DECEMBER MEETING, 1898.

A Stated Meeting of the Society was held in the Hall of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences on Wednesday, 21 December, 1898, at three o’clock in the afternoon, President Wheelwright in the chair.

The Records of the Annual Meeting were read and approved.

The Rev. Henry A. Parker then made the following communication:—

Palfrey, in his History of New England (ii. 485), writes of the Quakers:—

“Sooner than put them to death, it were devoutly to be wished that the annoyed dwellers in Massachusetts had opened their hospitable drawing-rooms to naked women, and suffered their ministers to ascend the pulpits by steps paved with fragments of glass bottles.”

Oliver, in his Puritan Commonwealth (p. 210), writes:—

“Their methods of prophesying had in them something disgusting and ludicrous. Women would go naked through the streets, shouting woes upon the elders and magistrates.”

And so other writers to the same effect, conveying the impression that immodesty and indecent exposure of person by the Quaker women were common, and the occasion, indeed, of the persecutions inflicted on the Society of Friends.

Colonel Hallo well, in his Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts,1 shows that, so far as is known, there are, at most, but three instances of Quakers ever voluntarily appearing unclothed in public; that before the first instance of this sort, the Quaker women had been abominably treated by the Massachusetts Bay authorities; and that one of the unfortunates whose actions have given occasion to such scandal was a young woman who was not long after adjudged by the court to be insane.

The first instance of this sort of thing is that of Deborah Wilson, a convert to Quakerism, who appeared naked in the streets of Salem, in 1662,—afterwards adjudged to be insane.2

The second instance is that of Mrs. Lydia Wardwell, also a Massachusetts convert to Quakerism, whose husband had been much persecuted for his religion; she came naked into the Newbury Meeting House, in 1663.3

The third alleged instance is from Plymouth Colony, and is twenty years later. In this case Jonathan Dunham and Mary Rosse were the chief actors. Increase Mather’s account of the affair4 is not borne out by the Plymouth Court Records,5 in which nothing is said of any lack of sufficient clothing on the part of the participants in a queer religious orgy, which was confined to a private house, nor does it appear that the actors were Quakers.

So far as I am aware, no other instance of this kind among: the Quakers has been brought forward in this part of the world.

However, the members of the Society of Friends are not exempt from the chance of mental disorder, and a curious instance of the same sort of impropriety of which Deborah Wilson was guilty at Salem, in time of persecution, was repeated long after, in Richmond, Virginia. The different way in which the matter was there dealt with, and some peculiarities of the narrative, seem to me to make the affair of some historic interest. All that I know about it is the following record under date of 28^th 2^mo. 1792:—

“Lodged at Tho: Harris’s.—This Frieud lately conceived himself constrained to pass many Times through the Town of Richmond entirely naked without uttering any Words, he is altogether a sensible, well inclined Friend, once by Order of a Justice (so called) he was severely whipped in the Performance of his said apprehended Duty by the Hands of a Mulatto, which however was highly resented by the Inhabitants, this Mulatto was instantly made to feel the Weight of a Cart Whip very severely by a dutch Carter who was transiently passing along, another Time Tho: was committed to Prison where he remained some Time, & another Time he was carried to the City of Williamsburg & examined whether he was in his Senses or not; and those who examined him pronounced him better in his Senses than were they who brought him, & so dismissed him, & think he never suffered any on said Account any more, though often concerned to appear in that Way.”6

Is there anything more about Friend Thomas on record? With all respect for the authorities at Williamsburg, I imagine that his after history went to show that the impulse to this, his apprehended duty, which he so conscientiously performed, was followed by other impulses that charity could ascribe only to a progressive insanity.

The paper was discussed by Messrs Andrew McFarland Davis, William Watson, and Andrew C. Wheelwright.

Mr. Henry H. Edes communicated an original Account of the “School Stock” given towards the maintenance of a Grammar School in Hartford, Connecticut, by the Trustees under the will of Gov. Edward Hopkins.

The text of this paper is as follows:—

An Accompt of School-Stock in Lands and Monys Given towards maintenance of a Grammer School in Hartford, being now by order of the School-Comitty comitted to James Richards to make Record and

keep an acco^tṭ of: viz^ṭ

Impr^ṣ M^r Edward Hopkins (by the Feoffees in Truſt for diſpoſe of his Eſtate in New-England) for promoting Learning in theſe parts Gave unto Hartford Four Hundred Pounds; viz^ṭ

In the Farm on the Eaſt-ſide the great-River. 270 ^lb.
In monys that purchaſed Loveridge’s houſe & homelott, 90^lb	lb	s	d
In monys which built part of the School-houſe—40	400:	00:	00:

A Generall Court of Election the 16^tḥ of May. 1650.

Edward Hopkins Eſq^ṛ Governo^ṛ

M^r Cullick, Mag. & Secr^eỵ

[Endorsed]

M^ṛ Hopkins

Donation to

School

1650

Remarks upon the various Hopkins Foundations were made by Messrs William Watson Goodwin and Charles Pickering Bowditch.7

Mr. Edes also communicated an original letter from Hezekiah Usher to the Commissioners for the United Colonies respecting his disbursements on account of the printing, binding, and distributing of Eliot’s Indian Bible, and Usher’s Account of his financial operations in connection therewith, and with other Indian books.8

These papers are in the following form:—

I.

Boston: 26: Aug: 1664

Hon^rd S^r Seruice p^rmiſed

I am bould to trouble yo^u with the incloſed acco^tts deſiring in the moſt conueanient Seaſon to p^rſent them with my ſeruice to the Hon^rd Commiſſioners, haueing relation only to what hath bine difburſt by me, excepting fome Salleryes that are in part & wholy payed which I bring not to the acco^tt incloſed being aſurd p^rticuler order will in ſeaſon be giuen forth for the diſcounting of the ſame, one Ballance of acc^o made vp the 18^tḥ̣ 7.63 w^th y^e Hon^rd Commiſſioners, was resting due 504^£ 13/4^d w^ch was to be payed after the raite of 25^£ ⅌ C^t aduanc; And att the ſam time I receiued a bill of Ex^o for 400^£ w^ch Bill was accepted by the Hon^rd Corporatiõ, w^ch I haue giuen the Acc^o C^r for it with allowance of 12^£ ⅌ C^t according to agrem^t, of w^ch I am to make paym^t according to vſeall ſaile of goods for Caſh Itt is my deſire that when the 504^£ 13/4^d is payed of, I may know to whome I may pay according to the laſt agrem^t that I may giue not offence when I act according to order I have here with ſent acc^o, of w^tt Bibles were printed & how diſpoſed deſiring yo^r full order, for the diſpoſeall of them that ar resting, yo^u will find one the acco^tt w^tt I ſent to Engƚd & w^tt I haue bd vpp & deliuered to m^r Elliatt order, whether it be yo^r pleaſure, his order for the diſpoſeing of them, be by me attended, one the acco^tt yo^u will finde 42 Bibles bound, for w^ch the binder was allowed 2/6^d ⅌ Bible w^ch he complaines of & ᵱfeſſeth he cannot Hue one it, but deſireth 3/- ⅌ bible to be allowed w^ch I leaue to yo^r Hon^rs to aproue, I haue still retting in my hand of the printing pap^r 51 Rf w^ch is all times redy for yo^r ſeruice; not mindeing any thing further of concernm^t to trouble The Hon^rd Com̃s: w^th leaueing yo^r high concernm^ts to the lord[’s] guidance I tak leaue & reſt

yo^r Seru^t Hezekiah

Vsher

[Addressed]

For his
Hon^rd Frend m^r Thomas
Damforth to be
com̃unicated	[Filed]
to the Ho^rd	M^r Vshers L^r
Com̃isso^rs	Aug^ṭ 1664
when mett

II.

In Boston the 27 August: Anno 1664

The Honorable: Commiſhoners: are D^r To ME Hezekiah Vſher Senio^r for y^e Severall diſburſments as foloweth – viz^t:

	£	s	d
To paym^t to M^r Chancy after y^e Acco^tt in the year 63 was giuen in	5	—	—
To payment to M^r Day for mending the prefse		11	10
To 2 Cheſts for Bibles sent to England		5	—
To paym^t To M^r Shearman ⅌ M^r Danforths ord^r	4	10	—
To 2 New Chaſes	2	5	—
To 2 Doſsen of Skines for Balls	1	4	—
To printing y^e Epiſtle Dedicatory	1	—	—
To printing y^e Indian pſalmes 13 Shets 2^£ ⅌ Sheet	26	—	—
To printing M^r Baxters Call q^t9 8 Shets 50^s ⅌ Shet	20	—	—
To printing 9 Sheets of y^e Pſsalter . . 20^s ⅌ Shett	9	—	—
To paym^t of Cap^t Gookines Bill for Woole	2	13	4
To yeares Board of M^r Johnfon y^e print^r 1664	15	—	—
To pack Threed and Dryfatts to pack y^e Ind Bibles in	1	−5	—
To parchm^t to M^r Grene.		3	−6
To paym^t of Boat hyer for carying & recarying prayer and Bibles	1	−6	—
To Binding and Claſping of 42 Bibles at 2^s-6^d ⅌ bible	5	−5	—
To Sundry Bookes as ⅌ Acco^tt	27	19	2
	123	07	10
	.	. .	.

[Filed]

Mafsachuſetts

M^ṟ Hez. Uſhers Account

with Com̃ifsion^rs

Auguſt 27^t͟h 1664

Mr. John Noble read extracts from the following paper on the ancient Hue and Cry Acts of the Edwards and Elizabeth, showing the evolution from them of some modern criminal laws and processes.

A HUE AND CRY.

Occasionally, some old custom or practice, disused for years, crops out anew, changed and modified, but with reminiscences of its original features easily recognizable; or some old process of the law, long obsolete, seems, in some emergency, to have a brief and sudden resurrection. In the latter case, it is curious to see in how many points there is a resemblance and suggestion of the old process and even a reproduction of its leading characteristics, and at the same time to note what changes the spirit of a modern age makes in its methods and in its results. An instance of this appeared a short time ago in the Boston morning papers. Cutting down the long-extended narrative there given,—

“Such a man-hunt,” says one, “as occurred yesterday afternoon in Dorchester, has not been equalled in that District before, and it is doubtful if its like has many times been seen even in the City itself. For over a mile, nearly one hundred citizens and four policemen, together with two men with horse and buggy, chased a fleeing criminal, who was finally captured and carried to the station house.”

The discovery of the burglary, the offender taken in the act, the alarm, the response of a passer-by, the resistance emphasized by pistol-shots, the flight, the pursuit, the shouts and cries, the windings and doublings of the fugitive, the growing crowd of foot and horse and officers of the law hanging upon his heels, the final capture, when the prisoner, safe and unharmed, is turned over to the authorities to await his trial under the laws of the land and in due course of impartial justice,—all are set out with the intensity of style and exuberance of detail that characterize the news reports of to-day. Here is a Hue and Cry, the remedy of primitive times, suddenly and spontaneously evolved out of quiet and matter-of-fact surroundings, by the emergencies of the occasion; and if we strip off the embellishments of the reporter, here are many or most of the external incidents and elements that belonged to it in mediaeval times; but the essential differences are as marked as the similarities. It has seemed of some interest to consider this old process of the law in the shape it took in the thirteenth century, and in later times, down to the nineteenth, and, in a single case, in the early days of the Colony.

The process itself is one of the earliest known for the apprehension and trial of offenders. It existed under the earliest Common Law. Its origin is in the remotest periods of English history, but where or how is lost in the mists of unauthentic history and tradition. In fact, it sprang naturally and instinctively out of the conditions of an uncivilized people,—the first and most obvious method that occurs to primitive human nature. Its first recognition in the Statutes, or rather in statutes still extant, seems to have been at the very beginning of the reign of Edward I., but, according to the earliest English writers upon law, it existed long before that date. Coke speaks of its great antiquity, in his Institutes,10 and a Note refers to—

“the Author of the Mirrour writing of the auncient laws before the Conquest” as mentioning “a hue and cry.”11

Glanville is also quoted12 and Bracton.13 The Note goes on to say:—

“And it is one of the articles of that auncient Court of the view of frankpledge (of whose antiquity we have spoken before) to enquire of hue and cries levied and not pursued” (Mag. Chart, c. 35), and, citing the old writers, he says, “All these Authorities were before the making of our Act, and therefore it was truly said, whoever said it, ‘Pervetusta Anglorum lege sancitum est.’ Of this hue and cry our Auncient Authors since our Statute have also written.”14

In his Third Institute, Coke gives an elaborate account, and devotes a whole chapter to it,—De Hutesio et Clamore, Of Hue and Cry.15

Blackstone’s account of Hue and Cry, in its later and regulated form, is as full and clear as any:—

“There is yet another species of arrest, wherein both officers and private men are concerned, and that is upon an hue and cry raised upon a felony committed. An hue (from huer, to shout) and cry, hutesium et clamor, is the old common law process of pursuing, with horn and with voice, all felons, and such as have dangerously wounded another. It is also mentioned by Statute Westm. 1. 3 Edward I. c. 9 and 4 Edw. I. de officio coronatoris. But the principal Statute, relative to this matter, is that of Winchester, 13 Edw. I. c. 1 & 4., which directs, that from thenceforth every country shall be so well kept, that immediately upon robberies and felonies committed, fresh suit shall be made from town to town, and from county to county; and that hue and cry shall be raised upon the felons, and they that keep the town shall follow with hue and cry, with all the town and the towns near; and so hue and cry shall be made from town to town, until they be taken and delivered to the Sheriff. And, that such hue and cry may more effectually be made, the hundred is bound by the same statute, c. 3. to answer for all robberies therein committed, unless they take the felon; which is the foundation of an action against the hundred, in case of any loss by robbery. By Stat. 27 Eliz. c. 13 no hue and cry is sufficient unless made with both horsemen and footmen. And by Stat. Geo. II. c. 16 the constable or like officer, refusing or neglecting to make hue and cry, forfeits 51.; and the whole vill or district is still in strictness liable to be amerced, according to the law of Alfred, if any felony be committed therein and the felon escapes. . . . Hue and cry may be raised either by precept of a justice of the peace, or by a peace officer, or by any private man that knows of a felony. The party raising it must acquaint the constable of the vill with all the circumstances which he knows of the felony, and the person of the felon; and thereupon the constable is to search his own town, and raise all the neighboring vills, and make pursuit with horse and foot; and in the prosecution of such hue and cry the constable and his attendants have the same powers, protection, and indemnification, as if acting under the warrant of a justice of the peace. But if a man wantonly or maliciously raises an hue and cry, without cause, he shall be severely punished as a disturber of the public peace.”16

The great antiquity and the primitive forms of this process of the law appear from the early writers cited in Coke. The Mirrour of Justices, “a book of great authority and of the earliest, though uncertain, date,”17 after some account “Of the first constitutions made by the Ancient Kings,” says:—

“It was ordained, that every one of the age of fourteen years and above should be ready to kill mortal offenders in their notorious sins, or to follow them from town to town with hue and cry; and if they could not kill them, the offenders to be put in exigent, and outlawed or banished. And that none should be outlawed but for a mortal offence, and in no other county but where he committed the offence.”18

“And if any one fly or make resistance, and will not answer the law, it is lawful for every one to kill him, if he cannot otherwise apprehend him. And Bermond awarded that all goods of those that fled should remain forfeit to the King, saving to every one his right, although that afterwards he yield himself to the peace.”

And Iselgrun said, that “he is no flyer who appeareth in judgment before he be outlawed.”19

“Of these first assemblies it was also ordained, that every hundred do make a common meeting once in the year, not only of the freeholders but of all the hundred, strangers and denizens . . . to enquire of the points aforesaid, and of the Articles following, . . .”

The Articles are these. “By the oaths you have taken, you shall declare . . . Of all bloodsheds, of hue and cry wrongfully levied, or rightfully levied and not duly pursued, and of the names of the pursuers; of all mortal offences, and of their kinds, and as well of the principals as of the accessaries,” and some thirty other Articles.20

“The law requireth that offenders in case of death have not such mitigation or favour that they be brought or summoned, or distrained to appear in judgment by taking of their cattle, if the offenders be known, and notorious, and the plaintiff pursue them so soon as he may. And if any fly for such offence, then according to the Statute of Winchester he was to be followed with hue and cry, with horn and voice, so that all those of one town who can are to follow the felon to the next town; and if any such felon be attaint and convict of the felony, let him be killed if he cannot be otherwise apprehended. But it is otherwise in felonies not known, for it is not lawful to kill the offender without his answer, if he may be taken alive.”21 Then follow provisions in case of trial held.

Glanville, Chief-Justiciary in the reign of Henry II., in his Tractatus de Legibus Angliæ, sometimes said to be “the most ancient book extant upon the laws and customs of England,” cited and praised by two centuries of the most eminent English lawyers, also refers to the old process:—

“But there are two species of Homicide. The first is called Murder, which is secretly perpetrated,—no one seeing—no one knowing of it, save the person committing it, and his accomplices, so that Hue and Cry cannot be presently made after the offenders, as ordained by the Statute upon this Subject. . . . A person accused of Homicide is sometimes compelled to undergo the legal Purgation, if he was taken in flight by a Crowd pursuing him, and this be regularly proved in Court by a Jury of the County.22

Bracton, whom Reeves calls “the father of the English Law,” in his De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ, in the time of Henry III., after setting forth the due course of preliminary proceedings by “the Justices itinerant,”—beginning with the pleas of the crown; the reading of the writs, which give them authority and power to make an iter; the setting out the cause of their coming, the utility of their itineration, the advantage if peace is observed, the violation of the King’s peace and justice by murderers and robbers and burglars, and his commands to his faithful subjects,—directs that the justices should retire, and have a consultation in turns with four or six or more of the greater men of the county, and explain to them how—

“it has been provided by the King and by his Counsel, that all as well Knights as others, who are of fifteen years and more, ought to swear that they will not harbour outlaws, murderers, robbers or burglars, nor confederate with them nor their harbourers, and if they should know of any such, they will cause them to be attached and declare it to the viscount [sheriff] and his bailiffs, and if they shall hear hue and cry respecting such people, immediately on hearing the cry they shall follow with their household and the men of their land. Upon which it may be noted, that if any one has committed a felony and has been forthwith captured, hue and cry having been raised, the pursuit shall cease. And hence if a man shall be suffocated by misfortune or drowned, and be dead in any other manner or be slain, let hue be raised forthwith, but the pursuit ought not to be carried on from land to land, from vill to vill, when the malefactor shall have been taken, that is la bane. And afterwards let them lead a track along their own land, and at the end of their land they shall show it to the lords of the neighbouring lands, and so that pursuit be made from land to land with all diligence, until the Malefactors are captured, and that there be no delay in making the track unless an impediment intervene through night coming on, or for some other reasonable cause, and that they shall arrest, as far as may be in their power, those whom they regard as suspected without waiting for the mandate of the justice or the viscount [sheriff], and that what they shall have done thereupon they shall certify to the justices or the viscount.23

“But because there are some persons, who forthwith betake themselves to flight after a felony and cannot be seized, let the hue be raised after them, from vill to vill, until the malefactours are captured, otherwise let the whole district be amerced to the king. But how the pursuit ought to be made, each country has its own mode, and let the hue be raised in that same mode.”24

Similarly, we find in Britton, in the reign of Edward I., who Coke says was Bishop of Hereford and of profound judgment in the Common Law, but who has also been spoken of as a mere appendage of Bracton:—

“And for the maintaining of peace, we will that when a felony is committed, every one be ready to pursue and arrest the felons, according to our Statutes of Winchester, with the company of horns and voices from township to township, until they are either taken or have been pursued as far as the chief town of the county or franchise. “We will also, that every one who flies from our peace forfeit his chattels to us for such flight, if he be suspected of felony, although he be afterwards acquitted of the principal fact. And if it be murder or other felony concerning the death of a man, let such felony be presented at the next county court by one or more townships, and by the first finder and the kindred of the person killed. . . .”25

“If any man be found killed, and another be found near him with the knife or other weapon in his hand all bloody, wherewith he killed him, the coroner shall be presently fetched, and in his presence the felon shall, upon the testimony of those who saw the felony done, be judged to death. The like when a person is found in a house, or other place where one shall be found killed, and the person found alive is neither hurt nor wounded, and has not raised the hue and cry, and has not charged any with the felony, and shall not be able to do so.”26

Fleta, likewise, in the same reign gives various provisions made for prompt and effective pursuit and arrest of felons; for punishment in case of default, and of official misfeasance; for public proclamations to secure pursuit and investigation and apprehension; for the responsibility of the hundreds; for the use of hue and cry in the case of suspects; for requiring all between the ages of fifteen and sixty to have in their houses a due equipment of arms according to their estate and condition, with considerable minuteness of detail, and for stated inspection of the same; for liability for default in such equipment or failure in vigilance or in pursuit; and for the raising of hue and cry and its prosecution in the case of felonies. Furthermore, in the case of trials, are set out the presumptions arising from presence or other circumstances at the scene of the offence, or the failure to raise the cry.27

The original process, by the force of statute and the subduing influence of advancing society, was brought within regulated and fixed limits:—

“For levying hue. and cry,” says Burn, “although it is a good course to have the warrant of a justice of the peace, when time will permit, in order to prevent causeless hue and cry; yet this by no means seems necessary, nor is it always convenient; for the felon may escape before the warrant be obtained; and hue and cry was part of the law before justices of the peace were first instituted (2 Hale 99). . . . If the person against whom the hue and cry is raised be not found in the constablewick, then the constable shall give notice to the next constable, and he to the next, until the offender be found, or till they come to the sea-side. And this was the law before the Conquest. . . . Though no person be named or described . . . all that can be done is for those that pursue the hue and cry, to take such persons as they have probable ground to suspect.” Doors may be broken if the fugitive has taken refuge within. Measures are summary and effective. “If he cannot be otherwise taken, he may be killed”—And further:—“it seems that they who are taken upon fresh hue and cry are not bailable.” And they which levy not hue and cry, or pursue not upon hue and cry, may be indicted, fined and imprisoned.28

The various statutes enacted, both those still extant and the earlier, were only the attempt, on the one hand, to bring an existing crude but effective process into some legitimate and recognized shape, and to regulate and limit its methods and powers, already becoming dangerous; and, on the other hand, to secure prompt and effective pursuit of offenders, the clue enforcement of the laws, and the legal responsibility of magistrates and communities.

Pollock and Maitland give a fresh and spirited account of the old process, in treating of the processes of the law, which “vary in stringency from the polite summons to the decree of outlawry.” It is spoken of as “an offshoot of outlawry, . . . a species of summary justice that was still useful in the 13th Century.” A vivid picture follows:—

“When a felony is committed, the hue and cry (hutesium et clamor) should be raised. If, for example, one comes upon a dead body and omits to raise the hue, one commits an amerciable offence, besides laying oneself open to ugly suspicions. Possibly the proper cry is ‘Out!’ ‘Out!’—And therefore it is uthesium or hutesium.29 The neighbours should turn out with the bows, arrows, knives, that they are bound to keep; and besides much shouting there will be horn blowing; the ‘hue’ will be horned from vill to Till. Now if a man is overtaken by hue and cry while he has still the signs of his crime, he will have short shrift; should he make any resistance, he will be cut down. But even if he submits to capture, his fate is already decided. . . . He will be brought before some court (like enough it is a court hurriedly summoned for the purpose,); and without being allowed to say one word in self defence, he will be promptly hanged, beheaded or precipitated from a cliff. . . . In the 13^th century this barbaric justice is being brought under control. “We can see that the royal judges do not much like it; though truth to tell, it is ridding England of more malefactors than the King’s Courts can hang. The old rule still held good that if by hue and cry a man was captured when he was still in seisin of his crime, . . . and he was brought before a court which was competent to deal with such cases, there was no need for any accusation against him, for any appeal or any indictment, and what is more, he could not be heard to say that he was innocent, he could not claim any sort or form of trial. Even royal judges, if such a case is brought before them, act upon this rule. . . . Even in much later days, if a man was taken ‘with the mainonr’ (cum manuopere), though he was suffered or compelled to submit the question of his guilt to a jury, he could be put on his trial without any appeal or any indictment. There is hardly room for any doubt that this process had its origin in days when the criminal taken in the act was ipso facto an outlaw. He is not entitled to any ‘law,’ not even to that sort of ‘law,’ which we allow to noble beasts of the chase. Even when the process is being brought within some legal limits, this old idea survives. If there must be talk of proof, what has to be proved is, not that the man is guilty of murder, but that he was taken red-handed by hue and cry. Outlawry was still the law’s ultimate weapon.”30

Reeves gives some account of the process and a very clear summary of the Statutes, their occasion, intent, and effect:—

The Statute of Winchester contained various provisions for enforcing the ancient police and ordained various new regulations. It was occasioned by the startling increase within then recent years of the graver crimes, and the slackness of the administration of subsisting laws. Jurors were partial or interested or influenced, there was negligent and even wilful failure to indict, and an equal failure to convict if indicted.

This Statute made special provisions as to the old process of hue and cry. It directed that the hutesium et clamor should be made solemnly in all counties and hundreds and districts, at markets and fairs, and wherever a concourse of people was to be expected so that none might excuse himself from ignorance, and none might escape for want of fresh suit from town to town. This hue and cry, formally started, and not the immediate and instinctive pursuit of the criminal surprised on the spot of his crime, is plainly an evolution of the original. This early statute and the later statutes down to comparatively modern times seem all to be based on the ancient institutions of the hundreds, and of the frank pledge, making the hundred responsible. There is a case under the Act in the Year Book of Edward II. fol. 539. To ensure promptness and efficiency districts were made responsible for the crimes committed within them, and were held to make good the damages done. Precautions were to be had against lodging or entertaining suspicious persons or even strangers; watches were to be kept, with authority to arrest; and, where resistance was offered to such arrest, provision was made for levying hue and cry, and following it from town to town till the fugitive was run down and arrested.

In the reign of Elizabeth, Hue and Cry stood upon the old Statute of Winchester (13 Edw. I.) and a later one (28 Edw. III.). Proceedings were becoming more frequent under the provisions of existing laws, and some of these provisions, first adopted to secure greater vigilance, energy and efficiency, were beginning to bear with hardship on the hundreds, and the corporate liability and responsibility had brought about neglect and want of diligence, especially in the case of robberies and injuries to property, on the part of the person injured. He took his remedy in the easiest and cheapest way. To remedy this, the Statute 27 Elizabeth c. 13 made the hundred liable for only one moiety of the damages, wherever there was negligence on the part of the sufferer, or default of fresh suit, after hue and cry was raised. Under the old Statutes, the recovery was practically or usually against one or only a few of the inhabitants; and, in general effect, the Statute was in check and restraint of the process. It was on the principle of the old Statutes, but modified the procedure; now limitations of the actions against the hundred were fixed, and the liability affected by various conditions.31

The modern statutes of England,—those of 29 Charles II., 6 and 9 George I., and 8 George II.,—touching liability for damage done by rioters, and in similar cases, all go back for their principle of responsibility to the old statutes of Hue and Cry.

Sir Mathew Hale devotes a chapter to the subject:—

“Hue and cry is the old common law process after felons . . . And this hath received great countenance and authority by several acts of parliament. . . .

“By the Statute of Westm. I. cap. 9; ‘ . . . that all be ready and apparelled at the summons of the Sheriff & a cry de pays to pursue and arrest felons as well within franchises as without ; . . .’

“By the Statute of 4 E. I. ‘ . . . Hue and cry shall be levied for all murders, burglaries, men-slain, or in peril to be slain, as other-where is used in England, and all shall follow the hue and steps as near as they can; and he that doth not, and is convict thereof, shall be attached to be before the justices in Eyre. . . .’

“By the Statute of Winton, cap. 1 ‘ . . . From henceforth every country shall be so well kept, that immediately upon robberies and felonies committed fresh suit shall be made from town to town and from country to country: and cap. 4 . . . and such as keep the town shall follow with hue and cry with all the town and the towns near; and so hue and cry shall be made from town to town, until they are taken and delivered to the Sheriff; and for arrestment of such Strangers none shall be punished.’

“And this is in truth but the antient law.” He then sets out what is proper but not essential, that “it is a good course to have a justice of peace to direct his warrant for raising hue and cry . . . yet it is neither of absolute necessity, nor sometimes convenient;” and that “it is most adviseable, that the constable be called to this action. . . . Yet upon a . . . felony committed, hue and cry may be raised by the country in the absence of the Constable.” The consequences then appear “if hue and cry be raised without cause.”

Then follow the five points that “are considerable.”

I. “By whom it is to be levied:—as well by an officer of justice as by the precept of a justice of the peace, . . . or . . . by any private person that is robbed, or knows of any felony.”
II. “Touching the Manner of it: . . . diverse according to a variety of circumstances,”—taking up; the notice and reasonable assurance of the felony; . . . “the name of him that did it,” if known; if not known, the means of identification, and failing all plain indications, a request upon the constable for hue and cry after suspects, as “many circumstances may ex post facto be useful for discovering a malefactor, which cannot be at first found.”
III. “In what manner . . . to be pursued: . . . The Constable . . . to make search in his own vill; . . . to raise all the neighbouring villa next about; . . . to be pursued with horse and foot.”
IV. “What may be done in pursuance of a hue and cry levied: . . . once raised and levied upon supposal of a felony committed, tho in truth there was no felony committed, yet those that pursue hue and cry may arrest and proceed, as if so be a felony had been really committed.” The justification of acts done by those who “pursue the hue and cry,” and the liability of “the raiser” under certain circumstances are given; and also the extent and limitation of the acts that may be done and,—
V. “How the neglect of the pursuit of hue and cry is to be punished: . . . indicted, fined and imprisoned.”32

“If a hue and cry be levied upon a felony, and come to the town, the Constable and those of the town are bound to apprehend the felon if in the town, or if not in the town, then to follow the hue and cry; otherwise they are punishable on indictment.”33

In East it is said:—

“A fortiori, if hue and cry be levied, all who join in the pursuit are under the same protection of the law . . . Although no warrant of a justice of the peace to raise hue and cry, nor any constable in the pursuit, yet the hue and cry was a good warrant in law for the pursuers to apprehend the felons, and therefore the killing of any of the pursuers was murder.”34

The same doctrine is held in Jackson’s case35 and in numerous United States cases.

There are four cases, reported at length, tried a.d. 1221–1231, under a statute older than that of Edward I. and not extant in the time of Coke. They are of great interest,—an interest not lessened by the quaint Latin of the Reports.36

In England the process and the laws governing it have been only matters of curious legal history since the enactment of the statutes 7 and 8 George IV., in 1827 and 1828; but some of the underlying principles of the old process and of the laws relating thereto, still live and are the basis of some modern statutes as to municipal liability in certain cases, as well as the ground of not a few judicial decisions. Chief-Justice Doe of New Hampshire, in deciding a case in 1864, referred to the old law of Hue and Cry and the liability of the Hundred, for an analogy;37 and some of its doctrines were invoked—not expressly, but in spirit—in the discussion of the responsibility of Spain for the blowing up of the Maine.

In addition to the authorities already quoted or cited, accounts of this old Common Law proceeding, of its summary justice, its history, the various provisions of law from time to time enacted, the occasion, the mode, and the consequences, are, of course, to be found in most English works on Criminal Law, in the Pleas of the Crown, and in the various Commentaries on the laws of England.38

Upon this side of the Atlantic, this old process seems to have had an occasional use, as appears by the Records and Files of Court. The Colonists of the Massachusetts Bay brought with them the Common Law of England as it then existed, and all those ideas of law and legal procedure which they had acquired as Englishmen. The only other source of law which they recognized was the Holy Scriptures, and especially the Mosaic Code, as interpreted by themselves or as embodied in legislative enactments; and in the old Jewish law they might easily find suggestions of this procedure in its most primitive form, and consequent satisfaction therein.

The procedure was in existence here in 1646, as appears by the Act of 4 November:—

“If any officer or other shall refuse to do their best endeavo^r in raising & ᵱsecuting hue & cryes by foote, &, if neede be, by horse, after such as have com̃itted capitall crymes, they shall forfeite, for ev^ry offence, to y^e com̃on treasury, forty shillings, such hues & cryes as be alowable by lawe.”39

Here seems to be a recognition of its existence and authorization, and at the same time of limitations as to its use.

Among the Early Court Files of Suffolk is an original draft of an Order of the General Court in 1660, regulating and settling the charges in such cases:—

“Boston 9^m. 4. 60

ffor the Regulating and Setting the charge of ᵱsecution of Hue & cryes. Its ordered that what shall arise by occasion of escape from the Countries prison or flight from Authoritie to Avoide the Same shall be payed by the Treasurer of the Countrey And such as arise by fleeing from any of our Countie prisons or to escape any of them shall be defrayed by the treasurer of that Countie wher the occasion arise And such ᵱsons as ᵱcure Hue & cryes vpon thier own ᵱticular occasion shall beare all the charge ariseing there from ᵱvoided due accounts be made by such as demand paye

The Deputies haue past this in refference to y^e Consent of o^r Hono^rd Magistrates

Thomas Savage speaker

Consented to by y^e magists

Edw. Rawson Secret.”

[Endorsed] “ᵱsecution of

Hue & Cryes

ᵱ Curiam

Entr.”40

This appears set out in the Records of the General Court, where, however, the marginal date is given 30 May 1660.41

There was a case of Hue and Cry in the frontier towns, along the border of Maine, in the year 1655. A group of five papers has outlived the accidents and exposures of two hundred and fifty years and is now among the Suffolk Court Files. Though evidently only a portion of what once made up the case, they are enough to tell the story, to show what the proceeding was in those days, and to illustrate some incidents that belonged to the process from its first regulation by the laws of England.

The case, briefly stated, was this:—a supposed murder, a suspected perpetrator, an application to the magistrates thereupon, the levy by them of a Hue and Cry, the action under it, the supposed victim later turning up alive, the aggrieved suspect seeking redress, the suit against the offending magistrate, the magistrate, in fear of the issue at law, turning for relief to the Great and General Court—and not in vain.

The five papers, which are to be looked to for the life and color of the account, comprise the original Petition of the Magistrate, addressed to the General Court, which, though latest in date, comes logically first in its succinct presentation of the whole case, and four other original papers, evidently used at that hearing. In the cold, expressionless monotony of a copy, however literal and exact, there is lacking all the impressive suggestion which the originals convey. There is expression on the very face of the originals. In the distinctive chirography, the individualities of style, the quaint phraseology, and the vagaries of spelling, the actors in the drama seem projected before us. Some curious little touches of human nature come out in the simple, straightforward narrative, so wholly devoid of legal formality and precision. None of these papers appear in the Colony Records, where, as is usual in such matters, only the final action of the General Court upon the subject is compactly given in the official account. All the papers, however, bear the endorsement of “Entered,” and the attestation of the respective officials,—William Torrey, Clerk of the Deputies, and Edward Rawson, Secretary of the Magistrates, each in his own handwriting.

The first paper—a somewhat pathetic appeal of a country magistrate, frightened by the unexpected operation of the engine he has set in motion, in which he gives the story of what he did and why he did it, claiming that, although but an humble “Commissioner to end small causes,” he was for the time being the vicegerent of the Government, and that its authority and majesty were assailed in his person—is the Petition or Complaint:—

“To y^e honored Gen^erall Court assembled at Boston

The Complaint of Richard Hitchcock of Sacoe

Whereas yo^r complainant was chosen & sworne a Commissioner42 to end small causes &c. in that place according to yo^r lawe there came unto me & Robert Booth my fellow Com̃ission^r for a huy & cry; one Thomas Redding to search after Thomas warner vpon suspiction of murthering the sonne of y^e said Redding. which according to our Trust in our place (we conceive) we did grant Notwithstanding the said warner hath arrested me to answere his accon at next County Court here at Boston about this business which yo^r Complainant conceives to be altogether illegall & dishon^rble to yo^r wor^pps Authority & greatly to our damage dwelling soe farr off from this place.

My humble request is that yo^r wor^ps wilbe pleased to heare y^e case & soe shall I not doubt of you^r righteous & speedy ending thereof.

the mark of

Richard Hitchcock43

Consented to

by the deputyes

Wm. Torrey Cleric

The Magis^ts haue grannted the peti^cone^rs Request viz a hearing of y^e cause y^t warner haue notice thereof w^th all speed [if] theire bretheren the depu^ts Consent hereto.

Edw. Rawson Secret.”

[Endorsed] “Hichcocks peticon

ᵱ Curiam

entred”44

The second paper is the Deposition of the Constable to whom the Hue and Cry was issued, curiously combining in effect a return, an apology, and an advertisement:—

II.

“Where as [Joh]n bush A Constabl[e] [of] Wells Receiued a Hue and C[ry] under the hands of [Rober^t] Booth & Rich: Hith[cock] Commissioners[s] [of] Saco for the Apprehending the body of Tho: Warriner45 in susspicion of Murder, I the aboue said John Bush46 hauing just intelligance that it was wrongfully sent forth, and upon that the Hue and Cry stop in my hands and therefore I w^th the Rest of our Neaghbours doth Apprehend that Tho: Warrine^r was very much damnifyed and discredited soe I leaue w^th my best Respects to them whome this may Conserne I rest

You^rs at command in any

service John Bush

Consta: of wells

Wells this 29^th of

first in 55

witnesse

Joseph Bolles Cler [of the writs]”47

[Endorsed] “Jn^o Bush

Constable of

Wells &c.”

The next paper is the Certificate of the other magistrate who joined with Hitchcock in issuing the Hue and Cry and who, or later developments, became somewhat apprehensive about his connection with the affair:—48

III.

“When tiddings came to me that Thomas Redings sonn was a liue I went to Richard Hichkox on porpos to haue better securytie about y^e hut & cry he had procured of vs and Hichkox maid small account of my motion & said M^r Thomas Kimble & John Lauranc will certifie it at Boston & ther needs no more truble this doe I testifie for a truth

Robt Booth Comis”

[Endorsed] “Booths Certifficⁿ”

The fourth paper is a Certificate or Deposition of the man whose son was supposed to have been murdered and who made the demand for the process:—

IV.

“Know all men y^t I Thomas Reding49 and Ellen his wife coming to Rich Hichkox for a hue and cry in y^e case of my sonn I said can goodman Booth do it by him selfe Hichkox said bid him set my hand to it for I haue giuen him order so to doe for murther must not be hid

June 16: 55

mark
Robertt White
John fandergoe
marke

Then follow the Depositions of John West and his wife, apparently two of the neighbors:—

“The deposision of John West50 8 month 11: day 1655 this deponent saith y^t he hard Ellen Reding say diuers tims; y^t hir husband Thomas Reding should not haue gott a hue & Cry of Booth but y^t Richard Hichkox stood his friend & further this deponent saith not

Edie y^e wife of John west affirmeth to the same aboue writen upon hir oath.”

taken before me

Robt Booth Comisioner”

[Endorsed] “Jn^o wests

deposit”

At the sitting begun 24 October, 1655, the General Court granted a hearing to the Petitioner with this result:—

“In answer to the petic͠on of M^r Richard Hitchcocke, after the Courte had fully hearde the case betweene him & Thomas Warner, the Court determined, that notwithstanding what evidenc Thomas Warner produced in the case, the sajd Hitchcocke was free from blame in graunting the hue & cry, and that he should be allowed thirty shillings costs by the sajd Warner.”51

While absolving the Magistrate, the Court also made some compensation to the sufferer, as appears by the order of 13 November, 1655:—

“The Court, on a full hearing of the case of Thomas Warner in reference to his suffering by imprisonment for suspition of murder, doe judg meete to order, that he be allowed five pounds out of the com̃on tresury, and referr him to make his full reparation on Thõ Redding, y^t accused him.”52

In the course of this hearing, Warner seems to have got into some difficulty with the Deputy-Governor, as appears by this entry in the Records:—

“Thomas Warner acknowledged before the whole Courte, mett together, that he had wrongfully charged the honnored Deputy Goũno^r in saying the letter he had produced was not the letter he com̃itted him to prison by, for which he was sorry. The Court accepted his acknowledgment.”53

Thus the case concluded, apparently to the satisfaction of all parties, except, possibly, Thomas Reading, the unfortunate source of all the trouble, who, moved, perhaps, alike by parental affection and a desire to see the law of the land carried out, had instigated the proceeding.

A recognition of the existence of this process under the law in the early days of the Province appears also in 1692–3, in an Act in which, among the powers given to Justices of the Peace, is that to “make out hue and crys after runaway servants, thiefs and other criminals.”54

Here, as in England, this old process, barbarous and instinctive in its origin, savage, though effective, in its later estate, systematized and transformed by statute, has long been obsolete. Occasionally, however, even to-day, an offshoot or an illegitimate descendant may be found, with all the original severity unmitigated, and with even exaggerated barbarity, claiming some justification where law may be in abeyance or powerless, and, possibly, offering some show of defence or excuse where perverted legal ingenuity is expected to defeat deserved conviction, or weak commiseration to frustrate the execution of justice under law.

Messrs. Charles Knowles Bolton of Brookline, Arthur Theodore Lyman of Waltham, and James Lyman Whitney of Cambridge, were elected Resident Members; and the Hon. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, LL.D., of Brunswick, Maine, Franklin Bowditch Dexter, A.M., of New Haven, Connecticut, and the Hon. John Andrew Peters, LL.D., of Bangor, Maine, Corresponding Members.

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.