1), 232.

72 See Whitmore’s Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony from 1630 to 1680 (Boston, 1890), pp. vii., 79, 127. For an extended notice of Joseph Hills and his connection with the publication of the early Laws, see Corey’s History of Maiden, pp. 165–185.

73 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 48.

74 A Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony from 1630 to 1686 (Boston, 1890), p. ix.

75 Massachusetts Archives, xlviii. 20.

76 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 259.

77 Ibid. ii. 260.

78 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 260.

79 Ibid. ii. 260.

80 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 209, note.

81 Massachusetts Archives, xlvii. 11, 15.

82 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 61, 83; ii. 167, 185.

83 See Suffolk Court Files, Nos. 90^b and 90^c (1647); No. 111 (1650); and Nos. 220 and 221 (1655).

84 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 158.

85 Ibid. ii. 266.

86 Ibid. iii. 28.

87 Ibid. iii. 422.

88 Suffolk Court Files, No. 1379, 1^sṭ paper, and No. 1380, 1^sṭ and 2^ḍ papers. The printed volumes containing the Records cited are numbered V. and IV., respectively.

89 See the Order for the payment of Torrey, 8 May, 1649, and the Order appointing Rawson Clerk in 1645, mentioned above; also the grant to Torrey of Slate Island in November, 1659. (Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part 1) 407.)

90 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part 1) 324.

91 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 324–327.

92 Bibliographical Sketch, etc., pp. 84, 103–114.

93 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 339; ii. 150.

94 Bibliographical Sketch, etc., p. 103.

95 Massachusetts Archives, xlvii. 15.

96 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 242.

97 See Massachusetts Colony Laws (edition of 1660), pp. 43–45.

98 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 150.

99 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 257, 305.

100 See also Massachusetts Colony Laws of 1660, p. 38.

101 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 242.

102 The citation (Lib. 1, p. 27) in the printed volume is an error of the press.

103 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 246.

104 Ibid. ii. 212.

105 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 185.

106 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 309.

107 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 247.

108 See Massachusetts Colony Laws (edition of 1660), p. 72.

109 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part 1) 83, 103, 293.

110 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 103, 256, 293.

111 Ibid. ii. 211.

112 Ibid. ii. 286.

113 Ibid. ii. 286.

114 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 101.

115 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 203.

116 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 152.

117 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 211.

118 Ibid. iv. (Part 1) 121.

119 Ibid. i. 157.

120 Ibid. i. 196, 241.

121 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part 1) 33, 407. The Island lies ofi the mouth of Weymouth Back River.

122 The wording in this grant indicates that in November, 1659, the Deputies had but one “booke of coppies.”

123 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part 1) 3.

124 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part 1) 3.

125 This line is wholly in the handwriting of John Davis.

126 The following extract from the York Court Records is of interest in this connection:—

“At a Generall Assembly houlden at Yorke June 28th: 1682: An order of the President for a sermon Annually on thursday, being the second day after the Meeting of ye Generall Assembly,

It being the Hons^e: [? Hono^r] as well as the duty of Civill Magestrates, to Incorage the Ministrey & worship under y^e jurisdiction, which by reason of the absence of the Cheefe Magestrate of this Province and y^e remoatness of the Ministers habitations, y^r is a want of oportunity for the knowledg of them,

It is y^rfore ordered by y^e President & Councill, that upon y^e second day of the Meeteing of this Generall Court Annually some one of y^e Reverend Elders or Ministers bee desired to preach a sermon to y^e Generall Court, for the better promoteing of an acquantance between the Government & Ministers & that o^r Civill transactions may be Sanctified by the word and prayer, the Anual Choyse to be made by the President, orin case of falure to bee seasonably supplyd & done by the Deputy President & Councill, June 29: 82: Mr. Dummer was nominated for y^e next yeare 1683.”

This extract was communicated by Mr. Nathaniel Jones Herrick, of Alfred, Maine, to the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1874, xxviii. 86. An examination of Mr. Baxter’s copy of the York Court Records failed to reveal this entry. It should be noted, however, that the lack of chronological sequence in the entries in these Records may account for the inability of my correspondent to secure a citation of the volume and page where this Order appears.

The first printed broadside of a Thanksgiving Proclamation in Massachusetts appeared in June, 1676. The only known copy is in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society. It was reproduced by Dr. Love in his Fast and Thanksgiving Days of New England (facing p. 200).

127 The Rev. Henry Otis Thayer, who made for me more than one examination of Mr. Baxter’s indexed copy of the York Court Records (1636–1686), could discover no reference whatever to the Proclamation in the text, or to the event to which it relates, but he found the following Orders for the issue of two other Proclamations,—one for a Fast, the other for a Day of Thanksgiving—both during the administration of John Davis, to whose influence or suggestion it is not improbable that these State Papers owe their origin:—

“Considering the many frowneing providences of god w^ch daly hang over o^r heads as signall tokens of gods great displeasure the certen aeffects of o^r sins y^t have turned his smiles into frow̄s—upon us—for diverting w^r/of & for y^e obtayneing of his wonted kindness If it bee his blessed Will Its y^rfore ordered by this Court y^r bee a day of Solleme humiliation keept throughout y^s Province upon the 3d Weddensday being the eighteenth day of May next Insewing w^ch all Ministers & such who feare y^e Lord are required to observe, & all other p^r/sons are prohibited from doing any scervile labour upon that day as they will avoyd the Courts displeasure.” (Court of Pleas held at York, 6 April, 1681, iv. 84).

II.

“Day of thanks giving

W^r/as this Court is Informed that the life of his Majesty hath been in great Hazard made by some disaffected p^rsons against his Majestys Roy all person and Dignity—and some other additionall fau^ors: of priuiledges and peace yet Contined to us.

These things Considered, this Court Judgeth meete to appoynt a solleme day of thankesgiuing throughout the province to bee keept by all his Majestys good subjects—the Inhabitants y^r/of upon the last Weddensday of this Instant October, who are hereby p’hibited from all servile labour on y^t day w^ch is to bee set apart and Deuoated wholly to render prayses unto god for his great goodness & mercys towards us therein.” (Court of Sessions held at Wells, 9 October, 1683, iv. 297, 298.)

In connection with this Proclamation we find the following entry, which suggests the possibility of some public feeling of disfavor which caused the postponement of this public Thanksgiving for nearly a year.

“An Order about a day of

thankesgiveiug—

This Court ordereth y^t y^e day of thankesgiveiug formerly appoynted by authority & suspended upon some mature Considerations is now by y^s Court determined to be keept in Yorke, Kittery & Wells upon the first Weddensday in Sept^ebr next Insewing according to the former order.” (Court of Sessions held at Wells, 20 November, 1683, iv. 303.)

I am indebted to Mr. James Phinney Baxter for permission to consult this valuable manuscript, and throughout this paper my citations by volume and page from these Records are from Mr. Baxter’s copy.

The Fifth Volume of York Deeds, Part II. of which is devoted to a transcript of a later portion of the Court Records of the Province, contains the following entries which are of present interest:—

At a Court of Pleas, held at York, 25 February, 1690–91,—the last Court which John Davis is known to have attended as Deputy-President,—

“A Day of publick humiliation appointed to be kept the third Wednesday in March next & all servile labour is forbidden on that Day” (p. 9).

At a Court of Sessions, held at York, 6 October, 1691, shortly after Davis’s death,—

“It is ordered that there be a Day of publick thanksgiueing kept on the fift Day of November next & all servile Worke on that Day is hereby prohibited” (p. 12).

128 A very brief sketch of Davis, filling less than a dozen lines, is in William Durkee Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, i. 671.

129 Palfrey’s History of New England, i. 205, 397, note, 400, note, and 402, note.

130 See the Petition of Edward Godfrey, the founder of York, to the General Court of Massachusetts, in Massachusetts Archives, iii. 235. The document is not dated, but the Order thereon, signed by Edward Rawson, bears date “30 octobe^r 54.”

131 The full text of this document is in Sullivan’s History of the District of Maine, pp. 397–408, and Hazard’s State Papers, i. 442. Cf. Palfrey’s History of New England, i. 402, note 1.

132 Palfrey’s History of New England, iii. 312 and notes, 399–402 and notes.

133 Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, i. 558, 562.

134 York Court Records, iii. 383. Cf. York Deeds, iii. (Preface) 9, note 5.

135 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 286; York Court Records, iii. 383. Danforth held the office until the arrival of the Second Charter, in 1692, except during the administrations of Dudley and Andros. For notices of Thomas Danforth, see New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1853, vii. 315–321; Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, i. 673; Palfrey’s History of New England, ii. 514; iii. passim; and Paige’s History of Cambridge, p. 530.

136 York Court Records, iii. 384.

137 Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, i. 565.

138 Ibid. i. 563, 564, 686. His will, dated at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 9 August, 1677, was proved 5 April, 1681. (Maine Wills, pp. 59–61; and York Deeds, v. (Part I.) 5).

It is a curious fact that although Pendleton was the first incumbent of this office, and as such presided at the Courts held at Kittery, in April, and at Wells, in June, 1680 (York Court Records, iv. 59, 203), Davis is designated as Deputy-President in the List of persons “chosen & Deputed” by the authorities of the Bay to constitute the “Court & Counsell” which were to administer the Province during the first year. Pendleton’s name follows that of Davis,—apparently as senior member of the Standing Council. The Record proceeds:—

“These severall Gentlemen . . . are Commissionated for the yeare Insewing untill others bee by them chosen & sworne in there roume & stead who have all taken y^r oaths of Allegiance to his Majesty & their oaths as Magestrates & Just^s of the pea: before the Honorable Thomas Danforth, prsd^t.” (York Court Records, under date of 17 March 1679–80, iii. 383.)

Davis was elected to the Deputy-Presidency at a second election at York, held 30 June, 1681. (Ibid. iii. 397.)

139 Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, i. 558, note, 671.

140 Nowhere do I find a record of Hooke’s appointment or election to this office, but that he held it there can be no doubt. See York Deeds, v. (Part I.) 72, (Part II.) 11, 12.

141 Belknap’s History of New Hampshire (edition of 1784), i. 264; and 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, iii. 8.

142 York Deeds, iii. 125.

143 York Deeds, iii. 56,—two instruments. Knowlton’s Power of Attorney to Davis and Sayward, in the form of a personal letter, is recorded (Ibid.) with this instrument. It is historically interesting, and reveals his whilom purpose to remove from Ipswich to York and its subsequent abandonment; and the fact that he had built a house in York on land given him by his much respected friend Captain John Davis “vpon my settleing there.” He adds, “w^t Cap^t Davess his Accopt Cometh to I purpose to giue in wⁿ hee comes to this Town,”—i. e. Ipswich. Cf. post, p. 174.

144 Ipswich Court Records, i. 138 (original); i. 390, 391 (copy). These Records are in the Essex Registry of Deeds, at Salem.

145 Felt’s History of Ipswich, Essex, and Hamilton, p. 323.

146 Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 540; and New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1849, iii. 246.

147 The Essex Probate Files (No. 16,075) contain “An Inventory of the estate of Jn^ọ Knoulton of Ipswich: deceased Octob^r 8th 84,” which foots £13.03.9; and a List of Debts due from the estate amounting to £101.18.00, which includes this item: “good wife Davis £5.00.00.”

148 The parish of Chebacco (now the town of Essex) is here referred to.

149 Ipswich Court Records (in Essex Registry of Deeds), i. 59 (original); i. 190–192 (copy). No wife joins in this deed, which is signed by a mark. There is a brief notice of Davis in the Hammatt Papers (1854), p. 70, but Ilammatt appears to have known nothing of his antecedents or of his career after 1648.

There is also in the Ipswich Court Records (i. 166, 167, original; i. 461–463, copy) another deed, dated 10 April, 1655, from John Davis of Ipswich whose occupation is not mentioned, “with the consent of my wife,” Alice, who also joins, to Daniel Rindge of thirty-five acres of land, in two parcels, with the buildings thereon, in Ipswich. Both of these grantors sign by a mark. This John Davis, doubtless, was identical with the grantor in the deed of 8 February, 1647–48, but I believe that the conveyance of 1655 was made after Davis had taken up his abode in York. It is by no means improbable that he left his wife in Ipswich until he could establish himself in his new home, and that about the time of the sale of this property to Rindge she had joined her husband. That Capt. John Davis of York was in the habit of visiting Ipswich, there would seem to be no doubt. (Cf. ante p. 173, note 3.) I find no other conveyances by John Davis of Ipswich, in either the Ipswich Court Records, the old Norfolk Records, or the Essex Deeds.

150 John Endicott. While a resident of Ipswich, John Davis, as we have seen, lived at Chebacco and held land north of the river, at Heartbreak Hill from the summit of which, on a clear day, may be seen the top of Mount Agamenticus. Our associate, Mr. Abner C. Goodell, Jr., calls my attention to the fact that from this neighborhood it is possible to proceed to Gloucester (Cape Ann) by way of Annisquam, and that, in all probability, Endicott took this route, in 1642, when accompanied by Davis, instead of going by way of Cape Ann side (i.e. Beverly and Manchester) along shore all the way.

151 A comparison of the List of early inhabitants of Ipswich in Felt’s History of the Town (pp. 10–13) with the Lists of Freemen sworn at Agamenticus, Wells, Saco and Cape Porpoise, in 1652 and 1653, reveals the fact that the names of John Baker, John Davis, Joseph Emerson, John Saunders, and John West appear in both, and suggests the probability that these men, or their sons of the same names, removed permanently—or temporarily, as did John Knowlton—from Ipswich to the Province of Maine. Emerson, we know, was in Wells as early as 4 July, 1653, and minister of the First Church in Wells from 1664 till 1667; and Felt says that he preached in York 1648 and 1663. (Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 129, 158, 162, 164, (Part II.) 84; Bourne’s History of Wells and Kennebunk, Maine, pp. 25, 103, 104; and Felt’s Ecclesiastical History of New England, i. 548; ii. 118, 320, 389. See also New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1849, iii. 193; and Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England, i. 96; ii. 18, 118; iii. 614; iv. 20, 21, 487, 488.)

The York Court Records (i. 137, 138) show that John Davis witnessed a deed of land from John Lander and John Billin of “Pascataquack,” to Joseph Milles, 28 February, 1639–40; and (i. 180) that certain claims of Francis Champernown v. John Tomson and of John Tomson v. Thomas Withers, for £40 and £50, respectively, were referred to Nicholas Shapleigh, William Hilton, John Alcock and John Davis, as arbitrators, 25 October, 1650. John Davis also witnessed a deed from George Cleaves and Richard Tucker of Casco Bay to John Moses “now of Piscataq River,” 6 April, 1646 (York Deeds, i. (Part I.) 109). These entries indicate that Davis was at York before settling at Ipswich, and that he returned, temporarily, to York before making it his permanent place of abode about 1652. The second entry also shows that the friendship between Davis and Champernown, which ended only with the latter’s death, extended over nearly forty years. Cf. post, p. 183.

The Index of Volumes I.–IX. of the First Series of the Collections of the Maine Historical Society (p. 72) erroneously calls the Deputy-President son of Isaac Davis of Stroudwater (Falmouth, now Deering), Maine, whose eldest son John, born in 1660, was living, with his younger brother Samuel, in Gloucester, Massachusetts, in 1733 (1 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, i. (edition of 1865) 309; and Babson’s History of the Town of Gloucester, Cape Ann, p. 255). Babson, in another place (Ibid. p. 333), says:—

“In 1715, a John Davis, with his wife and family, from Ipswich, moved into town. He may have been the person of the same name, son of Isaac of Falmouth, who, in 1734, was living in Gloucester, about seventy-four years old [hence born in 1660]; and the ‘old Mr. John Davis’ of Sandy Bay, who, in 1748 and for several preceding years, received assistance from the town.”

Babson also refers (p. 75) to a John Davis of an earlier generation who “bought of Richard Window, in 1656, his house, barn, orchard and land . . . [and] after a residence of several years in town . . . removed to Ipswich.” Whence he came, Babson does not record.

It will be remembered, that the names of Davis, Knowlton, and Sargent, all of which are found early in the County of York, were early names at Cape Ann as well as in Ipswich, and that on the back side of the Cape the Ipswich and Gloucester (Squam and Sandy Bay) families were neighbors; the probability of kinship, therefore, is very strong. As stated in the text, John Davis of Ipswich attended the Deputy-Governor to Cape Ann, in 1642, but on what business the record fails to show. That there was some connection between the Davis families of Ipswich, Gloucester, York and Falmouth there can be no doubt, but precisely what it was can be determined, probably, only by a critical collation of many original public records in several of the towns and counties of Maine and Massachusetts. Cf. Suffolk Court Files (1733–1755), Nos. 35,127, 37,168, 49,942, 50,317, 50,479 and 74,333.

152 This man is not known to have been of kin to the Executive; and his age forbids the assumption that he was his son. I believe that he was identical with John Davis of Saco, and that he resided, at different times, in Saco, Agamenticus and Cape Porpoise, and in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. In this view I appear to be confirmed by Mr. James Phinney Baxter,—in his note on John Davis of Saco, on page 329 of The Trelawney Papers, where he states that John of Saco was admitted Freeman in 1652. If that be true, he must have been then resident at York and have been admitted simultaneously with the future Deputy-President of the Province, as only two persons of that name were admitted to citizenship at that time or before 1666. Baxter, quoting Folsom, believes John Davis of Saco to have been a smith, because of a contemporary reference to a forge belonging to him. Confirmation of this belief and of my own opinion as to the identity of John Davis of Saco and the second John Davis of York is found in three documents recorded with the York Deeds.

(i) The first instrument is a conveyance by which “John Davis, Sen^r late of Capeporpoise [Arundel, now Kennebunkport], in y^e County of York, Blacksmith,” for £23.10, sells, “with y^e Consent of Katherine my wife & my Son John Davis,” his half of certain marsh lands at Cape Porpoise and land at Batson’s Neck. The deed is dated at Portsmouth, 10 January, 1675–76. (York Deeds, viii. 198, 199.)

(ii) The second paper is given in full, as follows:—

“March 10^th 1679:

whereas there was some troubles like to arise between Major Clarke & Mr. Rishworth, by reason of John Dauess the Smyths deniyng the Sale of a little Poynt of Land on Mr. Gorges Cricke, Where the Saw Mills standeth, & vpon Consideration to Preuent any further trouble, Wee the Selectmen of the Town of Yorke, do Confirme the sd Parcell of Land to Mr. Edw: Rishworth, puided y^r bee no former Grant to any other Person

John Dauess

Richd Banks

John Twisden

Vera Copia, of this Confirmation

or grant transcribed & with

originall Compared this

12^th day of March 168⅔

⅌ Edw: Rishworth Re Cor:” (Ibid. iii. 120.)

(iii) On the thirty-first of March, 1699, a man of this name, styling himself of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, “smith,” sold to James Plaisted of York, who was its Town Clerk, one of its Selectmen, and, in 1701, its Representative to the General Court in Boston,—

“all y^e Right, title, or Interest I have, euer had, or ought to have either by Town grant, Purchase, Possession, by privilege of Landing place, Hay Yard or by any other ways or meanes whatever, To a certain tract of land lying in York afores^d in the place called y^e New Mill creek between y^e Land of Thomas Moulton & the land of M^r Edward Rishworth be it more or less as by any means may be made to Appear.” (Ibid. iv. 154.)

In the acknowledgment, the grantor is described as “Docter John Davis.” The words which are here italicised may have been inserted in consequence of the action of the Selectmen of York, 10 March, 1679, quoted above. (Ibid. vi. 82, 152; and Province Laws, Massachusetts, vii. 284.)

Baxter says (Trelawny Papers, p. 329, note) that John Davis of Saco lived near the Falls, and that his name is perpetuated in a brook near by. He was of the Jury of Trials, in 1650, and later of the Grand Jury; and in 1653, he had grant of a saw mill. These facts show the impossibility of his having been son of Isaac Davis of Stroudwater, as has been also stated, since John Davis, son of Isaac of Stroudwater, was not born until 1660. (1 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, i. (edition of 1865) 309.) Cf. ante, p. 176, note.

On the thirteenth of August, 1668, John Davis, aged forty-one years (consequently born about 1627), deposed, before Bryan Pendleton, as to his own action, pursuant to Pendleton’s order, in the Saco Meeting-house, “after evening exercise” on the “Sabbath-day night next after Yorke Court for the Massachusetts,” in warning “the millitary men in our towne” to assemble in the training-place on the following day to hear and see the orders that had come from Boston concerning the future government of the Province of Maine, and also as to the action of Major William Phillips in challenging the authority of Major Pendleton who had been appointed to supersede him in office. (Massachusetts Archives, cvi. 193–198, where also may be read similar Depositions by Robert Booth aged 66, Richard Hitchcock aged 60, John Sergeant aged “near 36,” and Roger Hill aged 33,—all sworn to at Saco before Pendleton, 13 August, 1668—and other documents in this case, which see.) A long letter concerning this controversy between the appointees of the King’s Commissioners and the authorities of the Bay, written by Bryan Pendleton from Winter Harbor (Saco), 21 August, 1668, to Major General Leverett, is in Ibid. cvi. 196.

John Davis of Saco, beyond question, was a man of scandalous life. The York Court Records (i. 271), under date of 28 June, 1655, contain proceedings involving the honor of John Davis of Winter Harbor (Saco) and Mary, wife of Jonas Clay (cf. 1 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, i. (edition of 1865) 372); and 28 June, 1682, having been elected a Deputy to the General Assembly, he was “disaccepted as a scandelous p^rson.” (York Court Records, iv. 16.)

Mr. William P. Upham calls my attention to the fact, that in the Suffolk Court Files (No. 26,163) is a Deposition by John Davis, aged about 52 years, as to his “father Black” and Captain Caleb Preble talking about a suit with “Mr. Woodbridge . . . about twenty-two years ago.” The paper is without date and appears to have been written subsequent to 1700. It is not improbable that the Deponent was the. son of John Davis the smith. Cf. Ibid. (1736–1755), Nos. 41,643, 43,984, 43,994 and 74,333.

In the Massachusetts Archives (xxxviii b. 148, 149) are two Depositions by John Davis in which he describes himself as “aged aboute thirtie foure yeares.” As they were sworn to, before Bryan Pendleton, 18 April, 1654, it would appear that the Deponent was born in or about 1620. Whether he was Deputy-President John Davis of York, who, according to another Deposition, appears to have been born in 1613, or John Davis of Saco, from whose Deposition, in 1668, it appears that he was born in 1627,—or, possibly, a third, and hitherto unknown, John Davis, I am unable to determine. See The Baxter Manuscripts (2 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, iv. 103.)

153 See Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 278; Maine Wills, 5, 6; post, p. 183; and Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England, ii. 20, 392; iii. 419.

154 Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, i. 566, 671.

155 George Puddington and three others were chosen, 19 June, 1640, by the inhabitants of Agamenticus, Deputies to appear and act for them at the General Assembly, on summons by Richard Vines, Steward to Sir Ferdinando Gorges. Puddington attended the first General Assembly which convened at Saco, 25 June, 1640 (York Court Records, i. 65; 1 Maine Historical Collections, i. (edition of 1865) 367; and 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 101.) On the sixth of August, following, he was indicted by the whole bench for “speaking words:—we hold that the power of our combinac̄on is stronger than the power of the King.” (York Court Records, i. 91.) He was also named one of the first Board of Aldermen of the city of Gorgeana in the First Charter granted by Gorges, 10 April, 1641 (Hazard’s State Papers, i. 470–474.) George Puddington appears to have been a son of Robert Puddington, the elder, of Tiverton, in Devonshire, whose will, “expressed” 10 February, 1630–31, is recorded in the Prerogative Court, Canterbury, St. John, quire 49. George Puddington, the son, renounced the executorship 25 April, 1631, and administration was granted, 16 May following, to Anne, the relict, and George Puddington the elder,—a brother of the deceased (Putnam’s Historical Magazine for 1899, New Series, vii. 47–53, 140–144, 191–198.) Puddington’s wife had borne an unsavory reputation, and was indicted by the whole bench, 8 September, 1640, for impropriety (which she subsequently confessed) with George Burdett, “who had fled from Exeter and had resided at Accomenticus in the character of a preacher.” (1 Maine Historical Collections, i. (edition of 1865) 304–366; and Sullivan’s History of the District of Maine, p. 309. As to Burdett and his evil deeds, see also York Deeds, iii. (Preface) 8; Winthrop’s History of New England (edition of 1853), pp. 11, 12, and notes; Belknap’s History of New Hampshire (edition of 1784), i. 33–36; and Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, i. 270, 271.) Puddington was living as late as 3 July, 1647, when he made Deposition (York Deeds, i. (Part II.) 13.) His will, dated 25 June, 1647, for some unaccountable reason, was not recorded till 18 January, 1695–96, when it was entered with Ibid. v. (Part I.) 120, 121. It is also printed in Maine Wills, pp. 99–101. In it he mentions his wife Mary as the mother of his five children,—all under twenty-one years of age,—and names her as executrix; gives to elder son John and younger son Elias, land, etc., “where I now dwell in Gorgeana”; to eldest daughter Mary, second daughter Frances, and youngest daughter Rebecca, other property; mentions brother, Robert Puddington, and appoints him, with Mr. Edward Johnson, Mr. Abraham Preble, and Mr. John Alcock, supervisor of his estate.

A reminder of Puddington and his wife which proves that his death occurred between 3 July, 1647, and 5 June, 1649, is found in a List of Debts owing to the estate of Isaac Grosse of Boston, brewer, in 1649:—

“Widdowe Puddington, of Aggamenticus, for moneys owinge by her husband beffore his deceas, 22 lb.” (New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1853, vii. 228.)

This paper has since disappeared from the Suffolk Probate Files.

Of John Puddington, or Purrington, as the record reads, we find that 2 November, 1674, he executed a deed, “with the consent of his Mother Mis Mary Davess,” of half an acre of land in York to his “loueing brother in law, John Penwill,” mariner. (York Deeds, ii. 160.)

156 York Deeds, i. 119,—two instruments.

157 The will of Mary Weare, made 21 January, 1718–19, and proved 7 April, 1719, is printed in Maine Wills, pp. 213, 214. Administration on her husband’s estate had been granted to her at a Court of Sessions held at York, 1 November, 1092, when she gave Bond in £462 (York Deeds, v. (Part II.) 15), and swore to an Inventory of the estate of her husband, “lately deceased,” dated at York 18 April, 1692, amounting to £231.13.0. (Ibid. v. (Part I.) 80.)

On the twenty-ninth of May, 1704, the Probate Court granted—

“Administration to Mrs. Mary Weare, of York, on the estate of her brother-in-law Mr. Joseph Penewell, of York, deceased, intestate, the relict widow of sd Penewell being non compos mentis.” (York Probate Records, i. 92.)

See Maine Historical and Genealogical Recorder, iii. 133; and York Deeds, ii. 160, 164.

158 Peter Weare was also Town Clerk and a Selectman of York, Recorder of the County and, later, an Associate. In 1660, he was a Deputy to the General Court, at Boston, from Kittery, although a resident of York. (York Deeds, ii. (Preface) 7, 8, which contain a sketch of Weare; and Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 449.)

159 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 128–132.

160 This fact was animadverted upon many years after by Dr. Benjamin Bullivant, an ardent supporter of the Andros regime, who suffered imprisonment at the uprising of the people on the eighteenth of April, 1689:—

“One Davis, a common Alehouse keeper, proposed to be Deputy President of the Province of Maine with the title of Major; the people refuse him obedience.” (Bullivant’s Journal, under date of 19 February, 1689–90, in Public Record Office, London, Board of Trade Papers, v. 32.)

I am indebted to Charles E. Banks, M.D., a descendant of the Deputy-President, for this extract. Cf. 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xvi. 103, 108.

161 2 Collections of the Maine Historical Society (The Baxter Manuscripts), iv. 33, 64. Davis’s promotion in the militia followed in due course. He was Ensign in 1654, Lieutenant in 1659, Captain in 1665, Sergeant-Major in 1680, and Major in 1683. (York Court Records; Massachusetts Colony Records; and York Deeds, iii. 125.)

162 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 402.

163 1 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, i. (edition of 1865) 392–395; 2 Collections of the Maine Historical Society (The Baxter Manuscripts), iv. 141; and Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, i. 389, note.

164 2 Collections of the Maine Historical Society (The Baxter Manuscripts), iv. 148. Many documents relating to the contest for jurisdiction in the Province of Maine are described in Sainsbury’s Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, passim.

165 York Court Records, i. 314, 349.

166 Ibid. i. 302. Davis took the oath of office on the third of October.

167 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 130.

168 Ibid. iv. (Part II.) 252.

169 2 Collections of the Maine Historical Society (The Baxter Manuscripts), iv. 211–214. Our associate, Mr. Albert Matthews, calls my attention to a similar episode, in 1685, described in New Hampshire Provincial Papers, i. 578–582, showing how violent men were in those days. The parties to it were Thomas Wiggin, Robert Mason, and Walter Barefoot. Wiggin threw Mason into the fire, from which he was rescued by Barefoot; whereupon Wiggin threw Barefoot (whose sister he had married) into the fire, but was pulled off by Mason.

170 Maine Wills, pp. 5, 6.

171 Ibid. 121–123. Cf. ante, p. 176, note.

172 York Deeds, i. 130; ii. 74; iii. 120; and 2 Collections of the Maine Historical Society (The Baxter Manuscripts), iv. 369, 370. On the twenty-sixth of July, 1684, President Danforth executed a deed to Major John Davis, Mr. Edward Rishworth, Captain Job Alcock, and Lieutenant Abraham Preble, as Trustees, on behalf of the Inhabitants of the Town of York, confirming to them the grant of Sir Ferdinando Gorges. The existence of this deed was long doubted. It is printed, from a copy in the Society’s Cabinet, in 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, v. 433–435.

173 York Court Records, passim.

174 Ibid. iv. 223.

175 Ibid. iv. 163.

176 York Deeds, iv. 30. Mr. William P. Upham sends me a memorandum of a paper in the Suffolk Court Files (No. 1806). It is a copy, certified by William Pepperrell, Clerk, of a Grant to Capt. John Daves, dated 7 June, 1673, of fifty acres on the north-east side of Robert Sowdon’s land, “being part of y^e sd Daves’s former divident,” signed by Edward Rishworth.

177 Belknap’s History of New Hampshire (edition of 1784), i. Appendix xlv. pp. lxxix–lxxxi; and New Hampshire Provincial Papers, i. 588, 589.

178 York Deeds, v. (Part II.) 8.

179 Ibid. v. (Part II.) 10.

180 Ibid. v. (Part II.) 11.

181 Ibid. v. (Part II.) 11, 12. Hooke also attended, in the same capacity, a Court of Pleas held at York on the following day; and the Inventory of Shubael Dummer’s estate was sworn to by George Snell, at Kittery, 19 March, 1691–92, before Francis Hooke, Deputy-President, and John Wincoll, Justice of the Peace (Ibid. v. (Part I.) 72).

182 The spelling of Davis’s name in the contemporary original records shows many curious variations.

183 York Deeds, v. (Part II.) 11.

184 Ibid. vi. 96.

185 York Court Records, i. 208; ii. 40, 331, 386, 389, 409. While the evidence afforded by the entries here cited fully sustains the statement in the text, it has not seemed desirable to transfer to print the details of sanguinary altercations, inebriety, and other offences for which Davis incurred heavy fines and penalties imposed by the Courts.

186 It thus appears that Davis had early imbibed Quaker doctrines which at that time were causing the banishment of many Massachusetts families to the Eastward as well as to the South. It is possible that we have here the reason for his removal from Ipswich to York, especially when we remember that General Daniel Denison, the foremost citizen of Ipswich, was severe in his opinions and actions against the Quakers. See Publications of this Society, i. 127, 139; Plymouth Colony Records, x. 180, 181; and Felt’s History of Ipswich, pp. 105, 224.

187 See Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, i. 539, 540, 563.

1 See Mr. William H. Whitmore’s paper on The Early Painters and Engravers of New England in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for May, 1866, ix. 197–216, which contains much interesting matter concerning Henry Pelham and John Singleton Copley. See also Mr. Whitmore’s letter describing Copley’s portrait of Peter Pelham, Ibid, for February, 1878, xvi. 37; and Martha Babcock Amory’s Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R. A., passim.

2 Charles Pelham, successively of Boston, Medford, and Newton, was a merchant, and later a schoolmaster. He married, 6 December, 1766, Mary, daughter of Andrew Tyler, and niece of Sir William Pepperrell. (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for May, 1866, ix. 208.)

3 Boston Town Records; and Trinity Church Registers.

4 She is said to have died, unmarried, at Boothbay, Maine.

5 See William H. Whitmore’s communications to the Heraldic Journal, iv. 175–182; and the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for October, 1872, xxvi. 399–401. Mr. Whitmore has since come into possession of much further information respecting Peter Pelham’s descendants by his second marriage which he is intending to publish.

6 Administration on the estate of Richard Copley, “tobacconist,” was granted to his widow, Mary Copley, 2 May, 1748, on which day she gave Bond to the Judge of Probate in £100,—the Sureties being Peter Pelham, “gentleman,” and Robert Skinner, “perukemaker,” both of Boston. The Inventory of the estate, taken 6 May, following, by Thomas Waite, Ebenezer Lowell, and William McIlvaine, amounted to £97. 3. 6. It was presented to the Court by the widow and administratrix 18 May, 1748,—four days only before she became the wife of Peter Pelham. (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 8979.)

7 Trinity Church Registers, which, under date of 25 May, 1752, record the burial of Maria Pelham who, probably, was identical with this child.

8 Two letters written by her to her brother Peter, the Emigrant, are printed in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for May, 1866, ix. 202, 206, 207.

9 These papers are here printed for the first time through the courtesy of Charles Pelham Greenough, Esq.

10 Copley was born in Boston, 3 July, 1737, and died in London, 9 September, 1815. He was buried in the Hutchinson family tomb, in the church of St. John the Baptist at Croydon, in Surrey. There, also, are interesting monuments to several of the Archbishops of Canterbury who, for several centuries after the Conquest, had a residence at Croydon where, in 1573, Archbishop Parker entertained Queen Elizabeth and her Court for several days.

11 Trinity Church Registers. Administration on the estate of Peter Pelham, “schoolmaster,” was granted to his widow, Mary Pelham, 23 June, 1752, when she gave Bond in £200, her sureties being William McIlvaine, “trader,” and Charles Pelham, “merchant,” both of Boston. (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 10,085.)

12 This house probably stood on one of the two lots making the corners of what is now Exchange Place and Congress Street, formerly known as Leverett’s Lane, and later as Quaker Lane, because of the fact that the Quaker Meeting House stood where Monks Building now is. On the fifteenth of November, 1742, the Selectmen on Peter Pelham’s petition granted him liberty “to dig up the Pavement & open the Ground in Leverett’s Lane in Order to repair the Drain running from the House wherein he Dwells into the Common Shore.” (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xv. 367.) The Boston Evening Post, No. 674, of Monday, 11 July, 1748, contains a notice that “Mrs. Mary Pelham (formerly the Widow Copley on the Long Wharf, Tobacconist) is remov’d into Lindel’s Row, against the Quaker’s Meeting House, near the upper End of King Street. Boston,” etc. Cf. Shurtleff’s Topographical and Historical Description of Boston (Third edition), pp. 230–233.

13 An engraving of this picture may be seen in the Memorial History of Boston, iv. 388. Pelham was educated at the Boston Latin School in the same Class (1758) with Gen. Henry Knox, Lieut.-Gov. William Phillips and Ward Nicholas Boylston.

14 Susannah-Farnum, daughter of Richard Clarke and Elizabeth his wife, was born in Boston, 20 May, 1745 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 255.) She married Copley on Thursday evening, 16 November, 1769.

(The Massachusetts Gazette, Extraordinary—Draper’s—of Friday, 17 November, 1769; and The Boston Evening Post, No. 1782, of Monday, 20 November, 1769.) The Boston Gazette and Country Journal, No. 763, of Monday, 20 November, 1769, announces the marriage as having occurred “last Wednesday evening,”—i.e., 15 November, which is probably an error. The Town and Church Records fail to show this marriage, but the Intention of Marriage was entered 23 October, 1769. (Boston Town Records.)

15 Richard Clarke was one of the consignees of the Tea destroyed in 1773. Copley’s large canvas portraying a group of Richard Clarke’s family is now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. It is fully described in Mrs. Amory’s Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A., pp. 77–80.

16 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for January, 1873, xii. 325. Cf. Trumbull’s Autobiography, Reminiscences and Letters, p. 11.

17 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for January, 1873, xii. 325, in a Memoir of Copley by the late Augustus Thorndike Perkins.

18 See a letter of John Singleton Copley, Jr., post, p. 212. Lord Lyndhurst died in London, on the morning of 12 October, 1863. (Martin’s Life of Lord Lyndhurst, p. 513.) Mrs. Amory (page 39) gives this date as 11 October.

19 Mrs. Blanchard was born 10 November, 1787. She married, 30 May, 1825, the Rev. Ira Henry Thomas Blanchard (H. C. 1817), minister of the First Unitarian Church in Harvard. (Nourse’s History of Harvard, pp. 231, 232. See post, pp. 202–208, and notes; and The Bromfields,—a pamphlet of nineteen pages, by the late Daniel Denison Slade, containing much valuable information concerning this family, privately reprinted, with additions, from the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1871, 1872,—Volumes xxv., xxvi.

20 Other relics of Henry Pelham are an Edinburgh edition (Alexander Donaldson, 1768) of William Shenstone’s Works, and a framed mezzotint (colored) of “Painting,” both of which belonged to Miss Bromfield.

21 It is not improbable that this reference is to Lucy Clarke, a daughter of Richard and Elizabeth Clarke, who was born in Boston 19 May, 1752. She was a younger sister of Isaac Winslow Clarke, who was born in Boston 27 October, 1746 (Boston Town Records); was a Loyalist; became Commissary-General of Lower Canada; and died, in 1822, on his passage to England. See post, p. 201, note.

22 This was Charles Startin, of Boston and New York, and, apparently, of Salem also. He was a merchant having his address at No. 11 Wall Street, New York, in 1790–1793, and at No. 44 Wall Street, in 1794, while in 1795–1799 his address was No. 225 Broadway. In 1802 his widow (post, p. 208, and note 2) was living at No. 231 Broadway (New York City Directory, 1790–1802.) Mr. Startin’s death is thus recorded in The Daily Advertiser (New York) of Friday, 2 August,1799:—

“On the 26th ult. as Mr. Charles Starlin, of this city, was bathing at the public baths, he was, unfortunately, drowned. The body was found the next day, and decently interred in Trinity Church burying ground. He was a good and honest man.”

His will, dated 18 March, 1778, with a codicil, signed 24 September, 1798,—both wholly in the handwriting of the testator,—was admitted to probate 8 August, 1799, and is recorded in the Surrogate’s office, xliii. 25–27. Startin therein describes himself as “of Birmingham, in the County of Warwick,” England. The witnesses were William Startin, John Simcox, and Bathshuba Simcox. The codicil was not witnessed, and is chiefly explanatory of business matters; it mentions, however, the testator’s “brother-in-law, I. W. Clarke of Montreal,” where his daughter, Mrs. Margaret Coffin, is still living. See ante, p. 200, note. [She died there 9 January, 1899. See Obituary in the Boston Evening Transcript of Tuesday, 31 January, 1899 (First edition), p. 3.] The will and codicil were proved, before the then Surrogate, David Gelston, by Joshua Edwards, “merchant,” and James Boyd, “gentleman,” both of New York, who testified, under oath, to the handwriting of both documents and “declared that they and each of them verily believed that William Startin, John Simcox, and Bathshuba Simcox, the subscribing witnesses to the said will, do actually reside in the Kingdom of Great Britain or in parts beyond sea, and that . . . [they] nor either of them are not nor ever have been in the United States of America.” The present Surrogate states that “there have been no proceedings in this court in the estate of Charles Startin, deceased, since the probate of the will.” See post, p. 208, note 2. Cf. 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for July, 1865, viii. 339, where, in a letter of John Andrews, dated 10 August, 1774, he is referred to as Charles Starlin,—an error, doubtless, of either the transcriber or printer.

This note has been furnished by our associate, Mr. Henry H. Edes.

23 Dexter’s Biographical Sketches of the Graduates of Yale College, i. 427; Fowler’s Memorials of the Chaunceys, p. 203.

24 Colonel Henry Bromfield was born in Boston, 12 November, 1727. He was a prominent citizen of Harvard, Massachusetts, where he died, of pneumonia, 9 February, 1820, at the age of 92 years. He was buried in the family tomb in King’s Chapel Burial Ground, Boston. (Nourse’s History of Harvard, pp. 132–135; Obituary in the Columbian Centinel, No. 3743, of Wednesday, 23 February, 1820.) The Town Records of Harvard give the date of Colonel Bromfield’s death as 10 February, 1820. The Rev. Dr. Nathaniel Thayer, of Lancaster, preached a Funeral Sermon, 16 February, 1820, from Acts xi. 24,—“He was a good man.” The sermon was printed at Andover. It contains a discriminating notice of Colonel Bromfield’s strong and lovable character, and some biographical data by which it appears that he was a son of Edward Bromfield, an eminent merchant of Boston, and that “he was a lineal descendant of the fourth generation from the Rev. John Wilson, the first minister of Boston.” See post, p. 210, note; and New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1872, xxvi. 38. The will of William Bromfield of Stoke Newington, Middlesex, England, 1564, the earliest known ancestor of the American Bromfields, with interesting notes on the family, may be read in Ibid, for 1899, liii. 9, 10. A sketch of Colonel Bromfield, entitled A New England Country Gentleman, written by the late Daniel Denison Slade, M.D., appeared in the New England Magazine for March, 1890, New Series, ii. 3–20.

25 The Bromfield School, at Harvard, was built, to perpetuate there the Bromfield name, with funds bequeathed by Mrs. Blanchard. These funds, for the most part, had come to her from her Bromfield kinsfolk. The ancient family portraits in Mrs. Blanchard’s possession at the time of her death adorn the walls of the building. See Memoir of Dr. Daniel Denison Slade in the Transactions of this Society for April, 1899.

26 Mrs. Amory’s Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R. A., pp. 68, 69.

27 Jeremy Belknap to Ebenezer Hazard. (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for June, 1875, xiv. 94.) This Plan is described in the Memorial History of Boston, iii. pp. ii, iii, and reproduced there,—between pp. vi and vii. There is a better reproduction of it in the Siege and Evacuation Memorial, 1876. It is sometimes known as Urquhart’s map. Cf. Shurtleff’s Topographical and Historical Description of Boston (Third edition), pp. 96, 119.

28 This letter is printed in Mrs. Amory’s Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A., pp. 129–131.

29 No. 104, for October, 1851, First Series, iv. 306. We copy the following passages which refer to Henry Pelham:—

“The print (same size as the original) is a mezzotint, ten inches by seven inches and a half, and has under it the following inscription:

Catherine Fitzgerald (the long-lived) Countess of Desmond, from an original Family Picture of the same size, painted on Board, in the possession of the Right Honorable Maurice Fitzgerald, Knight of Kerry, &c. &c. &c., to whom this plate is most respectfully dedicated by her very obedient and much obliged humble servant, Henry Pelham.

This illustrious lady was born about the year 1464, and was married in the reign of Edward IV., lived during the reigns of Edward V., Richard III., Henry VII., Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, and died in the latter end of James I., or beginning of Charles I.’s reign, at the great age (as is generally supposed) of 162 years. Published as the Act directs, at Bear Island, June 4, 1806. By Henry Pelham, Esq.”

The following paragraph furnishes some facts concerning Pelham which we have not met with elsewhere:—

“Of the Mr. Pelham who published the print I have described, there are some particulars which may interest your readers. He will be found among the correspondents of the late General Vallancey, whose interest in Irish antiquities is well known. Mr. Pelham was an ingenious gentleman, who came to Kerry in the end of the last century, in the character of agent to the Marquis of Lansdowne; which engagement, after a few years, he resigned, but continued in the county, a zealous studier of its antiquities, and intending, as I have heard, either a new County History, or a reprint of Smith’s work. He was a good civil engineer, and executed a great part of a large county and baronial map, afterwards finished by another hand. Mr. Pelham, who perished prematurely by sudden death, in his boat, while superintending the building of a Martello tower on Bear Island, in the River Kenmare, in the very year he published this print, is said to have been an uncle by half-blood to the present Lord Lyndhurst, whose grandmother, Sarah [Mary] Singleton, is said to have married to her second husband,———Pelham, an American—Henry Pelham being the only issue of her second marriage, as John Singleton Copley, father to the ex-chancellor, was of her first.” Cf. ante, p. 194.

30 Burke’s Landed Gentry (edition of 1894), ii. 1849.

31 Miss Bromfield was born 1 May, 1757. and died 10 February, 1831. (Records of the First Unitarian Church in Harvard.)

32 Mrs. Daniel Denison Rogers. See post, p. 210, note 2.

33 Richard Clarke,—Mrs. Copley’s father.

34 Hayley the poet (1745–1820). Southey wrote that Hayley was, “in his time, by popular election, King of the English poets;” but, in a letter to Coleridge, he adds, “everything about that man is good except his poetry.”

35 The Rev. Dr. Eliphalet Pearson was the son of David Pearson, Jr. (born 22 August, 1728) and Sarah Danforth, of Bradford, to whom he was married 6 November, 1750, and by whom he had at least four children besides Eliphalet. Dr. Pearson was born in Byfield, Massachusetts, 11 June, 1752 Old Style (Coffin’s History of Newbury, p. 356). He was baptized on Sunday, 14 June, 1752, by the Rev. Moses Parsons (Byfield Congregational Church Records). The Faculty Records of Harvard College (iii. 169) state that he was born 22 June, 1752. As this date is in the List of Freshmen who entered in July, 1769, it was, doubtless, made to conform, to New Style (adopted in the year of Dr. Pearson’s birth) by adding the requisite eleven days. This is confirmed by the inscription on the brass plate on the iron fence surrounding his solitary grave near the entrance to the cemetery in Greenland, New Hampshire. The date of 11 January, 1752, which Dr. Samuel A. Green finds in Mr. Sibley’s materials for future volumes of his Harvard Graduates, is erroneous.

Dr. Pearson was prepared for college at Dummer Academy. Graduating at Harvard College, in 1773—the first year in which the names of the graduates were alphabetically arranged in the Triennial Catalogue—he taught a grammar school in Andover, before the Revolution; was the first Principal of Phillips Academy, Andover (1778–1786), in the establishment of which he was active; and, in 1802, on the death of Lieutenant Governor Phillips, he succeeded him as President of its Board of Trustees. He was called to Cambridge to fill the Hancock Professorship of Hebrew and other Oriental Languages. This position he held from 1786 till 1806. In 1800 he was elected a member of the Corporation to succeed James Bowdoin (H. C. 1771). On the death of President Willard, whom he aspired to succeed, Dr. Pearson was appointed Acting President of the College. A Calvinist, he was a minority of one in the Corporation and strongly opposed the election of Henry Ware, in 1805, to the Hollis Professorship of Divinity. When, therefore, in the following year, Professor Webber, also a Unitarian, was preferred to himself for the Presidency of the College, Dr. Pearson resigned both his Professorship and his seat in the Corporation. His active interest in the establishment of the Theological Seminary at Andover, in which he was the first Professor of Sacred Literature, in 1808, is well known. In 1802 he received the degree of LL.D. from Yale and the College of New Jersey. He was a member of the Massachusetts Historical Society and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences of which he was Corresponding Secretary. During his official residence in Cambridge he occupied, for a time, the house now numbered 30 in Holyoke Street, at the north-easterly corner of Holyoke Place, formerly the home of President Holyoke and, later, of his widow. In 1702, Dr. Pearson bought and occupied the Holmes Place. (Middlesex Deeds, cvii. 318.) His first wife was Priscilla, a daughter of President Holyoke, whom he married, at Andover, 17 July, 1780 (Andover Town Records). She died at Andover 29 March, 1782. As his second wife he married Miss Bromfield, at Harvard, 29 September, 1785. Dr. Pearson died 12 September, 1826, while absent from his home in Harvard, on a visit to the Rev. Ephraim Abbot, the minister of the church in Greenland, New Hampshire, who had married his daughter. Dr. Pearson’s portrait, painted, in 1818, by Samuel Finley Breese Morse, hangs in the Library of the Theological Seminary at Andover. There is a more lifelike portrait in the Hall of Phillips Academy, Andover. (Sprague’s Annals of the American Pulpit, ii. 126, 131; Willard’s Memories of Youth and Manhood, i. 158, 193–195, 290–298, and ii. 173–179; and Nourse’s History of Harvard, pp. 136, 504.) Cf. ante, iii. 177–179; and Historical Collections of the Essex Institute, iii. 60. See also Professor Edwards A. Park’s Address on Dr. Pearson in The Congregationalist (newspaper), of Wednesday 3 July, 1878, xxx. 211; Eliphalet Pearson at Andover, in The Unitarian Review and Religious Magazine for August, 1878, x. 193 et seq.; and Dr. Cecil F. P. Bancroft’s article on The Grave of Dr. Pearson in the Andover Townsman (newspaper), No. 49, of 14 September, 1888, which contains much that is interesting concerning this remarkable man.

I am indebted for this note to our associate, Mr. Henry H. Edes.

36 Much that is interesting concerning Mrs. Greene, after her marriage, may be read in her daughter Mrs. Amory’s Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A.

37 Edward King, F.R.S., F.S. A. (c. 1735–1807), a miscellaneous writer in prose and verse, and a member of Lincoln’s Inn, who was called to the Bar in 1763, probably was the author of these lines.

38 See Letter of John Singleton Copley, Jr., and Mr. Porter’s Remarks thereon at the Stated Meeting in March, 1898, post, pp. 212–215.

39 See post, p. 210, note 2.

40 Mrs. Startin was Sarah Clarke, a daughter of Richard Clarke and sister of Mrs. Copley. She was born in Boston 9 April, 1750 (Boston Town Records), and was married to Charles Startin (ante, p. 200) 25 April, 1771 (Records of the Church in Brattle Square), their Intention of Marriage having been published on the thirteenth of March, preceding (Boston Town Records). Mr. Augustus T. Perkins, in A Sketch of the Life and a List of some of the Works of John Singleton Copley (p. 109) describes Copley’s unfinished portrait of Mrs. Startin, whom he erroneously calls “Sarah Copley, a sister of the artist.” This error is corrected, however, in the supplement to Mr. Perkins’s book (p. 14) which was subsequently issued separately. In Mrs. Amory’s Life of Copley (p. 240) is a reference, under date of 1 March, 1803, to a drawing of Mr. Startin, and to a portrait of him which Copley was about to paint from it. A letter to Mrs. Startin, dated 20 July, 1797, from her nephew, John Singleton Copley, Jr., afterwards Lord Lyndhurst, is printed at length in Mrs. Amory’s Life of Copley (pp. 170, 171), and is referred to in A Life of Lord Lyndhurst, by Sir Theodore Martin, p. 68.

41 Her death and funeral were thus announced in the Boston Gazette, No. 1804, of Monday, 4 May, 1789:—

“Died.] On Wednesday laft, Mrs. Mary Pelham, widow of Mr Peter Pelham, late of this town, and mother to Mr. Copley. Her funeral will he attended this afternoon, at Four o’clock, from her dwelling house, at New-Boston, when and where her, Mr. Copley’s, and the family’s friends and acquaintance are desired to grace the procession.”

The Trinity Church Register of Burials contains this entry:—

“1789, May 4. Mrs. Mary Pelham, 79.”

Mrs. Pelham’s Will, dated 21 August, 1787, was proved 11 May, 1789. Her Executor was her step-son, Charles Pelham whom she charged to take care of the real estate in Boston belonging to her son Copley. Legacies were left to her Executor, to his daughter Harriot.—“my god-daughter,”—to “my good friend Mercy Scollay,” and to John Allen of Boston, tailor. The residue of the estate was equally divided between her sons John Singleton Copley and Henry Pelham, “both now resident in Europe.” (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 19, 268.)

42 This was Miss Mercy Scollay, whose gift of Henry Pelham’s Maps of Ireland to the Historical Society was reported at a meeting held 17 August, 1796. (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, i. 87.) Cf. Mrs. Amory’s Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A., p. 3.

Miss Scollay was the only unmarried daughter of John and Mary (Green-leaf) Scollay. She was born in Boston, 11 September, 1741 (Town Records), and died at Medfield, Massachusetts, 8 January, 1826, at the age of 84 years (Records of the Church in Brattle Square, Boston; and gravestone at Medfield). Miss Scollay was betrothed to General Joseph Warren at the time of his death at Bunker Hill; and his two younger children were afterwards placed in her father’s family under her “particular care . . ., at her most earnest request,” during their minority. Miss Scollay’s niece, Anna Wroe Scollay, married Charles Pelham Curtis (H. C. 1811), a grandson of Charles Pelham, the writer of the letter in our text. See letter of Samuel Adams in Frothingham’s Life and Times of Joseph Warren, pp. 543, 544.

43 Boston Town Records. Colonel Bromfield’s second wife was Hannah Clarke, daughter of Richard Clarke, merchant of Boston, whom he married, 23 September, 1762 (Records of the Church in Brattle Square). Their daughter Elizabeth Bromfield, born 19 August, 1763, was married, in Cambridge, by the Rev. Abiel Holmes, 18 January, 1796, to Daniel Denison Rogers of Boston, the grandfather of the late Dr. Daniel Denison Slade (Boston Town Records; and Cambridge Town Records). John Singleton Copley, Jr., afterwards Lord Lyndhurst, was present at this marriage which was solemnized in the southwest parlor of the Holmes house then occupied by Professor Eliphalet Pearson.

Daniel Denison Rogers was born in Exeter, N. H., 11 May, 1751; married (1), 15 October, 1781, Abigail (born 11 April, 1753), daughter of Henry Bromfield (by his first wife), who died 7 October, 1791, without issue; married (2) her half-sister, Elizabeth Bromfield, as above stated. Copley painted a miniature of Mrs. Abigail (Bromfield) Rogers which is reproduced in the New England Magazine for March, 1890, New Series, ii. 12. Mr. Rogers died 25 March 1825, aged 74 years. (New-England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1851, v. 330; and for 1872, xxvi. 38, 39.)

44 New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1872, xxvi. 141.

45 There can be little doubt that some of the canvases which, heretofore, have been classed as “early Copleys” are, in reality, the work of Henry Pelham. Pelham, however, was too young to have painted this portrait of Mrs. Bromfield.

An interesting letter written by Henry Pelham to Paul Revere, 29 March, 1770, accusing Revere of “dishonorable Actions” in copying Pelham’s engraved plate of the so called “Boston Massacre,” is printed in 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for May, 1893, viii. 227.

46 See ante, p. 204, note 1.

1 Mr. Rogers was connected by marriage with Copley through his wife’s family—the Clarkes. See ante, pp. 197, 198, 202 and 210, and notes.

2 After his father’s death, in 1815, Lord Lyndhurst continued to occupy the house in George Street, Hanover Square, until his own death, in 1863.

3 This instrument was dated 17 April, 1797, and is recorded with Suffolk Deeds, cxci. 168. On his visit to Boston,—where he arrived on 2 January, 1796,—the son brought with him a full power of attorney (not acknowledged) from his father, imperfectly dated—October, 1795. It is recorded Ibid, clxxxii. 182.

4 Captain Jonathan Herrick Lovett, the son of Captain John, 4th, and Elizabeth (Herrick) Lovett, was born 24 February, 1772, at Beverly, where he died 20 March, 1844. He married, 6 October, 1796, Nancy Lovett, by whom he had eleven children. He was an energetic and influential citizen of Beverly, where, having retired from the sea, he enjoyed the titles of Colonel and Deacon. Later in life he was an officer of the Customs, connected with the Port of Salem, and stationed in Beverly. (Beverly Town Records; and Augustus A. Galloupe.)

5 Joshua Henshaw.

6 John Lowell.

7 Jonathan Mason.

8 Harrison Gray Otis.

9 Charles Bulfinch.

10 William Scollay.

11 An interesting account of Copley’s title to some twenty acres of land on Beacon Hill, of his sale of the property to Jonathan Mason and Harrison Gray Otis, and of the litigation which followed, may be read in the “Gleaner” articles, written by the late Nathaniel Ingersoll Bowditch, and reprinted in the Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, v. 193–203 (Second edition.) See ante, p. 203.

12 The identity of this woman has not been established. She may have been some connection of Jeremiah Wheelwright, Esq., whose land abutted on that of Copley. In The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R. A., Mrs. Amory devotes two chapters (viii. and ix.) to an account of young Copley’s visit to Boston in the hope of recovering his father’s estate on Beacon Hill, and his travels in America, in 1796. She mentions his attachment to a daughter of Bishop White, and prints many of his letters written during his sojourn in this country, whence he returned to London early in 1797.

13 See Mrs. Amory’s Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R. A., p. 138.

14 Probably Levi Lincoln (H. C. 1772.)

15 The announcement of this gift, and of its receipt, was made at a meeting of the Academy held on the twenty-third of August, 1797, when a vote of thanks to Copley was passed.

16 Eliphalet and Sally (Bromfield) Pearson. See ante, p. 205, and note 4.

17 Mrs. Samuel Cabot, young Copley’s cousin, is here referred to. She was baptized, at the New North Church, Boston, 13 March, 1703,—the daughter of Samuel Barrett (H. C. 1757), LL.D., and Mary, daughter of Richard Clarke, whose Intention of Marriage was published in Boston, 25 August, 1761 (Town Records.) Samuel Cabot and Sarah Barrett were married, at the New North Church, by the Rev. John Eliot, 27 November, 1781.

18 It is said that at this critical point the troops began to waver, but soon recovered when they saw Philip Dumaresq, a well-known lieutenant in the Jersey militia, spring to the post of danger. Thereupon they closed up and charged with such fury as to compel the speedy submission of the French.

A branch of this Dumaresq family has acquired distinction in our Boston annals. See New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1863, xvii. 317–320; Heraldic Journal, iii. 97–104; and Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 147, note, 362, 363.

19 The canvas was painted in 1783 for Alderman Boydell’s gallery, and was bought by the Nation, in 1864, for 1600 guineas.

20 An excellent engraving by Crew, with text, appears in Pictures and Royal Portraits Illustrative of English and Scottish History, by Thomas Archer, 1884, ii. 93, 94. A still smaller engraving by Warren adorns the title-page of a History of England by Hughes, 1835, vol. xvi. To accommodate his plate to the narrow space at his disposal the artist has, unfortunately, cut off the figure of Mrs. Copley on the right and several of the soldiers on the left.

21 As the Death of Pierson was painted in 1783, and the Death of Warren and the Death of Montgomery only two years later, it is quite possible that Trumbull found inspiration in Copley, though he was a pupil of West, and actually painted these great Revolutionary subjects in West’s studio.

22 Report on the Trees and Shrubs growing naturally in the Forests of Massachusetts, Boston, 1846, p. 124.

23 The United States: An Outline of Political History, 1492–1871 (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1893), p. 34.

24 Hollister’s History of Connecticut, i. 323.

25 There is an excellent account of the planting of Connecticut, and of the first Patent, in Palfrey’s History of New England, i. 450 et seq. The text of the Patent may be read in Trumbull’s History of Connecticut (i. 495, 496), where also may be found (i. 497 et seq.) the text of other original papers pertaining to the settlement and early government of the Colony.

26 Trumbull’s History of Connecticut, i. 511.

27 Palfrey’s History of New England, iii. 538.

28 This Letter is printed in Trumbull’s History of Connecticut, i. 511, 512.

29 Much interesting matter relating to the Regicides, consisting of letters, papers, and biographical notices of the Regicides themselves and of their correspondents, is contained in the Mather Papers (4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 122–225 and notes.) Dr. Palfrey has given a full and accurate account of the three Regicides who fled to these shores, and of their life here (History of New England, ii. 495–509, and notes.) See also Stiles’s History of the Three Judges.

30 A full account of William Fiennes, first Viscount Saye and Sele (1582–1662), and of his remarkable career is to be found in Leslie Stephen’s Dictionary of National Biography, xviii. 433–436.

31 Edward Montagu, second Earl of Manchester (1602–1671), was a conspicuous figure in the history of his time. Early in his career he inclined to the Puritan side, and, for a time, co-operated with Cromwell. He opposed the Trial of Charles, however, and although summoned by the Protector to the Upper House he refused attendance, and retired from public life during the Commonwealth. He “took an active part in bringing about the Restoration, and, as Speaker of the Lords welcomed the King on his arrival” in London, 29 May, 1600. In the following October he took part in the Trial of the Regicides; and at the Coronation of Charles II., 23 April, 1661, he bore the Sword of State. The Earl was the recipient of many and great honors; having been made a Privy Councillor, Knight of the Garter, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and Fellow of the Royal Society. (Ibid. xxxviii. 230.)

32 Trumbull’s History of Connecticut, i. 248.

33 The full text of the Charter is in Hazard’s State Papers, ii. 597–605.

34 Charles Wentworth Upham, in his Lecture delivered in a course before the Lowell Institute, in 1869, by members of the Massachusetts Historical Society, p. 241.

35 The story of the visit of Andros to Hartford for the purpose of assuming the Government of Connecticut, in October, 1687, and of the mysterious disappearance of the Charter and its concealment in the Charter Oak, are fully related and discussed by Dr. Palfrey in his History of New England, iii. 542–545, and notes, where it is erroneously stated, however, that the Tree fell on the twentieth of August.

36 Joseph T. Buckingham’s Personal Memoirs and Recollections of Editorial Life, i. 194.

37 The tree fell at 12.50 o’clock in the morning. (Connecticut Courant, Hartford, No. 4779, of Saturday, 23 August, 1856, which contains a full account of the public expressions of sorrow.)

38 A Report on the Trees and Shrubs growing naturally in the Forests of Massachusetts, originally published agreeably to an order of the Legislature by the Committee of Zoölogical and Botanical Survey of the State (Second edition, 1875), i. facing 148.

39 In The Ladies’ Home Journal (Philadelphia) for March, 1806, xiii. 2, 30, is an extract from a letter from Washington to Mrs. George William Fairfax of the same date as that in our text, but in some places quite different in forms of expression.

40 They were married 17 December, 1748.

41 Sparks’s Life and Writings of Washington, xi. 232.

42 Fairfax died 3 April, 1787 (Neill’s Fairfaxes of England and America, p. 212.) The church at Writhlington, Somersetshire, is dedicated to St. Mary Magdalen. Fairfax was born in the Bahamas, in 1724.

43 This letter is printed, Ibid. ii. 77; see also i. 63.

44 Warner Washington, eldest son of John, the eldest son of Lawrence Washington, was cousin-german to George Washington, who was son of Augustine and grandson of Lawrence Washington. (Sparks’s Life and Writings of Washington, i. 548, 549; ii. 53, note.)

45 For an account of the Fairfax family see Sparks’s Life and Writings of Washington, i. 12 et seq.; ii. 51–54, notes, 182, note; and Neill’s Fairfaxes of England and America.

46 A Little Centennial Lady, by Constance Cary Harrison, in Scribner’s Monthly Magazine for July, 1876, xii. 309, 310. Mrs. Harrison contributed another interesting article on Sally Cary, entitled A True Colonial Dame, to The Ladies’ Home Journal for March, 1896, xiii. 2, 30. Cf. Conway’s Barons of the Potomack and the Rappahannock, pp. 91–95, 270, 271.

47 This valuable communication is reserved for publication in a volume of the Society’s Collections.

48 J. Flint’s Letters from America, 1822, p. 264.

49 The Nation, 20 February, 16 April, 1896, Ixii. 157, 306.

50 Editor-in-chief of The Oxford English Dictionary.

51 Editor of The English Dialect Dictionary.

52 The American and English Cyclopædia of Law, 1890, xiv. 745.

53 Though now employed euphemistically, “maid” and “girl” appear to have been, during the Colonial period, merely shortened forms of “maid servant” and “servant girl,” respectively. See, under dates of 1649, 1665, 1724, 1735, 1752, 1753, 1754, the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1849, iii. 182; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, 1881, vi. 202; the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1862, xvi. 65; New Jersey Archives, 1894, xi. 425; J. J. Babson’s Notes and Additions to the History of Gloucester, Part II., 1891, pp. 27, 29, 31, 35.

54 Such advertisements as the three which follow were common in the Colonial newspapers:—

“Just arrived from Aberdeen. A Parcel of likely Scotch Servant Men, some Tradesmen, but all accustomed to Husbandry and Country Work; whose Times are to be disposed of by Alexander Gordon.” (Pennsylvania Gazette, 21–28 October, 1736, p. 4/1.)

“Just arrived . . . Servant Boys and Girls, . . . among which are Hatters, Taylors, House Carpenters, Joyners, Barbers, &c.” (Ibid., 6 October, 1768, p. 3/3.)

“Arrived from Ireland, The Ship King of Prussia, Arthur Darley, Master:—Has on board Thirty SERVANTS, some Tradesmen, as Taylors, Shoemakers, Smiths, Weavers, &c. the remainder Country Lads that understand Farming Business.” (Massachusetts Gazette, 5 October, 1769, p. 4/1.)

The following extracts, relating to Schoolmasters, are both curious and interesting:—

Abstract of the will of J. Carter, dated 3 January, 1669: “. . . my son Robert, in his minority is to be well educated for the use of his estate, and he is to have a man or youth servant bought for him, that hath been brought up in the Latin School, and that he (the servant) shall constantly tend upon him, not only to teach him his books, either in English or Latin, according to his capacity (for my will is that he shall learn both Latin and English, and to write), and also to preserve him from harm and from doing evil.” (Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 1894, ii. 236.)

In an account drawn up, in 1750, by the Trustees of the Philadelphia Academy (now the University of Pennsylvania), we read:—

“The Benefits expected from this Institution, are: . . . 3. That a Number of the poorer Sort will hereby be qualified to act as Schoolmasters in the Country, to teach Children Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, and the Grammar of their Mother Tongue; and being of good morals and known character, may be recommended from the Academy to Country Schools for that purpose; The Country suffering at present very much for want of good Schoolmasters, and obligd frequently to employ in their Schools, vicious imported Servants, or concealed Papists, who by their bad Examples and Instructions often deprave the Morals or corrupt the Principles of the Children under their Care.” (Minutes of the Common Council of the City of Philadelphia, 1847, pp. 527, 528.)

In a sermon preached in 1773, the Rev. Jonathan Boucher said:—

“What is still less credible is, that at least two thirds of the little education we receive are derived from instructors, who are either indented servants, or transported felons. . . . When I said that two thirds of the persons now employed in Maryland in the instruction of youth were either indented servants or convicts, the assertion was not made quite at random, nor without as much previous authentic information as the nature of the case would admit of.” (A View of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution, 1797, pp. 183, 184, 189.)

In 1841, the Rev. J. W. Alexander wrote:—

“It was customary in Virginia for white men to indenture themselves to the captains, for four years. My grandfather used to go to Baltimore and buy such. Two of my father’s early schoolmasters were well educated Englishmen of this class.” (Forty Years’ Familiar Letters, 1860, i. 325.)

55 White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia, 1895, p. 71. (Johns Hopkins University Studies, xiii.)

56 Domestic Service, 1897, p. 69. In a letter to the present writer, Miss Salmon says:—

“I have felt very strongly convinced, both from the negative and the positive evidence, that the word ‘servant,’ applied both to men and to women, carried with it no odium until the last quarter of the eighteenth century.”

57 Letters, 1874, p. 189. (Publications of the Narragansett Club, vi.)

58 Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 1851, vii. 37, 38.

59 See, on this point, the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1869, xxiii. 150–153; E. D. Neill’s Virginia Carolorum, 1886, pp. 278, 279; L. G. Tyler, in William and Mary College Quarterly, 1892, i. 22, note; P. A. Bruce’s Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, 1896, i. 573–575; J. Fiske’s Old Virginia and Her Neighbours, 1897, ii. 186, note; A. Brown’s The First Republic in America, 1898, p. 618, note; P. Force’s Tracts and Other Papers, iii., No. 15, p. 16.

60 J. F. D. Smyth’s Tour in the United States of America, 1784, i. 350. The person referred to by Smyth was apparently a North Carolinian freeman, and if so he might naturally have objected to being classed among white servants.

61 It should be remembered, however, that from the earliest days of slavery the word “servant” was applied equally to white persons and to negro slaves, and that the identification of “servant” and “slave” did not take place until white servants as a class began to disappear.

62 Domestic Service, 1897, pp. 69–72. In a letter to the present writer, Miss Salmon adds:—

“With the sudden burst of new political life that came as a result of the Declaration of Independence and the economic changes that came through the substitution at the South of black slaves for white redemptioners, the word ‘servant’ fell into disuse. It is at this time, subsequent to the Declaration of Indepeudence, that the words ‘help,’ ‘hired girl,’ ‘hired man,’ come into use. They are used as substitutes for the word ‘servant’—an incongruous term in the face of a declared equality of all men, and an obnoxious term in view of the service performed at the South by negro slaves.”

63 W. Bullock’s Virginia Impartially Examined, 1649, pp. 13, 14.

64 History of Virginia, 1705, book iv., chapter x., p. 35.

65 Present State of Virginia, 1724, pp. 53–54. Compare, also, the following, under date of 1740:—

“The Case of Felons transported by Acts of Parliament may differ from Apprentices and Servants in some Things; Felons are bound to serve by the Justices where they are convicted for such a Term of years as the Act directs; other Servants are obliged to serve for no longer time than they contract; but both are equally the Property of their Masters during the Time they have to serve (as we are informed), if an Act of Parliament can make them so.” (Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 1851, iv. 456.)

66 In some Colonies a man, in order to vote or hold office, had to be made a Freeman, and in order to become a Freeman he must produce evidence that he was a member of some Congregational church. I do not use the word “Freeman” in this restricted sense, but by it mean merely a man who is free.

67 These consisted sometimes of land or money, but generally of clothes and farming implements.

68 As late as 1817 we find S. Breck writing, presumably from Philadelphia:—

“Being a long time dissatisfied with some of my servants, I went on board the ship John from Amsterdam, lately arrived with four hundred passengers, to see if I could find one for Mrs. Ross and two for myself. I saw the remains of a very fine cargo, consisting of healthy, good-looking men, women and children, and I purchased one German Swiss for Mrs. Ross and two French Swiss for myself.” (Recollections, 1877, pp. 296, 297.)

69 1639, Plymouth Colony Records, 1855, i. 122.

70 1643, Virginia Statutes at Large, 1823, i. 254. Similar Acts were passed in Virginia in 1658, 1662, 1666, 1669, and 1670, the term “hired freeman” occurring in those of 1658, 1662, and 1669. They are the only examples of the term known to me. Mr. P. A. Bruce writes me:—

“A ‘hired freeman’ I take to have been one who had been a servant or had always been free. ‘Freeman’ is a term used in contradistinction to ‘servant.’ It means a man who is free now, irrespective of his former condition.”

71 1654, Archives of Maryland, Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1638–1664, 1883, pp. 348, 349.

72 1663, Ibid. p. 500.

73 1668, Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, 1889, p. 260.

74 1715, T. Bacon’s Laws of Maryland at Large, 1765, chapter xliv. § 10.

75 1717, N. Trott’s Laws of the Province of South Carolina, 1736, i. 313, 314.

76 1718, Acts and Resolves of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, 1874, ii. 119.

77 Pennsylvania Gazette, 13–20 November, 1735, p. 4/1.

78 1737, Plymouth Town Records, 1892, ii. 321.

79 1741, G. Whitefield, Works, 1771, iii. 434, 435.

80 1748, New Jersey Archives, 1895, xii. 507, 508.

81 1751, B. Franklin, Works, 1887, ii. 227. Cited by Dr. Hall. The dearness of labor, the difficulty of obtaining servants, and the eagerness shown by servants, upon the expiration of their time, to set up for themselves, were constant complaints throughout the Colonial period. See J. Winthrop, 1645, History of New England, 1853, ii. 219, 220; J. Winthrop, Jr., 1660, in 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, 1882, viii. 67; Sir E. Andros, 1678, in Documentary History of the State of New York, 1850, i. 61; 1717, Official Letters of A. Spotswood, 1885, ii. 227; C. Colden, 1723, in Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, 1855, v. 688; Sir H. Moore, 1767, in Ibid. 1856, vii. 888, 889.

82 1754, New Jersey Archives, 1897, xix. 396, 397.

83 The Southern Colonies complained bitterly during the century of the enlisting of white servants.

84 1756, Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 1851, vii. 37

85 The American Magazine and Monthly Chronicle for the British Colonies, May, 1758, p. 401/1.

86 1758, S. Nevill’s Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New Jersey, 1761, ii. 218.

87 1771, November 17, E. Stiles, Diary, in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1860, xiv. 31. As to Angel or Angell, Savage says:—

“Angell, . . . Thomas, Providence, one of the earliest sett, with Roger Williams, one of the freem. 1655, and constable, . . . He came from London, as serv. or apprent. of Roger Williams, as one tradit. has it, but ano. tradit. says, of Richard Waterman.” (Genealogical Dictionary of New England, 1860, i. 57.)

Apparently, therefore, Angell belonged to the class of servants; but probably Stiles had no knowledge of Angell’s exacts position.

88 1772, Muddy River and Brookline Records, 1875, p. 236. With this compare the following, 1777, p. 272, of the same volume:—

“On a Question, whether the Town will abate the Taxes of David Damon for the year 1776, in consideration of his having paid Taxes in Sudbury his Native place, tho’ resident on hire in this Town, that Year—voted in the negative.”

89 1773, P. Van Schaack’s Laws of New-York, 1774, i. 753.

90 J. Hector St. John’s Letters from an American Farmer, 1782, pp. 61, 249. The reference in the second extract is to the botanist, J. Bartram.

91 Translation of J. P. Brissot’s New Travels in the United States, 1792, p. 400.

92 T. Coxe’s View of the United States, 1794, p. 442.

93 A. Holmes’s Life of Ezra Stiles, 1798, p. 249.

94 1802, W. Austin’s Letters from London, 1804, p. 54.

95 R. Parkinson’s Tour in America, 1805, ii. 422.

96 1818, J. Flint’s Letters from America, 1822, p. 39.

97 W. Tudor’s Letters on the Eastern States, 1820, p. 340.

98 1842, J. F. Watson’s Annals of Philadelphia, 1857, i. 176.

99 1845, New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1862, xvi. 247.

100 J. W. Alexander’s Life of Archibald Alexander, 1854, p. 281.

101 The Atlantic Monthly, August, 1858, ii. 341/1.

102 1860, O. W. Holmes’s Elsie Venner, 1891, pp. 136, 137. Dr. Holmes’s restriction of the term to those of American birth is probably either local or altogether a mistake.

103 E. Hitchcock’s Reminiscences of Amherst College, 1863, p. 258.

104 J. C. Ballagh’s White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia, 1895, p. 84.

105 A. F. Jaccaci’s On the Trail of Don Quixote, 1896, p. 202.

106 S. Crane, in Maclure’s Magazine, August, 1896, p. 223/1.

107 The Nation, 14 May, 1896, 18 March, 1897, lxii. 381, lxiv. 194.

108 A. F. Sanborn, in The Atlantic Monthly, May, 1897, lxxix. 589/2.

109 The Nation, 16 April, 1896, lxii. 306.

110 Dr. Hall referred to the use of the term by Wyclif and in the Bible; the extracts dated 1420–21 and 1605, I owe to the kindness of Professor J. M. Manly, of Brown University [now (1899) of the University of Chicago]; while for the remaining examples, as well as for other aid, I am indebted to our associate Professor G. L. Kittredge, of Harvard University.

111 It may be pointed out that the participial adjective “hired,” qualifying various nouns, was common certainly after the middle of the sixteenth century. In addition to the “hired hyne” of Wyclif, and the “hired servant” of the different versions of the Bible, we find, before 1700, such expressions as “hired soldiers,” 1551; “hired enemy,” 1567; “hired servants,” 1603; “hired house,” 1611; “hired mule,” 1612; “hired knife,” “hired harm,” 1623; “hired messenger,” 1649; “hired valor,” 1651; “hired ship,” 1664; “hired service,” 1669; “hired evidence,” 1691. Moreover, it was customary, in this country, to speak of “hiring” a clergyman, of “hiring” a man to serve in one’s place as town officer, of “hiring” men to serve in the Continental army. Finally, allusion may be made to the terms “hireman,” a male servant who works for wages or hire, and “hirewoman,” a maid servant, employed in Scotland. For examples, see J. Jamieson’s Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language, 1808, vol. i.; F. J. Child’s English and Scottish Ballads, 1858, viii. 234; F. J. Child’s English and Scottish Popular Ballads, 1890, iv. 202. See Postscript, post, p. 255.

112 1380, St. Luke, xv. 17, Wycliffite Versions of the Holy Bible, 1850, iv. 199/1.

113 1420–1421, The Manuscripts of the Corporation of New Romney, in the Fifth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, 1876, p. 540 a.

114 The Complaint of the Ploughman, in T. Wright’s Political Poems and Songs relating to English History, Composed during the Period from the Accession of Edw. III. to that of Ric. III., 1859, i. 316.

115 c. 1575, G. Gascoigne’s The fruites of Warre, stanza 113, Poems, 1869, i. 174.

116 1605, Will of Augustine Phillips, in J. P. Collier’s Memoirs of the Principal Actors in the Plays of Shakespeare, 1846, p. 86.

117 The Holy Bible, 1611, Jeremiah, xlvi. 21.

118 1616, B. Jonson’s Devil is an Ass, Act ii., Scene ii., Works, 1640, ii. 116.

119 Americanisms, 1872, p. 487. De Vere adds: “Pepys already writes, March 18, 1662: ‘What a help he was to us!’” There is, however, an error in the reference, for no such sentence occurs in the Diary under the date assigned. De Vere’s further statement, that in New England “perfect social equality has prevailed from the oldest times,” is so obviously erroneous as scarcely to require refutation; but attention may be called to several facts. Down to 1767 at Yale, and down to 1773 at Harvard, the students were “placed” in then-classes, not alphabetically, but in accordance with the supposed social position of their parents. The “seating” of a New England meeting-house was according to the wealth, the social position, and the public services of the parishoners. In an Order passed in 1651, it is stated that—

“we cannot but accoumpt it o^r duty . . . to declare o^r vtter detestation & dislike that men or women of meane condition, educations, & callinges should take vppon them the garbe of gentlemen, by the wearinge of gold or siluer lace, or buttons, or poynts at theire knees, to walke in greate bootes; or women of the same ranke to weare silke or tiffany hoodes or scarfes, which though allowable to persons of greater estates, or more liberall education, yet we cannot but judge it intollerable in psons of such like condition.” (Massachusetts Colony Records, 1851, iii. 243.)

See, also, the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1858, xii. 289; 1860, xiv. 194.

120 The English Language in America, in Cambridge Essays, 1855, p. 72

121 It is also used in other senses, though this is its common meaning,—“Help. The common name in New England for servants, and for the opera tives in a cotton or woollen factory.” (J. R. Bartlett’s Dictionary of Americanisms, 1848, p. 175.) See also The Century, Webster’s International, and the Standard Dictionaries.

122 Prose Works, 1890, ii. 43, 44.

123 1385, Chaucer’s Legend of Good Women, lines 1611–1616, Works, 1894, iii. 138.

124 1514, Cardinal Bainbridge, in H. Ellis’s Original Letters, Second Series, 1827, i. 229.

125 T. Matthew’s The Byble, 1537, Psalms, cxlvi. 5.

126 Shakespeare’s Pericles, 1609, A 3; Act I., Scene i., lines 19–24.

127 1596, 1601, The Expenses of the Judges of Assize riding the Western and Oxford Circuits, Temp. Elizabeth, 1596–1601, 1858, pp. 18, 47. (Camden Miscellany, iv.) This extract I owe to Professor Kittredge.

128 The Holy Bible, 1611, Genesis, ii. 18. In the version by T. Matthew, 1537, this passage reads: “And the Lorde God sayde: It is not good that man shuld be alone I will make him an helper to beare hym cōpany.”

129 The Holy Bible, 1611, 1 Corinthians, xii. 28. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, 1891, iii. 86, says: “HELPS, the designation employed for a class of official ministrations in the primitive church, 1 Co. xii. 28; but the precise nature of which is nowhere particularly described, and has been variously understood.” Hence it may not be uninteresting to compare several renderings. They are: “helpyngis.” 1380; “helpers,” 1534; “helpers,” 1539; “helpers,” 1557; “helpes,” 1582. (See The English Hexapla, 1841.) In T. Matthew’s version, 1537, the reading is “helpers.”

130 1612, T. Shelton’s Don Quixote, 1896, i. 190.

131 Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies, 1623, p. 96a, Comedy of Errors, Act iv., Scene iv., line 149.

132 1630, Massachusetts Colony Records, 1853, i. 76, 77.

133 1636, 1637, New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1856, x. 37.

134 1639, W. Coddington, in 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, 1865, vii. 278.

135 1645, Massachusetts Colony Records, 1853, ii. 139.

136 1646, Ibid. ii. 180, 181. For similar uses of the verb, in 1675, 1676, 1702, 1752, 1763, see Massachusetts Colony Records, 1854, v. 65; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1862, xvi. 61; J. J. Babson’s Notes and Additions to the History of Gloucester, Part II., 1891, pp. 2, 17, 56.

137 E. Williams’s Virgo Trivmphans: or, Virginia richly and truly valued; more especially the South part thereof, 1650, p. 24.

138 1651, Massachusetts Colony Records, 1854, iii. 242. My attention was called to this passage by Dr. E. Eggleston. The law was in force in 1660. (Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, 1889, p. 137.)

139 1659, 1660, J. Tinker, in 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, 1865, vii. 238, 239, 241, 245.

140 1664, Dedham Records, 1894, iv. 76.

141 Milton’s Paradise Lost, 1667, Book vii., lines 1086–1088. (Modern editions, Book viii., lines 449–451.)

142 1671, T. Mayhew, in The New England Company, 1896, p. 40.

143 1676, Massachusetts Colony Records, 1851, v. 78.

144 1680, New England Historical and Genealogical Register. 1851, v. 172.

145 1693, in A. B. Ellis’s History of the First Church, Boston, 1881, p. 149, note.

146 1697, First Record-Book of the First Church in Charlestown, in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1871, xxv. 64, 65.

147 1711, J. Urmstone, in F. L. Hawks’s History of North Carolina, 1858, ii. 215.

148 1725, 1726, in C. Robbins’s History of the Second Church in Boston, 1852, p. 310.

149 1762, Muddy River and Brookline Records, 1875, p. 204.

150 1770, N. Whitaker, ill F. Chase’s History of Dartmouth College, 1891, i. 242.

151 C. W. Janson’s The Stranger in America, 1807, p. 87.

152 J. Pickering, in Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1815, iii. 485.

153 J. Bradbury’s Travels in the Interior of America, 1817, p. 318.

154 J. Bristed’s Resources of the United States of America, 1818, p. 460. The same book was published in London with the title, America and her Resources.

155 W. Tudor’s Letters on the Eastern States, 1820, p. 349.

156 P. Neilson’s Recollections of a Six Years’ Residence in the United States of America, 1830, p. 28.

157 S. G. Goodrich’s System of Universal Geography, 1832, p. 104.

158 Mrs. Trollope’s Domestic Manners of the Americans, 1832, i. 73, cited by Miss Salmon.

159 A. Fergusson’s Practical Notes made during a Tour in Canada, and a Portion of the United States, 1833, pp. 233, 234.

160 F. J. Grund’s The Americans, 1837, ii. 66, cited by Miss Salmon.

161 1846, J. E. Lowell’s Letters, 1894, i. 105.

162 Miss Bird’s The Englishwoman in America, 1856, p. 214, cited by Miss Salmon.

163 C. Mackay’s Life and Liberty in America, 1859, i. 42, cited by Miss Salmon.

164 T. C. Grattan’s Civilized America, 1859, i. 256, 259, cited by Miss Salmon.

165 1859, H. D. Thoreau’s Autumn, 1894, p. 66.

166 Miss M. E. Wilkins’s Humble Romance, 1887, p. 64.

167 c 1894, O. W. Holmes, in Life and Letters, 1896, i. 34.

168 J. S. Winter’s My Geoff, 7th edition, 1897, pp. 1, 39.

169 London Times, 12 October, 1897, p. 16/2.

170 London Daily Telegraph, 12 October, 1897, p. 15/1.

171 London Daily Chronicle, 12 October, 1897, p. 11/7.

172 London Daily News, 12 October, 1897, p. 10/4.

173 London Evening Standard, 29 September, 1897, p. 2/4. Dr. Hall writes me:

“The English use of helps to which you refer has, I think, come up in very recent years. Its appearance here is largely owing, if not altogether, to American precedent. Apparently it has two senses. In lady helps it is pretty clearly euphemistic, while, in stable helps, general helps, mother helps, etc., it is equivalent to servants; in the first instance named it meaning, however, inferior servants. I would not be quite sure, though. In conversation I have never heard it used in any sense.”

174 Early Records of the Town of Providence, xi. 29.

175 1758, New Hampshire Provincial Papers, vi. 653.

176 Acts and Statutes Of the Island of Barbados, p. 18. This work is without date, but it was compiled by John Jennings and was published in 1654.

177 1661, R. Hall’s Acts, Passed in the Island of Barbados, 1764, p. 39.

178 1681, Acts of Assembly Passed in the Island of Jamaica, London, 1756, pp. 1, 2.

179 T. Hughes, Tom Brown at Oxford, Boston, 1861, i. 83, 94.

180 1861, W. M. Thackeray, The Four Georges, 1869, p. 16.

181 Province Laws, v. 479, 537, 641, 648, 722, 724. See also pp. 615, 644, 770, 838. These Acts, which were expressly of limited duration, were renewed from time to time, in the Acts of 20 June, 1778, ch. 10, of 23 June, 1779, ch. 5, and of 22 June, 1780, ch. 7. (Ibid., v. 884, 1072, 1397.) See also Ibid., v. 882, 984, 1240, 1440.

182 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 275–277.

183 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 279, corrected by the original Record.

184 Province Laws, v. 648, 724–726.

185 With the exception of those of John Tufts, Patrick Wall, Benjamin Davis, Jr., David Parker, Charles Whiteworth, and Dr. Thomas Kast, all the names in this List appear in Sabine’s Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (edition of 1864),—several of them finding a place in the “Fragments,” printed at the end of Volume II.,—which see.

Eleven of the persons named in this List appear in Mr. Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, namely:—Mather Byles (i. 482; ii. 483), Benjamin Phillips (ii. 296), Dr. James Lloyd (ii. 155, 387, 390, 619), Daniel Hubbard (ii. 307), Dr. Isaac Rand, Jr. (ii. 291, 325), William Perry (ii. 296), Richard Green (ii. 205), Thomas Amory (ii. 295, 480), Dr. Thomas Kast (ii. 170, 338, 361, 608), John Erving (ii. 129, 160, 170, 210, 226, 588), and George Bethune (ii. 72).

Dr. James Thacher’s American Medical Biography contains appreciative notices of Dr. James Lloyd (i. 359–376), Dr. Isaac Rand (ii. 13–16), Dr. Samuel Danforth (ii. 233–238), and Dr. Thomas Kast (i. 344, 345.)

Several of the names in this List are to be found among the Addressers of Hutchinson and the Protesters against the Solemn League and Covenant, printed in 1 Massachusetts Historical Society’s Proceedings for October, 1870, xi. 392–395. See also Ibid, for December, 1880, xviii. 266–268.

186 Edward Hutchinson is believed to have been a cousin of the Governor. If so he was a son of the Hon. Edward Hutchinson (1678–1752), Judge of Probate in the County of Suffolk, who was succeeded by his nephew the Governor; born in Boston, 18 December, 1729; graduated at Harvard College in 1748; an Addresser of Gage in 1775; and died in 1806. (New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1865, xix. 13–20; Whitmore’s Civil List, p. 80; and Sabine’s Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (edition of 1864), ii. 535.)

187 Dr. Isaac Rand, Jr., a graduate of Harvard College in the class of 1761 was of the Charlestown family. See Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 786; and Thacher’s American Medical Biography, ii. 13–16.

188 See post, p. 262.

189 Nathaniel Cary was a Boston merchant, at the Town Dock, an Addresser of Hutchinson and Gage, and a Protester against the Solemn League and Covenant. (Memorial History of Boston, iii. 153, 176; and 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1870, xi. 392–395.)

190 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 280–283. In his Diary, under date of 20 April, 1776, Ezekiel Price states that—

“Dr. Whitworth and son were yesterday on their examination, and afterwards ordered to give bail. It is said the justices have evidence of the doctor’s not having acted the part of an honest surgeon in his practice on the late unfortunate Colonel Parker; and that his limb was unnecessarily taken off, and a cruel neglect of attendance on him, by which means he lost his life.”

(1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for November, 1863, vii. 252, 253.) Dr. Whitworth was an Addresser of Hutchinson, and his name appears in the List as a Surgeon, of Wing’s Lane. (Ibid, for October, 1870, xi. 394.)

191 Samuel Bradstreet—or Broadstreet, as the name was formerly pronounced, and sometimes spelled—was probably the merchant of that name of Boston and Charlestown, a son of Samuel Bradstreet, born 6 (baptized 8) May, 1743, at Charlestown, who died, a bachelor, 14 July, 1810. He was a grandson of the Hon. Richard Foster, Jr., Sheriff of Middlesex, 1731–1764, and Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, 1764–1771. (Family Record; and Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 115, 116, 363.)

192 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 284.

193 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxv. 42.

194 The Registers of Trinity Church, Boston, record the burial of “Mrs. Wentworth, wife of Mr. Edward Wentworth, 55” years, on 27 May, 1780; and the marriage of Edward Wentworth and Mary Reid, 24 September, 1780.

195 Thomas Hanford Wentworth, grandson of Edward Wentworth, says:—“Mrs. Mary Reed, of Boston, Mass., only daughter of Lawrence and Martha Payne, was born in London, England, and came to this country in 1740. . . . She married (1)——Downs . . .; probably married (2) Capt.——Reed.”

(The Wentworth Genealogy: English and American (edition of 1878), i. 341, 342.)

196 Memorial History of Boston, iii. 175–180.

197 Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (edition of 1864), ii. 594.

198 The author of The Wentworth Genealogy (i. 342) says:—“He was arrested as sympathizing with the British Government in 1777, but promised support to the Revolutionary Government and was released.”

199 Christ Church Registers and Massachusetts Magazine for July, 1794, iv. 448.

200 Records of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, vol. [7],—ten detached leaves, sundry Terms 1776 and 1777, leaves v. and vi. April Term, 1777, held at Boston 15 April, 1777.

201 For a notice of Joseph Otis see ante, pp. 61–63.

202 Probably the fort on Chignecto Bay at the head of the Bay of Fundy, on the northwest coast of Nova Scotia, in the county of Cumberland, somewhat known in the campaigns of 1758–1760. (Province Laws, iv. 128, 242, 348.) There was also a Fort Cumberland in Maryland.

203 Suffolk Court Files, dxxviii. 92478.

204 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for November, 1863, vii. 252, 255.

205 Memorial History of Boston, ii. 563, iii. 111, 145, and 175, and authorities cited; Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 145, and authorities cited; Frothingham’s Life and Times of Joseph Warren, p. 225; Frothingham’s History of the Siege of Boston, p. 258; Loring’s Hundred Boston Orators (Second edition), p. 39; Massachusetts Archives, cxxxviii. 326; New England Historical and Genealogical Register for April, 1857, xi. 123; Sabine’s Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (edition of 1864), i. 313; Gordon’s History of the American Revolution (London, 1788), ii. 134–136; Thaeher’s Military Journal during the American Revolutionary War (edition of 1823), pp. 38, 39 and note; Moore’s Diary of the American Revolution, i. 34; Lossing’s Field Book of the Revolution, i. 568; Siege and Evacuation Memorial, p. 151; and Province Laws, v. 912, 915.

206 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii., passim (corrected by the original Record.)

207 House Journal, p. 26; Province Laws, v. 511.

208 Boston Town Records. Cf. post, p. 275; Shurtleff’s Topographical and Historical Description of Boston (Third edition), pp. 135, 236; Memorial History of Boston, ii. 496; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xvi. 115, 119, 123, 125, 127, 136, 137; and xx. 63; and Sabine’s Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (edition of 1864), i. 535.

209 See ante, pp. 260, 261.

210 Memorial History of Boston, iii. 175.

211 See ante, p. 261, note 3.

212 Boston Town Records.

213 Memorial History of Boston, ii. 563.

214 Ibid. iii. 176.

215 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1870, xi. 392–395.

216 Province Laws, v. 912, 1004–1009.

217 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, for July, 1865, viii. 374

218 Ibid, for November, 1863, vii. 261.

219 Sabine’s Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution, (edition of 1864), i. 359, 360.

220 Dorchester Town Records.

221 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiii. 171. The sites of all the places of worship of the Sandemanian Society in Boston are identified and described by our associate Mr. Henry H. Edes in a communication, illustrated by Plans, made to the Society at its Stated Meeting in March, 1899. See post, vi. 109–130.

222 See post, p. 298, note 2.

223 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 281, 282.

224 Ibid. xxv. 317.

225 Columbian Centinel, No. 2394, of Wednesday, 4 March, 1807, which states That the funeral will take place on Thursday afternoon “from his late house, N^o. 47 Hanover Street.” His intestate estate was administered by Thomas Capen of Boston, merchant, in whose account, settled 19 October, 1807, is a charge for gravestones and another for setting them. (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 22, 861.) See post, p. 298, note 2.

226 Sabine’s Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (edition of 1864), i. 270–272; Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 205, and authorities cited; Memorial History of Boston, iii. 97, and authorities cited; Siege and Evacuation Memorial, p. 164–166; and Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, ii. 201.

227 Mrs. Frances Buchanan, who has been described as a “dashing” young widow, was born 4 April, 1760. She was married to Allen, as his second wife, at Westminster, Vermont, 9 February, 1784 (Willard S. Allen’s Genealogy of Samuel Allen of Windsor, Connecticut, and Some of his Descendants, p. 6.) Cf. Allen’s American Biographical Dictionary (Third edition), pp. 18–20.

228 A printed copy of this Commission, in the form of a Broadside, is in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and is reprinted in the Siege and Evacuation Memorial, p. 164.

229 A facsimile of one of the original Broadsides, in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, is in the Memorial History of Boston, iii. 97.

230 Captain John Manly was commissioned by Washington, 24 October, 1775. Besides this capture he had already, in November, 1775, taken ordnance and military stores. He died in his house at the North End, Boston, 12 February, 1793, at the age of 60 years. (Columbian Centinel, No. 930, of Saturday, 16 February, 1793, which contains a long obituary notice of Captain Manly; and the Massachusetts Magazine for February, 1793, v. 128.) The Trinity Church Registers contain this entry:—

“1786, August 26, Mrs. Hannah Manly, wife of Jn^o Manly, Esq^r 56.”

231 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for November, 1863, vii. 249, 250. This passage is quoted somewhat incorrectly in the Siege and Evacuation Memorial, p. 186.

232 Records of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, vol. [7],—ten detached leaves, sundry Terms in 1776 and 1777—leaf iv., last part of January Term, 1777. What the plea was does not appear; it may have been the authority given by the Commission. All else save this brief record has been lost.

233 Records of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas (1776), xxxix. 53. Cf. ante, p. 269.

234 Province Laws, v. 648, 724–726.

235 Suffolk Court Files, dxxix. 92,695:1.

236 This name is here written cornerwise. The writs at this period usually bear, somewhere upon the back, the signature of the plaintiff’s attorney. Morton’s autograph is almost invariably written, in manner and place, as above.

237 N. E., as here used, stands for New Entry.

238 Suffolk Court Files, dxxix. 92,695:2

239 Suffolk Court Files, dxxix. 92,695:3. This Resolve has already appeared in print in Green’s Groton Historical Series (iii. 110) but is here reprinted, inasmuch as this is a Copy taken from the Records and duly authenticated by the proper State official, and was used at the trial, and also because the former reprint contains some slight variations and one or two evident typographical errors.

240 Suffolk Court Files, dxxix. 92,695: 5. Paper No. 4 is an attested copy of the same.

241 Records of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas (1776), xxxix. 87.

242 The Wentworth Genealogy (edition of 1878), i. 521, which see for many facts concerning Perez Morton and his accomplished wife and her family connections, drawn from family records and papers furnished the author by Mr. Morton’s descendants. I have been unable to find any contemporary record of Mr. Morton’s birth. His name, however, is in the List of Freshmen admitted to Harvard College in July, 1767. It is there stated that he was then a resident of Boston; that his birthday was 2 November, 1751; and that his age at admission was sixteen years and eight months (Faculty Records, iii. 86). Loring, in his Hundred Boston Orators (Second edition, p. 129), says that he was born in Plymouth, 13 November, 1751. It will be observed that between the date in the Faculty Records and that given by Loring there is a difference of just eleven days,—the number requisite to reconcile Old Style with New Style. It will also be seen that between the date furnished by the family (22 October, 1750) and that found in the Faculty Records there is a difference of a year and eleven days. The fact that Morton’s age is given as eighty-seven years at the time of his death,—14 October, 1837,—strengthens the assumption that the date in our text is the correct one; nevertheless, the College record has strong claims to precedence, especially when it is remembered that it was probably made upon Morton’s own statement; that Old Style had gone out in 1752,—just after Morton’s advent; and that, in 1767, in all probability, the date of his birth would have been expressed according to New Style; but even on this assumption the difference of exactly a year between these dates is yet to be accounted for. It seems clear, however, that Morton was born 22 October, Old Style, or 2 November, New Style, 1750 or 1751, and that Loring, erroneously assuming that 2 November represented Old Style, added eleven days to translate the date, as he supposed, to New Style. (Cf. ante, p. 205 note 4.)

I am indebted to our associate, Mr. Henry H. Edes, for this note, in the preparation of which our associate, Mr. William Coolidge Lane, and his obliging assistant, Mr. William Garrott Brown, in charge of the College Archives, have rendered invaluable assistance in dealing with the vexed question of the date of Mr. Morton’s birth. I am also indebted to Mr. Edes for the notes on Joseph Morton and the White Horse Tavern which follow, on pp. 283, 284.

243 Preface to Judge Davis’s edition of Morton’s Memorial, p. iii. See also Province Laws, vii. 6. For the pedigree of Perez Morton, see Josiah Granville Leach’s Morton Memoranda, p. 30, and Davis’s Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth, pp. 188–190.

244 Joseph Morton, son of Joseph and Mary Morton, was born in Plymouth 25 October, 1711 (Plymouth Town Records, i. 67.) His purpose of marriage with Annah (not Amiah) Bullock, of Rehoboth, was published 2 August, 1738, at Plymouth, and 26 August, at Rehoboth, where they were married, 4 September, 1738, by the Rev. David Turner (Rehoboth Town Records, ii. 153, the published copy of which erroneously prints this name Martin; Records of the Newman Church, East Province Centre, R. I.) Their first child, Perez, born at Plymouth 3 February, 1739 (Plymouth Town Records, i. 180)—the only one whose birth appears of record—died in early childhood. Joseph Morton was among those members of the First Parish in Plymouth who, in December, 1743, withdrew, during the Great Awakening, because of their disapproval of Whitefield’s preaching and methods, formed the Third Parish, and built a Meeting-house in Middle Street (Precinct Book 1719–1813, p. 36.) The two Parishes re-united in 1784. The Records of the Third Parish contain the following entry, which has been furnished by Arthur Lord, Esq.:—

“April 21, 1754. I baptf Diman and Perez the sons—Anne & Hannah the daughters of Joseph Morton—upon her, his wives, account.”

Mrs. Morton died 3 April, 1759, and Mr. Morton married, as his second wife, Abigail Hersey, who died 9 May, 1791. He died 26 July, 1793. (The Went-worth Genealogy (edition of 1878), i. 521, note.) The Columbian Centiuel (xix. 41) of Wednesday, 31 July, 1793, and The Independent Chronicle (No. 1292) of Thursday, 1 August, 1793, record this death in these words:—

“At Groton, Mr. Joseph Morton of this town, Æt. 82.”

The Massachusetts Magazine for August, 1793, also records Mr. Morton’s death at Groton, but likewise without date. His will, dated 31 March, 1787, was proved 8 October, 1793. It names his son Perez Executor and is replete with valuable genealogical data. (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 20,211.) Cf. Davis’s Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth, p. 190.

245 The White Horse Tavern estate had a frontage on Newbury (now Washington) Street, opposite Hayward Place, of 114 feet (including Fayette Court, 11 feet wide, which almost evenly divides it), and a depth of 308 feet from Washington Street nearly, if not quite, back to what is now Head Place. The site was intersected by the laying out of Haymarket Place, in 1806. The front portion of the estate is now numbered 597 to 611 Washington Street; and the Tremont Theatre occupies a part of the rear of the lot.

The hostelry was called the White Horse Inn as early as 27 April, 1700 (Deed from William Paine et als. to Thomas Powell in Suffolk Deeds, six. 347.) William Bowdoin conveyed the estate to Joseph Morton 20 March, 1765 (Ibid. civ. 89); and Morton conveyed it to his son Perez 3 May, 1791 (Ibid, clxix. 224.)

246 Province Laws, v. 509, 513, 516, 517, 662, 709, 710.

247 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 233, 270; xxvi. 4.

248 Ibid, xviii. 235. The Instructions are given in full on pp. 236–238.

249 Ibid, xviii. 283–286.

250 Ibid. xxvi. 22–24.

251 Ibid. xxvi. 63.

252 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxvi. 125–130.

253 Ibid. xxvi. 131–135.

254 Ibid. xxvi. 277.

255 Ibid. xxvi. 280–285.

256 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxvi. 291. This Motion is also printed in Loring’s Hundred Boston Orators (Second edition), p. 156.

257 Ibid. xxvi. 294, 295.

258 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxvi. 304, 305. Dr. John Warren, a younger brother of General Joseph Warren, was selected by the Committee to deliver the first Fourth of July Oration in Boston. It was delivered in the Church in Brattle Square. (Ibid. xxvi. 321—323.) See also Loring’s Hundred Boston Orators (Second edition), pp. 156–107, for an account of the occasion, the oration, and the orator.

259 Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 294, 318–320, 330. The Editor, Mr. Edes, also refers to Dr. John C. Warren’s Genealogy of Warren, p. 47; Frothingham’s Life and Times of Joseph Warren, pp. 517–526; Loring’s Hundred Boston Orators (Second edition), pp. 127–129; and Shurtleffs Topographical and Historical Description of Boston (Third edition), pp. 226, 251, for further particulars; and, for the full text of the Oration, to the volume of Fifth of March Orations, printed by Peter Edes, 1785.

The obsequies in King’s Chapel, by leave of the House of Representatives, were in charge of the Masonic fraternity, of which Warren was Grand Master at the time of his death, and Morton a prominent member. The following is extracted from the Journals of the House, under date of 4 April, 1776:—

“In the House of Representatives—The committee appointed to take under consideration the Erecting a Monument to the Memory of the Honorable Major General Warren beg leave to report, that they have attended that service—and find that the place where his body was buried is discovered, and that the Lodge of Freemasons in this Colony, whereof he was late Grand Master, are desirous of taking up the said deceased remains, and in the Usual Solemnities of that Society to decently inter the same, and that his Friends are consenting thereto—Wherefore yonr committee are of opinion that the said Lodge have leave to put their said intentions into Execution in such manner as that the Government of this Colony may hereafter have an opertunity to Erect a Monument to the Memory of that Worthy Valiaut & patriotic American.—

“James Sullivan pr. Order.

“Read and accepted, and the said Lodge has leave to put their intentions as aforesaid, into Execution accordingly—

“In Council read and concurred

“Consented to by 15 of the Council.”

The marginal note against this entry reads as follows:—

“Resolve giving liberty to St. Andrew’s Lodge to raise the body of Gen. Warren & inter him in Boston.”

I am indebted to Mr. C. B. Tillinghast for the text of this interesting extract from the House Journals.

260 Hundred Boston Orators (Second edition), pp. 69, 127–130, 172, 278.

261 See also Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel (chapters xix. and xxi.), ii. 330–370, 378–406; and Hill’s History of the Old South Church (chapter v.), ii. 184–270.

262 See Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 310, 311, 321, 324, 329, 588.

263 Ibid. ii. 608, and note.

264 Ibid. ii. 381 et seq.

265 On the twenty-eighth of April, 1779, with fifty-one others, he petitioned the General Court for authority to raise, by means of a Lottery, the funds needed by the Proprietors of Boston Pier, or Long Wharf, to put their property in repair. The authority was granted by Chap. 4 of the Acts of 1779–1780 (Province Laws, v. 1071, 1072, 1238, 1239.) He was also one of the Trustees of the Boston Theatre, erected in 1794 (Columbian Centinel of 22 February, 1794, No. 1036, p. 3/3.)

266 He was one of the last two survivors of those who held this rank.

267 This volume is printed in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, for December, 1881, xix. p. 147 et seq.

268 Trinity Church (Boston) Registers. The record says, “in Church.” Loring’s Hundred Boston Orators (Second edition, p. 129) and other works give the date of this marriage, erroneously, as 1778.

269 Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 143. See also Ibid. ii. 331. Mrs. Morton’s father, James Apthorp, married Sarah Wentworth, daughter of Samuel Wentworth (H. C. 1728), and grand-daughter of Lieutenant-Governor John Weutworth of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. (The Wentworth Genealogy (edition of 1878), i. 178, 316; 519–521, which also contains an extended account of the Apthorp family; and 522–524, where may be found a full account of Perez Morton’s descendants.)

270 Duyckinck’s Cyclopaedia of American Literature, i. 633. Duyckinck (i. 483) also gives a sketch of Mrs. Morton, and a list of her principal works. Allibone’s Dictionary of Authors (ii. 1377) and Josiah Granville Leach in his Morton Memoranda (p. 30) also enumerate her publications.

271 Not the author of Common Sense, but the Thomas Paine who changed his name to Robert Treat Paine (H. C. 1792).

272 Samuel Kettell’s Specimens of American Poetry (Boston, mdcccxxix), ii. 75, contains a brief notice of Mrs. Morton and the text of her poem entitled The African Chief.

273 In the records of her baptism and marriage, her name appears as Sarah Apthorp. (King’s Chapel Registers.) She subsequently added her mother’s family name, and in the notice of her death she appears as “Madam Sarah Wentworth Morton, relict of the late Hon. Perez Morton, 80.” (Boston Evening Transcript of 15 May, 1846.)

274 Leach’s Morton Memoranda, p. 30.

275 Loring’s Hundred Boston Orators (Second edition), p. 130, where also may be read some satirical verses addressed to him by one of the political writers of that day.

276 Morton sat in the House for Boston, in 1794, and for Dorchester from 1800 till 1811. His appointment as Attorney General was confirmed by the Council, 7 September, 1810; and he resigned his seat in the House, 23 January, 1811, when a new Speaker—Joseph Story—was chosen. (Council Records; and House Journals.)

277 Order of Both Branches of the Legislature of Massachusetts, to appoint Commissioners to investigate the causes of the difficulties in the County of Lincoln; and the Report of the Commissioners thereon, with the Documents in support thereof. Boston, 1811, 8vo. pp. 174; Governor Gerry’s Message of 10 June, 1811, and Resolve No. xxxiv. passed 20 June, 1811 (Resolves of the General Court, 1811, pp. 218–241); and Award of the Commissioners, 20 January, 1813, and accompanying documents, and several Resolves passed 25 and 27 February, 1813 (Ibid. 1813, pp. 181–209.) Cf. Williamson’s History of the State of Maine, ii. 623–625.

278 For an interesting account of the two houses occupied by Mr. Morton after his removal from Boston, see The Old Morton and Taylor Estates in Dorchester, Massachusetts, by David Clapp, Boston, 1892, reprinted from the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1892, xlvi. 78–84.

279 Boston Morning Post (No. 118) of Wednesday, 18 October, 1837; and The Wentworth Genealogy (edition of 1878), i. 521. The Dorchester Town Eecords erroneously give the date of Mr. Morton’s death as 18 October, 1837.

280 Groton Historical Series, iii. 109, 376; Groton Church Records, p. 25; Groton Epitaphs, pp. 255–258. See also Butler’s History of Groton, pp. 440, 441.

281 Groton Historical Series, iii. 109.

282 The Petition is printed Ibid. ii. 491.

283 This Resolve is reprinted Ibid. iii. 110.

284 In the List of Settlers to 1790, we find, under date of 1743,—“Tarbell, Capt. Samuel . . . Tory. His Estate was confiscated. He left town, and died in poverty and wretchedness, at Groton, his native place” (p. 220.)

285 See ante, pp. 279, 280 and note.

286 The original Petition is in the Massachusetts Archives, ccxxxi. 452.

287 He, probably, was that Isaac Farnsworth who was a nephew of the widow,—a representative man in Groton, and, later, its Representative in the General Court.

288 Pedigree of Captain Samuel Tarbell, Junior.

1. Thomas Tarbell, the progenitor, settled in Groton in 1663; removed, after the destruction of Groton during Philip’s War, to Charlestown and there died, of small pox, 11 June, 1678.
2. Thomas Tarbell, married, 30 June, 1666, Hannah Longley; removed, with his father and family, to Charlestown where he died, of small pox, 26 April, 1678.
3. Thomas Tarbell, born 16 July, 1667; married, 1 December, 1686, Elizabeth Woods, daughter of Samuel Woods of Cambridge and Groton; died in Lexington, 8 October, 1715 (grave stone.)
4. Captain Samuel Tarbell, Senior, born 14 October, 1697; married, 29 December, 1725, Lydia Farnsworth; died in Groton, 23 May, 1776. They had issue (1727–1753):—(i) Lydia, married Henry Farwell; (ii) Anna, married (1) Moses Haskell, (2) Peter Edes; (iii) Sybil, married Jonathan Moors; (iv) Deborah, married George Pierce; (v) Martha, married Edward Phelps; (vi) Sarah, married Lieutenant Joseph Boynton; (vii) Mary, married Samuel Reed, Junior; (ix) Eunice; besides (viii),
5. Captain Samuel Tarbell, Junior, the obligor in the Bond, born 4 April, 1746; died in Groton 4 March, 1796.

For the materials for this Pedigree I am indebted to our associate Mr. Henry E. Woods, who is allied by blood to the Tarbells and several related families. See Butler’s History of Groton, passim; and Laurence Hammond’s Diary, printed in 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for January, 1892, vii. 170, and note. Cf. Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charles-town, ii. 932.

289 See Josiah Phillips Quincy’s Remarks concerning the Loyalists, when communicating a fragment of the Diary of Samuel Quincy, in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for January, 1882, xix. 211–214.

290 See Record Commissioners’ Reports, xvi. 108, 233; and xviii. 11.

291 In the Copp’s Hill Burial Ground are headstones and footstones to the memory of Mr. Capen, to that of his wife, Patience Capen, who died 19 January, 1791, aged 57 years, and to that of their second son, John Capen, who died 19 February, 1770, at the age of seven years.

Capen’s wife was Patience Stoddard, to whom he was published 12 June, 1760 (Boston Town Records). She was born in Boston, 24 February, 1733–34,—the daughter of Thomas and Tabitha (Hodgden) Stoddard (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 218; xxviii. 115).

Of the five or more children of Hopestill and Patience (Stoddard) Capen, the births of four are found on the Boston Town Records. (Ibid. xxiv. 318, 321, 323, 325.) See ante, p. 271 and note 5.

1 Publications, iii. 41–46.

2 Ibid. iii. 329–336.

3 Rev. John White Chadwick, in the New York Evening Post of Monday, 21 March, 1898.

4 The Statesman and the Man. A Discourse on occasion of the death of Hon. John Quincy Adams, delivered in Washington, Feb. 27, 1848, by Joseph Henry Allen, Pastor of the Unitarian Church. Washington, 1848, 8vo. pp. 23.

5 Mr. Adams died 23 February, 1848.

6 The Mexican War, which Mr. Adams had always opposed, was ending.

7 Sermon on Great Principles and Small Duties, in Endeavors after the Christian Life (Boston, 1876), p. 22.

8 Publications, iv. 3.

9 Publications, iii. 11, 12.

10 These two important documents are reserved for publication in Volume iv. of our Publications.

11 Publications, iii. 25.

12 Poems, Dramatic and Miscellaneous, Boston, 1790, pp. 181, 182. These lines, addressed to Mrs. Montagu, are dated Plymouth, 10 July, 1790.

13 See an interesting paper on the Subjects for Master’s Degree in Harvard College from 1655 to 1791, by the Reverend Edward J. Young, D.D., in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for June, 1880, xviii. 119–151.

14 Magnalia (1702), Book iv. p. 128.

15 Ibid. Book iv. p. 131.

16 Our associate Mr. William Coolidge Lane, raises the question whether Mather’s expression “particular character” did not refer to the kind of type used rather than to the cross or the index hand. Mr. Lane also writes:—

“The Latin list of theses began at same time to be supplemented by an English ‘Order of Exercises,’ of which our earliest example is for 1791. In this year the two subjects of the theses distinguished by the pointing hand and by small caps appeared on the English Order of Exercises as ‘disputations,’ in which several students took part. The theses for 1792 are the last in which any distinction of type of this kind is made. In 1810 the broadside form comes to an end, and in 1811 the folded quarto begins. The printing of theses continues down to and including 1820, since which time the Commencement programme has consisted simply of the list of names and order of exercises.”

17 The Reverend Timothy Woodbridge (H. C. 1675), long a prominent figure in academic, ecclesiastical, and political circles in Connecticut, was a younger brother of John Woodbridge of Killingworth. See ante, pp. 77, 78.

18 Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England, i. 236.

19 The full text of this letter may be read in 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 100–108.

20 These letters presumably stand for donant dicant dedicantque. On the use of letters at the end of the Dedication of the Commencement Programme, see Note on pp. 334, 335, post.

21 See post, p. 332, note.

22 In writing this word in the original, the scribe employed the mediæval characters used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by both scriveners and printers to express the Greek letters ον and ος.

23 Sacrilega may have been intended, but the word is plainly written Saligia in the original.

24 This date, 9 August, 1663, which fell on Sunday, does not agree with the date of Commencement that year, which occurred on 11 August,—the second Tuesday. (See p. 339, post.) This discrepancy as to the date can be accounted for by assuming that the author or authors forgot that the Ides of August fell on the thirteenth of the month instead of the fifteenth as in July when, probably, no inconsiderable part of this paper was written.

25 I am indebted to our associate Professor George Lyman Kittredge, and to Mr. William P. Upham for valuable suggestions and aid in making this translation. Furthermore, without Mr. Upham’s expert assistance, it would have been impossible to present in type a complete decipherment of the worn and faded manuscript of which a photogravured facsimile is herewith presented.

26 I am indebted to the Hon. William Everett for the following note:—

“Antæci, periæci, and amphiscius are Greek words, belonging to the theoretical geography of former days. Antæci are those who live in another polar hemisphere but on our meridian, and in an equally numbered (south) latitude. Periæci are those who live on our parallel, half way round the globe. Amphiscius is said of a dweller in the tropics who casts his shadow both ways. Disparata evidently has a peculiar meaning; according to the scholastic logic or rhetoric. In classical Latin, it means the same as Contraria.”

27 See Theses of 1642: logicas, 1,—Universalia non sunt extra intellectum; also physicas, 11,—Non dantur orbes in cælo. (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for March, 1860, iv. 442, 443; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 19, 20.)

28 See Theses of 1643: ethic, x,—Honor sequentem fugit, fugientem sequitur. (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for March, 1860, iv. 445; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 76.)

29 See ante, p. 329, note.

30 An herb having the power to reconcile or to produce reciprocal affection.

31 The Revelation of St. John, ii. 1, 8, 12, 18; iii. 1, 7, 14.

32 As to the spelling of Mitchell’s name, cf. Mather’s Magnalia (1702) Book iv. pp. 162, 166, where both Increase and Cotton Mather use a single final “1”; and Paige’s History of Cambridge, p. 268, note, where the orthography is discussed.

33 These documents were printed, with notes by Mr. Edes, in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1868 and 1869, xxii. 345–348 and xxiii. 169–171.

34 Mr. Toppan discussed this subject in a note to his Edward Randolph (Publications of the Prince Society), iv. 138. See also Ibid. v. 24, 32. The following letter gives some further particulars which are of value:—

Highland Street,

Cambridge, 24 May, 1898.

My Dear Mr. Edes,—The problem about the date on the First and Second writs of Quo Warranto against Connecticut has finally been solved by the trouble taken by our associate Professor Ames and the information given by Professor Langdell, who said that certain writs from the King’s Bench had to be dated in term time and were, therefore, dated back, sometimes, in order to have legal effect. By examining Bond’s Handy-Book for verifying dates,¹ I find that in 1685, Easter day was the Nineteenth of April and that Trinity Term began that year on the Nineteenth of June and ended on the Eighth of July. The writs were, therefore, dated back to the last day of the term.

Yours truly,

R. N. Toppan.

Mr. Henry H. Edes.

¹Handy-Book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era. By John J. Bond, Fourth edition London, 1889, pp. 178, 424.

1 At a Stated Meeting of the Council held in Boston, on Monday, 7 November, 1898, the President announced the death, on the First of May, of Philip H. Sears, a member of the Council, and on motion of Mr. Noble, the following Minute, offered by the President, was adopted, unanimously, and by a rising vote:—

The Council of The Colonial Society of Massachusetts, at its first Meeting since the death of Philip Howes Sears, a Resident Member of the Society and one of the Council, desire to place on record their high appreciation of his character as a man and of his interest in the Society.

Mr. Sears was elected a Resident Member 15 February, 1893, and, on 16 February, 1897, a member of the Council to fill the vacancy caused by the elevation of one of that body to the Presidency of the Society.

He was a frequent, and always interested, attendant at our monthly meetings, though the delicate state of his health, especially in the last year of his life, often prevented him from being present during the inclement winter months. He took part in the Memorial Meeting in honor of our late President, Dr. Gould, and paid a touching tribute to the memory of his friend and classmate, interspersed with delightful reminiscences of their college days. His last act in connection with this Society, shortly before his death, was to send to the Treasurer his check for a generous subscription to the Gould Memorial Fund.

With modest and unassuming manners he had a genuine geniality of disposition and was most courteous in his social intercourse, while his clear intellect, his naturally judicial mind, and his broad culture, gave weight to his opinions. In him the Society has lost a most valuable member,—one upon whom, barring his impaired health, the highest position in its gift might have been worthily bestowed.

2 John Ford Tyler, in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for September, 1898, vii. 127.

1 The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts (second edition), pp. 73, 99–104.

2 The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts (second edition), p. 104.

3 Ibid. pp. 99–104.

4 An Essay For the Recording Of Illustrious Providences: Wherein, An Account is given of many Remarkable and very Memorable Events, which have happened in this last Age; Especially in New-England. By Increase Mather, Teacher of a Church at Boston in New-England. [Quotations from the Psalms cvii. 5; cxlv. 4.] Printed at Boston in New-England, and are to be sold by George Calvert at the Sign of the Half-moon in Pauls Church-yard, London, 1684, pp. 315–347. The tale was repeated, eighteen years later, by Cotton Mather, in the Magnalia (edition of 1702), Book vii. chap. iv. p. 26. Jonathan Dunham, alias Singleterry, is referred to by Mather, with his usual inaccuracy, as “Dunen.” Cf. Henry Martyn Dexter’s As to Roger Williams (Boston, 1876), p. 135; and Hallowell’s Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts, p. 73.

5 Plymouth Colony Records (July, 1683), vi. 113, 114.

6 This account of Thomas Harris’s misfortunes is from the Diary of James Iddings, an accepted minister and in his day a preacher of much reputation among Friends. The Diary is a hasty private record of an extended preaching tour in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. In 1872, I copied the original manuscript, then in the possession of the late Rev. Charles Augustus Iddings, of Montgomery County, Maryland, the writer’s grandson and my uncle. It may be of interest to add the following, as showing in what estimation the Quakers in general and the writer in particular were held in Richmond. On the third day after his stay with Friend Harris he writes:—

“Afternoon rode 26 Miles to the City of Richmond, had Meeting there next Day which was 4^t͟h of the Mo. & 1^s͟t of the Week: we met with a great Multitude of the Inhabitants in the common Court Room: but just as we took Seats a Message came from the Parson of the Place informing, although he had appointed to Preach in the Capitol (a large Room under the same Roof where the General Assembly met) he inclined to give it up to Friends, this was a very large and elegant Hall, well adapted as to Galleries, Seats, &c., was very crowded, many stood, all behaved pretty well; . . . the Governor, great Men & some thought near all the Inhabitants of the Town were there.”

Though not germane to the subject, I may add that Iddings was a strong anti-slavery man, and on this journey had trouble on one occasion from yielding to the conviction that it was his “Duty to speak plain on the Subject of Slave keeping.” He is said to have kept a regular station of the “Underground Railroad.”

In a versified geography of his, printed by William Black, at Wilmington, Delaware, in 1804, are these rather good couplets on the subject:—

“If pardonable in any case,

Thus to enslave the human race,

The greatest pardon those will know,

Who now the greatest mercy show.”

7 Gov. Hopkins’s bounty is similarly enjoyed, to this day, by New Haven, Connecticut, and by Hadley and Cambridge in this Commonwealth, as well as by Harvard College. Mr. Bowditch has printed, in a pamphlet of 88 pages, An Account of the Trust administered by The Trustees of the Charity of Edward Hopkins, of which Board he is Secretary and Treasurer. The Appendix preserves much additional matter of interest and value, including the text of Governor Hopkins’s Will, and Lists of the Trustees, Officers, and Beneficiaries under the Trust.

8 Some account of Usher and his work on the Indian Bible may be read in Thomas’s History of Printing in America (edition of 1874), i. 54–57, 69. The abstract of Usher’s Account which there appears (p. 57) furnishes but few of the particulars found in our text. Cf. Plymouth Colony Records, x. 313–318, 322.

9 This volume was printed in quarto.

10 Coke’s Institutes, ii. c. ix. N. (1).

11 Mirrour, c. 1. § 3; c. 2. § 6.

12 Glanville, li. 14. c. 3.

13 Bracton, l. 3 fol. 121.

14 Britton, fol. 19, 20; Fleta, lib. 1 ca. 24.

15 Coke’s Institutes, iii. ch. 52.

16 Commentaries on the Laws of England, book iv. c. 21. 4.

17 This work is supposed by Coke to have been written, much of it, before the Conquest, and is referred to by Reeves in his History of the English Law as “compiled by Horne, under Edw. II. from some work of that kind, and legal documents in the Anglo-Saxon times” (Kent’s Commentaries, i. 560, note g).

18 Mirroir Des Justices vel Speculum Justiciariorum factum per Andream Horne, London, Gray’s Inn Gate, 1642.

“Ordeine fuit que chescun del Age de xiiii Ans & outtre se apprettat de mortelle pecheors occire en lour peches notaries, ou de les ensuier d’ ville en ville a huy et cry,” etc. (C. I. § 3. 15).

The Mirrour of Justices, Ed. Andrew Horne, London, M.DCCLXVTII. Translated into English by W. H. [William Hughes] of Gray’s Inn, Esq. (chap. i. sect. 3. p. 10).

19 Ibid. chap. i. sect. 13. p. 44, Of the office of the Coroners.

20 The Mirrour of Justices, etc., chap. i. sect. 17. p. 52, Of views of Frankpledges.

21 Ibid. chap. ii. sect. 6. p. 66, Of Attachments.

22 Glanville (Beames’s edition, 1812), book 14. chap. 3. pp. 354–357.

23 De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ. Tractatus Secundus Libri Tertii. De Corona, chap. i. f. 115, 116, “a dño rege & consilio suo sit ᵱvisum, quod omnes tam milites, quam alii etc” (Twiss’s edition, London, 1879), ii. 235–237.

24 De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ, etc., chap. x. f. 124—ii. 304.

25 Britton, liv. i. c. xiii. 2. fol. 20,—De Forbaniz, Of Outlaws (Oxford edition, 1865), i. 49, 50. From the first printed edition of Britton, in Black Letter, but without date or place of publication on the title-page, I make this extract from the French text:—

“De Bannys. . . . et volons pur la pees meyntener: que toutz soient prestes de les felons suer et arester soloncqz les estatutes de Wyncester,” etc.

26 Ibid. liv. i. c. vi. 4. fol. 14 b.

27 Fleta (editio secunda, Londini, 1685): De Pacis conservatione, cap. 24. p. 34; De Fugitivis, cap. 27. p. 40; De Appellis homicidii, cap. 31. p. 47; De defensione Appelli, cap. 34. p. 49.

28 Burn’s Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer, ii. p. 1306.

29 Brunner, D. R. G. (1887 et seq.), ii. 482, is referred to as to the various Cries.

30 Pollock and Maitland’s History of English Law, ii. 578, 579.

31 This and the two preceding paragraphs of the text constitute a condensed summary of Reeves’s account of the process, partly in his own words, but mainly in my own. See his History of the English Law (Finlason’s edition), especially i. chap. viii. 468; ii. chap. x. 121–123; and iii. chap. xxxiv. 712 et seq.

32 Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, ii. 98–104.

33 Ibid. i. 588.

34 East’s Pleas of the Crown, i. 298, 299.

35 Rex v. Jackson et al., Newgate, Lent Vac. 26 Car. II. as cited in East’s P. C. i. 298 and in Hale’s P. C. ii. 99. Lent Vacation, anno Car. II. 26.

36 Bracton’s Note Book—A collection of Cases decided in the King’s Courts during the reign of Henry III. (Maitland’s edition, London, 1887), Nos. 662, 1474, 1697, 1711.

37 Underhill v. Manchester, 45 New Hampshire Reports, 221.

38 Hawkins’s Pleas of the Crown, ii. chap. 12 § 5, c. 15 § 41; Stephen’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, iv. 348; Broom and Hadley’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (American edition), ii. 581; Comyns’s Digest (London), 1822, iv. 465–480; Bacon’s Abridgment (1852), iv. 691–720; Brooke’s Abridgment, La Sec. Part 59, b.; Wood’s Institutes, book iii. c. 1, 380–383, book iv. c. 5, 638; Dalton’s Countrey Justice (London, MDCXC), chap. liv. v. 28. p. 114, chap, lxxxiv. v. 48. p. 214, and chap, clxii. v. 109. p. 402; Fitz. Coron.; Cro. Eliz. 654; Crompt. 178.

39 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 182.

40 Suffolk Court Files, iii. no. 374.

41 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 418. As to the illusive character of these marginal dates, see Mr. Upham’s remarks, ante, p. 148.

42 The authority and duties of these Commissioners appear in an Order of the Commissioners of the General Court for settling the government of Saco, under date of 7 September, 1653:—

“three men approoved by the County Courte, from yeere to yeere, to end smale cawses, as other the touneshipps in the jurisdicc͠on hath where no magistrate is, according to lawe. . . . any two of them, are and shallbe impowred and invested with full power and anthoritje, as a magistrates, to keepe the peace, . . . to examine offendors, to com̃itt to prison, vnlesse bajle be given . . . to bjude offenders to the peace or good behavior . . . to administer oathes . . . Also marrjage shallbe solemnized by any of the com̃issioners, according to lawe.” (Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 162, 163.)

43 Richard Hitchcock was an active man in his own town, one of the inhabitants acknowledging themselves subject to the Government of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, and made a freeman at Saco, 5 July, 1653. He was “appointed and authorized as a sarjant, to exercise the souldjery at Saco,” and was also a Deputy from Saco, in 1660 (Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 162, 163, 417.)

44 Suffolk Court Files, ii. No. 217.

45 Thomas Warner of Cape Porpus was made a freeman at Wells 5 July, 1653, when Cape Porpus was made “a touneship by itselfe.” (Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 164.)

46 John Bush was one of several inhabitants of Wells who, apparently with some reluctance, acknowledged themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Bay, and were made freemen 5 July, 1653, on which day Wells was made “a touneship by itselfe.” (Ibid. pp. 158, 159.)

47 Joseph Bolles was of those who, “Att Wells, 4th of July 1653,” acknowledged themselves subject in like manner and were “granted to be freemen.” He “was appointed clarke of the writts,” at the same time. (Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 158, 160.)

48 Robert Booth, made a freeman at Saco 5 July, 1653, was evidently a man of versatility as well as of substance. He was a Selectman, a Commissioner on various occasions of public concern, and one of the three Commissioners “to end all smale causes.” He was also invested with another special and conspicuous function,—Saco being “destitute of a good minister, . . . in the meane tjme that theire peace maybe preserved . . . Robert Booth shall haue libertje to excercise his guifts for the ædefficatjon of the people there.” He was a Deputy from Saco in 1659. (Ibid. pp. 162, 163, 214, 233, 365, 421.)

49 Thomas Reading was made a freeman at Saco 5 July, 1653, when Saco was made “a touneship by itselfe.” (Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 162.)

50 West was made a freeman at Saco, 5 July, 1653, and was appointed a Commissioner “to end all smale causes” and one of the Selectmen (Ibid. pp. 162, 163).

51 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) 245.

52 Ibid. p. 251.

53 Ibid. p. 253.

54 Province Laws (Standard edition), Acts 1692–3, ch. 18 § 6, i. 53.