MARCH MEETING, 1900.

A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Wednesday, 21 March, 1900, at three o’clock in the afternoon, President Wheelwright in the chair.

The Records of the Stated Meeting in February were read and approved.

The Corresponding Secretary reported that since the last Meeting a letter had been received from Dr. Moses Coit Tyler accepting Corresponding Membership.

President Wheelwright announced the death of the Honorable Edward John Phelps, an Honorary Member, and remarked upon the fact that Professor Phelps’s death made the first break in either the Honorary or Corresponding Rolls of the Society. He then paid this tribute to the memory of our late associate: —

Since our last Stated Meeting we have lost by death one name from the short list of our Honorary Members. There have been but seven names in this list, and that of the Honorable Edward John Phelps was the second name to be inscribed upon it; his is also the first to be starred. Mr. Phelps was elected an Honorary Member on the twentieth of December, 1893, when President Cleveland was also admitted to our fellowship. In his letter of acceptance, he desired to express his “thanks for the distinguished compliment conferred upon him, — a compliment,” he added, “which I very highly appreciate.” He subsequently showed the genuineness of this appreciation and the interest he at once took in our Society by twice making long journeys to attend our Annual Meetings, — those of 1894 and 1899. The day after the first of these meetings, Mr. Phelps drove to Cambridge and called upon our then President, Dr. Gould, to express the pleasure he had enjoyed. At both these meetings, or rather at the dinner which followed them, he contributed to the intellectual feast by speeches in which he fully justified his reputation as an after-dinner speaker. At the last of these dinners, — that of November, 1899, — your President had the privilege of having him for his right-hand neighbor at the table and can testify to the unrivalled charm of his conversation, with its happy mingling of wit and wisdom.

Mr. Phelps died at New Haven, Connecticut, where he had a residence, on the ninth of March. He had been ill with pneumonia for nearly two months, but until within a week of his death it was confidently believed by his physician that he would recover, because of his strong constitution and in spite of his advanced age. During his illness, messages of sympathy were constantly addressed to him from all parts of the country and from abroad, including one from Queen Victoria, inquiring as to his condition and expressing a hope for his recovery. At a time when it was thought that his restoration to health was assured, this Society also sent him a letter of congratulation.

Though born in Vermont, Mr. Phelps had in his veins good Massachusetts blood, which we of The Colonial Society of Massachusetts may be pardoned for believing may have been not without influence upon his character and career. His ancestor William Phelps, born in England in 1599, came to New England in 1630 and first settled at Dorchester, Massachusetts; but after residing there five or six years removed with his family to Windsor, Connecticut. Here they remained for several generations, intermarrying, meanwhile, with some of the most eminent families of that Colony, some of them, also, originally of Massachusetts stock.

Mr. Phelps was born at Middlebury, Vermont, on the eleventh of July, 1822, and was educated at Middlebury College. After graduating, in 1840, he studied law with his father, with Horatio Seymour, and at the Yale Law School, was admitted to the bar in 1843, and began practice in New York City, but soon removed to Burlington, Vermont, which became thereafter his habitual place of residence. Here he soon acquired the reputation of a sound lawyer and able advocate and was entrusted with many important cases. Though in a measure shrouded from public gaze in the remote county town he had chosen for his residence, his legal ability and attainments were not unmarked by his professional brethren, and in 1880 he was chosen President of the American Bar Association. He had already received, in 1870, the degree of LL.D. from his Alma Mater. Yale University gave him the honorary degree of A.M. in 1881 and he was at the same time made a professor in the Yale Law School. The University of Vermont conferred upon him the degree of LL.D. in 1887 and Harvard did the same in 1889.

Mr. Phelps was best known to the general public as our Minister to England, to which post he was appointed by President Cleveland in 1885. As the immediate successor of Lowell it was at first feared that he might appear to disadvantage in the comparison; but such apprehensions soon proved groundless and the new appointee at once achieved, without effort, a popularity unsurpassed by any of the long line of distinguished men who had preceded him in the office. He became popular with the entire nation, from the Sovereign down to the plainest of the plain people. One passport to popular favor he had, very potent with Englishmen, which Lowell lacked, — he was an enthusiastic sportsman, and brought home, at the end of his mission, several pair of antlers as trophies of his skill in deer-stalking among the Highlands of Scotland.

On his departure from England, Punch assured him of —

John Bull’s best wishes

And Mr. Punch’s too;

and the London Times of the twelfth of March, 1900, in announcing his death, said: —

Among the gifted men who have represented the United States here, Mr. Phelps was one of the most successful alike in social and in diplomatic duties. He will long be remembered as one of the best and wisest of his country’s servants.

Not only is our Society called upon to mourn the loss of a distinguished member, but Mr. Phelps’s death is a loss to the whole nation, at a time when new and perplexing problems are confronting us at home and abroad, when there is sore need of wise counsellors and honest and well-equipped officials. It is, perhaps, as an educator that Mr. Phelps will be most missed. Profoundly learned in constitutional and international law, he delighted in nothing so much as in training young men for his own noble profession. His duties as professor in the Yale Law School were most congenial to him, and he continued the zealous performance of them so long as health and strength and life itself lasted. May we not hope that his labors in this field may bear fruit in the coming generations?

We have lost, the nation has lost, in Mr. Phelps, a pure patriot, a diligent and faithful public servant. Learned in the law, he was equally well versed in letters; a fluent speaker, an able writer; witty without acerbity, a master of epigram and not unskilled in verse; proficient in manly exercises, a lover of the woods and ardent in the chase; a genial comrade with men, a favorite companion with women; a sturdy democrat, immovable where principle was concerned, but yielding gracefully and with tact in matters non-essential; equally at home in the cottage and the court; he was, in short, a very perfect specimen of the true American gentleman, dignified without arrogance, affable without condescension, and possessed of that true good breeding which attrition with the best society often fails to give, but which springs spontaneously from a kindly nature. Long may such be found among us!

Mr. Henry H. Edes then said: —

It will be remembered that when the Courts of the Commonwealth were removed from Court Square to their present quarters in Pemberton Square, Boston, there was much speculation concerning a fine Copley portrait, signed and dated 1767, of a man in a scarlet gown whom nobody could identify. Mr. Augustus T. Perkins describes this picture as a “three-fourths length, in the Judge’s room of the Supreme Court, at Boston,” and calls it a portrait of “Judge Hayward, of South Carolina.”779 The canvas now occupies a conspicuous place in the Social Law Library. Our associate Mr. Justice Barker of the Supreme Judicial Court and Judge Francis W. Hurd made many inquiries and much research to ascertain the name of the original of this interesting and mysterious picture but without success. Some of the older members of the Bar recollected that Chief-Justice Shaw once said that the Library owned a portrait of one of the Judges of the Courts in one of the Southern Colonies; but none could remember his name.

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts from a portrait by Copley in possession of the Social Law Library of Boston.

In conversation a few days since, with Mr. Francis Wales Vaughan, Librarian of the Social Law Library, he told me that he believed he had solved the mystery. In looking over the account-book of the Treasurer, he found the following entry under date of 10 August, 1829: —

To cash pd. Daniel Merrill for moving picture of Martin Howard presented to the Social L. Library by Miss A. H. Spooner . . . .50

Investigation at the Suffolk Probate Office showed that Anna Howard Spooner was put under guardianship in 1802, and the inference was at once drawn that she was the donor of the portrait. It was in vain that the Records of the Proprietors and of the Trustees of the Library were searched for some acknowledgment of this gift, the entry in the Treasurer’s books, apparently, being all that remained on paper bearing upon the identity of the portrait. Finally, however, in making a thorough search among some old vouchers, letters, and other papers in the Treasurer’s custody, Mr. Vaughan found Miss Spooner’s letter, dated in August, 1829, presenting to the Library780 the portrait of her grandfather painted “by Mr. Copely.” A postscript to the letter states that the portrait is given for the purpose of showing the dress of the Judges before the Revolution.

Martin Howard was a prominent man in both Rhode Island and North Carolina. His father, Martin Howard, Senior, was a resident of Newport, Rhode Island, and, with other of his townsmen, was “admitted free of the Colony” of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at a session of the Assembly on 3 May, 1726.781 Unlike his son, he does not appear to have made any impression upon public affairs, but that he was well descended may reasonably be inferred from an item in the estimate of his son’s losses at the hands of the Newport mob, in August, 1765, to be mentioned hereafter. The son was born in England,782 and, doubtless, was brought hither in early childhood by his father.783

Martin Howard, Jr., as his name appears in the public records for many years and as late as 1765,784 studied law under James Honyman, Jr., and became a practitioner at the bar in Newport where he mostly resided. He was appointed by the Assembly one of the Commissioners to go to Albany to confer with the Six Nations on the fourteenth of June, 1754,785 and in August, 1756, one of a committee to prepare a bill to authorize a lottery for raising £10,000 to carry on the building of Fort George.786 On the eighteenth of August, 1760, and again on the twenty-first of September, 1762, he was named on a commission to revise the laws of the Colony.787 His activities, however, were not confined to his profession and his public services to the Colony. For three years (1752–1755) he was librarian of the Redwood Library,788 and he was long an active and influential member of Trinity Church.789

Of Howard’s first marriage the following record, in the handwriting of Dr. MacSparran, has been preserved in the Register of St. Paul’s Church, Narragansett, under date of 29 December, 1749: —

The Banns of marriage between Martin Howard Jun^r and Ann Conklin being duly published in Trinity Church in Newport on Rhode Island, and certification thereof being had under the Hand of y^e Rev^d M^ṟ James Honyman Rector of said church; said Partys were Joind together in holy matrimony at the House of Major Ebenezer Brenton790 Fa^r of said Ann on Friday the 29^th of Decem^r 1749 by the Rev^d. James Macsparran D:D: Incumbent of St Pauls in Narraganset the Parish where said Partys did then reside.791

The Register of Trinity Church, Newport, preserves the dates of baptism of three children of Martin and Ann Howard, — Ebenezer-Brenton, 14 August, 1751, Elizabeth, 26 July, 1752, and Ann, 24 August, 1754, but no more.792

As the Revolution drew on, Howard became an ardent Loyalist, and with Dr. Thomas Moffatt, a Scotch physician, and Augustus Johnston, Attorney-General of the Colony, he was appointed to office under the Stamp Act. On the twenty-seventh of August, 1765, the mob made a demonstration against the stamp officers, drawing their effigies through the streets and hanging them on a gallows, and injuring Howard’s person. On the following day, it attacked and dismantled the houses of Howard and Moffatt who fled the town, taking shelter on board the British sloop-of-war Cygnet then riding at anchor in the harbor. Believing it to be unsafe to remain in the Colony, they sailed for England.793

The wreck of Martin Howard’s house was complete. It stood on a lot of land bounded by Spring, Stone and Broad streets, the latter now known as Broadway, on which the house fronted. Not only were the contents of the house destroyed and thrown into the street, but doors and window-frames were torn out and an unsuccessful attempt was made to pull down the chimney. The house, in its dismantled condition, was sold by auction, after its owner’s flight, to John G Wanton794 who restored it. His family and descendants have since owned and occupied it.795

On his way to England, Howard tarried at Halifax, Nova Scotia, where, in the same year, he wrote two political pamphlets, the first of which was inspired by another written by Governor Hopkins, who had been his associate in the delegation from Rhode Island to the Colonial Congress at Albany in the summer of 1754.796

Howard did not remain long in England, whence he took passage for North Carolina, where great honors awaited him. The Assembly of 1767 divided the Province into five judicial districts, and adopted a new court law.797 Moore says that —

Edenton, New-Bern, Wilmington, Halifax and Hillsboro were the points at which the Superior Courts were to be held, Martin Howard was Chief-Justice, and Richard Henderson and Maurice Moore were Associates. Judge Howard had recently been involved in trouble with the people of Rhode Island because of his opinions concerning the Stamp Act. He was a man of real learning in his profession, and of unusual literary culture for that period. It has been the habit in North Carolina to disparage his memory, but apart from his loyalty to the King and to England, the land of his birth, nothing remains to his discredit which might not be imputed to some of his associates on the North Carolina bench, who have been so abundantly eulogized in all our annals. Judge Howard, even in the heat of the Revolution, though sympathizing with the King, received the respectful consideration of such men as Judge Iredell, who had the magnanimity to ignore the small hatreds and defamations so prolific in all times of upheaval and change. Judge Maurice Moore was the son of General Maurice Moore, who came with his brothers Roger and George in 1710 to renew the ancient settlement of their grandfather, Sir John Yeamans. He was the most cultivated native North Carolinian of that time. He had been for years leader of the North Carolina Bar.798

Shortly after Howard’s appointment to the Bench, and in the same year, he came to Boston and was painted in his official robes by Copley, as already stated. He married for his second wife, Abigail Greenleaf,799 the young daughter of Stephen Greenleaf, Sheriff of Suffolk, and tradition relates that the portrait was painted at the time of his marriage, no record of which, however, or of the publishment of it, is to be found in the Boston town or church records.

Returning with his bride to North Carolina, Judge Howard entered upon a short career which was marked by turbulence and great popular excitement. In his judicial capacity he had to deal with the “Regulators,” of whom the Rev. Herman Husbands, “the ambitious Quaker,” who has been fitly characterized as “a craven-hearted wretch [and] noisy demagogue,” was a leader.800 Moore thus describes the trial: —

Nearly four thousand men had assembled to watch the fortunes of a wretch, who could thus so easily agree to abandon their cause when danger seemed threatening himself. He was acquitted of the charge laid against him in the bill found by the grand jury, but William Butler and two others, far more innocent than Husbands, were convicted and committed to prison for six months, with the added punishment of heavy fines.

Colonel Edmund Fanning, likewise, was indicted at the same time in five different cases for extortion in office. He pleaded “not guilty” but was convicted in all and sentenced by the court to pay a fine of one penny in each case. These five entries in the handwriting of James Watson, Clerk of the Superior Court of Orange county, may be yet inspected, and are the dumb, yet eloquent witnesses of the eternal shame resting upon the memory of that court. It is hard to believe that Maurice Moore could have been consenting to such a mockery of justice He had been loud in his denunciations of such crimes as those whereof Fanning now stood convicted, and had gone to such lengths that the partisans of Tryon were open in their charges of complicity on his part with the worst schemes of the Regulators. His subsequent course in the General Assembly, where he was so powerful in shielding the defeated insurgents, showed that he had not lost his sympathies for the outraged people. Again when Judge Howard was driven from the court house in Hillsboro in 1770, Judge Moore was treated with consideration. The subsequent violence of the Regulators to both of his colleagues is proof positive that on the names of Martin Howard, Chief-Justice, and Richard Henderson, his associate, should lie the odium of an infamous defeat of justice. They allowed Governor Tryon, with his loose morals and bad passions, to sully the reputation of a court which might have been illustrious for rectitude as it was for the real learning of the Judges. Howard has paid a fearful penalty in the obloquy historians have cast upon his name,801 but Richard Henderson, in the virtues of his nobler sons, has been so mantled by charitable speeches, that his name has gone unwhipped of justice.802

McRee’s estimate of the Chief-Justice is worth quoting: —

Martin Howard, . . . of . . . Rhode Island, . . . being forced by popular indignation to fly that province, sought shelter in North Carolina, where, after the suicide of Judge Berry, he was made Chief Justice by Governor Tryon; he was also a member of Tryon’s council. His office as judge terminated with the expiration of the law creating the court, in 1773. He is represented by Jones, Wheeler and others, as devoid of all the virtues of humanity, a ferocious despot, an execrable copy of the English Jeffreys. I cannot but suspect that the picture has been exaggerated; it has been blackened out of all resemblance to any being who ever sat upon the Bench within my knowledge in North Carolina. The Judge was certainly the ablest lawyer, and the most highly cultivated member of his court. The fact that he was permitted to reside quietly on his plantation until July, 1777, when he withdrew from the State; the further fact that he was kindly remembered by such a man as James Iredell, whose respect clung to him in his fallen fortunes, and the tone of the following letter, consist but badly with the moral deformity and atrocity attributed to him; and induce the belief that the removal of a little rhetorical lampblack will disclose a man, differing, it is true, politically, from the mass of the population, but in other respects, the peer of the proudest citizen of the realm. The letter of Howard to Iredell, dated 20th May, 1773, referred to by Jones as a confession of “malignity,” has disappeared from Mr. Iredell’s collection of papers.

LETTER OF MARTIN HOWARD TO JAMES IREDELL.

Richmond,803 May 15th, 1777.

Sir: — Your favor from New Bern gave me no small degree of pleasure. An instance of civility to an obscure man in the woods, is as flattering as a compliment to a worn-out beauty, and received with equal avidity and delight. I have lately been so little accustomed even to the common courtesies of life, that a sentiment of kindness comes upon me by surprise, and brings with it a double, because an unexpected, pleasure.

I sincerely thank you for your obliging expressions; they give me more than I have a right to claim, and greatly overpay any marks of consideration which I may at any time heretofore have shown to you, and which your merit entitled you to receive from me.

I wish you could have conveniently fulfilled your intentions of riding to Richmond. My little family would have been glad to see you, and you would have seen, I think, the best piece of meadow in Carolina, whence (when I leave this country) you might be able to add one to the few observations which may be made upon an unimportant character, viz., that I had made two blades of grass grow where only one grew before — a circumstance among some nations of no small honor and renown. I wish you all happiness, and am, with real esteem,

Sir, your most ob’t serv’t.

M. Howard.804

During his residence in North Carolina, Howard presented to the Colonial authorities of Rhode Island a claim for compensation for the loss he had sustained at the hands of the Newport mob, in August, 1765. The riot and the resultant damage commanded the attention of Governor Ward and the Assembly for several years,805 but, although the Chief-Justice’s claim was persistently pressed, and reports upon the subject were made by committees, no settlement of it was ever effected. Howard’s “Estimate of damage,” amounting to £324.13.0, has been printed, in full.806 It is dated at Newbern, North Carolina, 26 December, 1772, and contains one item of special interest: —

Four large family pictures, gilt frames; one by Sir Peter Lely £35.0.0

In the summer of 1777, as we have already seen, Judge Howard left North Carolina and sailed for a Northern port. Sabine807 tells us that he revisited Rhode Island where, in conversation with Secretary Ward, he remarked: —

Henry, you may rely upon it, I shall have no quarrel with the Sons of Liberty of Newport; it was they who made me Chief-Justice of North Carolina, with a thousand pounds sterling a year.

The following year (1778) Howard went to England with his family and made his home in Chelsea in the County of Middlesex. In the Gentleman’s Magazine for December, 1781 (li. 593), under date of 24 November, 1781, is recorded the death of —

Martin Howard, esq; chief justice of North Carolina.808

His burial is recorded in the Register of the parish of Saint Luke, Chelsea: —

[1781] Dec^ṟ 1^st Martin Howard, Esq^ṟ809

The following is the full text of Judge Howard’s will: —

I Martin Howard Chief Justice of North Carolina now residing in Chelsea being very weak in body but of a disposing mind to make this my last will & testament, I give to my beloved wife Abigail Howard all my household furniture except what is in my Daughters Chamber & that I give to my beloved daughter Annie Howard together with the plate that was her mothers & Grandfather Howards all the rest of my Estate real & personal wheresoever it be I give & devise to my said wife Abigail Howard & my said Daughter Annie Howard to be equally divided between them & if either of them should die leaving the other the part of hers so dying to pass to the Survivor her Heirs & assigns. I appoint my said wife Abigail Howard & my said daughter Annie Howard to be Executrix’s of this Will

M: Howard (L S)

Signed Sealed & declared by the Testator to be his last Will & testament in the presence of us this sixteenth day of October one thousand seven hundred & Eighty one.

Mary Timmins

Robert Palmer.

John Timmings.810

After Judge Howard’s death, his widow and daughter Ann returned to America, and the daughter appears to have resided for a time at Newport. There, on the Register of Trinity Church, we find the following entry of marriage under date of 16 June, 1787: —

Andrew Spooner to Ann Howard.811

Andrew Spooner was a Boston merchant of good family. He was born in Boston 14 March, 1763, the son of John and Margaret (Oliver) Spooner,812 and grandson of John Spooner who emigrated to Boston from England.813 He occupied a three-story wooden house belonging to John Trecothick Apthorp which stood on the westerly side of Bowdoin Square at the corner of Green Street.814 At Trinity Church, Boston, we find the Spooners as well as Mrs. Spooner’s step-mother, among the worshippers. The Register records the baptism of two children, — Ann Howard Spooner, 11 June, 1788, and Andrew Spooner, 15 November, 1789; and the burial of their mother, Mrs. Anna Howard Spooner, at Milton, at the age of thirty-six, on the twenty-third of March, 1791. On the twenty-ninth of April, 1798, the intentions of marriage of Andrew Spooner and Elizabeth Sparhawk of Cambridge, a great grand-daughter of Sir William Pepperrell, were recorded at Boston.815 To them was born a daughter, Elizabeth Sparhawk Spooner, who was baptized at Trinity Church 27 March, 1800.816 Her mother died in the following autumn, and the Trinity Church Register records her burial at Cambridge, at the age of thirty-two, on the eighth of September. Mr. Andrew Spooner did not long survive his wife. The Columbian Centinel of Saturday, 23 January, 1802 (No. 1862, 3/1), contains this announcement: —

DIED. At Laguira, Mr. Andrew Spooner, of this town, Æt. 38.

Before following the descendants of Andrew Spooner, let us retrace our steps and note the fortunes of Judge Howard’s widow. At the time of her husband’s death, Abigail Howard was in her thirty-ninth year. She returned to Boston, and, her mother having died817 more than a year before Judge Howard, she again became a member of her father’s household. Her youngest sister, Hannah Greenleaf, had married, as his second wife, John Apthorp, a wealthy merchant of Boston and London, on the twelfth of December, 1765, and had gone to reside in Little Cambridge,818 in a mansion house built by his father, Charles Apthorp,819 one of the great merchants of Boston, who died in 1758. In consequence of Mr. Apthorp’s delicate health, he and his wife sailed for Charleston, South Carolina, “on board a vessel which, though spoken when a few days out, was never afterwards heard from. It was late in the autumn [of 1772], a severe snowstorm followed them, and it was supposed that the ship was lost at sea with all on board.”820 Their three children, who had been left in the care of their maternal grandparents, found with them a permanent home where they were tenderly and faithfully nurtured until their marriage.821 Their grandfather Greenleaf was appointed their guardian 28 December, 1772.822 Bereft of his wife, the old Sheriff needed the companionship of his widowed daughter and her aid in the care of his orphan grandchildren. He lived to the great age of ninety-one and was buried in his own tomb under Trinity Church, of which he had been a Warden, on the twenty-ninth of January, 1795.823

In less than a year after her father’s death, — on the sixth of January, 1796, — Abigail Howard purchased of Charles Bulfinch, for $5,000, the estate numbered thirteen in Franklin Place, now Franklin Street, Boston824 The house was in the Tontine Crescent,825 ̶ the fourth house below Hawley Street the north-westerly line or the estate Being about eighty-three feet south-west from Hawley street. The locus is nearly identical with the estate now numbered fifty-three and fifty-five in Franklin Street. Here, Madam Howard lived, in a handsomely furnished and well-appointed house, having for neighbors many of the most prominent citizens of Boston;826 but she was not destined long to enjoy the quiet comfort of her new home. On the twentieth of May, 1800, her nephew, John Trecothick Apthorp,827 represented to the Judge of Probate that his aunt was a person non compos mentis; and, in due course, Mr. Apthorp was appointed her guardian.828 After a lingering illness, her death829 was announced in the Columbian Centinel of Saturday, 3 October, 1801 (No. 1832, p. 2/4): —

DIED.] Mrs. Abigail Howard, Æt. 58, daughter of Stephen Greenleaf, Esq. late Sheriff of the County of Suffolk, and widow of Martin Howard, Esq. formerly Chief Justice of North-Carolina. — Her funeral will proceed from the house of her nephew, Mr. John T. Apthrop [Apthorp], at the bottom of the Mall, on Monday afternoon, at 4 o’clock, which her relations and friends are requested to attend without further invitation.

From Mr. Apthorp’s account as guardian of Madam Howard, allowed by the Probate Court on the thirteenth of October, 1801, I copy the following interesting item: —

1800. July, By Cash for a Bill of Exchange for her Pension in England, $227.12.

Madam Howard’s will830 directs that her body be buried in her father’s tomb under Trinity Church. It makes many bequests to relatives831 and friends and disposes of much plate and many other valuables. Mrs. Elizabeth Grant of Chelsea College, England, receives a legacy of five guineas. To her eldest and only surviving sister, Mary Phips, wife of David Phips, Esquire,832 Madam Howard gives “all my portraits, that of my late Husband excepted.”833 A paragraph of special interest is in these words: —

Item. To Andrew & Ann Howard Spooner, children of Andrew Spooner by Ann Howard his late Wife, I give my certificates of Six & three percent Stock of the united States Debt & also one half the money that has arisen or shall arise from the sale of a Lot of Land in Newport on Rhode Island which was the Property of my late husband Martin Howard, Esq^r to be equally divided between them. To the said Andrew I also give the Portrait of his Grandfather, my late Husband, & the History of Charles 5 in three Vol. Quarto, & To said Ann I give my gold Watch & one Dozⁿ silver Tea Spoons.

Madam Howard gave her library to the Boston Library Society, bequeathed the residue of her estate to the Boston Episcopal Charitable Society, and named the Rev. (afterwards Bishop) Samuel Parker, D.D., sole executor of her will.

The story of Andrew Spooner’s descendants, so far as our present interest is concerned, is briefly told. On the eighth of February, 1802, his three children, Anna Howard Spooner, Andrew Spooner, and Elizabeth Sparhawk Spooner were placed under the guardianship of their uncle, William Spooner, M.D.,834 a prominent physician of Boston.835

Andrew Spooner, the younger, at the age of eighteen, went to France, where he ever after continued to reside, making but one short visit to his sisters in America. He was twice married; and at his death, he left two adult children, a daughter, who subsequently married, and a son, also named Andrew Spooner, who went to Singapore in a mercantile capacity, but he was more interested in science, especially in chemistry, than in commerce and finally returned to France.836 As Copley’s portrait of Chief-Justice Howard was, as we have seen, bequeathed to Andrew Spooner, and was presented to the Social Law Library by his sister of the full blood, the inference is not unreasonable that he gave it to her at or subsequent to the time of his expatriation.

Elizabeth Sparhawk Spooner married at Surry, Maine, on the twentieth of September, 1818, Edward Scott Jarvis,837 of that town, a son of Leonard Jarvis, merchant of Boston and Cambridge, became the mother of nine children, and died 10 June, 1880.838

Anna Howard Spooner, though baptized, as we have seen, at Trinity Church, early became a communicant at the Church in Brattle Square with which her father’s family had been for half a century in fellowship and where he himself was baptized by Dr. Samuel Cooper, 20 March, 1763. Here we find her name enrolled, under date of 4 May, 1806, among those who joined the church during the short ministry of Joseph Stevens Buckminster, one of whose classmates at Harvard she was one day to marry. The social position of her uncle, Dr. Spooner, who was allied to the Winthrops and Phillipses, and of her step-mother’s kindred, — the Apthorps, the Bulfinches and the Vaughans, — brought her into close relations with all that was best in Boston society during the early part of the nineteenth century. We catch a glimpse of her in the family letters of Charles Bulfinch839 and learn from them that his wife regarded her as her child, — a beautiful tribute to her character when it is remembered that Miss Spooner was merely a connection by marriage without a single tie of blood. After her half-sister’s marriage, Anna Howard Spooner also removed to Maine and long resided in that part of Surry which is now Ellsworth, in the County of Hancock.840 There, on Christmas Day, 1844, at the age of fifty-six, she became the second wife841 of the Hon. Leonard Jarvis,842 an elder brother of Edward Scott Jarvis. Leonard Jarvis, born at Cambridge 19 October, 1781, — the day of Cornwallis’s surrender, — graduated from Harvard College in 1800, in the Class with Chief-Justice Shaw,843 Washington Allston, the Rev. Dr. Charles Lowell, the Rev. Joseph Stevens Buckminster, Loammi Baldwin, and Joshua Bates, President of Middlebury College. After a mercantile career in Boston, France and South America, he settled in Maine, where he was Collector of Eastport and Sheriff of the County of Hancock, and was elected a member of Congress. He also held the office of United States Navy Agent at Boston during the administration of Van Buren. He died at Surry on the eighteenth of September, 1854, at the age of sixty-two.844 After Mr. Jarvis’s death, his widow removed to California, where she made her home with the family of Edward Scott Jarvis. Her health, which was then delicate, was restored by the more salubrious climate of California. She died, greatly beloved by all who knew her, at Newark, Alameda County, California, on the twelfth of January, 1889, having attained the great age of one hundred and seven months.

Mr. Andrew McFarland Davis read the following paper: —

“PREVIOUS LEGISLATION” A CORRECTIVE FOR COLONIAL TROUBLES.

I submit herewith a copy of a document recently acquired by the Boston Public Library. It came into my hands through the courtesy of our associate Mr. Worthington C. Ford. My purpose in communicating it to this Society is to secure the record of an opinion which I have expressed to Mr. Ford as to the date of its origin, and to add thereto a few words as to the peculiar views held by the writer of the paper on the extent of the power of Parliament in legislating concerning Colonial affairs. The sentences in the document which occasion this last suggestion are obscure, and refer to certain contemporaneous events in such a manner as not to make clear the atrocity of the opinions expressed, except to one who is familiar with the affair to which they refer; but when their meaning is explained it is evident that their presence adds greatly to the value of a document which, upon its face, is an interesting contribution to the history of the currency emissions of the first half of the eighteenth century.

Inasmuch as the paper has neither date nor address, its exact purpose is difficult to determine, but a mere superficial examination is all that is needed to show that it was prepared during the efforts made to secure Parliamentary legislation with reference to the Colonial currency emissions, about the year 1741. There are references by date to Colonial legislation of 1740, and to a Parliamentary Act of 1741, the latter being the latest date mentioned. During the period of the paper-money craze in the Colonies, Parliament had spasms of activity in discussing the evils of the currency and the possible remedies that could be applied. This activity was promoted, or perhaps at times held back, by outside pressure, just as legislation is forwarded or hindered to-day by the lobby. The subject was before the House of Commons in 1740, after which it disappeared from the Records until 1744. Then it reared its head again, and this time the opponents of paper-money showed such strength that legislation for the restraint of the currency emissions of the Colonial governments would have been secured had it not been for the military situation caused by the war with the French. Louisburg could not have been captured except through the emission of paper-money by Massachusetts. During the interim between 1740 and 1744, it is not to be supposed that the opponents of the Colonial paper-money were quiet. They could petition the Board of Trade, and if the subject was before any Committee of the House of Commons, they could lay their views before such Committee. The document which we are considering was evidently written for some such purpose as this. It is rather in the nature of an argument than of a petition, and it may have been prepared by the writer for use by some person other than himself. It sets forth, in vigorous language, the evils resulting from the Rhode Island emissions. These were vastly disproportionate to the size of the Colony, and the greater part of them were made merely for the purpose of lending the currency thus created to citizens of the Colony. The current expenses of the Colonial Government were met by the interest derived from these loans, and the borrowers in turn profited by lending what they had borrowed to citizens of Massachusetts at a higher rate of interest. The emissions made by the Colony of Rhode Island for this purpose were called Banks, and were referred to occasionally in legislative Acts as the First Bank, the Second Bank, and so on. It is through references to one of these transactions that we are enabled to fix, within a few months, the date of this paper. The document also contains certain assertions as to the amount of the bills of public credit of the Colony of Rhode Island then in circulation. It is of course essential that these figures should agree with the facts as to the bills outstanding which we find in the official statements of the Colony, at the supposed date of the writing.

The subject of the Rhode Island emissions is treated by Douglass, in his Discourse Concerning the Currencies of the British Plantations in America, etc., 1740 (pp. 11–13), in a section which is headed “Rhode Island.” Any person who will compare this paper with the language used in that section will see that the arguments are identical in both, and cannot fail to be struck with the similarity of the two in the construction of their sentences, in the epithets used, and in the general tone that pervades them. The conclusion is inevitable that the paper was either written by Douglass himself, or by some person who, in making use of the arguments furnished by the Discourse, appropriated also Douglass’s unpolished style and his aggressive method of attack. The manner in which the entire paper is permeated with this individuality indicates that the first proposition is the more probable of the two.

One of the conditions as to the date of the document imposed by the writer is that there should have been in circulation at that time four hundred thousand pounds of the bills of public credit of the Colony of Rhode Island. It is true that, in the second clause of “Seventhly” in the paper, the statement is made that they — i. e. the Government of Rhode Island — “have now outstanding upwards of £40,000,” — the amount being stated in figures. This is obviously an error, and any person familiar with the history of the Rhode Island emissions would not hesitate to add the cipher which has been carelessly dropped; but we are fortunately relieved from compulsory reliance upon knowledge of this sort through the fact that, at another point in the paper, under what is termed the Second Reason, the writer states, and this time definitely, in words, that “Rhode Island . . . have now Extant four hundred thousand pounds in their Bills of Credit.” Turning to the official statements which from time to time were made in response to demands from the Board of Trade, or other recognized authorities in London, we find that a Report was made by the Governor of the Colony, about the time that we are compelled to consider, which upon its face does not seem to comply with the facts set forth in the paper, but which may be so construed as to fulfil the conditions therein imposed. The Report845 in question was made by Governor Ward, 9 January, 1740–41, and contains a statement that the bills outstanding then amounted to £340,000. In this Report the then recent emission of the Seventh Bank was put at £20,000. These bills were, however, of the New Tenor, and were equivalent to £80,000 Old Tenor. All the rest of the currency amounts given in the Report are in Old Tenor; and if we reduce this item to the same term, we have the bills outstanding in Rhode Island at that date, according to the official statement of the Governor of the Colony, £400,000. An examination of the statements of the currency emissions of other Colonies made at this time will reveal the fact that no recognition was made in these returns of the different purchasing power of the bills of the different tenors. This, of course, introduces a perplexing element in the official tabulations which the student of to-day is compelled to remedy as best he may. Dr. Douglass, in discussing the Massachusetts Currency, tabulated the outstanding bills in 1718 in Old Tenor. He says, “This table is reduced to Old Tenor, because our current way of computing is by Old Tenor.”846 In the same way Hutchinson, in 1747, estimated that there would be about two million two hundred thousand pounds outstanding in bills of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in 1749.847 All the bills emitted under Shirley’s administration were of the New Tenor, and an advocate of the paper money might have claimed that the bills outstanding ought to be stated in terms of New Tenor rather than Old Tenor. Nevertheless, what Douglass says is undoubtedly true. It was the custom to compute in Old Tenor, and the writer of this paper was justified in stating the Rhode Island bills outstanding in 1741 in that tenor. They practically remained at the figure which he gives until 1744.

It is during this period that we must look for the Bank of which, under “Secondly,” the writer says: —

“The last Emission being more Wicked they have reduced it [i. e. the rate of interest] to 4 p C^t. for 10 years & no Interest for 10 Years more,”

and of which he further says, in the third section of “Seventhly,”

“by the Emission Loan of this year they have lowered [interest] from 5 to 4 p C^t. p Ann.”

If we can find an emission which absolutely complies with the above conditions, and which was late enough to permit the expression “this year” to apply to it at the same time that the writer could refer to an Act of Parliament passed in 1741, then we have the means of fixing the date of the paper with certainty. The Seventh Bank seems to comply with all these demands, with the exception that if by the expression “this year” the writer meant “this calendar year,” then this Bank must be excluded from consideration; but if “within twelve months” was meant, then we have a complete compliance with all the requisites of the description of the Bank above given.

The Seventh Bank was originally created in September, 1740. At that time it was enacted that an emission of £20,000 should be made in bills which were to read that they were in value equal to a certain weight in silver, the same being proportioned to the denominational value of the bill and the rate of silver fixed upon for the emission being nine shillings an ounce. Silver was then worth twenty-seven shillings an ounce in Old Tenor, and it was provided that all fees should be one-third as much in the new bills as they had been in Old Tenor. In consequence of Instructions received from the Lords Justices of Great Britain, a new Act was passed in December of the same year, substituting for these bills a new emission rated in silver at 6s 9d an ounce. Fees, by this Act, were made one quarter as much in the new bills as they had been in Old Tenor, and, later, it was specifically enacted that 6s 9d in the new bills were equivalent to 27s in bills of the Old Tenor, thus definitely placing them on the basis of one to four. These proceedings are referred to in the paper in the second subdivision of the fourth section under “Seventhly,” in the following words: —

“In the Additional Act to the Emission Act of Anno 1740, they make some Amendm^ts. in s^d. Act Viz^t. That instead of one of these, equal to three of the former, shall be equal to four of the former; because not exactly Agreeable to a late Instruction from y^e Lords Justices of Great Britain.”

In the Additional Act, not only was it provided that the bills at the new rate for silver should be substituted, but the entire programme for loaning the bills was re-enacted — thus raising a question whether the loans actually ran from the month of September or from December of the year 1740. They were to be for ten years, and were then to be paid in ten equal annual instalments. There was nothing in the language of either of these Acts which would specifically indicate that no interest was to be paid after the maturity of the loan; but this was clearly the case in some of the former Banks, after which this was modelled, and the custom may be inferred.

The Eighth Bank was established in February 1743–44 and the loans were for ten years at four per cent, and were then to be paid in ten equal annual instalments. This Bank must, however, be excluded from consideration, because, interest having already been placed at 4 per cent, it does not comply with the requisite that by this emission the interest should be reduced from five to four per cent. On the whole, then, it may be concluded that the Seventh Bank was the one referred to, and that in making use of the expression “this year” the writer merely meant to say “within a year.” This would fix the date of the paper in the year 1741. The Act of Parliament referred to by the writer must have been the Act for Restraining and Preventing Several Unwarrantable Schemes in the American Plantations.848 This was approved by his Majesty 25 April, 1741. The paper was, therefore, probably written in the summer of 1741.

It remains for me to point out the language used by the writer of the paper in which he discloses his views as to the powers of Parliament in legislating for the Colonies. At the beginning of the paper the fact is alluded to that Parliament had called upon his Majesty to issue Instructions to the Governors of the several Colonies not to assent to any Act for the emission of bills of credit, unless such Act contained a clause that the same should not take effect until approved by his Majesty. The writer then goes on to say: —

“To evade this, Some lawless Combinations were Entre’d into for forcing a Currency by large Emissions of private Bills; these having the same or a Worse Effect, but not being under the restriction of Royal Instructions, and without the reach of any former Act of Parliament, The Legislature of Great Britain found it requisite to Suppress them by a previous Act.”

This refers to the steps taken for the suppression of the Massachusetts Land Bank, in 1740. What those steps were was fully disclosed in an account of the Land Bank which I communicated to this Society in 1895.849 The subject was again briefly discussed in a paper on the relation of the Currency question to the Politics of the Province read by me at our April Meeting in 1899,850 and was again brought up at our January Meeting this year, in a discussion with reference to the effect of the Navigation Laws upon the prosperity of the Colonies,851 which followed the reading of a paper by our associate Worthington C. Ford. Before embarking once more upon a subject which has so often and so fully been considered by the Society, some apology ought, perhaps, to be made for bringing it up again; but it will be readily understood that the full comprehension of what the writer meant by the suppression of an organization “by a previous Act” may require something more than a mere statement that it has already been explained how this was accomplished. I think, therefore, that I shall be entitled to your indulgence if, for this purpose, I briefly recapitulate the following facts, which have been set forth in detail in the first of the papers above alluded to.

In 1735, the Attorney General, to whom some question had been submitted by the Board of Trade as to the legality of the acts of certain people in Boston who either had organized or proposed to organize, a Bank of some sort, replied that he could see no objection thereto in point of law. In 1736, the Board of Trade actually put itself on record as approving the acts of the merchants of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, who had organized a Company for the emission of bills of credit. In 1741, when Parliament undertook to pass an Act through which the Land Bank could be suppressed, the situation was precisely that described by the writer of the paper we are considering. The Land Bank was “without the reach of any former Act of Parliament,” and the act of its organizers could not be punished through any existing legislation. The English law-makers, therefore, proceed to enact that the so-called Bubble Act, originally passed in 1720, for the suppression and prevention of similar organizations, but which, by its terms, was limited in its application to Great Britain, did originally apply and had continuously applied to the Colonies. With this in mind, the phrase “the Legislature of Great Britain found it requisite to Suppress them by a previous Act,” becomes apparent.

That the atrocious nature of this legislation did not impress the writer of this paper is evident. That it was generally accepted by the hard-money men in the same approbatory spirit will perhaps be assumed from the manner in which Hutchinson, in his narrative of these events, refers to the then unquestioned control of Parliament over public and private persons and proceedings in the Colonies.852 In view of the extent to which this matter has already been discussed before this Society, the mere use of this language would not, perhaps, justify this review of the action of Parliament in 1741, were it not for the added emphasis given to the opinions of the writer by what he goes on to say in the next paragraph. These are his words: —

“If the Colony of Rhode Island Acting under a Charter by Setting up Banks, (the name given in their Acts to their Several Emissions of Loan Money) and Settling of Fees for Transferrs of Rights, as they are Called, do not fall within the explicit design of the Acts Anno 1720 and 1741; There Seems to be an Absolute Necessity for another previous Act of Parliament to put a Stop to their Iniquitous Lawless proceedings in this Affair . . .”

Previous legislation as a corrective for Colonial troubles, could, in the opinion of the writer, be created at any time and to meet any emergency. This opinion as to the power of Parliament in this line is certainly extraordinary.

The text of the document under discussion is as follows: —

Upon Some late Complaints of the Great Damages Sustained by the Traders from Great Britain, and y^e. Confusion in Business Arising from a depreciating fallacious paper Currency in the British Plantations in America; The Parliament have taken this Affair into Consideration: But as the Circumstances of the Several Colonies may be Various and different the British Legislature are pleased to take time Maturely to deliberate concerning the most easy and Effectual Methods for Sinking and discharging the same in all the British Colonies with the least prejudice to their respective Inhabitants, and Interruption of y^e. Comerce of Great Britain.

In the mean While to put a Stop to the further growth of this Evil, the Parliament Addressed his Majesty to give Instructions to his Governors in the Plantations not to Assent to any Act for Emission of Bills of Credit but with this Saving Clause Viz^t. That the same shall not take Effect, until the said Act shall be Approved by his Majesty.

To evade this, Some lawless Combinations were Entre’d into for forcing a Currency by large Emissions of private Bills; these having the same or a Worse Effect, but not being under the restriction of Royal Instructions, and without the reach of any former Act of Parliament, The Legislature of Great Britain found it requisite to Suppress them by a previous Act.

If the Colony of Rhode Island Acting under a Charter by Setting up Banks, (the name given in their Acts to their Several Emissions of Loan Money) and Settling of Fees for Transferrs of Rights, as they are Called, do not fall within the explicit design of the Acts Anno 1720 & 1741; There Seems to be an Absolute Necessity for another previous Act of Parliament to put a Stop to their Iniquitous Lawless proceedings in this Affair for the following Reasons;

1^st. In Neglect or Contempt of the late Resolves of the House of Commons, and Subsequent Royal Instructions (having no Accountable Commissioned Kings Governour) they proceed more than ever heretofore in Emitting Enormous Unnecessary Quantities of this fallacious fraudulent paper Currency, and by Supplying therewith their Neighbouring Governments of New England. The Currency’s of the four Governments of New England being promiscuous, they frustrate the Royal Instructions in these Governments and render of none Effect a late previous Act of Parliament Against private Combinations, Emitting of Notes or bubles for a Currency; because in the Neighbouring Colonies, the fraudulent Debtors and others of a Natural Improbity and Depravity of Mind, by Collusion and tacit Combinations Continue to give the Rhode Island Bank Bills a Currency in the same manner as they did the Notes or Bills of a late Suppressed pernicious Combination in Massachusetts Bay; So that the Honest Creditors & Factors for the Merchants in Great Britain, must either take these depreciating Notes to their very great Damage or lay out of their Debts perhaps to their total Loss Insolvency being at present very frequent; All the Reasons made Use of for Suppressing the late Combination, Called the Land Bank, may be Used with greater Strength in this Case; because an Incorporated Mobb are capable of doing more Mischief than a Common Mobb or Combination as pretending the Authority of a Charter to Colour and Screen their Iniquities.

2^d. No Country, Society, or Single person can have an Unlimited or Indefinite Credit; when this paper Credit, Exceeds certain Limits, the more such Notes are Emitted, the more their Value must depreciate — But so it is, — Rhode Island a Small Colony with an Imperfect Charter, of about Twenty thousand Inhabitants, Men Women and Children, Whites Indians & Negroes, have now Extant above four hundred thousand pounds in their Bills of Credit; And are under no restraint from making more. It being their designed Iniquitous Advantage to depreciate their own Bills, as will appear in some Subsequent reasons; — By their frequent unnecessary large Emissions, their Bills are become depreciated So that twenty Shillings Sterling, is equal to five pounds and ten Shillings Rhode Island at present, and are in a further depreciating Course to a very Small or no Value: hence so much (which is almost the whole) of their Publick Bills as they can Circulate in the Neighbouring Colonies being of no true Value, is to them Clear Gain, and the Cheat or loss falls in the other provinces, but at length terminates upon y^e. Merchants of Great Britain, who for Valuable Goods Sold by their Factors here, are obliged to Accept of a Currency of Small Value or totally lose the Debt.

3. Their Ordinary Charges of Governm^t. are very Small, not Exceeding Six hundred pounds Sterling p^r Ann, therefore their publick Bills are not for that End, but are very large, & frequent Emissions — with long periods upon Loan for the private Wicked Gains of people in their Administration.

First the Legislature, & their Electors being generally Debtors, Indigent & Abandoned, find by Experience, that a depreciating paper Currency is an infalible Expedient for fraudulent Debtors to Cheat their Creditors if not restrained; their Creditors here, & Merchants in Great Britain will thereby Suffer more and more; — The Risk of losing or forfeiting their Charter priviledges is no restraint upon them; they are taught by Designing Men Vainly to Imagine that taking away of Charters is odious to the People in Great Britain & therefore Impracticable.

Secondly, The Sharers, that is the Legislature, their Electors & Friends Sell or transferr these Shares for an Immediate ready Money, profit, the Shares in the Loan Ann 1738. were Sold for 35 p C^t. Advance; in the Loan Anno 1740 at 40 p C^t. Advance, or they Let their Shares to their Neighbours and to the people in the Neighbouring Governm^ts. at 10 to 15 p C^t. pr Ann Interest, they themselves paying into the Treasury only 5p C^t. p Ann (in the last Emission being more Wicked they have reduced it to 4 p C^t. for 10 years & no Interest for 10 Years more.

Thirdly, the Sharers from the known Nature of this Depreciating Money, pay what they borrowed of the publick at a great Discount: for Instance, of the Loan Anno 1715, when Exchange with London was at 65 p C^t., the last paym^t. was Anno 1738, Exchange at 400 p C^t.; that is for £100 Sterling Value reced they pay only £35 Sterling Value.

Fourthly, the Sharers upon a Fund of a Small parcell of Land, do continue borrowing of this publick Money in indefinitum, A Man may borrow to half the reputed value of his Land; for Instance, £500, upon a £1000. pounds Worth of Land: after a few Years by Multiplyed Emissions Denominations depreciate, and this same Land becomes Nominally worth £2000, here is a Fund for borrowing of £500, more: In process of more Years, the Nominal Value becomes £3000, which is a further Fund for £500.

Fifthly the present Generation in this Colony (if their Emissions did not fraudulently depreciate) do unnaturally and Wickedly by long periods & postponings leave a heavy load of Debt upon posterity, for the Sake of a little present Money to Squander away; So much paper Money as any Colony does Emit. So much Debt are they Answerable for in themselves & posterity.

Sixthly — There is one Expedient to Save themselves & posterity, which when they arrive at their Height of Wickedness (If they hold their Charter & Continue to Abuse it as at present, if the Parliament do not Interpose) they can & will perpetrate: All parts of their Governm^t. Legislature & Executive are Annually Elective, the Electors who are the Debtors, Sharers, or borrowers of this Money, may Chuse such Gov^r., Assistants & Representatives, from Amongst themselves as may some time or other pass a kind of Act of Indemnity, releasing and acquitting all Debtors to the Governm^t., that is themselves: then the possessors of these Bills, that is the few Industrious frugal people of New England, and the Merchants in Great Britain by their Factors here, will Sustain a total loss beyond redress.

Seventhly, The Interest of these publick Loans goes towards the Charges of Governm^t. Therefore as they pretend all their Emissions are Virtually to defray the Incurred and Accruing publick Charges, The Iniquity & Falacy of this pretention Appears; 1^st only Some part of this Interest is Applyed to Charges of Governm^t., & to Save taxing, the Remainder is made a Dividend of profit to each of their Townships.

2. They have Emitted at times £50000, & have now out upwards of £40000, Whereas the Interest of £50000, is more than Sufficient to Defray all their Ordinary Charges of Governm^t.

3. Supposing the Interest of any particular Sum of a Loan was requisite to defray publick Charges, by Lowering publick Interest they may Increase the requisite publick principal loan to any Sum, for Instance, lower the Interest on publick Loans from 5. to 1.p C^t p Ann it will require an Emission of 4 times more publick Bills than are now Extant: in fact by the Emission Loan of this year they have lowered from 5 to 4 p C^t. p Ann.

4. The longer and further that this pernicious paper Currency is allowed to take place in the plantations the greater will be the trouble & difficulty to root it out, and perhaps not without making Riots & other bad Consequences, especially in that Licentious perverse Governm^t. of Rhode Island who at y^e same time when they Neglect, Contemn & Insult Resolves of Parliam^t., Kings Instructions & Kings Officers, do in an abandoned false & Hypocritical manner in the Several preambles of their Emission Acts, pretend to the greatest Submission and Loyalty, (Laughing in the face of y^e. British Governm^t. while they Endeavour to Cut the Throat of its Authority.) A few Instances;

1^st. In the preamble to the Emission Act Anno 1715. “Always “depending upon our Dread Sovereigns Countenance & toleration “therein, unto whose Royal Commands this Colony as in Duty bound, “will at all times readily Submit.”

2^d. In the Additional Act to the Emission Act of Anno 1740, they make some Amendm^ts. in s^d. Act Viz^t. That instead of one of these, equal to three of the former, shall be equal to four of the former; because not exactly Agreeable to a late Instruction from y^e. Lords Justices of Great Britain.

3^d. In the same preamble, they very falsely pretend a Necessity for Emitting publick Bills (when at the same time none of the principal is Applicable to these pretended Extraordinary Charges of Governm^t.; but is divided by way of Loan Amongst the Legislature & their Friends.)

First because they are a Barrier to the other parts of New England — N. B. they have no Vessel of any force excepting a Small Sloop, and their port is at a Considerable distance from Massachusetts Bay, where is the Confluence of Trade; by land they are Encompassed & protected from the Indians by the other provinces of New England, and do not Contribute, towards our Indian Wars.

Secondly, a Constant Charge Attends the Inhabitants of this Colony, above other parts of New England.

NB, = The Charges of their Neighbouring Province of Massachusetts Bay is at all times at least ten times more than that of Rhode Island, with not half the Quantity of Massachusetts publick Bills extant.853

Mr. Robert N. Toppan exhibited a printed copy, in fine condition, of a volume in his possession, and spoke as follows: —

The book exhibited to-day will interest the members of the Society on account of the associations connected with it. It was printed in 1492 and contains a sermon in Latin upon the election of a Supreme Pontiff, delivered before the College of Cardinals in St. Peter’s Church on the sixth of August, 1492, by the Reverend Father Bernardino Carvajal.

Carvajal, born in Spain in 1456, had been Bishop of Astorga, Badajoz, and Cartagena, and was a chaplain of Ferdinand and Isabella. The title-page of the little book calls him the “preacher of the King and Queen of Spain.” Innocent VIII. having died on the twenty-fifth of July, 1492, a conclave was called to select his successor. Before the election took place, Carvajal delivered this sermon in which he speaks of the dangers surrounding and menacing the Church, and after praising the virtues of the deceased Pontiff he describes the necessary qualifications to be considered in electing his successor, quoting the well known text in St. Paul’s epistle to Timothy about the virtues which should be found in a bishop, and ending by demanding, emphatically, the election of a Pope who “will reform and reëstablish the fallen church.”854 His hopes of reform were not realized, for on the eleventh of August,855 five days after the delivery of the sermon, Alexander VI., of the Borgia family, was elected, — one of the most infamous characters in history, whose notorious crimes did more, perhaps, than anything else to hasten the Reformation.

The date of the sermon carries us back in time to the conquest of Granada, and to the departure of Columbus on his first voyage of discovery, as he had sailed only three days before, — on the third of August.

The subsequent career of Carvajal is briefly told. He was made a Cardinal by Alexander VI. in 1493. In 1511, he was sent to Rome as ambassador by King Ferdinand of Spain. He was the principal instrument in gathering together, the same year, the Council of Pisa, which deposed the warlike Pope, Julius II. The Pope, however, in order to counteract the influence and authority of that Council, called the Council of the Lateran, in 1512, which excommunicated those who had taken part in the Council of Pisa, and Carvajal’s name was stricken from the list of Cardinals. The excommunicated and deposed Cardinal took refuge in France, having espoused the cause of Louis XII., but upon the death of Julius II. he returned to Italy, where he was imprisoned by Leo X., but finally pardoned, having humbled himself before the Consistory in presence of the Pope. He was afterward made Bishop of Ostia, and died on the thirteenth of December, 1523.

Mr. Henry H. Edes said: —

Mr. President, — After the adjournment of one of the last meetings of this Society which our associate the late Dr. Joseph Henry Allen ever attended, he mentioned, in conversation, that during our Civil War he held a correspondence with Dr. James Martineau, the eminent English philosopher and divine. He told me that some of Dr. Martineau’s letters dealt with the great public questions which then divided our country, and added that they would afford interesting reading to men of my generation. Dr. Allen said that if he outlived Dr. Martineau, then in his ninety-third year, he thought he should make public some portions of this correspondence. I at once expressed the hope that this Society might be selected as the medium of communication when the proper time should arrive, and was assured that my wish should be gratified. Only a few weeks before Dr. Martineau’s death, I mentioned this conversation to one of Dr. Allen’s daughters and told her that if she would some day entrust these letters to my hands, I would communicate them to the Society in her father’s name. Recently, I received from Miss Allen all of her father’s correspondence with Dr. Martineau that he had preserved, and from some of these letters I shall read, this afternoon, such portions as are of special interest. I shall also read a few paragraphs which express Dr. Martineau’s esteem and affection for Dr. Allen, and his high appreciation of his character and attainments.

There are in the collection twenty-two letters, extending in date from 1853 to 1897. Two of these papers are copies of letters written by Dr. Allen to Dr. Martineau in reply to some of his criticisms or strictures; and one was written by Dr. Allen, in 1863, to an unknown English correspondent, in which he refers to Dr. Martineau, to the war for the Union, and to English sentiment on some of the matters at issue.

Dr. Martineau’s letters contain many interesting philosophical reflections and opinions, and brief references to President Kirkland, the Wares, Andrews Norton, Drs. Hedge, Furness, Charles Carroll Everett, James Freeman Clarke and Edward Everett Hale, and Theodore Parker, with an occasional comment on their characters, writings or philosophy.

The text of the letters follows.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

Pendyffryn, near Conway, North Wales,

July 15, 1853.

Dear Sir,

Had I been at all competent to render the least aid towards the completer execution of your admirable plan,856 I should not have delayed so long my answer to your letter of last month. But the truth is, my studies have so long taken a different direction and engaged themselves with philosophy rather than either history or theology, that I have fallen behind the recent literature on your range of subjects, and shall be thankful to go to school to you again, whenever your projected work is published. There is a great and confessed need of such a book in our language: and your conception of the whole subject and evident familiarity with the best sources fills one with hope that the want will be effectually supplied. The recent discoveries of Layard will of course not escape your attention. Ewald’s History is about to appear in an English dress in this country. But I understand from his friend and British representative, Dr. Nicholson, that the translation is by no means satisfactory: and the book, with all its merits, is not adapted, in form and manner, to our national taste. A production native to England, Old or New, will have a higher value for us.857

Jost’s History of the Israelites is no doubt known to you. It is not a book of high merit, however indispensable to a labourer in your field: Mr. Newman, who borrowed my copy for his work on the Hebrew Monarchy, told me that he found it useful. On the Alexandrine development I know of nothing new; unless we are to regard as such the last Volume (published 1852) of Zeller’s Philosophie der Griechen, in which he applies his masterly power of exposition to Philo’s doctrine. In the use of Gfrörer I think a good deal of caution is required. A good many side-lights are thrown in upon the deliquescent stage of Judaism, whether in Egypt or Asia, by writers on the early Christianity; as by Baur in his Christliche Gnosis; Dorner, in his Lehre von der Person Christi; Baur again in his Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit; and of course Lücke in his Commentaries. But I dare say, in all this, I am but giving an owl to Athens. The period with which your history will close is intensely interesting: and the blending of the Hebrew and Hellenic streams of thought and faith always appears to me the most solemn and sublime phenomenon in Divine and Human history. The Unitarianism which will not let them blend but insists on isolating the Judaic element; the Trinitarianism which, sprung from their combination, forgets and disowns its Grecian source, and pretends a pure evangelic origin; affect me painfully as a denial of the greatest and most manifest of Providences, and a mere vain breath of egotism and ignorance against the largest of realised facts. This however may perhaps be a sentiment little shared on your side the water: as here it is regarded with disapprobation and alarm.

It is curious to observe the parallel movement of the religious changes in your country and in ours. The same division among Unitarians exists with us as with you; the same alienation from the Unitarian Association, as unfit for its assumed representative function; the same craving, in the old section, for artificial action and internal organisation, and, in the new, for the full rights of natural sympathy and wider principles of union; the same incipient attempts to disengage the free and earnest spirit of the younger faith from the body of death that clings to it and clogs its action. With us, however, it may not come to an actual schism: rather is a dwindling away of the old element, and re-absorption into society as having finished its separate work, to be expected: and a gradual enrichment and transformation of the new element by the approach towards it and merging into it of free minds detached by similar causes from other hereditary churches. We have no one with the genius, the eloquence, the energy, the nobleness, and the startling heresies of Theodore Parker: else had our dissensions and repulsions been quite as sharp as yours. If we live more peaceably together, I fear it is not that we are more amiable but that we have a life and power less strong. Our scope also is narrower: we have not the whole open field of society to contend for, with nothing but ourselves to blame if we do not conquer it: but only the narrow enclosure of a sect, or, at most, of the set of dissenting sects or heathen aliens, surrounded on all sides by the domain of the National Church, on which no inroad is practically worth contemplating. Our quieter temper is in some degree the result of our poorer hopes and fainter force.

A question of great importance to the future condition of our Churches has recently been decided, not without the greatest difficulty at every step, viz., the position and scope of our only College.858 It ceases to be an institution completely furnished and containing all resources within itself; and annexes itself, as a mere Theological School, to the University College, London. It is a great point gained, that Mr. Tayler is made its principal; — a concession required doubtless by his eminent learning, accomplishment and goodness, but involving an acknowledgment of the advance of the liberal theology which he represents. By the removal to London, my own connexion with the College ceases, — my department being abolished, or supplied by means of a secondary or occasional Lectureship. It cannot in itself be a welcome change, to be withdrawn from studies pursued with some zeal for many years, and not yet brought to their maturity. But the step I believe to be a right one; and individual concerns must lose themselves in wider good. If life be spared and working Resolution do not fail, I shall hope to turn to some account the pursuits of the past ten or twelve years. Whether it be delusion or not, I cannot tell: but those who have themselves struggled through the difficulties of the higher philosophy are always apt to fancy that they can save others some of the perplexities through which they have found a way.

Believe me, my dear Sir, Yours very faithfully,

James Martineau.859

Rev. J. H. Allen.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

Liverpool, Dec. 30, 1856.

My dear Sir,

In the absence of such awakening events as those which called forth your admirable and faithful Sermon (“Reign of Terror”), we have here to tread the round of older and duller topics; and I send you one or two pamphlets on such matters, in the hope that you will permit me to remind you of me in this harmless way. They are slight affairs that need no acknowledgment. Some time or other I hope to send you a worthier exchange for what I owe you.

No doubt your book860 is delayed, — and I dare say prudently, — by the absorption of public attention in your great political struggle. At such a crisis, the interest of the Present asserts its paramount rights, and compels the Past to wait for more tranquil hours. Never, I suppose, did the Providence of God commit to human hands a greater trust than is now vested in the citizens of your Northern States. For once, even local and party excitement can scarcely exaggerate the importance of the contest; to the calmest and remotest observer, no less than to the actor on the spot, it appears to involve,―with the destinies of your Continent,―the whole Future of Humanity. I can well believe your report of the liberating and uniting power exercised on the North by the insults of the dominant party. Most of the newspapers and speeches I have seen bear witness to the worthy spirit which has been roused; though among the scanty exceptions I was sorry to see a lamentable article in the September Christian Examiner. One phenomenon, however, of the late Presidential election puzzles me How is it that even at this crisis which so far breaks up party as to leave Fremont without a solitary (popular) vote in the Slave-States, a minority so very large is found to vote for Buchanan in the Free States? I suppose it must be, that the single question of Slave-Extension over territory guaranteed to freedom did not entirely set aside the collateral issues raised by the Democratic party.

I am afraid my friend and neighbour W. H. Channing will give you, on his return, but a very poor account of our Unitarian ecclesiastical affairs; and, what is worse, the account will be true. I think I can perceive that he is thoroughly disappointed with us and hopeless about us: perhaps, hardly allowing enough for the pressure of an Established Church in England, or sufficiently aware of the extent and depth of silent and inconspicuous influence exerted by our theology and our social existence, even on a small scale. Still his impression is essentially just. If you should happen to see a pamphlet called Old School and New, just published, you will see that we are crippled in our activity by foolish distrusts and jealousies; — far more deeply seated than your Boston divisions, because involving the whole difference between the Priestley and the Channing religious philosophy, — i. e., I should say, the greatest difference to be found within the limits of the Christian faith at all. However, a crisis is at hand: and the younger, more living and progressive element will either carry the mass of our churches and institutions with them, or will find media of action and expression of their own, rendering them independent of the dead conservatism which is rotting us all away. New sympathies, not following the old lines of sect, have arisen, and must re-arrange the grouping of our ecclesiastical world; without necessarily doing violence to the older combinations, but tending gradually to supersede them.

Your account of the Divinity School perplexity861 interested me greatly.There seems no solution so good as for the Trustees to appoint either Professors of different theological complexions so as to represent the different parties in the State; or teachers so eminent for learning and candour that their class-room might be a common medium for the instruction of all. Why should such a thing be hopeless?

Our family party unites in kind remembrances: with which

Believe me, my dear Sir,

Ever faithfully yours,

James Martineau.

Rev. J. H. Allen.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

Auchrannie, Invercloy, Arran, Scotland.

Aug. 2, 1860.

Rev. J. H. Allen,

My dear Sir,

Among the many pleasures too exceptional to be often repeated in this life, on which my proposed visit to the States has led me to reckon, one of the more prominent has been the renewal of my too long-suspended intercourse with you. Your words of hearty welcome are delightful to me; and only add a new intensity to the hope, that my visit to your grand side of the world, — disappointed for the present, — may not always be a dream. Had I set foot in Boston, one of my first enquiries would have been for you. But in consequence of the slow recovery of my friend and Academic Colleague, Mr. Tayler,862 from a recent illness, and the doubt remaining as to his physical strength for the opening work of our Session at the beginning of October, his physician has recalled the sanction under which I accepted the invitation of Mr. Hale,863 and has advised me that I ought not to leave any extra burden on my friend. It will be seen, I trust, by those who have so generously forwarded the proposed visit, that under these circumstances it is no fickle faith, but clear necessity, that has led me to retract my acceptance. I soothe my disappointment, partly by the hope of contributing to my friend’s thorough restoration, partly by stowing away my American vision into that ever open Future which keeps alive so many blessings condemned to die from the present.

You draw a pleasant picture of your altered locality864 and mode of life: and I can sympathise from experience in all your pædagogic troubles and satisfactions. On the whole, I have a good opinion of boy-nature: trustfully and generously treated, it seldom fails to yield a rewarding response. But it keeps one awake, and needs for its management the full vigour of manhood. Old schoolmasters should be prohibited: I would pension them off as emeriti at 45. As to the addition of a second occupation to the minister’s life, I quite agree with your estimate of its advantage — to personal independence, — to freshness of mind and heart, — even to social power. Our best ministers are almost invariably those who are something else than ministers: and the men who have most failed to keep abreast of their age, and have least sympathy with the noblest life of a new time, are precisely those whose time and thoughts seem to have been freest to take in and diffuse whatever the Spirit and the Providence of God might teach.

I half compassionate your labours on Herbert Spencer. I fully admit that he is a phenomenon remarkable enough to demand estimate: and he expresses so vigorously the predominant tendency of science in our time that his influence is likely to increase. But the older I grow the less highly do I prize logical structures, raised with ever so much skill and power on false postulates: and having made up my mind that his basis is wrong, — in Social Science, in Physiology, in Psychology, — and admired a specimen or two of his cleverness in working up from it, I am content to let him go, assured that he will not help me to the real thing I want, — a truer insight into matters Divine, Natural, or Human. But I have not seen his new periodic production.

With kindest regards from my whole circle, Believe me, my dear Sir,

Ever faithfully yours,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

10, Gordon St., London, W. C.

Nov. 29, 1861.

My dear Mr. Allen,

If you knew me as well as my old friends here know me, you would be surprised at no epistolary dumbness, however unaccountable to more fluent and demonstrative men. As a school-boy, my mother had to scold me for not writing home: and ever since, I have gone on in the same unprincipled way, and, I fear, have grown worse from having a wife who writes such capital letters, and in such copiousness, as to do duty for both of us. I have no adequate excuse for my dilatoriness toward you. True, I received your book865 after considerable delay. But receive it I did; was delighted with it; and ought to have thanked you for it long ago. Deduct three months from the time (when, being in Scotland, I did not get the book), and a month for bookseller’s delays: and charge the residue to my sins. Only, forgive me at last, and do not cut me off for my infirmity.

Our theological critics scent something amiss, — something German and suspicious, — in your book. They do not like the idea of letting the names in the Scripture Lessons stand for proper, — still less for improper, — men and women; and of opening the natural lines between Hebrew and other history. The best class of readers, however, will thank you for humanizing what had ceased to win them by pretensions exclusively divine; and for letting the consecration spread over the wider field of history. The quiet, lucid style of the book is most agreeable to my taste; and the compression of the matter is admirable.

I fear that the terrible national crisis must for a long time stay the hand of every literary man amongst you; and draw off all interest into one channel. And now, alas! arises the new and dreadful apprehension of war between our two countries! But surely, this cannot be permitted: there must be a body of reasonable public opinion in New England, which may be brought to bear on the government at Washington, and may induce it to restrain the over-zeal of its officers. Through all the excitement produced here by the Trent affair, there is everywhere a disposition to abide by the acknowledged rules of international law, and to insist on nothing which it is consistent with honour and duty to concede. The right of search, which we once claimed against you, we shall be content to suffer from you. All contraband of war is at the disposal of your Prize Courts, — though not of your naval officers without a Court. But Civil Persons, passengers on board our Steamers, between one neutral port and another, cannot in honour be given up, — and that without the trial and award of a tribunal. The impression at your embassy here seems to be, that the San Jacinto people have exceeded their instructions; just as our officers did in the Chesapeake case. God grant that the cloud may blow over!

Ever, my dear Mr. Allen,

Yours very sincerely,

James Martineau.

Rev. J. H. Allen.

DRAUGHT OF A LETTER FROM MR. ALLEN TO AN UNKNOWN CORRESPONDENT.

Jamaica Plain, Feb. 23, 1863.

My dear Sir,

I felt some compunction at receiving your very kindly and courteous epistle the day after I had sent one which I am afraid must have seemed a little truculent and unjust. I am forward to acknowledge the friendly spirit of the last leader in the Inquirer866 that I have seen (Jan. 24), and I have read with the highest gratification, in the Leeds Mercury (which you were kind enough to send) and in the Morning Star, the reports of the great meetings at Bradford and Exeter Hall. I trust we are not premature in hailing what seems to be a turn of the tide in English sentiment. And I am sure that, as the elements at work in these last two years get better known, you will see that it was not only necessary, but right and honorable, to stand for the defence of the Union, irrespective of the question of Slavery — all the more, since slavery in the Union was felt to be a doomed thing. Our self-justification rests not on a special philanthropic end to be secured, but on the need of sustaining the large principles of political liberty and civil order. Mr. Newman has seen and stated this distinctly from the first and so has Mr. Mill. You cannot have failed to read their words.Practically, the two questions have been one from the beginning. Witness this sentence from an English letter copied in the Liberator867: —

Recently, an American minister, the Rev. Stephen B. Tyng,868 was prohibited, or rather stopped, while speaking on behalf of the slave in the Young Men’s Christian Association in London — the chairman giving him to understand that, in the present state of feeling, it was a tabooed subject.

I think you cannot wonder at our disappointment and surprise, that so many of our English friends have virtually taken that side. But of this quite enough has been said.

I enclose you a Circular, from which you will see that I have carried out, sooner than I designed, the intention which puts the responsible charge of the Christian Examiner mainly in my hands.869 Just now a large part of my time is taken up by other cares. Still, I hope to do something for it now, and more after a few months. We intend to have a dinner next week, of the old and new friends and managers of the Examiner; and I hope there will come to be a permanent association870 or club of persons in general sympathy with the spirit that is designed to govern the Review hereafter. The points I wish to emphasize are: (1) to make it more distinctly the record and representative of a movement rather than a mere phase of thought; (2) to commit it more definitely to the discussion of the political and social questions of the time; and (3) to give more earnestness to the expression of devout and religious thought — apart from simple theological discussion. Success in the execution will, of course, depend mainly on success in finding the material. I trust and think, however, that the Examiner will be more felt as a living and positive Force.

The lengthening days give a feeling of relief that our summer is drawing nearer — and with it, we trust, our hopes of a real peace; and as well, that the dark season is passing away from the distressed classes among you. The testimony as to the fidelity of the suffering operatives is very touching and noble. I have quoted from a private note of Mr. Newman in the margin of my brother’s defence of Democracy871 (March Examiner), which I hope will come in your way. The Examiner, by the way, is always sent to Mr. Whitfield872 — though sometimes after some delay, in waiting for a box that is to be packed for him.

I fervently trust that the angry and bitter feeling that has prevailed is passing away, and that England and America are drawing nearer now, every day.

With much regard to your family and friends, I am

Yours, etc.

J. H. Allen.

P. S. May I trouble you to mail the enclosed to Mr. Martineau?

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

10, Gordon St. London, W. C.

April 14, 1863.

My dear Sir,

It seems a truly happy adaptation which at once secures to the Christian Examiner the advantage of your valuable labours, and furnishes you in your retirement with a congenial pursuit. At a time when, from the magnitude of public interests at stake, only the steadiest minds of a nation can tranquilly keep their balance, it is of the highest moment that a calm, thoughtful, far-seeing spirit like yours, should preside over the higher Journals which help to form opinion among the intellectual classes. How glad should I be, were it in my power at all to co-operate with you in clearing up the deplorable misunderstanding that prevails between the two Englands, — New and Old! But I fear that the modes of judgment, with regard to your great national struggle, are so different on the two sides of the Atlantic, that approximation is to be hoped for only from the arbitration of events. Of two things, materially affecting the international feeling, I wish I could give you the assurance which I profoundly have myself: that there is here no issue desired for your struggle except such as may be most conducive to the well-being and greatness of your Commonwealth, — be it singular or plural: and that there is no change whatever in the English estimate of slavery. We simply do not believe in either the restoration of the Union, or the extinction of Slavery, much less in joint accomplishment of both objects, by process of Civil War.873 And though this purely practical judgment may seem to occupy a humbler level than one which looks exclusively to the ideas said to be represented in the strife, yet it goes to the very essence of right and wrong in the case: for a War which aims at impossible objects, — be they ever so intrinsically good, — is self-condemned. We believe Slavery to be truly, as you say, the cause of the struggle: we do not believe it to be the stake at issue. On the contrary, we regard the division between North and South as the one gleam of hope that has opened on the sad history of the coloured race in America. The Free States, discharged from their slave-responsibilities, would spring at once to the head of the great league of nations against the oppression of an inferior race. But the Free States, reunited with the South, must either pledge themselves again to uphold and sanction the hateful institution; or end it by a conquest and confiscation of magnitude so frightful and uncontrollable as to outbid slavery itself in crime and misery. We may be wrong in these estimates of probability: experience may convict us of miscalculation, and may justify you in the policy which you pursue. But these, and no unworthy political interests or “aristocratic” theories, are the grounds of the English opinion; which is essentially, like the action of the English government, neutral and therefore complained of by both sides. There exist among us Southern partizans, like Mr. Spence874; and Northern partizans, like my friend Newman875 and the Emancipation Society. But, as parties, they are both alike quite unimportant, in comparison with the overwhelming mass of public sentiment that holds the balance between them, and is contributed in equal measure from every order of English society. Notwithstanding the recent organized meetings, provoked into existence by the extravagance of the Times and the Saturday Review, I see no trace of any real change of opinion here. The impression prevalent in America that our working classes sympathise, more than other Englishmen, with the Northern cause while the “aristocracy” wish success to the South, is entirely groundless, so far as I can observe; and indeed is plainly contradicted by the tone of the working-class newspapers. The division of opinion here upon this matter does not go by classes in the least: it is wholly an affair of personal temperament and cast of thought, turning up impartially in every grade of society. The strength of Northern sympathy in England lies among (1) speculative thinkers, like J. S. Mill, whose politics are ideal and socialistic; (2) evangelical philanthropists, who identify the contest with the fate of slavery; (3) doctrinaire republicans, like Stansfeld and Newman, — whose judgments take their complexion from the society of European refugees, — as Kossuth and Mazzini; and (4) critical politicians, like John Bright, kept by temperament in permanent opposition to the Government of the day. All these have a certain following in every class: but, on the whole, they constitute the foreign elements scattered around the organic nucleus of English life. Exactly the same may be said of the well-wishers to the South: they include no nameable class, unless it be the Catholics, — the Irish, — and the military men: they turn up on all sides here and there: but have no weight to disturb the general neutrality, — or rather the impartial sorrow, — with which the war is regarded.

Is it said that this statement is refuted by the act of a ship-builder in furnishing the Confederates with the Alabama? Then it is equally refuted by the act of a manufacturer known to me, who furnished the Federals with 25,000 rifles; and by that agent in Birmingham whom I met the other day, and who, for nearly two years, has avowedly been wholly occupied in sending to your government munitions of war. The law which is set at nought is just the same in both cases: in neither instance can the Government act unless on sworn informations brought before it: and the ease with which the evidence is concealed will always tempt private merchants to enterprizes of this kind, at the risk of capture by the belligerent powers at sea. As the Washington government ordered a war vessel at the very same Birkenhead yard which turned out the Alabama, with what propriety can they complain of an operation which they invited on their own behalf? In truth, the balance of these illegal supplies, it is well known, is enormously in their favour. Besides, your own great jurists have pointed out, that, so long as these supplies have not quitted the home-waters, they violate only a municipal law, of which no foreign power can claim the enforcement; — that only when they are on the high seas do they become amenable to international law; — and that then the execution of that law rests with the belligerent whose rights are infringed, while the private merchant’s government has simply the duty of letting the penalties upon his act take their course. As these principles of neutral right have been defined and upheld mainly by your authoritative men, and applied against our belligerent pretensions in former wars, it does seem hard that we should be denied the benefit of them as soon as the relations are inverted, and should incur, even from such good men as Dr. Hall,876 the groundless reproach of violated neutrality. If the truth were told, is it not the neutrality itself, — and not any violation of it, — which constitutes our offence? And if so, can any calm thinker say that this is reasonable?

From international affairs I gladly turn to “National.” My connexion with the Review is unchanged: and the only novelty is that the Editor is now an Oxford man, a Professor in King’s College, London,877 and that we have formed an alliance with the Oxford Broad Church party, on the theological ground common to them and us. The first result was an excess of Churchmanship in the January number; which will be guarded against in future. It is very difficult, in this country, to keep at once the horizon of thought large and the spirit within it earnest and simple. Men liberal on particular points surprise you with some narrow sectarianism on others: and the true Catholic breadth, of intellect and sympathy combined, is a phenomenon as rare as it is noble. To find it, however, where it exists, and to multiply it by expression, is the great object of the National Review. I shall rejoice to feel that in this we may be fellow-workers in our different spheres. Our publishers tell us that for the last year they have sent no Nationals to America; the war interfering with their previous transactions in some way. So I dare say you may not have fallen in with any recent numbers. God grant that the clouds that darken your atmosphere, and spread their shade to ours, may ere long disperse, and leave us united in the common light of kindred thought and congenial duties to the world!

With kindest remembrances from my wife and young people, and many thanks for the excellent photograph,

Ever, my dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,

James Martineau.

Rev. J. H. Allen.

JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN TO JAMES MARTINEAU.

[Draught of a portion only of Mr. Allen’s reply.]

I hope you will not be displeased if I remark on one or two of the points which you have mentioned. 1. The sentence which I have quoted from Earl Russell (date of June 12, 1862) seems to draw a clear line between such offences as blockade-running or the sale of munitions to be delivered in good faith to the purchaser, and the outfitting of an armed vessel like the Alabama, — a distinction which the English government has in practice and in fact acknowledged. 2. As to a question of fact, I believe a false impression has been given in England; and that so far from ordering a vessel built at the same yard with the Alabama, our government has even refused (for the sake of consistency) to purchase foreign ships offered for sale in our own ports; — although it is impossible for us to feel that the sale of arms etc. to a friendly and recognized power is the same thing in law, or at least in morals, with the sale of them to parties occupying the position of insurrectionary leaders, in the interest of a slave-holding despotism. In this last sense, it is true, as you suggest, that the real grievance is “neutrality.”

There is one other point, which I wish might be more carefully considered abroad than it seems to have been. What makes America a nation, is the general respect for the authority of the federal bond. That is our one historical antecedent to fall back on. It is therefore not accurate to suppose that the Free States, alone, would stand in the attitude of a strong nation, by mere separation from the South. Not merely a glance at the map, but the highest knowledge of our politics, would show the fallacy of such a fancy. It is true that the common effort and burden of a war may create such a nation, even in event of separation. But secession, of itself, was well understood to be sheer disintegration; and, if you remember, was freely spoken of as such two years ago, in the Edinburgh and Quarterly. But even this is not the essential point. It is without dispute, that up to the time of secession, the United States had been always regarded as a nation, competent to make treaties, etc. etc. Fort Sumter was one of its possessions, built on National (and not State) territory. Now — aside from the policy of surrendering a fort on the mere demand of a foreign power, which South Carolina claimed to be — what ought the United States to have done, when Fort Sumter was attacked? Till this Question is answered, all argument on the rightfulness of the war is irrelevant.

Again, as to the results of the war. These points should be borne in mind, irrespective of its possible or probable final issue: — (1) It has vindicated the fact of nationality, which (and as you truly say not slavery) was the real “stake at issue.” (2) It has already rescued a territory between five and six times the combined area of England and France from the control of that “Slave Empire of the West” of which the National spoke a few years ago. (3) It has actually revolutionized, without violence or loss (other than the immediate losses of war), the system of labor over immense districts, which the United States now hold in trust. We claim that either one of these results amply justifies the war — by all common maxims of human judgment — apart from the fact that it was inevitable. What, in candour, would be your judgment of us now, if we had refused to fight, or if we should abandon the contest at its present stage? Would it not be something different, and far more contemptuous, than “impartial sorrow”?

I have not the least wish to treat the subject controversially, especially in a personal correspondence with you. But it seems to me that good may be done, on one side, by the frank acknowledgment on the part of Englishmen, that we have done, after all, what they would have held it infamous and impossible not to have done in similar circumstances; and, on the other side, by any assurance that may be given, that the neutrality of the English in this contest is as honest and as friendly as you have represented.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

Tŷ Mawr, Penmaenmawr, Conway.

July 8th, 1863.

My dear Sir,

I should sooner have thanked you for your valuable letter, — so strongly yet so gently reasoned, — of the 9th May, had I been able to contribute any new element to the discussion which is supreme in interest for Americans and Englishmen alike. But after the complete exhaustion of the subject by public writers and speakers on both sides of the Atlantic, I feel that the cast of my own personal convictions is of no moment and can give no help: and I shrink, — even in presence of your candid invitation and the certainty of a kindly construction, — from the impertinence of foreign criticism on a national crisis justly awakening the keenest susceptibilities, and fully entitled to work itself out in its own way. Though, however, I am not anxious to urge our opinions upon you, I do earnestly desire to qualify your opinions of us: and especially to convince you that the attitude of English feeling towards the Northern States is absolutely free from every element of hostility. Such a sentiment as you quote from the lips of a friend “unusually fair and large minded,” — that he would compromise with the South for the sake of fighting England, — is so wildly astray from every direction of feeling here as to be simply wonderful. If he had his wish, what would he fight us for? When he sat down to his desk, to write out his Declaration of War, what offences from our Government would furnish the materials of his indictment? The only complaint I have heard is of the building of the Alabama. This, however, was the act of a private person, evading the vigilance of the government: and it now appears, from the decision against the Crown in the case of the Alexandra, that the ship-builder committed no breach of law at all. He had a right to sell ships, as gunmakers to sell arms, to either of the belligerents: only, if the other belligerent stops and seizes them on the way, he suffers his risk and has no redress. By sending out the ship from British waters in an unarmed state, he escaped the operation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and brought the transaction within the limits of a commerce legitimate in neutral waters, though unprotected from war risks. In order to comply to the uttermost with the requisitions of Mr. Adams, our government has exposed itself to a humiliating defeat in court. Lord Russell, — doubtless fearing this, — had previously offered to Mr. Seward to propose to Parliament amendments rendering the Foreign Enlistment Act more stringent, on condition of the same changes being simultaneously recommended to Congress in your Law, — which is identical with ours. The offer was declined. It is difficult to see what more we could do, than propose to make the law tighter; and meanwhile, try it as it is.

If you have read the judgment of the Chief-Justice, you will doubtless have noticed that he puts upon the same footing the sale of arms and the sale of ships. If the latter gives ground of complaint, so does the former: if our manufacturers offend against you in one article, they offend against the South in another: only, the South cannot stop the arms that go to New York: and you expect to stop the ships that go to Charleston. The adventures of trade are perfectly impartial: they are intangible by law: and are wholly devoid of political significance.

Deeply as I lament that we should be the object of such a feeling as you describe, I cannot admit that its bare existence establishes its justice: and I can confidently affirm that it is quite unintelligible, and without the least response, here. A few irritable and eccentric men, like Roebuck, may doubtless be found, who spurt out splenetic extravagancies against the Northern cause: but against these you must set off the vastly superior weight of positive sympathy and advocacy which that cause receives from a few Englishmen of the highest order, such as Mill, Newman, Gold win Smith, Bright and Cobden. Neither class represents the national feeling; which repudiates alike the temper of the former and the doctrine of the latter.

Great harm, I think, has been done to the European repute of the Northern cause by confusing, in its management, the constitutional and the anti-slavery question, and not keeping its issue clear and simple. I have always held that the attack on Fort Sumter put your government in the right, and compelled the resort to force in reply. The obligation to maintain the Constitution was an obligation to use the forces of the State against Secession. The title of a government to vindicate its authority and property is unimpeachable: and, accordingly, at the outset, all European spectators condemned the connivance of Buchanan and approved of the honest efforts of his successor. But the duty of using a formal right, and the extent to which it should be enforced, must always be limited by the range of possible success. It cannot be a duty, — on the contrary, it is the gravest of political crimes, — to pledge the resources of a State against all odds. No sooner, therefore, did the scale and the resoluteness of the Secession become evident, than the European feeling as to the original right became qualified by the spectacle of overwhelming facts: the problem undertaken by your government was deemed unmanageable: and the war was deplored as likely only to embitter an inevitable separation. Its continued prosecution seemed to imply a presumptuous overestimate of what human will and force can accomplish, and a rejection, too prolonged, of the obvious arbitrament of nature and Providence.

Then, the introduction of a new issue by the Abolitionists at Washington has certainly injured the Northern cause in the appreciation of European statesmen. The removal of Slavery is, in their judgment, no proper object of a war: and is, on the other hand, far too serious and responsible a change to be resorted to incidentally, as a mere instrument of war. It is pre-eminently a work of peace; needing deliberation, time, and organized vigilance and control: and to inaugurate it in the heat and haste of conflict, to impose it as a military penalty, to identify it with confiscation and attainder, is to do all that is possible to make it hateful and hopeless. This, at least, is the view taken, so far I can observe, by all our most experienced and high-minded men of affairs, including the anti-slavery leaders themselves. The proclamation of Lincoln878 captivated a certain number of our philanthropists of sentiment; and alienated others by stopping short of their desires: but, if I mistake not, has had upon our responsible men of action a deeper and more unfavourable effect than any incident since the beginning of the struggle. It has marred the simplicity of your Constitutional cause by introducing, through an overstrained application of belligerent right, a collateral issue far too great to remain collateral.

In all this I feel profoundly my liability to judge amiss, from imperfect command of the data for thinking right. But you ask for my impressions: and I frankly give them. They are open to any correction you may benefit me by bestowing. God grant that we may soon discuss these matters in the retrospect of peace!

I am delighted that you approve of Dr. Sadler’s Liturgy. Your publishers promise me a copy of their reprint. With our united kindest regards,

Ever faithfully yours,

James Martineau.879

Rev. J. H. Allen.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

35, Gordon Square, London, W. C.

Mar. 12, 1881.

Dear Mr. Allen,

I received with real delight your fascinating volume, and not less so your letter, with the good tidings of your probable visit to Europe a few months hence. Before that time I shall hope to have given more than a rapid glance at the Fragments of Christian History, so as to be in possession of some distinct impressions of the several subjects and your mode of handling them. Though, alas, even the small competency I once had to speak on these historical themes I have in great measure lost through the necessary limitation of my later studies to the philosophical subjects with which it is my function to deal. My interest however in the life of past ages, especially, in the history of early Christendom, is even sharpened by my exile from the literature relating to it: and I kindle up at the very titles of your Essays. I sincerely hope that you will not have earned in vain your admirable qualifications for the chair880 which you have temporarily filled; but that a position so congenial will be confirmed to you in permanence.

I am most anxious that, if you come over this summer, your time in London should include the week beginning with the 19th of June. It is the week which closes our College Session: and though the examinations and various meetings render it a very busy time, they gather together a good many friends whom, I think, you would like to see. And, — to urge a more selfish reason, — both before and after those few days I shall be, — with my daughters, — far away in Inverness-shire, where we now live for five months in the year. If, indeed, you would come and see us there, that would be better than London, and we would find our way together to the top of Cairn Gorm and through some of the forest walks. But then, unfortunately, my cottage is very small, and gives me only one bedroom at disposal; and there is no inn or boarding-house within twelve miles: so that my hospitality, — except by day, — is perforce limited to one. It is just possible, however, that I might be able, in some farm house near, to find a supplementary lodging, if you can bring so remote a place within the range of your movements. We shall be delighted to be introduced to your son and daughter.

My young people (no, I must not call them so, for they all remember well your visit of twenty-six years ago) join me in the warm remembrances with which

I am, Yours most truly,

James Martineau.

Rev. J. H. Allen.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

35, Gordon Square, London, W. C.

Jany. 29, 1884.

Dear Mr. Allen,

I know you will indulgently remember, in excuse for my delayed acknowledgment of your most welcome letter and volume, that “the steps of an old man are slow.” Of your instructive and interesting sketches of Christian History881 I have long ago read the substance (forgive the “metaphysical fiction”) of both volumes; with the result of at once procuring them for the use of our students in the College Library, who are constantly referred to them by my accomplished colleague, Professor J. E. Carpenter, in his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History.

To me they are in a high degree fascinating; none the less, — indeed, rather the more, — that with their underlying philosophical conceptions, as brought out in the chapter entitled Passage from Dogma to Pure Reason, I do not find my usual ways of thinking quite in accord. If I interpret you aright, in your appeal to “fact,” as ultimate verifier, your criticism proceeds upon the Positivist theory of what Knowledge is, viz. that we know only phenomena and their laws of grouping and succession. Now I admit this to be an adequate account of the business of Science and of the conditions of prevision. But I must add that Phenomena cannot be known without Noumena. The word is one term of a Relation, and has no meaning without the other: a phenomenon is a phenomenon of something; it is somewhere and some where; it cannot be thought, but as from a cause: and involves, as correlates, the Noumena Substance, Space, Time, Cause; — all of them, if you please, supplied purely by the Intellect (or Perceptive Power, as Kant would say, of two of them) itself; but not on that account less inherent in the act of knowing and essential factors of it, than the matter of sensation as felt. Why we should consider the phenomenal, i. e. the sensible, side of this relative act, real and trust-worthy, and the intellectual a fiction and a phantom, I cannot see. I therefore hold, with Descartes, that, in these last resorts, “the thought of the mind represents the truth of fact”; and further, that “observed fact” has and can have no better guarantee than such “metaphysical fictions.” “Fact” is ascertained by Perception: and Perception carries in it the “Thought of the Mind,” without which it does not become predication at all: and any distrust felt towards the “Thought” equally affects the “Fact.” To impugn the Noumena is to be left without the Phenomena.

You will see, from this confession, why I do not feel the “despairs of Metaphysics,” or the disaffection towards the schools of speculative philosophy, which the modern preoccupation with the Inductive Sciences has for awhile rendered prevalent. So long as knowledge is a relation, and an antithetic relation, between Knower and Known, it cannot dispense with equal faith in both; and what the Subject, quâ apprehensive, necessarily thinks, enters into the Real no less than what Object universally gives. Philosophy as I understand it, takes charge of the former, i. e. of the constants of knowledge; Science of the latter, — i. e. of its variables. If either pursuit ever dreamt of doing the work of the other, i. e. if it set up for a knowledge of “the Absolute” (which appears to me an unfounded charge), such an illusion merits exposure. But such a mistake is no more implied in the mediæval exaggeration of the Deductive method, than it is in the present overestimate of the Inductive. The error, in both instances, seems to me a mere attempt to cover the defect of the age by overstraining the resources of its strength.

You will set me down, I fear, as a hopeless subject, when I own to feeling still some “difficulty” in saying that “Matter thinks.” My reason is simply, that “matter” is a word meaning exclusively what is or may be an object of perception; while “thinks” is predicable exclusively of a subject of the perceiving act; and as these exist only in and by antithesis, to unify them is to cancel them. The appreciation of this unconquerable antithesis is gradually gaining ground, I am happy to see, among the living or recent representatives of the “empirical school,” whose first leanings were towards materialism and who still linger on its precincts. There is a marked tendency among them towards a Leibnizian form of conception, — providing, under the name of “Mind-stuff” or some equivalent, a separate germ, in the primordial data, for the future developments of consciousness, concurrent with the initiation and development of the material system. Croom Robertson882 seems to lean in this direction, — as Clifford883 evidently did; and hints to the same effect drop out pretty frequently in the newer literature; — partly, no doubt, influenced by Lotze. I welcome this change, not as introducing a satisfactory hypothesis, but as acknowledging a limit to the resources of evolution, and a returning suspicion of the intractable character of absolute monism.

With regard to Kant, I am quite at one with your appreciation of his stand made upon “the solid ground of Ethics.” But what constitutes its solidity seems to me simply this: that in the Practical Reason he accepts and affirms the implicit postulates of the faculty which he is expounding; while, in the Pure Reason, he challenges and denies their validity. For this difference I see no shadow of justification. The Subjective character of the assumptions, — which is all that he proves in the Pure Reason, — is there used as the plea for discrediting them: in the Ethical book, it is used as the adequate ground for faith in them. But, in this last sound step, he does not pass into any new field of empirical logic; he only repents him of his sins, and makes the amende honorable to his maltreated intuitive forms of thought: he takes back into trust his discarded old tutor, — Metaphysics, — this and nothing else. So that I cannot agree with the view, that the first book abolished the metaphysical régime, and the second inaugurated the inductive.

If we were face to face, I should like to have exchanged ideas with you on other topics, — e. g. Justification by Faith. But such subjects are too large for these days of hurried correspondence. I see that much of the difference in our modes of viewing religious problems is due to my old fashioned habits of mind, less imbued than your younger thought with the rationalizing Zeitgeist. The world is with you. And though I mean to leave a little testimony to the faiths which have been the light of my life, I fully expect that, if listened to at all, it will be soon forgot, lost in the countless waves from which at last some better truth will dawn.

Believe me Ever,

Yours most sincerely,

James Martineau.

Rev. J. H. Allen.

JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN TO JAMES MARTINEAU.

[Draught of a portion only of a letter dated 13 February, 1884]

Those laws of thought expressed in the categories of cause, space, time, and the like, I make no doubt whatever are the expression of truth — nay, of truth objective to the mind that thinks. But the mediaeval Realism assumed a good deal more, in claiming that “the thought of the mind represents the truth of fact.” For example, the whole theory of the Logos as a superhuman personality, with its attributes and functions, and the conditions of its manifestation in a human life, was, as I take it, a purely subjective apprehension, developed (like the German’s camel) out of Men’s “moral consciousness” — yet none the less having to them an objective reality, which one might be burnt at the stake for questioning. Those curious questions treated by Thomas Aquinas, with absolute simplicity of faith that he can give a valid answer by a mere mental process (some of which I gave on p. 222 of The Middle Age), are illustrations of a state of mind which only began to be dispelled when Descartes began to think and therefore to be. In short, that menacing and tyrannical system of dogma, from which only a small part of Christendom is yet delivered, is (to our view) a vast and horrible phantasmagory, in which “the thought of the mind is assumed to represent truth of fact.” It is this style of “realism,” not at all that which helps make clear to us the essential conditions of the mental life, that I had in mind; and to insist upon the fact (which our students ought to know) that Protestant orthodoxy is only a stranded wreck of that old phantasmagory.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

The Polchar, Rothiemurchus, Aviemore, Scotland.

Aug. 19, 1888.

Dear Mr. Allen,

As Editor of the Unitarian Review and long an observer of our English affairs, you know enough of the Unitarian Home Missionary Board in Manchester, to be aware that its Principal cannot fail to be in the foremost rank of our Theologians and Preachers; and you will readily allow me to commend to your kind regard the present occupant of that office, Rev. J. Edwin Odgers, who, with his equally worthy younger brother, Rev. J. Collins Odgers, is proposing to devote the vacation months to a sojourn in the U. S. A., and especially in New England. You will recognize in them, I venture to say, the true stamp of the English scholar, and the simplicity of the earnest divine. They desire especially to see and know what they can of Harvard and its Divinity School.

I take the opportunity of this note, to thank you for the June number of the Unitarian Review. I found Prof. Everett’s notice of my book884 only too generous in its literary and personal appreciations. And if, in his exposition of my way of thinking, I could not always recognize myself, this no doubt arose from an incapacity in me for transposing myself to his (apparently Hegelian) point of view. Where the theory of knowledge at the outset is different, mutual understanding is thereafter impossible. I felt, therefore, a certain want of a preliminary éclaircissement, such as would have come out, had he addressed any criticism to the opening Book of the Treatise. If you see the Dutch Periodical, De Tijdspiegel and happen to have read, in the July and August numbers, a Review by Prof^r Van der Wÿck of the Study of Religion and of Prof. Rauwenhoff’s Wijsbegeerte van den Godsdienst, you will catch my meaning. Still, I have every possible reason to be grateful to Prof. Everett. The difference of School is involuntary and inevitable.

I remain, always,

Yours most truly,

James Martineau.

Rev. J. H. Allen.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

35, Gordon Square, London, W. C.

Jan. 31, 1889.

Dear Mr. Allen,

My friend, Mr. Odgers,885 has made me partaker of his many pleasant and heartening impressions of Boston and Cambridge life; among which none were more welcome to me than those which came out in answer to my enquiries about yourself and your work. He has since communicated to me the proposal886 which your kind letter of the 17th inst repeats with some additions. It has so much to recommend it to the feeling of our co-religionists here, that it is very likely to receive encouragement, especially in the absence, just now, of any periodical organ of liberal theology, beyond the weekly newspaper or purely popular reporters of practical affairs.

I am sorry that my personal judgment, after reflecting on the conditions of the case, is not favourable to the scheme. Our religious position in this country is historically and essentially different from yours. You have, and desire to have, an organized Unitarian Body existing as a Unitarian Church. We have not, and are bound, by our antecedents, our Foundation-deeds, and our professions, not to have; our ecclesiastical existence and life having no relation to any particular type of theological opinion that may happen to be prevalent among us at this or that season of development. A theological organ is, therefore, eo ipso, unfitted for representing the common interests of our religious life.

And, on the other hand, a Review which is to do the important work of a Theological organ of criticism and research, cannot possibly assume the name of a particular type of theology. Such a renunciation of all pretension to intellectual impartiality cannot be corrected by any attempt to make the Unitarian name cover indefinitely more than belongs to its original and well-understood meaning. It grieves me beyond measure, morally even more than logically, to see an ever-increasing tendency to this tampering with the exact meaning of indispensable words.

It strikes me also that, from time to time, there must arise, in either country, questions of pressing interest, social and political, which are of no concern to the other. The local colouring which would thus be imparted to the Review, I do not think it would be desirable either to withhold or to obtrude. I believe that we shall help one another best by the separate work of free hands.

All the more, for this opinion, do I thank you for the copies of the Review which you have kindly sent; and which I am reading with much interest. The report of Dr. Hedge’s recovery delights me more than I can tell.

Believe me, Yours most truly,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTLNEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

35, Gordon Square, London, W. C.

March 28, 1890.

Dear Mr. Allen,

I am delighted at the prospect of seeing you again on this side of the Atlantic, whether it be in London or in the Scottish Highlands. We shall not remove to our Northern cottage till the third or fourth week in May. But if you are disposed, after that time, to stroll about with me on foot or drive in a little open carriage, among our hills and forests, we shall heartily welcome you, and, if our small cottage should be full, shall easily find you a night’s lodging with a friendly neighbour.

You do well to take counsel with younger and more hopeful men than I in regard to your projected Quarterly Journal:887 and I have little doubt that you may find energy enough to float and conduct the enterprise. More “modern” men will not feel the difficulties which withhold me from participation in it. The phrase “Liberal Theology” is made to cover so much that, in my view, is foreign to Theology altogether, that its intellectual claims carry in them no tincture of religious interest. Were it honestly set forth as “Anthropology,” I should care much for it, in its place and relations: but it is spoiled for study, till it relinquishes its apotheosis. The question “How religions (as human phenomena) grow,” is of much psychological interest; but either evades the question which lies behind it “Whether and how far they are true,” or treats it as a choice of more or less accurate expression of an order of subjective feelings and conceptions, just as the processes of plant growth may be loosely or exactly described. Henry Drummond’s book, Natural Law in the Spiritual World, seems to me a useful reductio ad absurdum of the whole system of illusory analogies between instituted phenomenal order and the Principia of eternal being. To me, Monism in any form, Idealistic or Materialistic, is tantamount to a negation of Religion. I mean, of course, in its logical results, not in the conscious thought of those who hold it.

Your report of Dr. Hedge interests and touches me profoundly. It is natural for us lingering veterans to watch each other’s steps down the declining path with wondering sympathy, and welcome every peaceful reach of the way with a fellowship of thankfulness. I can count on the fingers of one hand the little octogenarian band of comrades in the life-campaign.

Believe me, always,

Yours most truly,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

The Polchar, Rothiemurchus, Aviemore, N. B.

July 24, 1890.

My dear Mr. Allen,

Your triple call at Burleigh Street makes me ashamed of my inconsideration in troubling you with Mr. Wylie’s commission. I shall tell him of your good offices, and of my belief that “Tit-Bits”888 is a humbug, depending, like mice, on the nibbling of manuscripts. I am persuaded that he will get nothing back; though perhaps, on my return, I may make another attempt. I thank you heartily for so kindly acting in my stead.

My friend Upton889 and his wife have left us after a fortnight’s sojourn in which we have rambled far and wide, physically over hill and forest, spiritually over more than one universe, actual or possible or impossible. After this annual audit of metaphysical accounts, lean start afresh with a mind at ease, and with less fear of bankruptcy. I wish you could have been a party to our colloquies. But you are better where you are; with Mr. Odgers890 you will at least keep your foot on terra firma, and work out something that is good. Give him my kindest regards, and those of an old friend of his who is with us, Miss Jevons.891

We shall think of you often on your homeward voyage, and long after. May the seas bear you gently, and restore you happily to the dear home.

Yours affectionately,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

The Polchar, Rothiemurchus, Aviemore, Scotland.

Oct. 28, 1890.

My dear Mr. Allen,

It interests me much to hear the result of your negotiations with our friends on this side for the establishment of a common organ of religious thought and movement. Old age and temperament forbid me to be sanguine in such matters: but I have no doubt that the enterprise will bear some good fruit, in excellent papers which, without such a μαιευτής892 would never see the light. My own relation to it, — I fear I must definitely say, — can be only that of an eager reader, not of a writer. What I have thus far set forth brings me to a natural pause: and till I know more, or unlearn what I only seem to know, it is fitting for me to be silent and simply look for light.

The October number of your Review can at present be acknowledged with only blind thanks: for it has not been forwarded to me here. I shall doubtless find it when we reach home at the end of this week. I saw the notice of Dr. Hedge in The Unitarian.893 It is pleasant in its truth and tenderness, but needs the more comprehensive and varied portraiture which I expect to find in the Review.894

Mr. A. W. Jackson, I learn, is now in London, and I hope to see him for an evening on Monday next. He has been staying at Oxford; and he and Professor Upton are delighted with each other. He has discovered, in his visit to the old University, that he must make a study of Hegelianism, and follow it from its fountain-head to its English derivates, if he is to understand our problems here and now. I do not wonder that he is half-frightened at the prospect of this task.

I have sent to the press the first volume of the Studies, Reviews and Addresses which I have been selecting and classifying for re-publication. It will be ready, I hope, by Christmas. It will consist chiefly of Personal or Biographical sketches; followed by two or three Political papers. The other volumes will appear, if no hitch occurs, at intervals of three months.

Our return home is invited by a sudden change to winter here; the landscape being clothed in snow from the mountain-tops to our very doors. Yet so lovely is it that my persevering daughter, Gertrude (whom you did not see), has been sitting out in it at Loch-an-Eilan to sketch, and fix the beauty ere it flies.

With our united kind regards, I remain

Yours most cordially,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

The Polchar, Rothiemurchus, Aviemore, Scotland.

July 1, 1891.

My dear Dr. Allen,

Our return to these summer quarters, where your presence brightened a few of our days last year, reminds me, not without self-reproach, that I still owe you my acknowledgments for your kind and welcome letter some five or six months ago. Its gift of one volume and promise of another were most acceptable: for I find both stimulus and refreshment in all that you write, and cannot but expect the same from any family memorials edited by yourself and your sisters. The advance of life sheds an ever-tenderer charm over the vanished forms and remembered modes of life that can never re-appear as they were, and yet are still living with new varieties of blossom in the present. Nothing of late has so brought home to me the wonderful depth and extent of modern ecclesiastical and moral change as the late Dean Church’s book on the Oxford Movement, a series of papers, by a large-minded observer, rendered singularly interesting alike by its personal sketches and its connected thread of historical development. The book very seasonably relieves the somewhat oppressive one-sidedness of Dr. Edwin [A.] Abbott’s and F. W. Newman’s volumes upon the late Cardinal.

That my correspondence has flagged of late is due in part to constant pressure from my printers, and in part to my rashness in undertaking a course of fourteen lectures at University Hall, in connection with Mrs. Humphrey Ward’s institution centered there. I did not get many hearers of the half-educated and unsettled class chiefly contemplated by me; the Hall being filled mainly by people with sufficient culture and access to books to render them independent (if they would but use their resources) of any help that I could give. I can only hope that I may have set a few of them to work out for themselves the problems which they are too ready to leave floating in suspense.

Our excellent friend, Dr. Sadler, has been obliged, through failing health, to retire from his charge at Hampstead. Some of the congregation are desirous of securing Mr. Brooke Herford as his successor: and the idea finds favour with those who are anxious to give the society a more vigorous working character. On the other hand, younger names are mentioned as more attractive to hearers belonging to the upper intellectual stratum of the congregation. Means, I trust, will be found for avoiding any hurtful conflict of interest or feeling. The position is a very important and somewhat delicate one: and its difficulties have been admirably neutralized by Dr. Sadler’s Christian tact and catholic temper.

I am expecting Prof. Upton tomorrow for the fortnight’s visit which he annually pays us: and hope to hear of the progress of the little book on Ethics on which he is engaged (by Dr. Percival of Rugby and Dr. Evelyn Abbott of Oxford) for the Home-Reading Library. Mrs. Upton, I am sorry to say, is too much enfeebled by a long rheumatic attack, to come with him so far North. I fear the Oxford climate does not suit either of them well.

My daughters send kindest remembrances.

Ever affectionately yours,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

The Polchar, Rothiemcrchus, Aviemore, N. B.

Aug. 21, 1891.

Dear Dr. Allen,

Having just enjoyed some daily communion with you in your two volumes, — the Family Memoir895 and Positive Religion,896 I must indulge myself with a few words of heartfelt thanks by way of Appendix. The biographical volume has interested me profoundly, both by retouching old memories and opening to me new affections towards a whole group of the wise and faithful “whom, having not seen,” I shall henceforth “love.” The early pages carried me back to my Dublin ministry, during which both Dr. and Mrs. Kirkland and Henry Ware Jun^r and wife were repeatedly visitors at my house, — the former, anxious to find, in their common maiden-name of Higginson,897 a link of relationship between Mrs. K. and my wife. Notwithstanding some vestiges of paralytic affection, Dr. K. left on me an ineffaceable impression of dignity and graciousness, and Mrs. K. of energy and genial vivacity. Mrs. Ware was much out of health, — liable, I think, to fainting fits: and this so far affected his spirits that, though he could never be less than interesting, he hardly satisfied the enthusiasm which his writings had kindled in me. During the Peace-Congress in Paris which your father attended in 1849, I was, with my family, in Germany, dodging “the dogs of war” by various movements, and coming upon traces of it in Berlin and Vienna, in Prague, and the Taunus, and Baden. It was a memorable crisis, the effects of which are still developing themselves in Europe, from Paris to Moscow, from Copenhagen to Palermo. The whole of your father’s life after this visit to Europe, with the successive home changes, is deeply interesting and touching. It was a marvellous triumph of self-control that he could persist in his faithful ways, and not be unhinged and broken down by the thought of the patient sufferer through all those years at home. The peculiarity, which you have as well brought out, of his position as (originally) minister of his town, I greatly admire and respect, and cannot help preferring to the fissiparous disintegration of modern religious society into a Congregationalism, the law of which is, for the most part, the survival of the unfittest. I cannot but envy you your comfortable belief that the actual, being given by evolution, is always the best.

In regard to the essays on Positive Religion, I find myself in this condition. You take me up, page after page, into heartfelt sympathy, admiring what you admire, loving what you love. Our ideals are the same. This concurrence of estimate, as to what is highest and rightest in character and life, I should call an ethical sympathy. There is however an ulterior question: “What and whence is this ideal?” Has it any objective reality? If yes, viz. in some nobler soul than ours, then our reverence for it is still ethical, just as it would be, were it simply an imagining of our own. Whether, over and above its being ethical, it is religious, speaking to us with an authority more than that of human preference, depends, I should say, on its being the manifestation of a Living Divine Will wherein the Holiness suggested is real. This origin of it, as a communion of God with man, is what makes it sacred to me, and turns my obedience to it into worship, and renders possible that trust and love towards it which can subsist only between person and person. But, if I understand you aright, you invert this relation, and regard the word “God” as significant only of an unwarrantable personification of the ideal itself as a subjective phenomenon: so that we, in fact, invent a Divine Righteousness in our desire to borrow a transcendent authority for our own. I am unable to accept this ethical reduction of the contents of Religion, or the postulates on which it is based. While therefore I am, for the most part, at one with your ideals and often greatly moved by your impressive presentation of them, I cannot rest content with their self-authentication and limitation to the Finite world.

We had an interesting visit here from your excellent Miss Bartlett,898 the lady Rev^d., and were much taken by her. She preached with much acceptance at Monton.899 Her example however does not quite convert me to the new mode.

My daughters unite in warm regards.

Ever affectionately yours,

Jas. Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

35, Gordon Square, London, W. C.

[May, 1894?]

Dear Dr. Allen,

On 364 days of the year I wonder at the old Hebrew yearning for length of life and glorification of old age. But the remaining day converts me for twenty-four hours by mere force of congratulation and the charm of the gracious and friendly letters that lie in heaps upon my table: so that I think nothing more delightful than the first step into my 90th year. You have a large share of my gratitude for this happy illusion, if illusion it be: for nothing is more welcome and cheering to me than the benediction which you waft to me over the Atlantic. For a little while the affectionate words of like-minded friends keep at bay the old man’s disheartening feeling that he has outlived his time. But on slipping back into the current of prevailing experience, he feels how it is drifting away from his ideals, and even wandering into desert sands which it cannot fertilise. I look with some anxiety on the tendencies of our religious body both here and in the United States; every critical turn in our history rendering it more evident that, instead of developing the inspiration of our higher traditions, we are surrendering ourselves to the lower. The future, I believe, is not yet closed against us, if there were but a soul great enough to lead us. But it seems, alas! as if “the Sun had gone down upon the Prophets”! I cannot be surprised at the outbreak of divisions, when I see what a so-called Church may come to be in some of your “advanced” stations, and in some of ours.

I shall look with eager interest for your promised volume.900 Probably, the impression which it leaves will be stronger and clearer, from its not being combined with the work of another hand or the history of another time.

With our united kindest regards,

I am, always,

Yours most cordially,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

35, Gordon Square, London, W. C.

May 27, 1895.

Dear Dr. Allen,

I am delighted to receive, and delighted to reciprocate, your congratulations. Your day of blessing and family gathering this month901 I can realise with the deeper sympathy from its brightness in contrast with the parallel experiences of my own life. On the same day I visited, with my daughter Gertrude, her mother’s grave, who was taken from us just one year before the Golden Wedding became due. And, instead of being surrounded, as you happily are, by a joyous crowd of descendants, I am quitting the world without leaving a grandchild to hand down the household memory and name. This deepens the sense of solitude which is inseparable from the later stages of so prolonged a life. Yet I am grateful for the lengthened stay, under conditions which leave the essential interests of life still unimpaired, and its energies hardly touched by any disabling infirmity.

My daughters join me in cordial congratulations on your happy arrival at so memorable a date in domestic experience. We are on the eve of our annual removal to Scotland; which obliges me to be brief.

Ever affectionately yours,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

The Polchar, Aviemore, Scotland.

Oct. 7, 1896.

Dear Dr. Allen,

I am in your debt for two kindnesses which claim and have my cordial gratitude, — the copy of your Divinity School Address at Harvard;902 and the note offering me the privilege I should so highly value of personally welcoming Miss Charlotte Hedge.903 This, alas! to my deep regret (in common with my daughters), has been missed through our summer flight to these Caledonian Highlands. From a note inclosing yours, which she addressed to my London home, I learn that she must already have left our shores. I can only beg you to assure her that our disappointment is great at the loss of an interview so interesting in itself and connected with memories so sacred.

The Harvard Address I have read and re-read with a sympathy truly delightful. I take for granted that you will issue it in separate and permanent form. All the characterisations which my limited personal or literary knowledge enables me to test appear to me admirable in their discriminative touches. Perhaps it may be pardoned to my nonagenarian predilections, if I say, as the result of the retrospect, that, tried by an intellectual standard, the old School was better furnished for the problems with which the data of its time enabled it to deal, than its successor. Norton, for instance, made out, I think, a stronger case for his position, from the admitted premises of contemporary criticism, than Dr. Furness did for his. And Theodore Parker, to accomplish the great strides which his theology took, had to set his philosophy upon very precarious stilts. James Freeman Clarke, perhaps, represents the nearest approach to a reconciliation of the needs of Christian piety with the claims of modern Science and of critically tested History. But there yet remained behind, as there still remains, to be dealt with in a further step of effective Evolution, the sweeping claim of the Hegelian dialectic; the influence of which is apparent in Dr. Hedge, but not, as far as I can see, reduced to its terms of final estimate. So much do we owe to you, our brethren of the West, in the Past, which you have so faithfully sketched, that our hopes naturally turn to your Future, and we wonder whether, for the crowning stage of our spiritual life, we are to look still further West, to Prof^r. Le Conte of California University, or to some equally fresh mind similarly freed from the prejudices of our old world.

With our united kindest regards, I remain, always

Affectionately yours,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN.

The Polchar, Aviemore, Scotland.

June 16, 1897.

Dear Mr. Allen,

You must not measure the delight with which I welcomed your Sequel904 by the defective promptitude of my acknowledgment. The tardy pace of a nonagenarian’s reading and reflection keeps him always in arrears with the tasks that watch him with reproachful looks from his book-tray: and day after day have I turned my longing eyes upon your volume, before I could earn, by clearance of overdue debts, the right to enjoy it. At last I am free to report the warm interest and satisfaction with which I have not simply read but studied your five instructive papers; often learning what was quite new to me in the history of your “School of the Prophets,” and almost always sympathizing with you in such estimates of their work as I was at all competent to follow. It is perhaps venial in me if, coming as I do from some “Forty Years” earlier, I cannot fully accept your dictum that, in these “Forty Years later,” the questions raised by the Liberal movement “are not those of theory, but of life,” viz. of “Ethics and of social order.” Are they not, and must they not forever be, both? And is it not the function of the “Liberal movement,” — not to contrast, but to reconcile and unify them? That the thought which is true, and the will which is right should be strangers and even foes to each other, seems to me an assumption at variance with Religion itself, as an interpretation of the Universe. I cannot yield to the modern resolution of Religion into a mere psychological phenomenon of Man, belonging to Anthropology, inflating itself into a Theology; in fact an “Ideal,” but fancying itself “Real.” The tendency of our religious language to slip into this form is, in my view, a misleading deviation from the older phraseology of Personality. Ethics are shorn of their supremacy, unless accepted not simply as giving the rule for finite conduct, but also as the revealer of an Infinite Righteousness. Except in the third paper, I seldom find the pantheistic drift in the forms of expression too strong for me in your delightful personal sketches and comments: of which those on Hedge, Freeman Clarke, Parker and O. B. Frothingham, are rendered profoundly interesting from my having been admitted, more or less, into personal relations of friendship with these admirable and impressive men.

The chief recent fact, of biographical interest, in the experience of our friend F. W. Newman, is his expressed wish (in a letter to Miss Swanwick)905 to be regarded as having become “a Christian.” This means, I think, that having (from Evangelical prepossession) been alienated from the simple Theism of Jesus himself and identified Christianity with Paulinism and its Redemption scheme, he now reverses this, and finds in the personal faith and teaching of Jesus the truths which bring us into right relations with God. He has written, or dictated, an Essay which will explain and justify his final religious position in this sense. He is obliged to employ an amanuensis, and laments his failure of memory. But his letters are quite coherent, and his interest in persons and events still wide awake.

I remain, always,

Yours cordially,

James Martineau.

By the kind permission of Dr. Allen’s daughter, I am able to add the following letter, which Dr. Martineau wrote to Miss Allen after her father’s death: —

35, Gordon Square, London, W. C.

April 14, 1898.

Dear Miss Allen,

I am deeply touched by your kind remembrance of me, as an assured sharer of your sorrow in the early days of your bereavement. In the host of friends whom I have outlived, there are few indeed so congenial to me in counsel and so honoured by me for truth of thought and fidelity of character as your dear father. His evident self-dedication to his work in life, — to find and report and do the right as interpreter of things, human and divine, — won my affection from the first and made me an eager reader of all that he published. The response of his nature to the influence of Henry Ware brought out the tenderer lights of his spirit; which, I have sometimes thought, might have remained latent, had the order of the two lives been inverted. Not even yet, indeed, is the fusion complete with us of rational with enthusiastic religion. Great changes doubtless still impend.

It comforts me much to hear that your father was permitted to make without pain the passage from the mortal to the immortal life. It secures to the survivors a calm and gentle memory, and a sweeter opening to the light of diviner scenes. If I am still a lingerer here, I shall eagerly watch for the appearance of the translation of Renan’s Les Apôtres. But I hope that we may reckon on seeing an edition of your father’s collected writings, — with perhaps additions from his manuscript stores which have not yet seen the light. I feel little doubt, that he has kept up with the recent and ever-growing theological literature published in Germany and France, and perhaps recorded his impressions of it. It cannot but materially affect the future of Christendom. But our “Established Churches” take no notice of it. With renewed thanks for your memorable letter, I remain,

Yours very cordially,

James Martineau.

Miss Mary Ware Allen.

The Rev. Henry A. Parker related an episode of the Civil War which threw a side-light upon the character of the United States Secret Service.906

Mr. Davis announced the incorporation of four new Historical Societies: —

GRAND MUSTER LEGION OF THE SPANISH WAR VETERANS.

Purposes. “To perpetuate the Records of the Campaigns of the Spanish-American War of 1898.”

Date of Charter. 9 May, 1899.

MASSACHUSETTS STATE SOCIETY UNITED STATES DAUGHTERS OF 1812.

Purposes. “To perpetuate the patriotic spirit of the men and women who achieved and established American Independence, and in particular to honor the memory of the Soldiers and Sailors of the War of 1812–15, commonly called the second War of Independence, when the authority of the United States upon the high seas was for the first time respected by foreign powers; to collect, publish and preserve the rolls, records and historic documents relating to that period, to encourage the study of their country’s history and the advancement of patriotic work in Massachusetts.”

Date of Charter. 28 December, 1899.

QUINEBAUG HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

Purposes. “The purpose for which the Corporation is constituted is —

(1) To unite persons of good character, and intellectually and socially acceptable, in Southbridge, Sturbridge, Charlton, Dudley and other communities in this section, into a corporate body, to permanently maintain and advance the welfare and purpose of the Society,

(2) To promote in this locality an interest in the research into all matters and things relating to its history and people, and the collection and preservation of the results thereof, whether the same be published, printed or written productions, books, pamphlets, records, maps, manuscript, paintings, engravings, pictures, papers or relics, mementos, articles or objects illustrative thereof, together with the study and investigation of the kindred subjects of literature, poetry, biography, genealogy, science or art, as the society may judge useful to advance the knowledge, culture and taste of its members, and their social and intellectual characters,

(3) To raise and establish a permanent Trust Fund for investment for the use and benefit of the society until the same, with the accumulations thereof, and the additions thereto, shall be judged by the society sufficient or proper to be used for the purchase of premises devoted to the exclusive use of the society,

(4) To provide the means required to defray the necessary current and yearly prudential expenses of the society, by annual assessments not exceeding in amount the sum of One Dollar a year per capita, upon its members, and

(5) To adopt and maintain By-Laws for the membership, officers and the government of the affairs of the society, for the purpose herein stated.”

Date of Charter. 29 December, 1899.

LA SOCIÉTÉ HISTORIQUE FRANCO-AMÉRICAINE.

Purposes. “To encourage the careful and systematical study of the history of the United States and especially to bring forth in its true light the exact part taken by the French race in the evolution and formation of the American people.”

Date of Charter. 6 March, 1900.

John Shaw Billings, D.C.L., of New York City, and Horace Howard Furness, LL.D., of Wallingford, Pennsylvania, were elected Corresponding Members.

1 Court Files Suffolk, vol. dcvii. no. 102, 491.

2 Court Files Suffolk, vol. dcvii. no. 102, 491.

3 Court Files Suffolk, vol. dcvii. no. 102, 491.

4 Court Files Suffolk, vol. dcvii. no. 102, 491.

5 Court Files Suffolk, vol. dcvii. no. 102, 491.

6 Court Files Suffolk, vol. dcvii. no. 102, 491.

7 Connecticut Archives: Trade and Maritime Affairs, vol. i. no. 161.

8 Publications of this Society, v. 98.

9 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 390.

10 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 421

11 See Publications of this Society, v. 104.

12 Connecticut Archives: Trade and Maritime Affairs, vol. i. nos. 168, 169.

13 Ibid. vol. i. no. 167.

14 Concerning the land controversies in Maine and their final settlement, see ante, v. 291 and note

15 The Pemaquid Patent will be found in 1 Collections Maine Historical Society, v. 207–214; Suffolk Deeds, iii. 52–56; and in J. Johnston’s History of Bristol and Bremen, pp. 70–74; a part of the Letter of Instructions, in Johnston, pp. 97, 98; and some of the documents, — including the Patent which fills pp. 33–39, — in the 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, —sometimes called the Lincoln Report. It has been thought best, however, to print here such papers as might be necessary to make the story clear, especially as the last named work is now of some rarity. This Report shows how the Pemaquid Proprietors (see pp. 52, 53, post) derived their title.

16 Johnston, in his History of Bristol and Bremen, gives brief accounts of our four litigants, — Bailey, p. 277; Eliot, p. 333; Randall, p. 334; and Yates, pp. 290, 446. On a plan facing p. 1 can be seen the location of the houses of Bodkin, Bayley, and Yates; and the location of those of Eliot and of Randall may perhaps be made out. Bodkin’s Deposition may be found in Order of both Branches, etc., p. 127.

Johnston (p. 468) says that in 1767 and 1768 Thomas Bodkin brought actions against these four tenants; “what the result was is not known, but probably the trial never took place.” Until 1797, under the Statutes, the legal depository for the Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature in all the Counties of Massachusetts, including the District of Maine, was in the Clerk’s office in the County of Suffolk; thereafter the Records were kept in the respective counties. This fact being overlooked, it was in many quarters supposed that those earlier Records of Maine were missing, and a traditionary fire conveniently explained their loss.

17 They are recorded in the Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature: —

1770, xxix. 136, James Bayley v. Thomas Bodkin,
1771, xxx. 117, John Randall v. Same
xxx. 120, James Yeates v. Same
xxx. 120, Simon Eliot v. Same.

The original papers are found in Suffolk Court Files, vols. dcccxci, dcccxcii, and dcccxciii, group-numbers 139,413; 139,429; 139,469; 139,495; 139,498; 139,532.

18 Nicholas Davison and Richard Russell were among the most prominent and wealthy citizens of Charlestown, and Russell was the founder of the most distinguished family ever resident in the town. He arrived in 1840, and held high public office until his death, 14 (3) 1676, in his sixty-fifth year. Six members of this family, representing five generations, sat in the Executive Council of the Colony, Province and Commonwealth. For notices of him, of his English ancestry, and of his part ownership of the Pemaquid Patent, see Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 829; Heraldic Journal, iv. 32, 33, 102–109; Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England, iii. 593, 594 Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England i. 405, 406, 511, 512, ii 1009; Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography, v. 354; Johnston’s History of Bristol and Bremen pp. 77, 78; Drake’s Dictionary of American Biography, p. 789; and Pope’s Pioneers of Massachusetts, pp. 395, 396.

Concerning Nicholas Davison, see post, pp. 37, 38, note.

19 Interlined in the original.

20 Interlined in the original.

21 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139, 495: 2.

22 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1771, xxx. 117.

23 For the will of Robert Aldworth, an Alderman of Bristol, England, and some facts concerning him, see Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England, i. 632–637, 660, 734, 735; and Johnston’s History of Bristol and Bremen, pp. 21, 57, 76, 85.

24 Gyles Elbridge was a kinsman — Thornton says a nephew —of Robert Aldworth and a principal legatee under his will, proved in 1634. In 1650, Thomas Elbridge, a son of Gyles Elbridge, was sole owner of the Pemaquid Patent. On the first of February, 1651–52, Thomas Elbridge sold one half of it to Paul White (Suffolk Deeds, ii. 69–72) who, for £150 sterling, sold it, 27 April, 1653, to Richard Russell and Nicholas Davison (Ibid. ii. 68). Davison subsequently (14 April, 1657) bought of Elbridge, the other half of the Patent (Ibid. iii. 50; cf. pp. 46, 57–59), and of Richard Russell, the remaining quarter and two islands near Pemaquid, on the twenty-first of July, 1657 (Ibid. iii. 49, 50) Nicholas Davison thus became the sole owner of the Pemaquid Patent.

For Gyles Elbridge’s will, and some notices of his English connections and of his ownership of the Pemaquid Patent, see Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England, i. 633–636, 655, 735, ii. 1009; and Johnston’s History of Bristol and Bremen, pp. 57, 70, 76, 78, 85, 95, 96.

Elbridge Gerry, Vice-President of the United States, traced his descent from Gyles Elbridge

25 Inasmuch as, in the copy in the Early Suffolk Court Files, the copyist had run the tender of issues together in some confusion, — as appears at once on inspection, —it has seemed best, in printing, to follow the text of the original plea, still on file in the Court of Common Pleas in the County of Lincoln, Maine.

26 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139, 413: 3.

27 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,498: 1.

28 The early visit of Samoset and his hospitable greeting has always been an interesting incident in the history of the Pilgrims, and with the various embellishments has played a conspicuous part therein. Its first mention is in Mourt’s Relation. The passage, as it is given in full in Mr. Matthews’s Note hereto appended, is now omitted; and the like course will be followed as to all references to Samoset, only such matters being here retained as are not there included. The Relation goes on to show that “Saturday in the morning we dismissed the Salvage,” and that on Sunday he came again, and “Stayed with vs till Wednesday morning.” It also gives a full description of him and of the entertainment given him. There is also an account of a third visit. Governor Bradford’s narrative adds some interesting details.

“All this while y^e Indians came Skulking about them, and would sometimes show them selves aloofe of, but when any aproached near them they would rune away . . . . But about y^e 16. of March a certaine Indian came bouldly amongst them, and spoke to them in broken English, which they could well understand, but marvelled at it. At length they understood by discourse with him, that lie was not of these parts, but belonged to y Eastrene parts, wher some English-ships came to fhish, with whom he was aquainted, & could name sundrie of them by their names, amongst whom he gott his language. He became profitable to them in aquainting them with many things concerning y^e State of y^e cuntry in y^e east-parts wher he lived, which was afterwards profitable unto them; as also of y^e people hear, of their names, number & strength; of their situation & distance from this place, and who was cheefe amongst them. His name was Samaset” (History of Plimouth Plantation, 1856, p. 93).

“Christopher Levett’s Voyage into New England begun in 1623 and ended in 1624,” gives an account of his acquaintance with Samoset: —

“Came many savages with their wives and children . . . . Somerset, a sagamore, one that hath been found very faithful to the English, and hath saved the lives of many of our nation, some from starving, others from killing . . . . And Somerset told that his son (who was born whilst I was in the country, and whom he would needs have to name) and mine should be brothers and that there should be mouchicke legamatch (that is friendship) betwixt them, until Tanto carried them to his wigwam (that is until they died)” (1 Collections Maine Historical Society, ii. 87, 92, 93).

However little doubt there may be as to the identity of “Capt. John Somerset” and “Samoset,” a question has been raised as to which was the earlier, or original, name. The a priori argument is strongly in favor of “Samoset.” The historical argument leads almost irresistibly to the same conclusion. The doubt raised by Mr. Drake seemed to have no sufficient ground for it, and his contention to lack any actual proof.

I am under great obligation to our associate, Mr. Albert Matthews, for his exhaustive and seemingly conclusive Note, appended to this Paper (pp. 59–70), in support of the opinion just expressed; and to our associate, Mr. Henry H. Edes, for many of the most valuable and interesting footnotes to this communication.

29 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139, 532: 17.

30 Recorded with Suffolk Deeds, liii. 180.

31 Shem Drowne, one of the largest and most active and influential of the Pemaquid Proprietors, though to a considerable extent a man of affairs and activity, and engaged in many important matters in the early days of Boston and Charlestown, is perhaps best and most popularly known as the artisan who made the Indian upon the old Province House and the Grasshopper on Faneuil Hall, and will owe his civic immortality to them. The Indian is now in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society, by the gift of Mrs. William Appleton. Its Proceedings for December, 1876 (xv. 178–180), in the remarks of Dr. George E. Ellis, contain an account of the gift and a description of the figure, — “the handiwork of Deacon Shem Drowne, who afterwards made the grasshopper on Faneuil Hall, after the pattern of that on the Royal Exchange, London.” (See also Shurtleff’s Topographical and Historical Description of Boston, pp. 597–599; Memorial History of Boston, ii. 90; and Hill’s History of the Old South Church, i. 455.) Hawthorne, too, in his Legends of the Province House, has thrown a touch of romance about him and linked his name with the Royal Governors of the Province. Drowne’s fame as an artisan, however, was not confined to Boston. In 1765, the old weather-cock on the steeple of the Deerfield Meeting-house was taken down to be repaired and regilded. The bird was then “furnished with ‘new globe eyes’ by Shem Drowne of Boston, and returned to his new perch where, until 1824, he kept watch and ward over the going and coming generations of men. He still fulfils the duty assigned him in 1729, on the spire” of the Meeting-house built in 1824, and still standing,—the Unitarian Church of to-day (Address of George Sheldon, at Deerfield, 28 July, 1901). Drowne was married 18 September, 1712, by the Rev. Benjamin Colman, to Katherine Clark, daughter of Timothy Clark (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxviii. 39; and Suffolk Probate Files, No. 7017). His death is briefly told in the Diary of Thomas Newell, under date of 13 January, 1774: —

“Thursday, more moderate weather. Very good sledding; great plenty provisions and grain. Old Mr. Sliem Drown, ob. Æ. 91; he was the first tin-plate worker that ever came to Boston, New England” (I Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1877, xv. 348).

32 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,413: 10.

33 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,413: 11.

34 Abraham Jennings is here referred to. See post, p. 51.

35 Interlined in the original.

36 Interlined in the original.

37 Interlined in the original.

38 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,532: 27.

39 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,413: 46.

40 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,413: 20.

41 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,498: 32.

42 Ibid. No. 139,498: 47.

43 Cancelled in the original.

44 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,532: 28.

45 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,413: 17.

46 Ibid. No. 139,413: 23.

47 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,413: 25.

48 Ibid. No. 139,413:18.

49 Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England, ii. 24.

Nicholas Davison (ante, p. 14 and note) was admitted an inhabitant of Charlestown in 1639. In 1642, he was living at Medford, Massachusetts (Middlesex Deeds, iii. 116). In 1655, he went to Barbados, and returned, in the Speedwell, to Charlestown the following year. He had only the two children mentioned in his will (see post, p. 39, note). His sole ownership of the Pemaquid Patent and his title thereto have been already shown (ante, p. 17, note. See also, Johnston’s History of Bristol and Bremen, p. 77). He also owned a valuable estate in Dock Square, Boston, at the easterly corner of Shrimpton’s Lane, later known as Royal Exchange Lane and now as Exchange Street. His title to this property, however, does not clearly appear of record. It was a part of the original Possession of Robert Nash who for £150 mortgaged it, with the dwelling house thereon to Nicholas Davison, 1 (11) 1648 (Suffolk Deeds, i. 98). The mortgage was discharged 8 (10) (1649) (Ibid. i. 110). The next recorded evidence of Davison’s ownership is in 1667 (after his decease), when the estate is mentioned, in abuttal, as land of Mrs. Jone Davison (Ibid. v. 360). It is similarly referred to in 1675, as belonging to the widow Davison or her children (Ibid. ix. 380). Daniel Davison, the only son of Nicholas Davison, for £226, conveyed one half of the estate to John Phillips of Charlestown, 14 April, 1682 (Ibid. xii. 200). The title to the other half was vested in the Honorable Joseph Lynde, who had married Sarah Davison. He, for love to his daughter Margaret, wife of Colonel Thomas Savage, conveyed his moiety to her, 28 February, 1705–6 (Ibid. xxii. 470). Thomas and Margaret Savage reconveyed to Joseph Lynde, 20 May, 1708 (Ibid. xxiv. 10), and he and John Phillips, for £1000, conveyed the whole lot to Thomas Savage on the following day (Ibid. xxiv. 10). Colonel Thomas Savage died seized, 3 March, 1720–21 (Boston Town Records), after mortgaging the estate to Andrew Belcher and others, Trustees, 1 July, 1715, when it had a frontage of 34 feet on Dock Square and a depth of 121 feet on the Lane (Suffolk Deeds, xxix. 232. Cf. Province Laws, i. 750–752). The Inventory describes the property as " A Brick house, Land and Stable in Dock Square, Boston, £1400 " (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 4403). The premises descended to Colonel Savage’s two daughters, Margaret, wife of John Alford, and Elizabeth, wife of Joshua Winslow. Joshua and Elizabeth Winslow conveyed her share to Benjamin Alford, 1 March, 1725–26 (Suffolk Deeds, xlvii. 91), and he reconveyed it to Joshua Winslow in his own right, 20 January, 1732–33 (Ibid, xlvii. 91), so that the title was then vested in Margaret Alford and Joshua Winslow, in equal shares. In the Partition of Joshua Winslow’s estate (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 14,559), his moiety of the Dock Square property was set off to his son Isaac Winslow, Junior (see post, p. 129). As an illustration of the rise in real estate values, it may be stated that this property was assessed, in 1899, as three estates, — $129,000 for the 3650 feet of land, and $13,500 for the brick buildings thereon, a total of $142,500.

For notices of Nicholas Davison and his family, see Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 283, 284; Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England, i. 630; and Pope’s Pioneers of Massachusetts, p. 134

50 Cancelled in the original.

51 Mrs. Davison married (2) Richard Kent of Newbury, 6 January, 1674–75 (who died 25 November, 1689), and died at Newbury, 30 October, 1699 (Newbury Town Records).

52 Major Daniel Davison, of Charlestown and Newbury, was born at Charlestown, Massachusetts, 9 January, 1650–51; married Abigail Coffin, daughter of the Honorable Peter Coffin of Exeter, New Hampshire, 16 December, 1673; and died 18 January, 1717–18 (gravestone at Newbury). Of his eight children, Sarah married Colonel Stephen Dudley, great-grandson of Governor Thomas Dudley; Mary married Jacob Sheafe of Boston; Abigail, baptized 23 July, 1699, married Zachariah Fitch of Boston (see post, pp. 42, 43, notes); and Captain Nicholas, by wife Anne who died at Newbury, 6 July, 1731, in her 43d year (gravestone), had (i) Mary, who died in 1709, (ii) Elizabeth, baptized 15 October, 1710, who married Captain Robert Ball, at Charlestown, 26 June, 1728, (iii) Daniel, baptized 19 April, 1713, who married Margaret Ogleby, and (iv) Ann, born about 1715, who married John Goodwin. (Newbury Town Records; Newbury Church Records; and Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 284.) There is a portrait of Elizabeth (Davison) Ball, by Blackburn, and one of her husband by Smibert, in the possession of our associate, Mr. Henry H. Edes, — one of their descendants in the fifth generation.

53 Sarah Davison was born at Charlestown, 31 December, 1647, married the Honorable Joseph Lynde, 24 March, 1664–65, and died, of small pox, 13 December, 1678. Lynde subsequently married (2) Emma or Amy (Anderson) Brackenbury and (3) Mary (Luttrell) Winthrop, widow of the Honorable Adam Winthrop, and died 29 January, 1726–27 at the great age of about 90 years (The Boston Weekly News-Letter of Thursday, 2 February, 1726–27, No. 5, p. 2/2). He was of the Committee of Safety, 1689, Representative, and a member of the Council. A considerable number of the Pemaquid Proprietors (see post, pp. 52, 53, note) derived their title through their descent from Joseph and Sarah Lynde, — especially through their daughter Sarah Lynde, born 5 December, 1666, who married (1) Thomas Clark and (2) Seth Sweetser; and their daughter Margaret Lynde, born 24 January, 1668–69, who married Colonel Thomas Savage, of Boston, son of Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas and Elizabeth (Seottow) Savage, and grandson of Thomas Savage, the emigrant, and became the mother of Elizabeth Savage, born 1 August, 1694, who married Joshua Winslow, and of Margaret Savage, born 10 September, 1698, who married the Honorable John Alford (see post, pp. 128, 129, note).

54 Cancelled in the original.

55 Cancelled in the original.

56 See Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 20.

57 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,532: 21. The original will, wholly in the elegant handwriting of the testator, is still preserved in the Middlesex Probate Files, No. 4070.

58 Suffolk Court Files, No. 713. The Inventory in the Middlesex Probate Files (No. 4070) includes Real Estate in Boston, Charlestown, Pemaquid, and 2,100 acres at Windsor, Connecticut. Among the items of personal property enumerated are a hall clock, sword, rapier, cutlasses and pistols, fine linen, 139 ounces of plate, six ounces of silver buttons, cypress cabinet, eight pieces of gold therein, broadcloth, French and Spanish books, and two negroes, — Conungo and Maria. The amount the Inventory was £1869. 11. 11.

59 Abigail Fitch was born in Boston 6 September, 1723, and was baptized at the Old South Church. She was a daughter of Zachariah and Abigail (Davison) Fitch. Her mother was a daughter of Major Daniel Davison of Charlestown and Newbury and granddaughter of Nicholas Davison. For her paternal ancestry, see New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1901, lv, 288–293. See also ante, p. 39, note.

60 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,532: 41.

61 Elizabeth Gorrod was the youngest child of Zachariah and Abigail (Davison) Fitch. She was born in Boston, 31 January, 1731–32, and was baptized at the New South Church. Her Intention of Marriage with Samuel Gorrod was recorded in Boston, 13 October, 1757, and again in December, 1760 (Boston Record Commissioners' Reports, xxx. 26, 38). The record of her marriage has not been found. She was a sister of Abigail Fitch (see ante, p. 42, note).

62 Suffolk Court Files, No. 130,532: 42.

63 Interlined in the original.

64 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,498: 53.

65 David Anderson was grandson of John Anderson, named in Nicholas Davison’s will, ante, p. 40 (Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 21).

66 Interlined in the original

67 Interlined in the original

68 Interlined in the original

69 Cancelled in the original.

70 Interlined in the original

71 Cancelled in the original.

72 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,532: 22.

73 Henry Phillips of Dedham, Boston and Charlestown, had a son Samuel Phillips, baptized 2 November, 1662, who was a stationer in Boston, married Hannah Gillam, and had by her, among others, Hannah Phillips, who married (1) David Anderson and (2) Habijah Savage; and Faith Phillips, the deponent, who married (1) Arthur Savage and (2) the Honorable Daniel Russell. Habijah and Arthur Savage were brothers of Colonel Thomas Savage (see ante, pp. 37, 38, 39, notes). Faith Russell died at Weston, 6 June, 1775, aged 84 years (Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 742, 743, 746, 831, 847, 848).

74 Cancelled in the original.

75 Interlined in the original.

76 Interlined in the original.

77 Cancelled in the original.

78 Cancelled in the original.

79 Cancelled in the original.

80 Cancelled in the original.

81 Cancelled in the original.

82 Cancelled in the original.

83 Interlined in the original.

84 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,532: 66

85 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,169: 2.

86 Bowditch’s Suffolk Surnames contains the following Dedication: —

To the Memory

A. Shurt,

“The Father of American Conveyancing”

whose name is associated alike

with

My Daily Toilet and my Daily Occupation.

In the same work the author says: —

“Abraham Shurt, of Pemaquid (now Bristol, Me.), took an acknowledgment of an Indian deed in 1626, twenty years before any enactment on that subject, and is considered the ‘Father of American Conveyancing’” (p. 101).

The appellation given him by Thornton, followed by Bowditch, seems not undeserved. The acknowledgment, now so firmly established as an essential part of every conveyance, appears to have owed its earliest use to him, and the form employed on that Indian deed of 1626 is practically identical with that in use to-day. The acknowledgment in question may be read in Johnston’s History of Bristol and Bremen, p. 55.

In the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1871 (xxv. 131–137), Professor John Johnston has a long and interesting account of Shurt as filling an important place in early Maine history; and there is a further account in his History of Bristol and Bremen: “He became a resident of Pemaquid soon after his arrival in the country, and spent here the rest of his life” (p. 59. See also Ibid. pp. 56, 57). He is supposed to have come over about 1625. As to the date of his death, Johnston says there have been various guesses and mistakes, — Williamson, for instance, giving both years 1680 and 1690; but he thinks it more likely that it occurred soon after Shurt’s visit to Boston in 1602. Johnston speaks of him as “a just and upright man, . . .a magistrate of influence in the colony, . . .an honest man and upright magistrate,” — no slight praise. Much of the credit of his services between the savages and the colonists, however, he is inclined to think belongs to one John Earthy, and not to him, “excellent man as he was.”

Hubbard gives the story of a retaliatory attack made by some hundred Eastern Indians in thirty canoes, upon Agawam, in the summer of 1631, and relates how they —

“slew seven men, and wounded John and James, two sagamores that lived about Boston, and carried others away captive, amongst whom one was the wife of the said James, which they sent again by the mediation of Mr Sliurd of Pemaquid, that used to trade with them” (General History of New England, chap, xxv., in 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 145).

The same occurrence is noted in Prince’s Annals of New England: —

“Sept. 17. Mr Shurt or Shurd of Pemaquid sends Home to Agawam, James Sagamore’s Wife, who had been taken away [in] the Surprize at Agawam” (Ibid. 2, vii. 34 of the second pagination).

Another incident in which Shurt figured is given by Hubbard, chap. xxix.: —

“In June, in the vear 1633, fell out a very remarkable accident upon some that belonged to Pemaquid. One Abraham Shard . . . bound for Boston in a shallop, intending to turn into Pascataqua by the way, but just as they were entering into the river’s mouth one of the seamen, going to light a pipe of tobacco, set fire on a barrel of powder, which tore the boat to pieces, laden with about £200 worth of commodities, which were all lost. That seaman that kindled the fire was never seen more, (though the rest were all saved) till afterwards the trunk of his body was found with his hands and his feet torn off, which was a remarkable judgment of God upon him; for one of his fellows wished him to forbear taking tobacco till they came ashore, which was hard by, to whom he replied, that if the devil should carry him away quick, he would take one pipe” (Ibid. 2, v. 195, 196).

The same is also more briefly told, but in much the same words, in Prince’s Annals (Ibid. 2, vii. 62, 63 of the second pagination). Hubbard (chap, liv.) has also another story of Shurt: —

“The same summer [1644], Mr Vines, agent for Sir Ferdinando Gorges, at Saco, Mr. Waunerton, that had some interest in the government of Pascataqua, and Mr. Shurt of Pemaquid, went to La Tour to call for some debts, &c. In their way they put in at Penobscot, and were there detained prisoners a few days, but were afterward (for Mr. Shurt’s sake, to whom D’Aulney was in debt) dismissed” (Ibid. 2, vi. 484, 485).

Shurt was a legatee, to the amount of £200, under the will of Robert Aidworth of Bristol, England, who calls him his servant (Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England, i. 735). See concerning Shurt, Ibid. i. 635, ii. 983; Suffolk Deeds, i. 131; York Deeds, i., Part I., 41; Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England, iv. 88; and Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 865.

87 Interlined in the original

88 Interlined in the original

89 Suffolk Court Files, No. 139,498: 61

90 The title-page of the first book is as follows: —

Pemaquid Proprietors

Book

of Records.

1743

N^o I.

The first meeting was held “at y^e Orange Tree Tavern in Boston upon Wednesday the Thirty first Day of August, 1743.” The Records in this first book run from 31 August, 1743, to 9 June, 1768; while those in the second book extend from 16 June, 1768, to 24 November, 1774. Besides the entries given in the text, there are others not without interest in connection with them.

The following List of the original Proprietors (see ante, p. 13, note) is copied from the Records (i. 2): —

Boston, Tuesday November 15^th. 1743.

The Proprietors mett according to Adjournment and Settled Each Proprietor’s Proportion in y^e Afors^d. Lands Agreeable to the Following List viz: —

Habijah Savage Esq^r	30 Votes
George Craddock Esq^r	5
Adam Winthrop Esq^r	5	40
John Alford & Joshua Winslow Esq^rs	2½
Sarah Sweetser	2½
John Philips	2½
Joanna Philips	2½
Benj^a. Stevens	2½
Ezekiel Chever Esq^r	2½
Shem Drowne	15	30
Jonas Clark Esq^r.	2
Sam^ll. Clark	2
Thomas Ruck	1
John Chandler Esq^r	2
Joseph Fitch	1
Thimothy Parrott
Abigail Tillden
Christopher Tillden
John Kneeland, guardian to his Daughter Prudence
John Kneeland, guardian to his Daughter Prudence
Anderson Philips	1
Henry Philips	1
Shem Drowne	8	20
		90

It is hoped that these valuable and interesting Records may be printed in the not distant future as a new volume of the Archæologia Americana.

91 Seth Sweetser was a prominent citizen of Charlestown for more than half a century. He was born in that town 5 February, 1703–4, — the son of Seth Sweetser by his wife Sarah, daughter of the Honorable Joseph Lynde and the young widow of Thomas Clark; graduated at Harvard College in the Class of 1722 with President Clap of Yale College and Judge Richard Saltonstall; was the Schoolmaster of Charlestown 1724–1750, and its Town Clerk, 1755–1778; and during the Revolution served the town on important committees (Frothingham’s History of Charlestown, pp. 272, 288, 300). There can be little, if any, doubt that to his vigilance and care we owe the preservation of the Vital and Town Records when the town was burned by the British during the Battle of Bunker Hill. He died, suddenly, 15 January, 1778. The Boston Gazette of Monday, 23 February, 1778, No. 1225, p. 3/2, 3 contains a long obituary notice. The Rev. Dr. Seth Sweetser of Worcester (H. C. 1827) was his great-grandson. (See Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. x, note, 217, ii. 922, 923; and Memorial History of Boston, ii. 320, 321.)

92 Pemaquid Proprietors' Records, i. 87–89.

93 Pemaquid Proprietors’ Records, ii. 2, 3. There are also many other votes from time to time providing for the oversight of the suits and appropriating money for expenses incurred. William Cushing and John Adams were of counsel for the Pemaquid or Bristol Company, as the Proprietors were called, during the decade ending with 1774 (Pemaquid Proprietors’ Records, i. 44; ii. 12, 50, 57).

94 Ibid. ii. 13.

95 Pemaquid Proprietors’ Records, ii. 13.

96 Pemaquid Proprietors’ Records, ii. 14, 15

97 Ibid. ii. 25.

98 Pemaquid Proprietors’ Records, ii. 33.

99 Supposed to be the present Monhegan.

100 Supposed to be the present Monhegan.

101 For an interesting note on the possible derivation of Samoset, by the Rev. Dr. M. C. O’Brien of Bangor, Vicar-General of the Diocese of Portland, Maine, see the Genealogical Advertiser, ii. 30, 31.

102 For a bibliography of Samoset, compiled by Mr. and Mrs. W. P. Greenlaw, see the Genealogical Advertiser, i. 100–102.

103 This letter is also printed in J. P. Baxter’s Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine (Prince Society), iii. 276, where William Gorges is called “Gouvernor of Somersett;” but presumably the “New” has been inadvertently omitted.

104 This is also printed in J. P. Baxter’s George Cleeve of Casco Bay (Publications of the Gorges Society), pp. 216–221. As James I. died 8 April, 1625, the date of the document must be 27 January 1636–87.

105 Tho deed of 30 June, from Vines to Winter, is printed in facsimile in the same volume, facing p. 107; but it is mutilated.

106 There seems to be some confusion in regard to the application of the name New Somerset during the second quarter of the seventeenth century. Sullivan said in 1795: —

“Cleaves . . . obtained a letter of agency from Sir Ferdinando Gorges, . . . In his deed to one Tuckerman [a mistake for Tucker], he calls Casco in the Province of New Sommersett. There was an early mistake in calling the Province of Maine New Sommersett, which was the county, not the provincial name of the territory” (History of the District of Maine, p. 315).

Commenting upon this passage in 1830, Folsom observed that “New Somerset was uniformly styled a province, not a county, in the instruments executed before 1640” (History of Saco and Biddeford, p. 53). This statement seems to be correct so far as it goes, but both titles occur in the documents quoted in this Note. Williamson remarks: —

“A division of the Province was in fact made [after the Charter of 3 April, 1639], by the river Kennebunk, into two Districts, or Counties, ‘East and West.’ No names appear to have been assigned to either by the Court, though the western district, or county, gradually acquired the name of York, and terms of an Inferior Court were appointed to be holden at Agamenticus, by a portion of the Council, three times in a year; and the other, being commonly called Somerset, or New-Somerset, had three terms of a like Inferior Court holden annually in the same manner within it at Saco” (History of the State of Maine, i. 285).

The statement made by W. S. Southgate in 1853, that “in 1639 the King confirmed Gorges Patent, changing the name of the Province from New Somersetshire to Maine” (1 Collections Maine Historical Society, iii. 31), is misleading. Neither in the division of 3 February, 1634–35, nor in the Charter from the King of 3 April, 1639, does the title New Somersetshire occur; nor is that title employed by Sir Ferdinando Gorges in his Briefe Narration, written not later than 1647, or by his grandson, Ferdinando Gorges, in his Description of New-England (in America Painted to the Life, 1659).

107 How closely Somerset Island was associated with the Brown family is shown by some biographical details. John Brown of New Harbor, the first of the name, married Margaret Hayward and had (i) John Brown of Framingham, the second of the name, who married and had John Brown of Saco, the third of the name; (ii) Elizabeth Brown, who married Richard Pearce; and (hi) Margaret Brown, who married (1) Sander, or Alexander, Gould, and (2) Maurice Champney. Alexander and Margaret Gould had a daughter Margaret, who married (1) James Stilson, Sr., and (2) Thomas Pittman. James and Margaret Stilson had (i) James Stilson, Jr., and (ii) Margaret Stilson, who married William Hilton. It was at the request of James Stilson, Jr., and his sister Margaret Hilton that the deed of 15 July, 1625, was recorded 26 December, 1720; and it was at the request of Margaret Hilton that the deed of 8 August, 1660, was recorded 1 December, 1720.

108 This document is not dated, but as Dongan became Governor of New York in 1683, as John Palmer and John West were sent to the Eastern parts in June, 1686, “with full power and authority to treate with the Inhabitants for Takeing out Pattents and Paying the quitt rents" (Johnston’s History of Bristol and Bremen, p. 153), and as on 19 September, 1686, the " ffort and Country of Pemaquid in Regard of its Distance from New Yorke” (Ibid. p. 157) was detached from New York and placed under Sir E. Andros, it is probable that the license was granted about 1686. If my identification of Muscongus Island and Somerset Island is correct, it follows that “the small Island thereunto adjacent” is Marsh Island. It maybe added that this is also the opinion of Professor Johnston, though he does not give his reasons for reaching this conclusion (ibid. pp. 154, 238, 243, 464). It should be remarked that this license is the only document not relating to the Brown family in which Somerset Island is mentioned

109 Presumably an error for 1625.

110 This deed, already mentioned by James Stilson. if ever given, is not extant.

111 Alexander Gould’s widow, Margaret (Brown) Gould, married Maurice Champney (or, as the name is variously spelled, Chamblett, Chamblet, Chamles, Champnye, etc.). Though the wife of James Stilson, Sr., was Margaret Gould, the daughter of Alexander and Margaret (Brown) Gould, yet it is not surprising that, after the lapse of so many years, Ruth Barnaby should have alluded to her as Margaret Chamber (i.e. Champney), rather than as Margaret Gould, thus confusing the step-father with the father. For this information as to Maurice Champney, as well as for several valuable suggestions, I am indebted to Mr. William P. Greenlaw, Assistant Librarian of the New England Historic Genealogical Society. (Cf. Genealogical Advertiser, i. 100, ii. 28.) At some unspecified time, but apparently between 1674 and 1720, Maurice Champney (or, as he is called, Morrice Chamles) was described as of Marblehead, but “formerly of Sumersett Island at the eastward” (Johnston’s History of Bristol and Bremen, p. 235).

112 In addition to Somerset Island, there was formerly in the same neighborhood a place called Somerset Cove. For information and for documents relating to Somerset Cove, I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. William D. Patterson, of Wiscasset, Maine. On the United States Coast Survey Chart of the Damariscotta and Medomak Rivers there is a small cove a little way below Muscongus Harbor and nearly abreast of the lower end of Hog Island, the nearest sounding figures being 4¼, and next above that 3¾. In the opinion of Mr. James H. Varney, Register of Deeds for Lincoln and formerly Town Clerk of Bristol, this cove was known as Somerset Cove. Apparently. it is the same cove which, in the deed of the Pemaquid Proprietors to James Morton, dated 21 September, 1703 (recorded in Lincoln Registry of Deeds, viii. 93), is called “Somerset Cove in Muscongus River”; and which also is mentioned in an indenture dated 18 June, 1766 (recorded in Lincoln Registry of Deeds, v. 152). In this indenture, made between Robert Gould of Boston and Hezekiah Eggleston, the latter is described as of “a Place called Somerset Cove in the County of Lincoln;” and it is recited that Eggleston is indebted to Gould in the sum of £355 lawful money for which he has given bond to pay on or before 18 June, 1767, and that as a collateral and further security for the payment of said sum he conveys unto the said Gould —

“a certain Tract of Land lying at a Place called Somerset Cove aforesaid containing about four hundred Acres butted and bounded as follows that is to say, Northerly in the Front upon Muscongus Island there measuring eighty Rods, and running northwest into the Country two Miles keeping the same breadth of Eighty Rods all the way, and Southerly in the Rear on Hog Island so called, and there measuring eighty Rods.”

There is also mention of “Somersits cove” in a deed dated 25 October, 1719, from Cesar Moxis and Gustin, two Indian sagamores, to William Hilton (Lincoln Deeds, xl. 240).

In a deed dated 6 July, 1750, from Thomas Loveland to Isaac Moseley (Ibid. xiii. 177), of a part of land formerly of Richard Pearce, the tract is described as being part of “a larger Tract of Land adjoining to New Harbor, near Pemmaquid. called Miscongus alias Somersit,” indicating that Somerset was also used as a name for the Muscongus region. In a deed from Pearce, dated 1734 (Ibid. xvii. 1), of land near “Whale Cove,” there is mention of “Town ship of Summersett.” Mr. Patterson cannot locate Whale Cove, but believes the land described is in the Muscongus region

113 Mr. Patterson informs me that the name Loud was probably not applied to the island until about the year 1776.

114 At the Stated Meeting of the Society in December, at which these gentlemen were nominated by the Council, the Hon. Justin Smith Morrill, LL.D., was also proposed for Honorary Membership. Senator Morrill died in Washington, however, on the twenty-eighth of December, — before the Society has had an opportunity to confirm the action of the Council and enrol his name.

115 Paige’s History of Hardwick, pp. 523–525.

116 Fiske’s American Revolution, i. 236. The Proclamation is printed in Ford’s Writings of Washington, v. 201, 202.

117 See Province Laws (Standard edition), vol. viii., — Resolves 1704–5, chap. 79, and 1707, chap. 8, for a full account of this case.

118 Lovell married Mary Middleton, 24 November, 1760 (Registers of Trinity Church).

119 Col. Ethan Allen was captured 25 September, 1775, and exchanged 6 May, 1778. In 1779, he published at Philadelphia a curious and, at times, amusing Narrative of Colonel Ethan Allen’s Captivity, . . . Containing His Voyages and Travels, . . Interspersed with some Political Observations. The extracts from it given in our succeeding notes are from the Boston reprint of 1779.

120 This was Francis Proctor, Senior — or Procter, as the name was sometimes spelled — of Pennsylvania. He was appointed Lieutenant in his brother Thomas Proctor’s Company of Artillery 29 November, 1775 (Pennsylvania Colonial Records, x. 416); was dismissed 8 December (Ibid. x. 423, 424); was captured not long after by the British; and in May, 1776, was placed on the Mercury, under the command of Captain James Montague, off Cape Fear, and taken to Halifax where he arrived in June. On the same ship was Ethan Allen, who later wrote:–

“A Capt. Francis Proctor was added to our number of prisoners when we were first put on board this ship: This gentleman had formerly belonged to the English service. The Capt. and in fine all the gentlemen of the ship, were very much incensed against him, and put him in irons without the least provocation, and he was continued in this miserable situation about three months” (Narrative, p. 20).

We next hear of Proctor in a letter dated Jerseys, 5 November, 1776, by James Lovell to Captain Thomas Proctor, in which Lovell says: —

“I left Captain Francis Procter, your brother, on board the prison-ship Glascow, in New-York harbour, the 3d of this month. He is in good health, has some encouragement of being speedily exchanged, but hopes his friends will exert themselves to bring about that desirable event, as much as if he had not received any hints about it, for he fears those hints are only to amuse him. He has once wrote, and he now earnestly wishes that proof may be sent to General Washington of his having had a regular discharge from the Irish Artillery, and consequently that he is not a deserter, as is sometimes thrown in his teeth. I have been his fellow-prisoner for months at Halifax, where he had fared hardly, but greatly better than when under the control of Captain Montague, who seemed to aim at his life” (American Archives, Fifth Series, iii. 519).

Proctor was soon after exchanged, for on 24 January, 1777, we find him writing from Philadelphia to the Council of Safety of Pennsylvania as follows: —

“I make no Doubt you are acquainted with my first unsuccessful attempt to Exert my Utmost in defence of the great Cause of American Liberty in General, and the State of South Carolina in particular; And therefore Chuse not to trouble you at present with a Narrative of my long Imprisonment, Cruel Treatment, and other distressing Circumstances during that Period to the time of my Enlargment, But have the Honour of acquainting you that I Cannot be an Idle Spectator of the present Glorious Contest whilst my Country wants a man, and therefore take the Liberty of Informing you that I am now going (by Desire of General Knox) to Head Quarters to take Command of a Company of Artillery in the Continental Service” (Pennsylvania Archives, Second Series, i. 696).

Proctor was appointed Captain of the 4th Continental Artillery 3 March, 1777, and dismissed 14 April, 1778 (Ibid. xi. 201). We get a final glimpse of him, in quite a different calling, however, in the Pennsylvania Evening Post of Saturday, 18 July, 1778, No. 506, iv. 245: —

THE subscriber begs leave to inform his friends and the public in general, that he now occupies the LIVERY STABLES formerly John Hales’s in Lombard-street, near the New market, where he will entertain horses by the year or night, having the best accomodations, and suitable places for carriages.

Philad. July 18.

FRANCIS PROCTOR, sen.

For a notice of Thomas Proctor, see Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography.

121 “Among the prisoners,” wrote Allen, “there were 5 in number, who had a legal claim to a parole, viz. James Lovel, Esq; Capt. Francis Proctor, a Mr. Houland, master of a Continental armed vessel, a Mr. Taylor, his mate, and myself” (Narrative, p. 23). Consider Howland and Jacob Taylor were, respectively, master and mate of the privateer brig Washington (American Archives, Fifth Series, i. 1283, 1284).

122 “Among the prisoners,” wrote Allen, “there were 5 in number, who had a legal claim to a parole, viz. James Lovel, Esq; Capt. Francis Proctor, a Mr. Houland, master of a Continental armed vessel, a Mr. Taylor, his mate, and myself” (Narrative, p. 23). Consider Howland and Jacob Taylor were, respectively, master and mate of the privateer brig Washington (American Archives, Fifth Series, i. 1283, 1284).

123 This was Richard Carpenter, of Boston (Ibid.).

124 A biographical note on James Lovell will be found on pp. 79–81, post.

125 This letter was written to Col. Henry Bromfield, concerning whom see ante, v. 202 note.

126 Henry Bromfield (1751–1837) was the son of Col. Henry Bromfield by his first wife, Margaret Fayerweather. He was a successful and wealthy merchant, and long resided at Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England, where he died, childless.

127 Hannah Clarke, daughter of Richard Clarke, — Col. Bromfield’s second wife. See ante, v. 210 note.

128 Elizabeth Bromfield, born 1763, died 1833. See ante, v. 210 note.

129 Thomas Bromfield, born 1733, died 1816. For a sketch of the Bromfield family, by our late associate, Dr. Daniel Denison Slade, see New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1871 and 1872, xxv. 182–185, 329–335; and xxvi. 37–43, 141–143.

130 For a Petition, dated 10 May, 1780, from the inhabitants of Charleston to General Lincoln requesting him to “send out a flag, in the name of the people, intimating their acquiescence in the terms propounded,” and for a facsimile of the signature of Henry Crouch, one of the signers, see Year Book, City of Charleston, 1897, pp. 394, 398. In November of the same year, Crouch, together with other citizens of Charleston on parole, was sent by Cornwallis to St. Augustine (Ramsay’s History of the Revolution of South Carolina, 1785, ii. 169, 459).

131 William Phillips, born 1722, died 1804. See Memorial History of Boston, ii. 543, iii. 29, 38 note; and American Quarterly Register for 1840, xiii. 12.

132 Joseph Trumbull and James Lovell were both of the Harvard Class of 1756, and both were delegates to the Continental Congress. Col. John Trumbull graduated at Harvard in the Class of 1773, which he entered as a Junior in January, 1772.

133 Court Records, vol. v. last page.

134 Edward Randolph (Publications of the Prince Society), ii. 89.

135 Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 517.

136 History of New England, iii. 486.

137 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 140.

138 Edward Randolph (Publications of the Prince Society), iv. 116.

139 a biographical note on John Colman will be found on pp. 86–89, post.

140 See ante, iii. 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 72, and 75.

141 Council Records, Massachusetts Archives, vii. 132.

142 An earlier volume of the Records of the Court of General Sessions (1671–1681) is now in press and will be issued by the City of Boston.

143 Catalogue of the Library of George Brinley, i. 189. This pamphlet was anonymous, but by Sabin is attributed to E. Wigglesworth.

144 A biographical note on James Gooch will be found on pp. 90–92, post.

145 Col. Stephen Minot, son of Capt. John Minot, was born in Dorchester, 10 (6) 1662; married Mercy, daughter of Capt. Christopher Clark of Boston, 1 December, 1686; removed to Boston, where he was a prominent merchant, an early member of the Church in Brattle Square, Colonel in the Militia, Justice of the Peace, and Selectman, 1707, 1708, 1723–1725. He resided in Sudbury Street, where he died. This estate had been the homestead of Henry Messenger the younger, whose young widow and heir, Mehitable (Minot) Messenger, for £220, conveyed it to her cousin-german, Stephen Minot, 11 July, 1687 (Suffolk Deeds, xv. 153.) It was on the westerly side of Sudbury Street, on which it had a frontage of 66 feet, and extended through to Court Street, where it measured 77 feet. The site is now (1899) covered by brick buildings numbered 89–97 in Sudbury Street and 131–139 in Court Street. The Boston Weekly News Letter, No. 1502, from Thursday November 2 to Thursday November 9, 1732, contains the following announcement of his death, the full date of which nowhere else appears in print: —

“Boston, November. 9. On the Night after the last Lord’s Day [5 November], Died here Col. Stephen Minot, in the 71st year of his Age.”

(Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, viii. 41, 45, 172, 180, 185, xxi. 8; Records of the Church in Brattle Square; Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England, i. 392, iii. 218; and Whitmore’s Massachusetts Civil List, pp. 127, 128.) See Suffolk Probate Files, No. 6310.

146 Increase Robinson was of Taunton, Massachusetts. He was the son of Increase and Sarah (Penniman) Robinson of Dorchester who, in or before 1668, removed to Taunton, where the son married Mehitable Williams, had a large family, and died in 1738. The offence which brought him before the Court, 25 April, 1720, was that on the fifth of February, 1719–20, at Dorchester, he —

“did maliciously from his own Imagination pronounce & publish certain scandelous & contemptuous words of the Hon^oble. Col^o. Penn Towusend of this [Suffolk] County Esq^r. Chief Judge of the Comon pleas;”

for which he was ordered to —

“pay a fine of Six pounds to the King or be whipped ten stripes at the Publick whipping post & Recognize to his Majesty himself in the sum of 50^l & two sureties in the sum of 25^l pounds each until the next Court of Gen^l sessions to be holden in July next, & pay Costs of prosecution Standing Committed,” etc. (Records of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, folio 37).

In the list of the military company of Taunton, 30 May, 1700, are the names of Increase Robinson and his brothers Ebenezer and Josiah. Administration on the estate of Increase Robinson was granted to his son William Robinson, 20 March, 1738. The Inventory amounted to £1.584. 03. 02 (Bristol Probate Records). See Bristol Deeds, xiii. 358; and Suffolk Deeds, xxxvi. 42.

147 A biographical note on Jeremiah Belknap will be found on pp. 93, 94, post.

148 See ante, iii. 10 note. I am indebted to our associates, Mr. Henry H. Edes, Mr. Frederick Lewis Gay, and Mr. Albert Matthews, to Mr. Robert H. Kelby of New York, and to Mr. Edmund M. Barton of Worcester, for information concerning several valuable discoveries recently made by them, which they have kindly permitted me to use in the notes to this communication.

149 The Boston Town Records and the Records of the Church in Brattle Square state that this marriage was solemnized on the Sixth of December, 1733.

150 William Hobby gave £2 towards the building of King’s Chapel, in July, 1689, and, in May, 1694, £2 towards building pews in the church. He was a Warden, 1693, 1699–1701, and so, likewise, was his son, Sir Charles Hobby, 1713–1715. (Koote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, i. 89, 117, 175 note; ii. 603, 605.)

151 These children were (i) John, who was at Harvard College in 1714 and 1715, and later at Barbados, whose widow Amey had married a Crichlow before 14 July, 1749, (ii) Elizabeth, who married James Gooch, Jr., 30 September, 1715, and (iii) Mary, born 19 February, 1702, who married Zechariah Hubbard, 15 May, 1722. Lady Hobby was buried, 17 November, 1716. (Suffolk Probate Files No. 3690; Suffolk Deeds, xxxix. 174, 175, xl. 129, Ixxvii. 11, 173; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 15, xxviii. 58, 107; Boston Town Records of Deaths.)

152 Our associate, Mr. Albert Matthews, calls my attention to the following extract from a Tory pamphlet, — The American Times, By Camillo Querno, London, 1780, p. 37, which seems to show that Gooch, Gouge, and Googe had the same pronunciation as late as 1780, since Governor Gooch of Virginia is supposed to be here referred to: —

Ev’n whilst I write a monster fierce and huge

Has fix’d his station in the land of Googe;

Virginian caitiff! Jefferson by name;

Perhaps from Jefferies sprung of rotten fame.

153 She was probably identical with Hannah, daughter of Samuel and Mary (Scott) Emmons, who was born in Boston, 1 March, 1672–73 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 76, 123).

154 See ante, p. 88, and note.

155 Joseph Hiller was born in Watford, Hertfordshire, England, 26 June, 1653. On the twenty-first of September, 1677, he came to Boston and there married, 11 June, 1684, Susannali Dennis, born 29 May, 1655, who joined in the deed to Belknap. They were the great-grandparents of Major Joseph Hiller of the Revolutionary army, — the first Collector of the Port of Salem and Beverly under the Federal Constitution, appointed by Washington in 1789. Major Hiller’s silver punch-strainer has been long in the possession of our associate Mr. Henry H. Edes (Genealogy of the Cleveland and Cleaveland Families, 1899, pp. 234, 235). Cf. Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 174, xxiv. 151, xxviii. 52, 279; and Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 504.

156 I am indebted for the following note to the kindness of our associate, Mr. Henry H. Edes: —

“It is an interesting fact, that, nearly ninety years afterwards, the son of Martin and Lucretia Lane, our late associate, suggested the Latin motto upon the monument erected by the Wardens and Vestry of the Chapel to the memory of Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes. (See Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 629.) On removing to Charlestown, Mr. Martin Lane connected himself with the Second Congregational (later the Harvard) Church, of which the Rev. James Walker was the minister for twenty-one years. Here, on the twenty-fifth of July, 1824, he baptized Mr. Lane’s two daughters, Elizabeth-Minot (born 28 January, 1817), and Lavinia (born 31 October, 1820), and his son, George-Martin, who was destined to become Professor of Latin in Harvard College two years before Dr. Walker himself passed from the Alford Professorship to the Presidency.”

157 Addresses at the Inauguration of the Hon. Edward Everett, LL. D., as President of the University at Cambridge, Thursday, April 30, 1846, pp. 19–24.

158 Lehrbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthümer, Heidelberg, 1855, § 76, p. 219.

159 Hyperidis Orationes Duae, Gottingae, 1853, p. vii.

160 Cf. Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor, i. 358, 359.

161 The Nation, No. 1671, 8 July, 1897, lxv. 28.

162 A Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges, New York and London, 1898.

163 A Latin Dictionary for Schools, New York, 1889, p. vi.

164 Publications, iii. 348–350.

165 Publications, v. 257–297.

166 A notice of George Glas is in the Dictionary of National Biography, xxi, 415–417.

167 The Massachusetts Gazette of Thursday, 11 April, 1771 (No. 3523, p. 3/1), contains the following notice: —

“NEW-HAVEN, April 5 . . . . . . . A few days since died at Danbury Mr. ROBERT SANDEMAN.”

168 In 1766, Geyer presented to the Town an account amounting to £173. 4. 1 for repairs on Faneuil Hall (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xvi. 171).

The Massachusetts Centinel of Wednesday, 7 December, 1785 (iv. 23, p. 3/2), contains the following notice of Mr. Geyer’s death: —

“Last Sunday morning, after a lingering illness, departed this life, Mr. Henry Christian Guyer, an eminent Stone-cutter in this town, aged 58, of whom it may be said in a few words, he was a good Christian, a friend to America, and an honest man; his remains will be interred from his dwelling-house near the Rev. Mr. Wight’s Meeting-House this afternoon, precisely at 4 o’clock, at which time his relations, and friends are requested to attend.”

169 Cf. 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, x. 71.

170 Delano A. Goddard, in Memorial History of Boston, iii. 129, 130. In a letter received from Dr. Edward Everett Hale since this paper was written, he says of the Sandemanians: —

They were pure rationalists. As far as you can understand anything of what distinguished them in belief, it was the postulate that a man must understand what he is talking about. The miracle of Grace, or of union with God, is not wrought without the intelligent cooperation of God’s child.

I think, but I do not know, that they carried such heavy guns that the regular Boston preachers did not interfere with them. Methodists would not have liked them, but the old Boston line in that time was too far gone in rationalism to care to attack them.

171 This name appears as “Dechezzan, Adam,” in Barrell’s List of Refugees in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for December, 1880, xviii. 266–268, which also contains the names of other Sandemanians. He was married by the Rev. Andrew Le Mercier to Susanna Cosno, 28 January, 1730 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxviii. 153).

172 For notices of Hopestill Capen, see ante, v. 270, 271, 297, 298.

173 For a notice of Benjamin Davis, see post, pp. 124–127.

174 For a note on Isaac Winslow, Senior and Junior, see post, pp. 127–130.

175 There are several references to Colborn Barrell in the Letters of John Andrews printed in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for July, 1865, viii. 318, 335, 374 and 375. He was of the Boston Latin School Class of 1744. His portrait was painted by Copley.

176 Walter Barrell was Inspector-General of the Customs at Boston. In March, 1776, he and his family left Boston with the British troops (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for December, 1880, xviii. 266). “In 1779, he was a member of the Loyalist association formed in London” (Sabine’s Loyalists, i. 211).

177 This, probably, was Moses Peck, watchmaker, who died in Boston, 27 March, 1801, aged 83. He married, 17 January, 1758, Elizabeth Townsend, born 18 December, 1729, — a younger sister of Shippie Townsend (post, pp. 116, 122). She died in Boston 26 June, 1793, aged 62 (Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 734, 949; and Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxx. 27, 289).

178 For the parentage of Mary and Keziah West, see note on John West, post, p. 122.

179 This may have been Abigail Stayner, whose name appears in Barrell’s List (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for December, 1880, xviii. 268). See New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1865, six. 321.

180 Snow’s History of Boston (edition of 1825), p. 256; and Drake’s History and Antiquities of Boston, pp. 686, 687. Several of these persons were Protesters against the Solemn League and Covenant (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1870, xi. 394, 395).

181 For a note on Isaac Winslow, Senior and Junior, see post, 127–130.

182 History of Boston (edition of 1825), pp. 256, 257. Cf. Memorial History of Boston, ii. 245, 246.

183 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1877, xv. 337. Cf. Suffolk Probate Files, No. 9826, — Benjamin Edwards, 1751,— the father of Alexander Edwards, cabinet-maker, referred to in the text.

184 In the Boston Gazette of Monday, 12 April, 1773 (No. 910, pp. 3/2, 3/3 and 4/2) are the following Cards, which are of interest: —

“JOSEPH KETTELL takes this Method to return his hearty Thanks to his Friends and Fellow Citizens, and to the Town of Charlestown, for their extraordinary Kindness and Activity at the late Pire, and shall ever esteem himself their much obliged humble Servant.”

II.

“Messieurs. PRINTERS.

Mr. Edwards begs leave to inform the Publick through the Channel of your Paper, that the late Fire broke out in a Store 40 Feet above his Shop, which consumed his two Warehouses with all his Stock and Tools to the amount of 600 1. Sterling.

As he is very suspicious that those Buildings were set on Fire by some Ill-minded Person or Persons, he now promises a Reward of TEN POUNDS L.M. to any who shall give Information of the perpetrators of so Wicked a Deed, in order that they may be brought to Justice: And takes this opportunity to return his most sincere and hearty Thanks to his Friends and the Publick for their kind assistance and peculiar mark of Friendship.”

III.

“Lost at the Fire on the 4th Instant, a Leather Bucket, mark’d F. Green, No. 2. Whoever can, are requested to inform where the same may be found.”

IV.

“The Person who received a very large CHINA BOWL from Capt. Barrett’s House, in Friend-Street, during the late Fire in that Neighbourhood, shall be handsomely Treated if he will return it, or Prosecuted if he does not.”

Similar Cards appeared in the Supplement to the Massachusetts Gazette of Friday, 16 April, 1773.

185 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiii. 171.

186 History of Boston (edition of 1825), p. 257.

187 These plans were drawn by Mr. Louis Packard Streeter of Boston who has since removed to New York City.

188 Since this paper was written, I have discovered that the site of the second Meeting House is marked on Osgood Carleton’s Plan of Boston, 1795, which appeared in the Directory for 1796. The key to the Plan,-however, does not explain the mark.

189 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 14,416.

190 See Copp’s Hill Epitaphs and Records of the New North Church, Boston, for facts concerning this family.

191 Mitchelson is elsewhere styled “lapidary” (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1870, xi. 393). He was a Refugee from Boston in 1776 (Ibid, for December, 1880, xviii. 267).

192 Suffolk Deeds, cxvi. 37.

193 Ibid. cxx. 15.

194 Delano a. Goddard, in Memorial History of Boston, iii. 129.

195 Topographical and Historical Description of Boston (1891), p. 109.

196 See Maps of the Street-Lines of Boston, made for the Selectmen in 1819 and 1820 by John Groves Hales (1894), p. 253.

197 Suffolk Deeds, cxxiv. 93.

198 Ibid, cclxvi. 132, 133.

199 Cf. Plans in Suffolk Deeds, ccxxx. 305, cclxxxviii. 27, cclxxxix. 288, ccxcv. 284, and cccxxxvii. 305. See also Shaw’s Topographical and Historical Description of Boston (1817), p. 267, note.

200 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 14.716. See also New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1865, xix. 231, 232.

201 Suffolk Deeds, cxxiii. 251, 252. Cf. Isaac Winslow’s additional Inventory, taken 15 August, 1797 (recorded Suffolk Probate Records, xcv. 414, 415), in Suffolk Probate Files, No. 20,095; and Suffolk Deeds, cxxiii. 36, and cxxv. 135.

202 This, doubtless, was Elias Dupee (Memorial History of Boston, iii. 160). See also New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1864, xviii. 339; and Suffolk Probate Files, No. 18,647.

203 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxv. 282.

204 Ibid. xxv. 285.

205 Ibid. xxv. 318.

206 I am indebted to the Honorable Samuel Abbott Green, LL.D., for this identification, drawn from the manuscripts of the late John Langdon Sibley.

207 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxvii. 116.

208 Ibid. xxv. 251, 256, 264, 266, 267, 278 and 283. See also Ibid. xxvii. 101, 191 and passim.

209 Ibid. xxii. 12.

210 Suffolk Deeds, clxxxix. 40, 41.

211 Shaw’s Topographical and Historical Description of Boston, p. 267.

212 Boston City Records.

213 Drake’s History and Antiquities of Boston, p. 687, which, however, gives the name, age, and date erroneously. He was born in Boston, 19 October, 1739, the son of Alford and Elizabeth (Robinson) Butler (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 235; xxviii. 195). He is thought to have been of the Boston Latin School Class of 1748 (Catalogue, 1886, p. 69 and note). See note on the West family, post, p. 122

214 Suffolk Deeds, ccccxvi. 198

215 Ibid, lxxxv. 90.

216 The following List of persons known to have been Sandemanians who were also Addressers of Hutchinson and of Gage has been furnished by our associate, Mr. Albert Matthews, who is preparing entirely new Lists of the Addressers from original sources. I am also indebted to Mr. Matthews for other valuable facts used in this paper: —

Barrell, Colborn:	Hutchinson, 28 May, 1774;	Gage, 8 June, 1774.
Capen, Hopestill:	Hutchinson, 28 May, 1774;	Gage, 8 June, 1774.
Davis, Benjamin:	Hutchinson, 28 May, 1774;	Gage, 8 June, 1774,
		Gage, 6 October, 1775.
Foster, Edward:	Hutchinson, 28 May, 1774;	Gage, 8 June, 1774.
King, Edward:	Hutchinson, 28 May, 1774;	Gage, 8 June, 1774.
Mitchelson, David:	Hutchinson, 28 May, 1774;	Gage, 8 June, 1774.
Winslow, Isaac:	Hutchinson, 28 May, 1774;	Gage, 8 June, 1774,
		Gage, 6 October, 1775.
Winslow, Isaac, Jr.:	Hutchinson, 28 May, 1774;	Gage, 8 June, 1774,
		Gage, 6 October, 1775.

217 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 15.912; and 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for May, 1895, x. 164, 172, 173.

218 Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (1864) i. 432. See also 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for December, 1880, xviii. 266; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxviii. 211, 245; New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1865, xix. 340: and Records of the New South Church.

219 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, viii. 90.

220 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, viii. 91, 92. Cf. Ibid. viii. 118, 119, 132.

221 Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 864, 949

222 Suffolk Deeds, xc. 235, 237, 238.

223 Ibid. clxviii. 120; clxxi. 26.

224 I am indebted to our associate, Mr. Henry Winchester Cunningham, for the following note: —

John West of Boston, housewright, was born in Boston 26 March, 1697. He was the oldest child of Richard West and his wife Anna, daughter of Robert Sanderson, goldsmith, and at one time partner of John Hull, the Mint Master. He was married at Yarmouth, 26 April, 1720, to Mary daughter of Samuel and Keziah (Taylor) Eldredge, by whom he had nine children, the births of the last seven being recorded in Boston: —

(i) John; (ii) Sanderson, married in Boston, 7 November, 1746, to Mary Avery; (iii) Anna, born 25 November, 1726, married in Boston, 27 October, 1747, to Ephraim Green; (iv) Mary, born 4 July, 1729, died in September, 1730, aged 14 months; (v) Mary, born 7 June, 1731; (vi) Keziah, born 3 February, 1732, married in Boston, 20 January, 1771, to Alexander Linklester; (vii) Eunice, born 2 December, 1734, married (Intentions recorded 27 January, 1763) to Alford Butler; (viii) David, born 9 May, 1736; and (ix) David, born 25 August, 1737, married, 3 May, 1761, to Sarah Presbury.

In 1725, John West bought the interest of the other heirs of his grandfather Sanderson in “a tenement near the Mill bridge” and “a tenement on Middle Street “(Suffolk Deeds, xli. 3). On the first of October, 1740, he made his will, in which he said he was about to set out for Virginia, and there he may have died, as his widow administered his estate on the twentieth of March, 1741–42 (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 7717).

The West family do not appear to have been Loyalists, like so many of the Sandemanians, and, so far as I know, they were all Patriots. David, the youngest son, is said to have died at sea, in 1779, while serving in some official capacity on an American privateer. His son David, Jr., was the well-known bookseller, who at one time had a store in Washington Street on land now covered by a part of the Sears Building; and, later, he was a partner of Lemuel Blake. David West, Jr., was twice married, (1) to Hannah Watts, by whom he had one child, David, who died unmarried; and (2) to Abigail, daughter of Zephaniah Leonard of Raynham (Yale 1758), who was Lieutenant-Colonel of the Bristol County Regiment during the Revolution. By this marriage he had one daughter, Abigail Leonard West, who married Andrew Cunningham, who were the grandparents of the writer of this note.

Many members of the West family were booksellers and publishers, — among them John, who published the Boston Directory for 1796. Alford Butler, who married Eunice West, was a book-binder, and had a son, Samuel Butler, who was a partner in the firm Thomas & Andrews. See ante, pp. 113,119 and note.

The connection of the West family with Robert Sanderson is proved in an article by John E. Alden in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1898, lii. 23

225 Suffolk Deeds, cv. 66.

226 The Third, or Old South, Church was founded by the liberal and progressive element in the fellowship of the First Church, nut, however, without much acrimony and contention which, finally, was transferred to the Legislature.

“The next election turned chiefly on the question, Who are for the old church and who for the new? and so strong was the popular feeling against the conservatives, that a majority of the members of the House of Deputies of 1670 lost their seats, and more enlightened men were chosen to succeed them. It was not then required that a deputy should reside in the town represented by him, and this made it possible for several leading members of the Third Church to be returned to the new House. Thomas Savage was elected for Andover, William Davis for Springfield, John Hull for Westfield, Hezekiah Usher for Billerica, and Thomas Brattle for Lancaster. Major Savage, who had filled the chair in 1659 and 1660, was again chosen speaker. a majority of the magistrates was favorable to the new church, and with the ever faithful secretary, Edward Rawson, at his post, its friends were now prepared to bring to speedy silence the carping criticism and calumnious aspersions with which they had borne so long and so patiently” (Hill’s History of the Old South Church, i. 107, 108).

Mr. Hill’s History also records the active part which Captain William Davis took in the proceedings preliminary to the gathering of the Old South. See also Historical Catalogue of the Old South Church, p. 215. Concerning Captain Davis’s mission to England in 1661, see 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vii. 170; and John Hull’s Diary, pp. 205, 206.

227 I am indebted to Mr. Edmund M. Barton, of Worcester, for this interesting and valuable item.

228 In 1766, an interesting pamphlet appeared in Boston entitled —

“A Plain and Full Account of the Christian Practices observed by the Church in St. Martin’s-le-grand, London, And other Churches (commonly called Sandemanian) in Fellowship with Them. In a Letter to a Friend. Acts, xxviii. 22 . . . . Boston: Printed and Sold by Z. Fowle, in his Printing-office in Back-Street, near the Mill-Bridge. MDCCLXVI.” (12 mo. pp. 28.)

It fully describes the love feasts, the kiss of charity, and other practices of the sect

229 My thanks are due to Mr. Julius H. Tuttle for this obituary notice. I embrace this opportunity to make my grateful acknowledgments to Mr. Tuttle for his constant and uniform kindness and courtesy and for his valuable aid in many undertakings.

230 He is also called Isaac Winslow, Junior, in the will of his maternal aunt, Margaret (Savage) Alford, 1785 (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 18,461).

231 Journal and Letters of Samuel Curwen (1864), p. 673. Curwen’s Editor, George Atkinson Ward says that Winslow soon after married Mary Davis, daughter of Benjamin Davis, Esq., of Boston (see ante, p. 126), and adds: —

“Mr. Winslow was a particular friend of [the second] Sir William Pepperrell, and his first wife a cousin of the Baronet. Whilst Mr. Winslow was in the British provinces, they corresponded, and Sir William’s letters evince great charity for his political opponents notwithstanding the bitterness which marked their writings and conduct” (Ibid.).

See A Loyalist in the Siege of Boston, in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1902, lvi. 48–54.

232 For notices of Glas and Sandeman, see Dictionary of National Biography, xxi. 417, 418; l. 255, 256. The late Colonel Sir Robert Groves Sandeman, whose career in India was distinguished, was a great-grandson of Thomas Sandeman, a brother of Robert Sandeman. There is a notice of Sir Robert in the Dictionary of National Biography, 1. 256, 257; and a biography, by Thomas Henry Thornton, was published in 1895.

233 Faraday appears to have been an Elder. There are references to the Sandemanians in Bence Jones’s Life and Letters of Faraday (1870), i. 4, 5; in J. H. Gladstone’s Michael Faraday (1872), pp. 21, 35, 91; and in Silvanus P. Thompson’s Michael Faraday (1898), pp. 4, 51, 286.

234 Dr. Snow says: —

“As to church officers, they always had two elders (teachers) and deacons: no deaconesses are recollected. Daniel Humphreys, esq. (brother to the late Col. Humphreys) was early a deacon here, but soon removed to Danbury, Conn, to officiate as an elder. Mr. H. is still living and resides at Portsmouth, N. H. being Dist. Attorney of the U. S. He is an elder in a small society there, of which Mr. [Alford] Butler above-named is also a living member” (History of Boston, 1825, p. 257).

See ante, p. 114; and 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, x. 61. Humphreys was born at Derby, Connecticut, 18 May, 1740, graduated at Yale in 1757, and died at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 30 September, 1827 (Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, ii. 471–474).

In the forthcoming Report of the Boston Record Commissioners (xxx.) containing the Boston Marriages, 1751–1809, are found entries of marriages performed by Sandeman and Mitchelson (pp. 43, 45, 53, 57). In one case the record reads, “married by Robert Sandeman Minister of the Congregational Church assembling in Mason’s Hall, at the Sign of the Green Dragon, 9 Feb^y 1767”; and in another, the marriage is recorded as having been solemnized by “David Michalson Sandemanian Teacher,” 25 November, 1769. In the list of Protesters against the Solemn League and Covenant, Colborn Barrell is described as “Merchant and Sandemanian Preacher” (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1870, xi. 393). Apparently, therefore, Mitchelson and Barrell were the two Elders of the Boston church.

235 A view of this building and some account of the way in which the services of the Sandemanians were conducted are in Barber’s Connecticut Historical Collections, pp. 368, 369.

236 In If, Yes, and Perhaps, Boston, 1868, pp. 199–241.

237 Ibid. pp. 171–198.

238 The Ingham Papers, Boston, 1869.

239 If, Yes, and Perhaps.

240 Mr. Porter promised to comply with this request, but died before he found time to do so. The brief abstract of his Remarks in the text is made from notes taken at the time by a member of the Society.

241 An allusion to this Petition will be found, under date of 25 May, 1775, in Journals of each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, 1838, pp. 257, 258.

242 A companion portrait of Martha Washington was also engraved by Norman.

243 General History of New England, 1815, p. 22 (2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 22). Though written for publication about 1680, this work was not printed until 1815.

244 American Geography, 1789, p. 141

245 New-England Farmer; or, Georgical Dictionary, p. 152/2.

246 Monthly Review, 1787, lxxvi. 139, 272.

247 History of New-Hampshire, iii. 6.

248 A View of the Soil and Climate of the United States of America, By C. F. Volney, Translated by C. B. Brown, Philadelphia, 1804, p. 9. The form “inter-vale,” so far from indicating a refinement of intention on the part of Brown, was doubtless merely a printer’s error.

249 Travels through the Northern Parts of the United States, iii. 191, 192.

250 Vocabulary, or Collection of Words and Phrases which have been supposed to be peculiar to the United States. First printed in the Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. iii., Part ii., pp. 439–536; published at Cambridge the same year; and reprinted, with additions, at Boston in 1816.

251 Travels; in New-England and New-York, 1821, ii. 328, 329.

252 History of Vermont, Part i., pp. 6, 7, note.

253 J. R. Bartlett’s Dictionary of Americanisms, Second edition, p. 217.

254 M. S. De Vere’s Americanisms, p. 176.

255 In saying that “bottom” was a peculiarly American word, Professor Whitney was in error, as the term had been in use in England three centuries before the settlement of this country. See the Oxford English Dictionary.

256 Names and Places: Studies in Geographical and Topographical Nomenclature, p. 231.

257 “Interval, Intervale. [Intervale (the vale between) is probably the original word.] In New England, a tract of low or plain ground between hills or along the banks of rivers” (Imperial Dictionary, 1882).

“Interval, intervale, s. [Etym. doubtful; probably from pref. inter-, and vale.] A tract of low or plain ground between hills or along the banks of rivers. (American.)” (Encyclopædic Dictionary, 1885.)

“Intervale, n. [A var. of interval, as if < inter-+ vale.] A low level tract of land, especially along a river; an interval. See interval, 2. [Local, U. S.]” (Century Dictionary.)

258 Travels, 1809, iii. 192, 193.

259 Letter to the Honorable John Pickering, on the Subject of his Vocabulary, 1817, p. 18.

260 Thus the words Interval and Intervale have never been employed in Rhode Island, simply because the particular kind of soil denoted by the terms is unknown in that State. Nor will they be found anywhere along the seacoast of New England.

261 This shows that Interval and Intervale occur in about the proportion of seven to ten, respectively; but, at the present time, Interval is the more common form.

262 Concise Account of North America, 1765, pp. 49, 53, 66, 67, 84. The form Intervale occurs at p. 48.

263 Descriptive Sketch of the Present State of Vermont, 1797, p. 44. The form Intervale occurs at pp. 65, 135, 148, 166. Both these books were printed in London.

264 The following are the early forms: Enteruail, Enterual, Entervail, Entervaile, Enterval, Entervale, Entervall, Intervail, Intervaile, Interval, Intervale, Intervall, Intervayle, Intreval. By about 1750 these had been reduced to the two forms now common.

265 See the extract below from R. Putnam, 1788.

266 Glossary of Supposed Americanisms, pp. 6, 7.

267 Professor O. F. Emerson, of Western Reserve University, writes me from Cleveland, Ohio, that “no one here is able to tell me of their use.” Professor G. C. S. Southworth, of Salem, Ohio, writes from that place: —

“While in Cleveland I met several gentlemen, who are familiar with the Western Reserve and the State of Ohio. I received categorical replies that they had never heard the word Interval or Intervale used popularly in Ohio. I am satisfied that the word is not used in this State, for bottom-land, or meadow.”

268 No example of the terms south of Pennsylvania is known to me.

269 In his Preliminary Report on the Surface Geology of New Brunswick 1885, G G 48, R. Chalmers writes: —

“Intervales accompany every river in New Brunswick with greater or less breadth, and comprise thousands of acres of the very best lands . . . . The freshets deposit a thin stratum of silt upon them, which, by yearly increments, has given them their present thickness, and there seems no reason to doubt that these intervales have been wholly formed in this way, that is, from the sediments of spring freshets” (Geological and Natural History Survey of Canada, Annual Report, New Series, Vol. i.).

Our associate, Professor G. L. Kittredge, of Harvard University, has called my attention to the two following extracts from Australian books: —

“The alluvial lands of New South Wales, or what the people of New England would call interval lands, (I presume because they constitute the interval between the rivers and the open forest-country,) are in general heavily timbered” (J. D. Lang, Historical and Statistical Account of New South Wales, 1834, i. 89).

“These floods are not periodical. Until 1806 none of importance had occurred; the people had settled down on the rich ‘interval’ land, the deposit of former overflowings” (S. Sidney, The Three Colonies of Australia, 1852, p. 49).

As Sidney clearly copies from Lang, and as Lang refers to New England usage, these extracts do not prove that the term is in vogue in Australia; and the conclusion that the word is not there in use is confirmed by Professor E. E. Morris, of the University of Melbourne, the author of Austral English: a Dictionary of Australian Words, Phrases, and Uses, 1898. To an inquiry, Prof. Morris kindly replied as follows:

“I think I may say that none of the terms you mention as belonging to New England have taken root in Australia. You give two instances of the word ‘intervale’ from Australian hooks, but in both cases they are exotic, and the result of authors having read New England literature, not local to Australia.”

270 Since this paper was written, the section of the Oxford English Dictionary containing the terms in question has been published. From this it appears that the statement in the text requires modification to the extent of recognizing a single Scottish example, as follows: —

“This City of Fez is situate upon the bodies and twice double devalling faces . . . of two hills . . . ; the intervale, or low valley betweene both . . . being the Center” (1632, Lithgow, Travels, viii. 365).

271 1653, Early Records of Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1884, p. 27.

272 1659, History of the Town of Harvard, Massachusetts, 1894, p. 16.

273 1661, History of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 1890, ii. 506/2.

274 Will of S. Gates, 1662, in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1877, xxxi. 401.

275 1673, Early Records of Groton, Massachusetts, 1880, p. 46.

276 1685, Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 482

277 1694, B. Wadsworth, in 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 103,104.

278 1723, in G. Sheldon’s History of Deerfield, Massachusetts, 1895, i. 405.

279 1725, S. Willard, in Appalachia, 1881, ii. 343.

280 1730, Pennsylvania Gazette, 29 October–5 November, in New Jersey Archives, xi. 225, 226. This is the earliest example of the word known to me in print. Similar advertisements appeared in the New York Gazette of 30 July, 1733, and of 3 December, 1750 (New Jersey Archives, xi. 321; xii. 693).

281 1730, Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 581, 582.

282 1741, W. Bryent, in New-Hampshire Provincial Papers, vi. 351.

283 1746, A. Clough, in Collections of the New-Hampshire Historical Society, 1834, iv. 202.

284 1749, J. Eliot, Essays upon Field-Husbandry in New-England, 1760, p. 23.

285 L. Evans, Middle British Colonies, 1755, p. 28. This is the earliest appearance of the word in a printed book. Evans was perhaps not a New Englander.

286 1760, P. Coffin, in 1 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, iv. 262.

287 1764, Sir W. Johnson, in F. B. Hough's Diary of the Siege of Detroit, 1860, p. 254. Johnson was not a New Englander.

288 1764, T. Hutchinson, History of the Colony of Massachusett’s Bay, Second Edition, 1765, p. 484, note.

289 1768, E. Cleaveland, in F. Chase’s History of Dartmouth College and the Town of Hanover, New Hampshire, 1891, i. 104.

290 Boston Gazette, 10 July, 1769, p. 2/3.

291 1771, J. Adams, Works, 1850, ii. 273.

292 B. Romans, Concise Natural History of East and West Florida, 1775, i. 317. Romans was born in Holland.

293 T. Hutchins, Topographical Description of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and North Carolina, 1778, p. 4. Hutchins was born in New Jersey.

294 1779, D. Gookin, in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1862, xvi. 29.

295 1788, R. Putnam, in M. Cutler’s Life, Journals and Correspondence, 1888, i. 378.

296 1793, J. Drayton, Letters written during a Tour through the Northern & Eastern States of America, 1794, p. 104. Drayton was a South Carolinian.

297 S. Williams, Natural and Civil History of Vermont, 1794, p. 35.

298 I. Allen, Natural and Political History of the State of Vermont, 1798, p. 5.

299 T. M. Harris, Journal of a Tour into the Territory Northwest of the Alleghany Mountains, 1805, p. 96.

300 1806, T. Ashe, Travels in America, 1808, i. 13. Ashe was an Englishman. He alludes to Pennsylvania.

301 C. T. Jackson, Third Annual Report on the Geology of the State of Maine, 1839, p. 124.

302 1844, J. G. Whittier, The Bridal of Pennacook, Poetical Works, 1888, i. 81.

303 R. W. Emerson, Musketaquit, Poems, 1847, p. 228.

304 1853, H. D. Thoreau, A Yankee in Canada, Excursions, 1894, p. 51.

305 1856, J. G. Whittier, Mary Garvin, Poetical Works, 1888, i. 154.

306 J. Winsor, The Mississippi Basin, 1895, p. 230.

307 Works, 1894, iv. 226.

308 An early instance is the following: —

“This is the freshest, the most busie and stirring Intervall or time betweene, that husbandmen have” (P. Holland, The Historie of the World, 1601, i. 591).

Dr. Murray’s readers have been able to furnish him with but a single extract before Chaucer, and with but a single extract between Chaucer and Holland; and the statement in the text is confirmed by Dr. Murray’s remark that “the appearances of the word till the beginning of the 17th c. are quite sporadic, having little or no historical connexion with each other.”

309 Sir George Downing wrote from England 8 March, 1647: —

“For the state of things heer, it hath been very various, not only in the time of warre, but more since: we having since the sheathing of the swourd some times enjoyed our lucide intervales, but then all hath quickly been o’reclouded, that no mortall eye could in the face of things see any thing but ruine” (4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 540).

“This Court in the intervales of the Gen^ll Court doe desire and impower the Governo^r and Assistants . . . to be a Council to order and transact such necessary occasions and concernes as shall be to be atteuded in the sayd intervalls of the General Court” (1682, Colonial Records of Connecticut, 1859, iii. 113).

In a letter of instructions written from London in 1683, it was ordered that —

“no Street be laid close to the back of another without an Intervale of at least a pair of Butts” (New Jersey Archives, 1880, i. 431).

310 In 1574, Archbishop Grindal wrote: —

“My fits of cholic, stone, and strangury are very grievous when they come; but God sendeth me some intervalla, else they were intolerable” (Remains, 1843, p. 351).

In 1644, the Rev. W. Chillingworth said: —

“These heatdrops, this morning dew of sorrow, though it presently vanish, and they return to their sin againe upon the next temptation, as a dog to his vomit, when the pang is over; yet in the pauses betweene, while they are in their good mood, they conceive themselves to have very trite, and very good repentance; so that if they should have the good fortune to be taken away in one of these Intervalla, one of these sober moods, they should certainly be saved” (A Sermon Preached At the publike Fast Before his Maiesty at Christ-Church in Oxford, p. 18).

Dr. Murray gives examples from Mabbe (1622) and from N. Bacon (1647).

311 In the Second Part of King Henry the Fourth, v. i. 91, Shakspere wrote: —

“I will denise matter enough out of this Shallow, to keepe prince Harry in continuall laughter, the wearing out of sixe fashions, which is foure terms, or two actions, and a shal laugh without interuallums” (Bankside Shakespeare, 1891, xiii. 170).

312 For instance, J. Minsheu’s Guide into the Tongues, 1627; and T. Blount’s Glossographia, 1661.

313 On the word Intervale, Dr. Murray observes: —

“In former English use, only a rare variant or collateral form of Interval: cf. OF. entreval and entrevale, -valle, and the 14–16th c. Eng. intervalle. But by Lithgow in 1632, and from 17th c. in New England, associated with vale, in the specific American sense 3.

“It is not clear whether the association with vale, valley, was, in the first place, one of popular etymology, favoured perhaps by the partial survival of the old variant form in -vale (cf. intervail in sense 2), or whether this was in New England a natural development of the sense, arising from the fact that the chief intervals in the primaeval forest were the bottoms of the river valleys, and giving rise to an association with vale, as used in English in such names as the Vale of Clwyd, Vale of Llangollen, Vale of the Yarrow, etc. It is possible that both principles operated together; and it is to be noted that, in this specific sense, intervale has not, even in American use, ousted interval.”

314 I wish to express my indebtedness to Professor Kittredge for aid rendered in the treatment of the etymology of the terms under discussion.

315 Since this communication was made to the Society, a portrait in oil has been painted from this miniature by Mr. Joseph De Camp at the charge of Mr. Francis Randall Appleton (H. C. 1875), and by him presented to the Porcellian Club, of which Professor McKean was the Founder. Members of the Club will contribute to the new college fence, soon to be built, a gate, to be known as the McKean Gate. It will span the entrance to the College Yard between Boylston Hall and Wadsworth House.

316 Professor Joseph McKean (H. C. 1794) was born at Ipswich, Massachusetts, 19 April, 1776, and died in Havana, 17 March, 1818. He was the minister of the First Church in Milton, Massachusetts (1797–1804), and, in 1809, succeeded John Quincy Adams as Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory in Harvard College. He was an active member of the Massachusetts Historical Society, of which he was Librarian, Cabinet Keeper, and Recording Secretary. A silver pitcher, presented by Dr. McKean’s father to Mr. Samuel Curzon, in whose house Dr. McKean died, is still preserved as an heirloom. It bears the following inscription: —

Presented

M^r. Samuel & M^rs. Margaret Curson

William McKean

as a testimonial of his gratitude

to them

for their kind & affectionate attentions

to his Son,

Reverend Joseph McKean,

who died at their house in

Havanna

March the 17 A. D. 1818.

His body was buried in “nitch No. 345 of the Cemetery Espada en la Habana where it rested, undisturbed, until the year 1840 in which year all the nitches which were not re-rented were emptied of their contents and the bones were transferred to the osario, in other words, to the indiscriminate heap in the corners of the cemetery.” The marble tablet placed over the nitch by Dr. McKean’s father disappeared at the same time. A Memoir by Professor Levi Hedge is in 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 157–167. See also Teele’s History of Milton, pp. 260–265.

317 These lines appeared in the Columbian Centinel of Saturday, 2 May, 1818, No. 3555, p. 4/1. It is not improbable that they were written by Levi Frisbie (H. C. 1802), who had recently passed from the chair of Latin to that of Philosophy at Cambridge. See Teele’s History of Milton, p. 265 note.

318 Brief notices of Mr. Lisle are in Teele’s History of Milton, pp. 144, 512; and Drake’s Dictionary of American Biography. He was a lawyer, a prominent Free Mason, and the author of an Oration on Washington. He died in 1814.

319 These stanzas are in manuscript, and their authorship is not known. They appeared in the Columbian Centinel of Wednesday, 20 May, 1818 (No. 3560, p. 4/1), preceded by this paragraph —

“☞ We recognize in the following, the pen which often times has delighted and instructed our readers and conferred unfading renown on American Genius and Poesy. It has been deeply lamented that a Harp so tuneful, should have ‘so long hung on the willows.’”

A “corrected” version of these lines appeared in the next issue of the Centinel,— of Saturday, 23 May, 1818 (No. 3561, p. 4/1), which has been followed in our own text. The manuscript version combines the “Lines” and the “Impromptu.”

320 Professor McKean’s family know nothing of this portrait and will welcome any information concerning it.

321 This composition is in manuscript, and its authorship is unknown. It was printed in the Columbian Centinel of Saturday, 18 April, 1818, No. 3551, p. 4/1.

The Centinel of Wednesday, 22 April, 1818 (No. 3552, p. 2/4), contains a notice that —

“The Solemnities appointed by the Government of the University at Cambridge, as a tribute of respect to the memory of the late Rev. Dr. McKean, . . . will take place in the University Chapel this afternoon, at 3 o’clock.”

In the same issue (p. 4/1) is an obituary taken from the Daily Advertiser.

322 Colonel Winthrop died at Atlantic City, New Jersey, on the eighth of April, before receiving notice of his election. He graduated at Yale in the Class of 1851, and served through the Civil War as a volunteer. He subsequently entered the Regular Army and was Professor of Military Jurisprudence at West Point. Some time after leaving college Colonel Winthrop discarded his middle name.

323 Letter to Hezekiah Niles, editor of the Weekly Register, 13 February, 1818, in Novanglus and Massachusettensis; or Political Essays, published in the years 1774 and 1775, on the principal points of controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies, etc., Boston, 1819, p. 233.

324 The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America, by Evarts Boutell Greene, New York, 1898, in Harvard Historical Studies, vii. 205.

325 Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 200.

326 The Rights of the British Colonies asserted and proved. By James Otis, Esq. Boston, MDCCLXIV, p. 33.

327 Novanglus and Massachusettensis, etc., p. 245.

328 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, 1681–1685, No. 264, p. 128. See also Publications of the Prince Society: Edward Randolph, by Robert Noxon Toppan, iii. 111, where the letter is given with some differences of phraseology.

329 The Regulations Lately Made concerning the Colonies, and the Taxes Imposed upon Them, considered. London, 1765, p. 57. This tract is attributed to George Grenville.

330 Ibid. p. 79.

331 15 Charles II., 1663, ch. 7, § 5. The Statutes at Large (edition of 1735), ii. 627.

332 Bancroft’s History of the United States (edition of 1883), iii. 193. These Remarks of Lord Mansfield were made in 1766.

333 The Regulations, etc., p. 88.

334 History of the United States (edition of 1840), iii. 100.

335 Massachusetts House Journal, 29 January, 1727–28.

336 Ibid., 21 August, 1731.

337 Ibid., 2 February, 1731–32.

338 Ibid., 2 April, 1741.

339 See the case of Frost v. Leighton in the American Historical Review for January, 1897, ii. 229–240; and Publications of this Society, iii. 246–264.

340 Massachusetts House Journal, 27 June, 1729, p. 16. This letter of the Agents is dated London, 25 April, 1729.

341 Journals of the House of Commons, xxv. 815.

342 History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay (edition of 1768), ii. 394.

343 Ibid. ii. 395.

344 Ibid. ii. 295.

345 History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay (edition of 1768), ii. 396.

346 Massachusetts State Papers. Speeches of the Governors of Massachusetts, from 1765 to 1775; and the Answers of the House of Representatives to the same, etc. [edited by Alden Bradford], Boston, 1818, p. 394.

347 Novanglus and Massachusettensis, etc., p. 39.

348 A Letter from a Country Gentleman at Boston, To his Friends in the Country, p. 9. The Letter is dated, “Boston, June 10th, 1740.”

349 A Letter To the Merchant in London, To whom is Directed A Printed Letter relating to the Manufactory Undertaking, dated New England, Boston February 21st 1740, 1. Printed for the Public Good. 1741, p. 28.

350 The Boston News-Letter, Nos. 2927 and 2928, of Thursday, 17 and 24 August, 1758.

351 See a paper by our associate Professor Franklin B. Dexter, entitled The Founding of Yale College, in Papers of the New Haven Historical Society, iii. 1–31.

352 Our associate Mr. Abner C. Goodell. See Dr. George E. Ellis’s estimate of Dummer’s character in Memorial History of Boston, ii. 82, 83.

Dummer was the son of Jeremiah Dummer, of Boston, goldsmith, who served his apprenticeship with John Hull, the Mint-Master. The date of birth of Jeremiah the son does not appear, but if his age is correctly given on his monument he was born in or about 1681. In the Baptismal Register of the Old South Church in Boston the following entries appear: —

1675/6 Febr. 13 Jeremiah, son of Jeremiah Dumer.
1678 Dec. 29 William, son of Jeremiah Dumer.

We have here the record of baptism of Lieutenant-Governor Dummer and of an elder brother Jeremiah, who must have died in infancy since the goldsmith, in his will (1715), calls William his eldest son (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 4055). In 1679, the father transferred his relations to the First Church, to which he was then admitted, and of which he became a prominent member; but the First Church Records at that period were imperfectly kept and the baptisms of his younger children are not found. There are fine portraits of Lieutenant-Governor Dummer and of Jeremiah Dummer, the Province Agent, in the possession of the Misses Loring of Boston. They were engraved for the Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 114, 115. The portrait of Jeremiah Dummer has been ascribed to Sir Godfrey Kneller.

Dummer was buried at West Ham, Essex. The inscription on his monument reads —

The Remains

Jeremiah Dummer

of New England, Esq^r.

distinguished by his excellent life

probity and humanity.

His age 58

1739

In his will (signed Jeremy), dated 7 June, 1738, Dummer described himself as of Plaistow, in Essex. It was proved 1 June, 1739 (New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1881, xxxv. 268, 269; and Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England, i. 200, 201). Concerning his English ancestry, see Sewall’s Diary, i. xxi, xxii.

353 See George B. Reed’s Sketch of the Life of the Hon. John Read of Boston.

354 See New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1849, iii. 117–122, 220–222; and Quincy’s History of Harvard University (1860), i. 130–114.

355 December, 1897. Publications, v. 77, 78.

356 “A Board of Trustees was constituted by the Charter of 1701, and by an explanatory Act of the General Assembly in 1723 the Rector was made ex-officio a Trustee, though this Act was not accepted by the Board until 1728. By the Charter of 1745 the Presidency of the Corporation was made into a separate office, and the other Trustees were styled Fellows” (Yale Triennial Catalogue, p. 1).

357 A full notice of Woodbridge is in Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, ii, 461–470. See also Allen’s Biographical Dictionary; and New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1878, xxxii. 294. Woodbridge addressed Cotton Mather in verse on his completion of the Magnalia, to which the lines are prefixed. I cannot learn of the existence of any portrait of Woodbridge.

358 Beside the documents here printed, Mr. Edes exhibited two diplomas on parchment issued by Yale College to graduates of the Classes of 1709 and 1729, and a manuscript copy of the “Orders and appointments to be Observed in the Collegiate School in Connecticut.” This paper is dated 1 December, 1725, and is attested by Robert Treat and Daniel Edwards, Tutors.

359 There is little, if any, doubt that Lord Cornbury is here referred to. Edward Hyde, Viscount Cornbury, was born in December, 1661, the son of Henry Hyde, second Earl of Clarendon, and the grandson of the great Earl. Bred at Oxford, he sat in the House of Commons for Wilts and Christchurch, 1685–1701, when he was made Governor of New York and New Jersey. Before coming to America, he had held various offices, among them that of Master of the Horse to Prince George of Denmark. He was also Page of Honor to James II. at his coronation, 23 April, 1685, but, in 1688, deserted the cause of James, who, it will be remembered, had married his aunt. Cornbury, therefore, was cousin-german to Queen Anne.

In 1705, with Joseph Dudley, Cornbury presented to the Privy Council complaints against the Charter Governments, which were heard and dismissed. In 1708, Cornbury’s rule in New York ended, and he returned to England, where he succeeded to the Earldom of Clarendon on the death of his father, — 31 October, 1709. In 1711, he was made a Privy Councillor. In 1713, he and Dudley again made complaint to the Privy Council against the Charter Governments, but without success.

Cornbury is thus shown to have been identified with two previous attempts to deprive the American Colonies of their Charter rights. As to his character, there seems to be but one opinion. On the ninth of February, 1707–8, Lewis Morris, afterwards Chief-Justice of New York and New Jersey, wrote to Secretary Boyle, on the eve of Lord Cornbury’s removal from office, a long letter in the nature of a scathing review of his administration, — “an administration no where so exactly parralel’d as in that of Gessius Florus Governour of Judea” — and of his behavior, in which he tells of the Governor’s “dressing publicly in woman’s cloaths every day, and putting a stop to all publique business” (Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, v. 33–38). Dr. J. Romeyn Brodhead describes him as “mean, vulgar, foolish, [and] profligate” (Historical Magazine for 1868, Second Series, iii. 71, 72). Colonel Chester says that he —

“earned a most unenviable reputation, which he appears to have fully deserved, and his character and conduct were equally abhorred in both hemispheres . . . . [He] died 31 March, [1723], in obscurity, and deeply in debt, but had honourable burial [5 April] in the vault of his ancestors, whose good name he had so sadly disgraced” (Westminster Abbey Registers, p. 308 and note).

The progress of the unsuccessful movement, in 1715, for the “regulation” of the Charter Governments, which caused Dummer to write his famous Defence of the New-England Charters, can be traced in the Journals of the House of Commons (2 George I.). On the tenth of August, a Committee, to which had been referred a “Petition of the Agent of Carolina, in America, and several Merchants trading thither,” reported a Resolution for an Address to the King, which was adopted (xviii. 262). On the same day the House —

“Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill for the better Regulation of the Charter and Proprietary Governments in America; and for the Encouragement of the Trade of this Kingdom, and of his Majefty’s Plantations; and for the Security of his Majefty’s Cuftoms (xviii. 262).

On the thirteenth, the Bill was presented and was read the first time (xviii. 268). On the fifteenth, the Bill was read a second time, and was referred to a Committee which was ordered to meet that afternoon “at Five a Clock, in the Speaker’s Chamber” (xviii. 269). This action, doubtless, was the occasion of Dummer’s hurried letter in the text, which was followed by a more formal letter to the Connecticut authorities dated 20 August, 1715 (cf. Colonial Records of Connecticut, v. 522). At this Session of the House (15 August) the Guardian of the young Lord Baltimore petitioned for a clause to be inserted in the Bill to save the rights of his ward (Journals, xviii. 269). On the following day (16 August) Dummer, as Agent for the Province of the Massachusetts Bay and the Colony of Connecticut, petitioned the House to except his constituents from the operations of the Bill (xviii. 270). See Dummer’s Defence of the New-England Charters, passim; Chalmers’s Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American Colonies (1845) ii. 5, 6; Palfrey’s History of New England, iv. 487 and notes; New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1869, xxiii. 457–459; Dictionary of National Biography, xxviii. 393; and G. E. C[okayne]’s Complete Peerage, ii. 277, 278.

360 For a notice of Benjamin Hoadly, successively Bishop of Bangor, Hereford, Salisbury, and Winchester, see the Dictionary of National Biography, xxvii. 16–21. The bull Unigenitus was published by Clement XI. in 1713. The book referred to by Dummer was possibly Hoadly’s Satirical Dedication to Pope Clement XI., prefixed in 1715 to Sir R. Steele’s Account of the Roman Catholic Religion, or more probably A Preservative against the Principles and Practices of the Nonjurors both in Church and State, published in 1716.

361 For a notice of Daniel Williams, a prominent Nonconformist divine, see the Dictionary of National Biography, lxi. 385–389. His will, dated 26 June, 1711, with a codicil, 22 August, 1712, gave rise to a controversy which was not settled until 26 July, 1721. The will is printed in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1892, xlvi. 436–439; and in Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England, i. 628–631.

362 The Corporation referred to by Dummer in this letter and in another dated 25 February, 1724–25 (post, p. 202), and still existing in England under the assumed name of The New England Company, is often referred to by historical writers under many variants from its legal name, — such as “The Indian Corporation” (Ibid.), “the Society for propagating the Gospel in America” (post, p. 203), the “Corporation for promoting the Gospel among the Indians in New England” (British Museum Catalogue), and the “Corporation for the Spread of the Gospel in New England” (Dictionary of National Biography, vi. 120, 121). It is even confounded with the still existing great Missionary Society of the Church of England, chartered by William III., 16 June, 1701, under the name of “The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts,” an Historical Account of which, by the Rev. Dr. David Humphreys, its Secretary, was printed in London in 1730. It was this last named Society and its operations here which gave rise to the Mayhew Controversy, so called, in which the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew and the Rev. East Apthorp were the principal actors (see Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 241–280). It has seemed well, therefore, to state briefly the facts concerning the legal name and the career of the organization which played an important part in aiding the work of the Apostle Eliot and in printing the Indian Bible. These facts have been drawn chiefly from a small volume of ninety-two pages entitled A Sketch of the Origin and the Recent History of the New England Company by the Senior Member of the Company [Henry William Busk] . . . London, 1884.¹

On the twenty-seventh of July, 1649, the Long Parliament passed an Act to create “A Corporation for the Promoting and Propagating the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England” (p. 8). It established a Corporation in England consisting of sixteen persons, — a President, a Treasurer, and fourteen Assistants, to be called “The President and Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England,” with power to acquire real and personal estate not exceeding the annual value of £2,000. Nearly £12,000 was raised by voluntary subscription in England and Wales and invested in real estate in Eriswell, Suffolk, in Plumstead, Kent, and in London. “The Corporation at once appointed Commissioners and a Treasurer in New England, who, with the income transmitted to them by the Corporation from England, paid itinerant missionaries and school teachers amongst the natives” (pp. 9, 10).

At the Restoration (29 May, 1660), the Corporation became defunct, but through the exertions of the Hon. Robert Boyle and others, it was revived by an Order of Charles II. in Council, 10 April, 1661, “for a new Charter of Incorporation vesting in the Company then created (and now subsisting) the property which had been given or bought for the purposes of the late reputed Corporation” (pp. 12, 13). The Charter passed the Seals on the seventh of February, 1661–62, and created “the Company for Propagacion of the Gospell in New England, and the Partes adjacent in America” (p. 60), which was limited in its fellowship to forty-five persons (p. 64). The Charter-members included the Earl of Clarendon, the Earl of Manchester, Viscount Saye and Sele, the Hon. Robert Boyle, and many Aldermen and citizens of London (pp. 14, 57–59).

“For a few years after 1775, when the American War of Independence broke out, no missionary work was done in America at all, and the funds were allowed to accumulate.” After the Peace of 1783, the Company transferred its operations to New Brunswick, and, in 1822, to other parts of British America (pp. 17, 21).

The funds of the Company are derived (1) from the original subscription, in 1649, of about £12,000, (2) from “a fund arising under the will of the Hon. Robert Boyle, the first Governor of the Company,” who died 30 December, 1691, and (3) from “property derived under the will of the Rev. Dr. Daniel Williams, who died 26 January, 1715–16, and whose will was confirmed by his sister and heiress-at-law, and by decree in Chancery in 1720” (p. 18). It was not until 1745, however, on the death of the life tenant, to whom Dummer refers, that the Company “came into possession of considerable landed property in Essex, in trust, partly for supporting itinerant preachers in the West Indies, and partly for the benefit of the college of Cambridge in New England” (p. 19). This is the devise referred to in Dummer’s letter in the text.

¹ As it nowhere appears in Mr. Busk’s History when or by what authority the present name of the Society was adopted, a letter was addressed to the Society’s office in London requesting information upon these points. From the reply of William Marshall Venning, D. C. L., the Clerk of the Company, the following extracts are taken: —

“The name of this Society was never changed to the New England Company by Royal Charter, by Act of Parliament, or by process of law. In fact, its name has never been changed at all since the date of its Charter, its full legal title still being ‘the Company for propagation of the Gospel in New England and the parts adjacent in America.’ For the sake of brevity, and perhaps partly to distinguish it from the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, it has long been commonly called ‘the New England Company.’ . . . The earliest record I can find . . . of this Society having been called ‘The New England Company’ is in the Minutes of a meeting of the Company held on the 3rd April, 1770. These are the earliest Minutes in the Company’s possession with the exception of the Minutes of nine or ten meetings held at various dates between the years 1662 and 1720 in all which cases the longer title is used.”

The Company has since privately printed a volume of much interest to students of our Colonial and Provincial history entitled — Some Correspondence between the Governors and Treasurers of the New England Company in London and the Commissioners of the United Colonies in America, the Missionaries of the Company, and others between the years 1657 and 1712, to which are added the Journals of the Rev. Experience Mayhew in 1713 and 1714. Printed from the Originals in the possession of the New England Company . . . . London, 1896, pp. 128.

See Dr. Venning’s paper on the Origin of the New England Company, London, with an Account of the Labours on Behalf of the North American Indians, in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 1885, New Series, ii. 293–301.

363 Elisha Williams (H. C. 1711) of Wethersfield was a Tutor in the College (1716–1718) before his induction to the office of Rector, in 1726. His service as Tutor was wholly at Wethersfield, — in charge of the “remnant” or “secession,” encouraged by Woodbridge, which resisted, for a time, the removal of the Seminary from Saybrook to New Haven. After the breach had been healed, Williams’s name was inserted in the list of Tutors. See post, p. 206, note.

364 Elisha Lord (Y. C. 1718). He was the child of Woodbridge’s last wife by a former marriage. See Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 187; and Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, ii. 468.

365 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vi. 83, 84.

366 Captain Ephraim Minor of Stonington is probably here referred to.

367 John Whiting, son of Captain Joseph Whiting, was Treasurer of the Colony from 1717 to 1749.

368 The signatures to this document are autographs

369 Rev. Samuel Andrew (H. C. 1675) of Milford, Connecticut. For an excellent notice of him see Sprague’s Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 269 note.

370 Rev. Samuel Russel (H. C. 1681) of Branford, Connecticut.

371 Rev. Thomas Buckingham (H. C. 1690) of Hartford.

372 As I was unable to interpret this paragraph I sought the aid of our associate Professor Franklin Bowditch Dexter, who replied as follows: —

“I cannot decipher . . . ‘the Rev^d. M^r. Izzard.’ The phrases ‘Wait-still Hoping’ and ‘Mr. Immovable’ seem to point to some recent pamphlet with a nomenclature resembling the Pilgrim’s Progress. The reference to ‘y^e late Council at Stratford’ is probably to a council held there in April, 1720, when the town was divided on the question of calling Samuel Russell, Jr. (yale 1712), as a minister in succession to Cutler. Cutler speaks of Mr. Izzard’s ‘great distance’ as likely to prevent his attendance at the Trustees’ Meeting, and this would seem to point either to Moses Noyes of Lyme or to Eliphalet Adams of New London.”

I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor Dexter for other valuable suggestions in connection with this communication.

373 Sibley records the gift of this bell by Madam Woodbridge, but assigns the date of it to the year 1723 (Harvard Graduates, ii. 469). His authority was Clap’s Annals of Yale College, p. 79, but Clap is untrustworthy about such small matters.

374 For notices of Dr. Cutler, see Sprague’s Annals of the American Pulpit, v. 50, 52; and F. B. Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 201–203, 270–273. See Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, i. 306 et seq.

375 Cf. Mr. Davis’s Remarks, p. 211, post.

376 This, doubtless, was John Dixwell of Boston, goldsmith, a Ruling Elder of the New North Church. He was the son of the Regicide; born in New Haven, 6 March 1680–81; and died in Boston of small-pox by inoculation, 21 April 1725 (Records of the New North Church).

377 Captain James Wadsworth of Durham was of the Governor’s Council and had to do with the Brief for collecting money for the Rector’s house which had been ordered in May, 1721 (cf. Colonial Records of Connecticut, vi. 256).

378 Judge Edward Lyde, of Boston. He died 11 May, 1724 (Sewall’s Diary, iii. 337). See Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, i. 178 note.

379 Rev. Samuel Russel (H. C. 1681) was a Fellow of Yale, 1701–1730; Rev. Samuel Andrew (H. C. 1675) was a Fellow of Harvard, 1679– c.1684, and of Yale, 1701–1738, and Rector, 1707–1719; and Rev. Thomas Ruggles (H. C. 1690) was a Fellow of Yale, 1710–1728. See post, p. 201, note.

380 Colonel William Tailer of Boston. He was Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay 1711–1716 and 1730–1732. He was universally esteemed. Although a Warden of King’s Chapel, his death called forth affectionate tributes from the Congregational clergy, who publicly praised “the prudence, justice, and moderation of his administration” (Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, i. 183, 184 and note). See post, pp. 267–270 and notes, 278–281.

381 This refers to the Presbyterian Congregation in New York which Jonathan Edwards subsequently served (see post, p. 200, note). They wanted a preacher and Cutler names those who had been thought of for that service.

382 Samuel Whittelsey (Y. C. 1705) was minister of Wallingford, Connecticut, from 1709 till his death, 15 April, 1752. He was a Fellow of the College from 1732 till his death (Sprague’s Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 268–270; and Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 40–44).

383 Rev. Joseph Noyes (Y. C. 1709) was the New Haven minister. He was Tutor 1710–1715 (Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 85–89).

384 Rev. Samuel Hall (Y. C. 1716) was Tutor, 1716–1718. See Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 154–156.

385 Henry Caner, the builder of the first College edifice at New Haven. He was the father of the Rev. Dr. Henry Caner (Y. C. 1724), afterward Rector of King’s Chapel in Boston.

386 Rev. Daniel Browne (Y. C. 1714) was Tutor 1718–1722. See Sprague’s Annals of the American Pulpit, v. 54, and Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 118–120.

387 William Smith (Y. C. 1719) was Tutor 1722–1724. See Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 207–211. See also post, p. 197, note.

388 Bibye Lake, Esquire, was created a baronet in 1711. He was Sub-Governor of the African Company, and died in 1744. He was grandnephew to Sir Edward Lake, Baronet, LL.D., Chancellor of the Diocese of Lincoln, who was made a baronet for his remarkable loyalty to Charles I., especially at the battle of Edge Hill. Sir Edward died in 1674. His wife was Anne, daughter and coheiress of Simon Bibye, of Bugden, in Huntingdonshire (Betham’s Baronetage of England, 1803, iii. 153–157).

389 “On the Twenty-seventh day of June, 1721,” wrote Dr. Holmes, in 1869, “Zabdiel Boylston of Boston inoculated his only son for small-pox, — the first person ever submitted to the operation, in the New World” (Medical Essays, 1891, p. 347).

390 Captain Joseph Whiting was Treasurer of the Colony from 1678 to his death in October, 1717, when he was succeeded in the office by his son, John Whiting.

391 Lieutenant-Colonel George Lucas, whose daughter Eliza married Charles Pinckney of Charleston, S. C., became Lieutenant-Governor of Antigua in 1743, and died in 1747. (V. L. Oliver’s History of Antigua, ii. 200–202, iii. 320; Mrs. H. H. Ravenel’s Eliza Pinckney, pp. 1, 133; and cf. Colonial Records of Connecticut, vi. 325.)

392 Rev. Daniel Browne (Y. C. 1714).

393 Rev. Timothy Cutler (H. C. 1701).

394 Rev. Samuel Johnson (Y. C. 1714), Tutor, 1716–1719, afterward President of King’s College. See Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 123–128; T. B. Chandler’s Life of Samuel Johnson; E. E. Beardsley’s Life and Correspondence of Samuel Johnson.

395 Samuel Shute had been appointed Governor of the Massachusetts Bay 15 June, 1716. He reached Boston, 5 October, following, and after six stormy years, during which he was in constant controversy with the Legislature, under the lead of Elisha Cooke, Jr., he suddenly left Boston, 1 January, 1722–23, and went to England, where he presented his grievances to the Privy Council. The result of his mission was the issue of the Explanatory Charter, so called, which passed the seals 12 August, 1725. His commission as Governor fell with the demise of the Crown, 10 June, 1727.

396 The famous Francis Atterbury, for a notice of whom, see the Dictionary of National Biography, ii. 233–238. See also ante, v. 79.

397 Rev. Samuel Johnson (Y. C. 1714).

398 Rev. John Rogers (H. C. 1684) of Ipswich, Massachusetts, who married Martha Whittingham, a sister of Saltonstall’s then wife.

399 James Pierpont, Jr. (Y. C. 1718), Tutor, 1722–1724, was the son of the Rev. James Pierpont (H. C. 1681). See Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 189, 190.

400 William Smith (Y. C. 1719). He removed to New York, where he was a member of the Governor’s Council, 1753–1767, and Judge of the Supreme Court, 1763–1769. See ante, p. 191, note.

401 Daniel Turner, a physician of some note, received a degree from Yale in 1723. “His medical attainments were small, and the records of cases are the only parts of his works of any permanent value.” For a notice of him, from which this passage is taken, see the Dictionary of National Biography, lvii. 332, 333.

402 The allusion is to the Great Rebellion which broke out in 1641. In a letter which is not dated, but which must have been written about the time that Dummer’s was, the Rev. Daniel Neal said: —

“I was last night in company with the governor [Shute] who has laid his memorial before the board of trade, where it was maintained that the conduct of the assembly in the affair of the militia was no less than high treason by the laws of England, as appeared to them by their own printed votes . . . . The cry of the city [London] here runs exceedingly against you, and they revive the story of 1641” (Hutchinson’s History of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, 1767, ii. 290 note).

403 Presumably Pelatiah Kilborn (Y. C. 1724). See Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 305.

404 Presumably, the Rev. Daniel Chapman (Y. C. 1707) of West Farms (since the Revolution called Green’s Farms, and now included in the town of Westport), Connecticut, is here referred to. As his parish was not far from the New York border, he would naturally have been thought of in connection with such a mission. See Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 65, 66.

405 Jonathan Edwards is here referred to. In August, 1722, almost immediately after he had been licensed to preach, he began to minister to a small Society of Presbyterians in New York, but left them in April, 1723. On the twenty-eighth of July, 1727, he married Sarah Pierpont, sister of the writer of the letter in the text (Sprague’s Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 330; and Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 218–226).

406 James Pierpont (Y. C. 1718) was born 21 May, 1699 in New Haven, where he died 18 June, 1776 (Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 189). He was the eldest son of the Rev. James Pierpont (H. C. 1681) who came of a good family early settled at Ipswich, and later at Roxbury, Massachusetts, where he was born 4 January, 1659–60. In 1685, he was ordained as pastor of the church at New Haven. One of the first persons received into full communion after his settlement was John Dixwell the Regicide, who was known in the community as James Davids until his death, after which his identity was revealed. Mr. Pierpont was one of the original Trustees of Yale College. It is said that to his activity and influence the College was largely indebted for the benefactions of Governor Yale; and he is the reputed author of the Saybrook Platform adopted by the Synod held at Saybrook, in 1708, of which he was an influential member. He was thrice married, — (i) to Abigail Davenport, a granddaughter of the Rev. John Davenport, (ii) to Sarah Haynes, a granddaughter of Gov. John Haynes, and (iii) to Mary Hooker, a granddaughter of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, who became the mother of the wife of Jonathan Edwards. Pierpont’s remarkable story of the mirage at New Haven in 1647, — “the apparition of the Ship in the Sky,” may be read in the Magnalia (1702), Book I. pp. 25, 26. Cf. Winthrop’s History of New England (1853), ii. 399, 400, note. Pierpont died 22 November, 1714. Among his descendants were the younger President Edwards, President Dwight, President Theodore Dwight Woolsey, and Aaron Burr, Vice-President of the United States (Sprague’s Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 205, 206; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, iii. 222–230).

407 Our associate Professor James Bradstreet Greenough, suggests that these letters may stand for Pastori Ecclesiae Christi.

408 This refers to the attempt then being made to induce the Rev. William Russell (Y. C. 1709), of Middletown, Connecticut, to accept the Rectorship of Yale. He was Tutor, 1713, 1714. See Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i. 90, 91.

409 Rev. Samuel Russel (H. C. 1681). He usually signed, and his contemporaries usually wrote, his name with a single final “1.” A diploma issued to a Yale graduate of the Class of 1709, thus signed by Mr. Russel as one of the Fellows, was exhibited at this meeting. See ante, pp. 176, 190, notes.

410 We have here an anticipation of Berkeley’s thought expressed in the famous stanza beginning —

“Westward the course of empire takes its way.”

411 John Read (H. C. 1697).

412 Gurdon Saltonstall.

413 For a notice of this Society and its various names, see ante, p. 180, note.

414 Colonel Samuel Shute, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay 1716–1727. See ante, p. 195, note.

415 Elisha Cooke, Jr., who had been sent to England, in 1723, by the House of Representatives of Massachusetts as its Agent to answer and to controvert the charges of Governor Shute made to the Privy Council.

416 See Palfrey, History of New England, iv. 484–486.

417 Elisha Williams (H. C. 1711). For a notice of him, see Sprague’s Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 281–284; and Dexter’s Yale Biographies and Annals, i, 321, 322, 632–635. See also ante, p. 184, note

418 The Bishop of London was Edmund Gibson, and the Bishop of Salisbury Benjamin Hoadly. The pamphlet referred to is doubtless An Enquiry into the Reasons of the Conduct of Great Britain, with relation to the Present State of Affairs in Europe, published by Hoadly in 1727. Dummer seems to have been mistaken in associating Gibson with this pamphlet.

419 See Colonial Records of Connecticut iv. 306–311, vii. 109, 191 and note, 571–579.

420 Rev. Samuel Johnson (Y. C. 1714).

421 The reference is probably to a Commission to Gibson, 1 George II. (29 April, 1728), which is printed in Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, v. 849. See also ante, v. 112 note

422 Jonathan Belcher was a classmate at Harvard of Jeremiah Dummer (1699) and Governor of the Massachusetts Bay, 1730–1741.

423 Elisha Williams (H. C. 1711) was Rector of the College at the time this letter was written.

424 See Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 254, and Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, iv. 174–180, 184–190.

I am indebted to our associate Mr. Albert Matthews, for aid and valuable suggestions in the preparation of the notes to this communication.

425 For notices of Governor Joseph Talcott, see S. V. Talcott’s Talcott Pedigree, 1876, pp. 39–51; New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1869, xxiii. 460 note; and Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England, ii. 1125, 1126.

426 In a letter to John White, Treasurer of Harvard College, dated 12 July, 1721 (J. Quincy’s History of Harvard University, 1860, i. 528).

427 In a letter to Dr. Colman, dated 27 January, 1726–27 (Ibid. i. 529).

428 Manuscript letter of Thomas Hollis to President Leverett, dated 18 January, 1722–23, in the Archives of Harvard University.

429 Owing to Mr. Field’s absence from the country when the proceedings of this meeting were put in type, and the importance of having the proof of this Diary read with the original, the document is reserved for publication in another volume.

430 The following quasi-historical societies have also been incorporated: —

boston veteran firemen’s association.

Purposes. “To promote social and charitable purposes with each other, and for the prosecution of antiquarian, historical, and literary subjects, relating to the Fire Department of the City of Boston.”

Date of Charter. 1 March, 1898.

the castilian club.

Purposes. “For the prosecution of historical and literary research in matters relating to Spain.”

Date of Charter. 27 April, 1898.

barnicoat fire association.

Purposes. “To promote social and charitable purposes with each other, to perpetuate the name of William Barnicoat (Chief Engineer of the Boston Fire Department from 1836 to 1854) and for the prosecution [of] antiquarian, historical, and literary subjects relating to the Fire Department of the City of Boston, Mass.”

Date of Charter. 9 May, 1898.

431 On the bottom of a silver waiter, once owned by the Hon. Theodore Atkinson of Portsmouth and his wife Hannah (Wentworth) Atkinson, — a sister of Governor Benning Wentworth, — are engraved the names of fortyeight persons who were connected by ties of blood, marriage, or friendship with the Wentworth family, together with the dates of their death and their ages. Arthur Slade’s name is eleventh in this List, which covers the period 1740–1771 and is printed in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1861, xv. 172. A Family Bible gives 17 January, 1747, as the date of his death.

Administration on the estate of Arthur Slade, “formerly of the parish of St. Nicholas, Deptford, in the County of Kent, but at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, deceased, was granted 7 October, 1747, to Elizabeth Slade, his widow, relict,” etc. (Waters’s Gleanings, Ibid, for 1889, xliii. 160, 161.)

Administration on the estate of Arthur Slade, late of New Market, New Hampshire, gentleman, had been previously granted, 28 January, 1746–47, “to Henry Keese of Portsmouth and Elizabeth his wife,” who, at a Probate Court held at Portsmouth, 29 April, 1747, filed an Inventory of the estate which had been taken on the seventh of February (Rockingham Probate Records at Exeter).

432 The facts relating to Slade’s paternal ancestry were communicated by his son, Denison Rogers Slade.

433 His estate was administered here in 1854. (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 39,263.)

434 The English ancestry of the Reverend Nathaniel Rogers has been so often stated with great inaccuracy that the attention of those interested therein is called to the elaborate article on the Rogers Family, by Henry F. Waters, in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1887, xli. 158–188. That paper contains abstracts of English Wills of the Rogers and Crane families, besides a tabular pedigree.

435 New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1892, xlvi. 129.

436 Ipswich Town Records.

437 For an account of Mr. Rogers’s connection with the Second Parish of Exeter, and for a copy of his epitaph, see Bell’s History of the Town of Exeter, New Hampshire, pp. 196, 197.

438 See ante, v. 210, note.

439 To these might be added others with whom he was collaterally allied, as, for instance, John Singleton Copley, who lived on terms of intimacy with the Bromfield family. See Mr. Denison R. Slade’s paper on Henry Pelham, ante, v. 193–211.

440 See ante, v. 202.

441 New England Magazine for March, 1890, New Series, ii. 3–20.

442 This paper has not been printed. It was entitled A Boston Merchant of 1791. See ante, v. 210, note.

443 Henry Bromfield Rogers’s Family Record.

444 In the old deeds, as recorded, the name is spelled Molineaux.

445 Boston Gazette, No. 1019, of Monday, 24 October, 1774, where an obituary notice may be read. See also Suffolk Probate Files, No. 15,715; and Suffolk Deeds, clxxv. 67.

446 “Gleaner,” in Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, v. (Second edition) 120, 121.

447 See Drake’s Old Landmarks of Boston, p. 357.

448 On either side of the entrance gate, on Beacon Street, were curiously constructed semi-subterranean stables and coach-houses, the flat roof of which, tarred and gravelled, formed the first step in the series of terraces, and effectually concealed these buildings from the view of one looking from the house. The arched doorways of these stables form a conspicuous feature of what is said to be a fairly accurate picture of the Rogers house comprised in a view of the State House printed in blue upon sets of contemporaneous earthenware. Dr. Slade gave an elaborate description of the house in his paper, A Boston Merchant of 1791 (ante, p. 218, note). Dr. Slade’s paper was accompanied by a colored drawing of the exterior of the house, made by himself from memory, and by other drawings, plans, models, and portraits. The house is also described by Lord Lyndhurst, in a letter dated Boston, 21 January, 1796, printed in A Life of Lord Lyndhurst, by Sir Theodore Martin, p. 42.

449 Elizabeth Bromfield Slade was baptized at Brompton, in the parish of Kensington, near London, 13 September, 1821; married in Boston, Henry Schmidt, of Bremen, Germany, 12 August, 1841; and died in Wiesbaden, Germany, 10 March, 1880.

450 This house was the more westerly of the two houses which were finally built in Mr. Rogers’s garden, and fronted on Mount Vernon Street. The two houses are now joined, much enlarged, and styled the Commonwealth Building, No. 11 Mount Vernon Street. As there has been some uncertainty as to Dr. Slade’s actual birthplace, he himself not being sure in which of the three houses mentioned his birth took place, it has been thought desirable to insert the foregoing particulars, derived from a Family Record written by his uncle, the late Henry Bromfield Rogers, in 1827, a copy of which was lent to the writer by Mr. Denison R. Slade.

451 Mr. Slade left Boston on Monday, 25 April, 1827.

452 Suffolk Probate Files, Nos. 28, 523, 28, 524, 28, 525. The petition for guardianship was signed by Henry B. Rogers, also by Elizabeth Rogers, sole surviving grandparent, and by John Rogers, uncle, and Hannah Rogers, aunt, of the children.

453 Daniel Denison Slade, by Charles R. Eastman, Ph.D., Reprinted, with additions, from the New-England Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1897, li. 9–18.

454 Twelve Days in the Saddle, p. 32.

455 See ante, v. 198 n., and 205 n.

456 Mr. Blanchard was succeeded in the occupancy of the Bromfield mansion by his wife’s brother, Henry Bromfield Pearson, whose residence it was when it was destroyed by fire, 3 August, 1855.

The Rev. Ira Henry Thomas Blanchard died 9 April, 1845, in Weymouth, where he was born 9 September, 1797. His wife, Margaret Bromfield (Pearson) Blanchard, to whom he was married 30 May, 1825, survived until 29 November, 1876. By her will she gave a generous portion of her estate to found a school, to be located on the site of her grandfather’s homestead, as a monument to him. Among the Trustees appointed by Mrs. Blanchard to manage the school was her kinsman, Daniel Denison Slade. In 1887, his son, Denison Rogers Slade, was chosen a Trustee, to fill a vacancy in the Board. The Bromfield Schoolhouse, a view of which is in the History of Harvard, was erected in 1877–78. (Nourse’s History of the Town of Harvard, pp. 231, 232, 379–383; and ante, v. 198 n., 202 n., and 203 n.).

457 Slade refers to this in a memorandum quoted by Dr. Eastman, in his Memoir, p. 5.

458 The gaining of this medal may have first kindled the desire for similar distinctions which, later, seemed to have become almost a passion with him. The medal, with the original blue ribbon attached to it, was carefully preserved through life by Dr. Slade, as well as files of Monthly Reports of the Latin School.

459 These prizes are awarded “pro insigni in studiis diligentia.”

460 We can imagine the suppressed glee with which he must have treated this unsavory subject.

461 Some years ago, when there was much discussion as to the modes of celebrating Class Day formerly in vogue, Slade’s Diary was vainly appealed to for a description of the “exercises around the Tree,” as practised in 1844. All he says on the subject is: “Our dance around the tree was much admired.”

462 My Garden Acquaintance (in My Study Windows, Boston, 1871), p. 2.

463 Charles Henry Boylston Snow.

464 Henry Augustin Johnson.

465 This was at the house of his uncle and guardian, Henry Bromfield Rogers, in Joy Street, Boston, which, after the death of his grandmother Rogers, in 1833, had become his home.

During his residence in Cambridge as an undergraduate, Slade roomed in his Freshman year at Mrs. Mary Gurney’s. Her three-story frame house is still (1899) standing, and is now numbered 11 in Appian Way, — on the northwesterly side, midway between Garden and Brattle Streets. In his Sophomore year, he roomed at Mr. John Sweetman’s, whose house is now (1899) No. 28 in Dunster Street, on the north-easterly corner of South Street; and in his Junior and Senior years in Hollis, 26.

466 The Class of 1844, Harvard College, Fifty Years After Graduation, Cambridge, 1896.

467 Keene, New Hampshire, was then the residence of his classmates George Silsbee Hale and Horatio J. Perry, and was often visited by others of the Class. Cf. ante., i. 320.

468 In Paige’s History of Cambridge (p. 413) is an account of the “Men of Cambridge who fell in defence of the Liberty of the People, April 19, 1775,” one paragraph of which is of interest in this connection: —

“Moses Richardson, born probably about 1725, was a carpenter, and resided in the house which still [1877] stands at the north-easterly angle of Holmes Place, and which was afterwards the home of Mr. Royal Morse for about three-quarters of a century.” [The site is now (1899) covered by Austin Hall. The house is seen in the Plan of Cambridge about 1750, which faces page 212. It is the largest and most easterly of the row of four houses facing south upon the Common.]

In a foot-note Dr. Paige refers to —

“the late Mr. Royal Morse, born in 1779, whose memory of events which occurred during his life was remarkably comprehensive and accurate, and whose traditional lore was almost equivalent to authentic history.”

Lowell, too, preserves interesting recollections of Mr. Morse in his Fireside Travels (edition of 1864, pp. 34–36), — in the chapter on Cambridge Thirty Years Ago: —

“Or shall the two town-constables be forgotten, in whom the law stood worthily and amply embodied, fit, either of them, to fill the uniform of an English beadle? Grim and silent as Ninevite statues, they stood on each side of the meeting-house door at Commencement, propped by long staves of blue and red, on which the Indian with bow and arrow, and the mailed arm with the sword, hinted at the invisible sovereignty of the state ready to reinforce them, as —

‘For Achilles’ portrait stood a spear

Grasped in an armed hand.’

Stalwart and rubicund men they were, second only, if second, to S., [Francis Sales, Instructor in Spanish and French at Harvard, 1816–1854,] champions of the county, and not incapable of genial unbendings when the fasces were laid aside. One of them still survives in octogenarian vigor, the Herodotus of village and college legend, and may it be long ere he depart, to carry with him the pattern of a courtesy, now, alas! old-fashioned, but which might profitably make part of the instruction of our youth among the other humanities! Long may R[oyal] M[orse] be spared to us, so genial, so courtly, the last man among us who will ever know how to lift a hat with the nice graduation of social distinction! Something of a Jeremiah now, he bewails the decline of our manners . . . . ‘Why, sir, I can remember when more respect was paid to Governor Hancock’s lackey at Commencement than the Governor and all his suite get now.’ M. is one of those invaluable men who remember your grandfather, and value you accordingly.”

Mr. Morse was an auctioneer, the son of Royal and Katherine Morse (born in England and at Cambridge, Massachusetts, respectively) and a native of Cambridge, where he died, 31 January, 1872, at the advanced age of ninety-three years, seven months, and twenty-five days (Cambridge City Records). The Records of the First Church tell us that he was baptized — “Royal, of Katherine Morse” — 12 January, 1782, and that his mother was admitted to full communion the same day (pp. 123, 125). Obituary notices of Mr. Morse appeared, 10 February, 1872, in the columns of The Cambridge Chronicle and The Cambridge Press.

469 Mary Ellen Slade, died 24 February, 1845, in her nineteenth year.

470 It has not been ascertained where or when this article was published. No copy of it has been found.

471 See Publications of this Society, i. 270 and note.

472 Graduates’ Hall, now known as College House, is the long brick building owned by the College, still standing on the westerly side of Harvard Square. It extends northerly from the passageway between it and Lyceum Hall to the point where the street turns, north-westerly, at an obtuse angle, and thence to Church Street. The banking-rooms of the Charles River National Bank are on the lower floor of the southern end of the building, in one of the rooms of which the Α Δ Φ was established in 1846. The name was changed from Graduates’ Hall to College House about, or soon after, the time that the building was extended north-westerly to Church Street, – about 1860.

Old College House – more familiarly called “The Old Den,” – a large wooden building, set back from the street, stood on that part of the lot which lies between the obtuse angle, just mentioned, and Church Street.

473 See Dr. Eastman’s Memoir, p. 10.

474 For October, 1892, xii. 518–524.

475 Dr. Slade preserved among his papers a certificate from the Master of the House (whose name is illegible) testifying that Mr. Daniel Slade of Boston was a resident pupil in the Lying-in Hospital, Rutland Square, Dublin, from 6 August to 26 September, 1851; also a letter, dated 19 February, 1851, from the Director of the École Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, authorizing “M. Slade à suivre pendant deux mois les cours de physique et d’anatomie,” at that institution.

476 These friendships, like all those formed by Dr. Slade, were life long. Dr. Hodges, from his death-bed, sent the message, “Give my love to Slade,” while Slade, who was dying at the time, urged that Dr. Hodges be sent for. Dr. Green says of him: “My regard for Slade was more than friendship, — it was love.”

477 These lectures were printed at the time in the Boston Traveller. They obtained for Dr. Slade a reward from the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture. (Letter of Benjamin Guild, Secretary, 6 June, 1853.)

478 These lectures were printed in the Massachusetts Ploughman.

479 Volume i., number 4.

480 The Boston Veterinary Institute, of which Dr. Slade appears to have been the first President, was incorporated by the Legislature of Massachusetts 28 April, 1855 (Massachusetts Special Laws (chap. 251), x. 362), and seems to have been the earliest institution of the kind in the State. The persons named in the Act were George H. Dadd, David Roberts, Jonas Chapman, and John P. Jewett.

The American Veterinary Journal was edited by George H. Dadd, Veterinary Surgeon, and published by S. N. Thompson & Co., 97 Union Street, Boston. The writer has seen only two numbers of the Journal, — those for January, 1856, and December, 1857. This last contains an Introductory Lecture by George H. Dadd, Dean of the Faculty, as part of “the exercises commemorative of the third session of the Institute,” and also Remarks of Col. Moses Newell, President of the Institute, from which it appears that Dr. Slade did not long hold that office

481 Letter of Captain Charles E. Stevens, 7 March, 1898.

482 One of these, the Fiske Fund Prize Essay of 1860, has passed through three editions, the last being issued in 1896, — thirty-six years after obtaining the prize. Its title is, Diphtheria: its Nature and Treatment.

483 Henry Bromfield Slade, died 23 March, 1879. Dr. Slade’s eldest son, Denison Rogers Slade, has recently been elected a Resident Member of this Society.

484 Later, this dream was more literally realized by the purchase of an “abandoned farm” near Lake Winnipiseogee, in New Hampshire, of which Dr. Slade wrote an account for The Nation of 4 September, 1890.

485 See Publications of this Society, iii. 203.

486 Documents of the United States Sanitary Commission, ii. Document No. 74. (New York, 1866.)

487 Ibid. Document No. 79, Appendix B.

488 Ibid. Document No. 79.

489 Ibid.

490 Ibid.

491 The United States Sanitary Commission Publications, F., Report, etc., 8°, Boston, 1861. See also History of the United States Sanitary Commission, Appendix No. 7, by Charles J. Stillé, Philadelphia, 1866.

492 The Class of 1856 issued their first Report in 1860, and a second in 1861. The Class of 1858 also published a Report in 1861. The Classes of 1861 and 1864 published Reports in the last named year almost simultaneously with Slade’s. (Letter of W. G. Brown, Deputy Keeper of the Archives of Harvard College, 23 February, 1897.)

493 This note is printed in full in Dr. Eastman’s Memoir of Dr. Slade, p. 11. The absence of the signature of the Class Secretary is accounted for by the fact that he was then travelling in Europe.

494 Report upon the Bussey Institution for the year 1877–78.

495 See Introduction to his Twelve Days in the Saddle.

496 Letter of W. G. Brown, Deputy Keeper of the Harvard College Archives, 15 April, 1898.

497 Only fourteen of Slade’s literary productions-were published separately, as books or pamphlets (including two not in Dr. Eastman’s list); ten are reports of lectures, or courses of lectures, addresses and speeches; twenty were published in medical journals, and twenty-six in various magazines and newspapers. It is not certain that all his printed works have been enumerated.

498 This pamphlet is not included in Dr. Eastman’s list,

499 The American Monthly for April, 1865, lxv. 308–312.

500 Letter of Ransom Noble Porter, M.D., to Slade, 29 September, 1863.

501 Ibid.

502 For an account of these transactions and the further history of the Door, see a paper by the Rev. Peter Voorhees Finch, read before the Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association, and published, at their request, in The Greenfield Gazette and Courier, Vol. lix., No. 7.

503 See The Greenfield Gazette and Courier, of 2 March, 1868.

504 Dr. Slade’s purchase and return of the Indian Door are mentioned in Parkman’s Half Century of Conflict, i. 65, note. A representation of the Door, as it now appears in the Hall, accompanies a paper on Old Deerfield, by Mary E. Allen, in the New England Magazine for September, 1892, New Series, vii. 33–46.

505 See Publications of this Society, i. 45.

506 See The Greenfield Gazette and Courier of 18 August, 1884.

507 For October, 1888, xx. 281–285.

508 Forts Massachusetts and Shirley, together with Fort Pelham, were the three “Province Forts” built in 1744 by order of the General Court for the special protection of Slade’s beloved Deerfield valley. These forts stood within the present towns of Williamstown, Heath, and Rowe, respectively. See Narrative and Critical History of America, v. 187.

509 The title of this little tract of forty pages, first printed in Boston, in 1748, is the same as that given by the Rev. John Williams (H. C. 1683), to his Narrative, first published in Boston, in 1707, of the destruction of Deerfield, 29 February, 1704–5, and of his experiences during his captivity in Canada. See Narrative and Critical History of America, v. 185, 187 and notes; and Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, iii. 249–262.

510 Acts of 1891, chapter 352.

511 Denison Memorial, Ipswich, Massachusetts, September 20, 1882. Two hundredth Anniversary of the Death of Major General Daniel Denison. Biographical Sketch by Prof. D. D. Slade. Historical Sketch, by Augustine Caldwell. Printed by the Request of the Denison Memorial Committee. Dr. Slade’s Address fills twenty-five of the fifty-two pages of the pamphlet.

512 The Celebration of the Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Incorporation of the Town of Ipswich, Massachusetts, August 16, 1884. Boston, Little, Brown, and Company, 1884.

513 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlvi. 127–132.

514 Publications, i. 116–132.

515 Volumes xxvi. and xxvii.

516 See ante, p. 217; and v. 202.

517 See Reports in newspapers of the time. Dr. Slade joined the Bostonian Society in 1894, but had ceased to be a member at the time of his death. See ante, pp. 218, 219, and notes; and v. 210 n.

518 Volume xlvi. 15–20.

519 Publications, i. 269, 270.

520 Volume iii., number 6.

521 See ante, p. 233, and note.

522 The Grave was that of Mary Goodnow of Marlborough, killed by Indians in 1717. The same story is told in his Twelve Days in the Saddle, pp. 29–31.

523 The American Academy of Arts and Sciences having removed from the Boston Athenæum Building to that of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and its former Hall being required for the purposes of the Athenæum, this Society accepted the hospitality of the American Unitarian Association, proffered by its Treasurer and our associate, Mr. Francis H. Lincoln, in the Building of which the Meetings of the Society will in future be held.

524 Mr. Anthony was a native of New Bedford, where he was born, 14 October, 1797, where he always resided, and where he died, 7 July, 1840 (Letter of his son, Rowland C. Anthony, of New York City).

525 Capt. Phinehas Stevens, the son of Joseph and Prudence (Rice) Stevens, was born at Sudbury, Massachusetts, 20 February, 1706–7 (Sudbury Town Records), and was baptized 27 April following (Sudbury Church Records). He married at Rutland, Massachusetts, 18 January, 1733–34, his cousin, Elizabeth Stevens, youngest daughter of Simon and Mary (Wilder) Stevens (Rutland Town Records). His christian name is often spelled Phineas, and in two documents he so spelled it himself (Massachusetts Archives, lxxiv. 51, xciii. 102); but in other documents he signed himself Phinehas Stevens (Ibid. lxxiii. 57, 210, 644, 690, xcii. 30, 85, 105, 201, xciii. 48, 74, 84), and his name is so spelled in the Records of his birth and baptism. For notices of Stevens, see Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography, v. 675, 676; New York Colonial Documents, x. 97 note; J. Farmer and J. B. Moore, Collections, i. 184; A. S. Hudson, Annals of Sudbury, Wayland, and Maynard, p. 22; H. H. Saunderson, History of Charlestown, N. H., pp. 556–568; C. Stark, Memoir and Official Correspondence of Gen. John Stark, pp. 372–385; Collections of the New Hampshire Historical Society, v. 199–205; New Hampshire Provincial Papers, vi. 22, 312; and Year Book, Massachusetts Society of Colonial Wars, 1901, p. 84.

In a paper read before this Society in March, 1896 (ante, iii. 220), Mr. Noble remarked that Stevens “is said” to have been presented with a sword by Sir Charles Knowles. The matter seems to be placed beyond a doubt by these extracts: —

“Friday last his Excellency Governour Knowles arrived here in the Comet Bomb from Louisburg” (Boston Gazette of Tuesday, 14 April, 1747, No. 1309, p. 3/1).

“We hear that the Honourable Commodore Knowles is so well pleased with the gallant Behaviour of Capt. Stevens, that he has given Orders to purchase the best silver-hilted Sword that can be made in Town, to be presented to that Gentleman, as an Acknowledgement for his Bravery and good Conduct” (Boston Evening-Post of Monday, 27 April, 1747, No. 611, p. 4/2).

“Last Week a very beautiful Silver-hilted Sword was purchased by Order, and at the Expence, of the Honourable Commodore Knowles, to be presented to Capt. Phinehas Stevens, for his Bravery in the Defence of the Fort at N. 4. as was mention’d in our last” (Boston Post-Boy of Monday, 4 May, 1747, No. 650, p. 2/1).

Stark and Saunderson both give the sixth of April, 1756, as the date of the death of Captain Stevens; but that this date is erroneous, is shown by the following extracts: —

“We have an Account of the Death of Capt. Phinehas Stevens, who, in the Year 1747 bravely defended the Fort at N^o 4 on the Frontiers of this Province, and whom Admiral Knowles presented with a handsome Sword for his gallant Behaviour” (Boston News-Letter of Thursday, 26 February, 1756, No. 2799, p. 2/1). The same notice appeared in the Boston Gazette of Monday, 1 March, 1756, No. 48.

“We have also the melancholy News of the Death of the brave Capt. Phinehas Stevens, Lieut. Alexander, and Ensign Judd, all of the New-England Troops in Nova Scotia” (Boston Evening-Post of Monday, 1 March, 1756, No. 1070, p. 2/2, 3).

The true date is doubtless the sixth of February, as appears from the gravestone of Capt. Stevens’s wife in the cemetery at Charlestown, New Hampshire, which bears this inscription: —

Capt Phinehas Stevens

died at Chignecto, N. S. Feby 6, 1756, who had been for many years in the Wars, and was Commandant of the Garrison in this town, and at different periods had many combats with the French and Indians.

Elizabeth, his wife, died Feby 15, 1778.

526 The name is spelled “Debelina” in all the versions of this letter of 7 April, 1747, printed in the contemporary Boston newspapers, as specified in the note which follows. So far as I am aware, attention has not before been called to this fact. Belknap, writing in 1791, refers to the letter printed in the Boston Evening-Post of 27 April, 1747, but spells the name “M. Debelinè” (History of New-Hampshire, ii. 248); by President Dwight, the Frenchman is spoken of as “Monsieur Debelinì” (Travels; in New-England and New-York, ii. 102, 103); but, as stated by Parkman, the usual form of the name is “Debeline.”

When Mr. Noble’s paper, mentioned in the preceding note, was read, the real name of the French commander had not been discovered. Mr. Sulte’s letter containing this information was received as the third volume of the Society’s Publications, in which Mr. Noble’s paper appeared, was going to press, and enabled the Committee of Publication to insert the full name of de Niverville in the plates and also in the index.

527 Boston Evening-Post of Monday, 27 April, 1747, No. 611, p. 4, where the letter is headed: “The following is a Letter from Capt. Phinehas Stevens, Commander of the Fort at No. 4. about 40 Miles above Northfield, dated April 7th 1747.” The letter is also printed in the Boston Post-Boy of Monday, 27 April, 1747, No. 649, p. 2; in the Boston Gazette of Tuesday, 28 April, 1747, No. 1311, p. 2; and in the Boston News-Letter of Thursday, 30 April, 1747, No. 2350, p. 2. To whom the letter was addressed is not stated in the contemporary newspapers. Saunderson and Stark, who print the letter, say that it was addressed to Gov. Shirley (History of Charlestown, p. 35; Memoir and Official Correspondence of Gen. John Stark, p. 380); while a very similar letter, printed in the Collections of the New Hampshire Historical Society, iv. 109–113, is said to have been addressed to Col. W. Williams. The original letter would of course settle the point, but I do not know where the original is, a search in the Massachusetts Archives having failed to disclose it there. For the reference to the News-Letter, no copy of which is to be found in the Boston or Cambridge libraries, I am indebted to Mr. Edmund M. Barton, Librarian of the American Antiquarian Society.

528 A Half-Century of Conflict, ii. 238, 239. The record referred to by Parkman is printed in French in Collection de Manuscrits contenant Lettres, Mémoires, et autres Documents historiques relatifs à la Nouvelle-France, iii. 272–313, 326–369; and in English in New York Colonial Documents, x. 89–132.

529 New York Colonial Documents, x. 32, 42, 96, 97.

530 The correspondence with Sir John G. Bourinot and Mr. Sulte was conducted by Mr. Edes; but, owing to stress of work, Mr. Edes was unable to prepare a communication at this time and asked me to do so. In a subsequent letter, Mr. Sulte gave some additional details which have been incorporated in the text.

531 Pierre Boucher bought of Jacques Leneuf de la Poterie in 1660 a fief to which he gave the name of Niverville after a domain in Normandy near the place where Boucher was born. Fief Niverville, which had been purchased in 1648 by Leneuf from François de Champflour and had been obtained by the latter from the Hundred Partners about 1642, is now a part of Three Rivers. Boucher published in 1664 a book on New France, for a reprint of which see a paper by Mr. Sulte, entitled Pierre Boucher et son Livre, in the Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Second Series, ii. 99–168.

532 See ante, iii. 378.

533 Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 518, 519, 529, 551.

534 Daniel, Grandes Familles, p. 421.

535 Daniel, Aperçu, pp. 51, 59; Edits et Ordonnances, ii. 551

536 New York Colonial Documents, x. 32, 42.

537 Ibid. x. 97.

538 Ibid. x. 158, 177.

539 Ibid. x. 580.

540 Ibid. x. 607.

541 Tanguay gives her name as Marie Joseph Chatelin.

542 New York Colonial Documents, x. 994, 996, 1018.

543 See ante, iii. 378.

544 In preparing this paper, use has been made of the Dictionnaire Généalogique des Familles Canadiennes, par l’Abbé Cyprien Tanguay.

545 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1772, xxxi. 180.

546 Suffolk Court Files, vol. mxvii., group number 148,037 (Middlesex).

547 Part of Townsend was included in the new town of Ashby, 6 March, 1767; and part of Lunenburg was established as Fitchburg, 3 February, 1764.

548 See Mr. Noble’s sketch of Oliver, ante, v. 71–74.

549 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxi. 155. Lieutenant-Governor William Tailer was the son of William Tailer, “a great Boston Merchant,” and his wife Rebecca, the sister of William Stoughton (Memorial History of Boston, ii. 538). He married (1) 2 March, 1698–99, Sarah Byfield, youngest surviving daughter of the Honorable Nathaniel Byfield (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 251; Sewall’s Diary, i. 493; Suffolk Deeds, xxi. 148; and cf. Suffolk Probate Files, No. 6449; and New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1864, xviii. 288, 289), and (2) 20 March, 1711–12, Abigail, daughter of Benjamin Gillam, the widow of Thomas Dudley, son of Paul Dudley and grandson of Governor Thomas Dudley (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 162, xxviii. 9, 37; New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1856, x. 130, 131, and for 1865, xix. 254). As early as 1666, his father lived in the house at the southerly corner of Elm and Hanover Streets (Suffolk Deeds, xxi. 144), where he died, by his own hand, 12 July, 1682 (New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1853, vii. 56), and where his widow entertained Andros, when he came to Boston, in 1686, where also, for a time at least, Andros took up his abode (Sewall’s Diary, i. 162 n., 202 n.). It was afterward sold to Edward Lyde, in 1701–2 (Suffolk Deeds, xxi. 148) He had had some share in ecclesiastical affairs, and served with Joseph Dudley as vestryman, and with Savill Simpson and Thomas Newton as Warden of the infant Episcopal Church, — King’s Chapel (Quincy’s History of Harvard University, 1860, i. 359; Foote’s Annuals of King’s Chapel, i. 184 and note, 395, ii. 603, 605). He also had something to do with the affairs of the College, for when the Reverend Timothy Cutler claimed the right to sit as an Overseer, and the Board, by its vote, denied it, — as an undue Stretching of the term “teaching Elders,” “the Honorable William Tailer entered his dissent,” 15th June, 1727. The General Court, memorialized, sustained that decision in the following December, and subsequently, by a like decision, closed the question, in June, 1730 (Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. 368–376). As his title of Colonel indicates, he was not without military experience. In the fleet which sailed from Boston for the reduction of Port Royal, that “nest of hornets” which was taken in October, 1710, he commanded one of the two Massachusetts regiments which made a part of the force (Memorial History of Boston, ii. 104, 105).

550 In his Massachusetts Civil List, Whitmore says that Belcher “arrived at Boston August 10, 1730” (p. 43). This conveys a slightly incorrect impression. From a long account, filling more than a column, of the exercises which took place on that occasion, the following extract is taken: —

“On Saturday last [8 August], about the middle of the Afternoon we were notified by a Signal from Castle William, of the near Approach of His Excellency Governour BELCHER, in His Majesties Ship of War, appointed for his Transportation; which could reach no further that Night, than the Mouth or Entrance of the Narrows. Here His Excellency was waited upon, as soon as possible, by an honourable Committee from the General Assembly, with a Number of other Gentlemen, who were all received and entertained with that Nobleness and Affability which is natural to our Governour. The usual Services of the Sabbath were attended by His Excellency at the Castle, with decent & religious Solemnity” (New-England Weekly Journal of Tuesday, 11 August, 1730, No. 177, p. 1/2).

On landing, 10 August, Belcher went to the Council Chamber, where his Commission was opened, exhibited, and published, after which an entertainment was given at the Bunch of Grapes.

The following extracts fix the dates of the arrival of Lieutenant-Governor Tailer’s Commission and of his meeting the General Court: —

Thursday last being the Anniversary of His Majesty’s happy Accession to the Throne; the same was observed here with the usual publick Demonstrations of Joy . . . .

The Honourable WILLIAM TAILER Esq; having received from His Majesty King GEORGE II. a Commisssion appointing Him to be His Majesty’s Lieutenant-Governour of the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay &c. in the room of the Honourable WILLIAM DUMMER Esq; our late Lieut. Governour & Commander in Chief; on the same Day in the Afternoon the Gentlemen that were and had been His Majesty’s Council, the Justices &c. waited on His Honour at the House of Col. Byfield, and conducted him to the Council Chamber, where the said Royal Commission was open’d and read, when His Honour took upon him the Affairs of the Government, and had the proper Oaths administered to him (New-England Weekly Journal of Monday, 15 June, 1730, No. 169, p. 2/1).

II.

The SPEECH of the Honourable WILLIAM TAILER Esq; Lieutenant GOVERNOUR and Commander in Chief in and over His Majesties Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England: To the General Assembly of the said Province, Met at Cambridge, June 30th. 1730.

Gentlemen,

HAVING since your last Meeting had the honour to receive His Majesty’s Commission for Lieutenant Governour of this Province, which was forwarded to Me by His Excellency Jonathan Belcher Esq; lately Appointed our Captain General and Commander in Chief; I am now to acquaint you, That I have caused the said Commission to be Published in the usual Form, and in Pursuance thereof have taken upon Me the Administration of the Government, which occasions My Meeting you at this time . . . (Ibid. of Monday, 13 July, 1730, No. 173, p. 2/1).

551 Two events in this earlier period connect Tailer in a peculiarly interesting way with the history of Boston, however slight his share in them, one running into an indefinite future, the other having to do with its Provincial splendors and the legends and traditions of its past. The story of Boston Light is told in a Note on pp. 278–281, post. The other incident in Tailer’s official life concerns the old Province House, established then as the residence of the Royal Governors and probably having as its first official occupant Governor Samuel Shute: —

“The Committee [of the Province Legislature] appointed to consider of a suitable place for the reception & entertainment of Col. Burges upon his arrival to this Government, Reported that inasmuch as there is no suitable house to be let, and the Mansion House, land & garden &c of Peter Sargeant, Esq., deceased is now upon Sale: The Committee are of opinion that it would be for the interest and benefit of this Province to purchase the same for their use and improvement” (Shurtleff’s Topographical and Historical Description of Boston, p. 596).

After this Report, made on the third of June, 1715, an Order was passed by the House —

“That Mr. Speaker, the Representatives of the Town of Boston, and Col. Thaxter, be committee to provide a suitable Place for His Excellency’s present rec̄ption, and entertainment when he shall arrive, and to invite him thereto; and compliment His Excellency in the name of this House upon his safe arrival” (Ibid. pp. 596, 597).

This action was approved, £2300 appropriated on the seventeenth of December, the purchase made, and the deeds were passed, on the eleventh and twelfth of April, 1716, to Jeremiah Allen, Treasurer of the Province, Jeremiah Dummer, Treasurer of the County of Suffolk, and Joseph Prout, Treasurer of the Town of Boston (Suffolk Deeds, xxxii. 133, two instruments). The subsequent history of the historic Mansion is also given by Shurtleff. See also Hawthorne’s Legends of the Province House, in Twice Told Tales.

552 Quincy gives a most interesting and vivid account of the religious and political situation at this time, and of the condition of the College (History of Harvard University, i. chap, xvi–xviii).

553 Diary, iii. 340, 341 and note.

554 History of Harvard University, i. p. 330. See Peirce’s History of Harvard University, p. 141.

555 Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. pp. 330, 331. See also Sparks’s American Biography (First Series), vi. 327.

556 Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. 331, 332.

557 The paper is printed in full in Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. appendix lx, pp. 558–560. See also Ibid. i. 340, 341.

558 Milton Town Records. He was a son of Captain Samuel Wadsworth, who lost his life in Sudbury Fight (Bodge’s Soldiers in King Philip’s War, 1896, pp. 218, 219).

559 Memorial History of Boston, ii. 197.

560 Diary, i. 432.

561 Paige’s History of Cambridge, p. 490; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxviii. 350. The office of Steward of the College was held by William Bordman, the emigrant, for several years ending in 1668; by his two sons, Andrew (1682–1687) and Aaron (1687–1703); by his grandson, Andrew (1703–1747); and by his great-grandson, Andrew (1747–1750). See Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 490, 491.

562 Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. 339.

563 Ibid. i. 339, 340.

564 Ibid. i. 381.

565 Ibid. i. 382.

566 Memorial History of Boston, ii. 423.

567 History of Harvard University, i. 404

568 Ibid. i. 386; and Wadsworth’s Diary, pp. 45, 63.

569 Ibid. i. 386.

570 Ibid. i. 386.

571 Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. 387.

572 Ibid. i. p. 387; and Wadsworth’s Diary, p. 63.

573 Ibid. i. pp. 387, 388; and Wadsworth’s Diary, p. 63.

574 Ibid. i. 396.

575 Ibid. i. 396.

576 The New-England Weekly Journal of Monday, 29 June, 1730 (No. 171, p. 2/1), contains the following paragraph: —

BOSTON.

Wednesday last the 24th Currant, was the Annual COMMENCEMENT at Cambridge for this Year, (it being the Fourth of the more private Commencements,) when the following Young Gentlemen, had their Degrees given them, after they had held their publick Disputations in the Church of that Town, viz . . . . .

[Then follow the names of the “Batchelors in Arts” and of the “Masters in Arts.”]

577 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 30.

578 See ante, p. 273, note.

579 Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. 441, — citing Wadsworth’s Diary, p. 27.

580 See Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. 439; and Neal’s History of New England (1747), i. 203 et seq.

581 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 264.

582 Massachusetts Colony Laws (editionof 1672), pp. 37, 38.

583 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.) p. 20. Cf. Ibid. iii. 202.

584 Ibid. iv. (Part II.) p. 532.

585 Massachusetts Colony Laws (edition of 1672), p. 207.

586 Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 372.

587 Massachusetts Colony Laws (edition of 1672, supplement), p. 294.

588 Ibid, p. 158. The Act was passed by the General Court at its session held at Boston, 19 October, 1652 (Massachusetts Colony Records, iv., Part I., pp. 101, 102).

589 1681

In Answer to the petition of m^r Henry Jenkins humbly desiring the favo^r of this Court that his Appeale from y^e Commissione^rs Court for wch he hath entred into security for the next Court of Assistants being a strainger & ready to Goe out of y^e Country may be heard at this Court This peticon was Granted & fryday nex^t Appointed for the hearing of the Case he presently giving in his reasons of Appeale to y^e Commissionr^s or their clarke: y^e sajd m^r Henry Jenkins desired a Jury & entring his Appeale after his peticon the Commissione^rs Judgment Reason of Appeale & othe^r euidences in the Case were read Comitted to the Jury & are on file the Jury brought in a speciall virdict viz^t In y^e Case of m^r Henry Jenkins wee find him Guilty of saying that he was as Good a man as m^r Stoddard & saying to the Constable A pox take your tricks = And if the Constables affirmation on the oath of a Constable be a legall euidenc to convict a man in such a Case then wee find the sajd m^r Jenkins Guilty of saying that the Barber was wayting vpon a better man then the Commissione^rs & saying to the Constable A pox take yow othe^rwise not guilty = The Court on Consideration of this virdict Judg meet to Confirme the Judgment of the Comissione^rs (Records of the Court of Assistants, 1673–1692, original p. 140)

M^r Jenkins Case

Commissioners Judg^t Confirmd =

590 Cheerful Yesterdays, by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1898, p. 139.

591 The Christian Register of 21 April, 1898, lxxvii. 429.

592 A file of very interesting letters from Dr. Martineau to Dr. Allen remains to show how close this friendship was. These letters were communicated by our associate Mr. Henry H. Edes to the Society at its Stated Meeting in March, 1900, and will appear with the published Transactions of that meeting.

593 Joseph Henry Allen in The New World for June, 1898, vii. 300.

594 These documents were recently bought in London by the Trustees of The Public Library of the City of Boston

595 William Bollan practised law in Boston for several years before his appointment as Advocate General by Shirley, to whose beautiful daughter Frances he was married, 8 September, 1743, at King’s Chapel, Boston, where a mural monument preserves her and her mother’s memory. He was appointed Collector of Customs for Salem and Marblehead, was sent by the Province on a successful mission to England to obtain indemnity for the cost of the expedition to Cape Breton, and subsequently was Agent of the Province in London. Displaced by the Assembly for political reasons, he was similiarly employed by the Council and rendered distinguished service. He favored conciliatory measures toward the Colonies. Bollan was the ablest of all the Agents of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay at the British Court. He is said to have died in 1776.

596 At the April Meeting, 1899. See ante, pp. 157–172.

597 The Regulations Lately Made concerning the Colonies, and the Taxes Imposed upon Them considered. London, 1765.

598 See post, pp. 314, 315 and note.

599 There are in New England several small brooks to which the name of Purgatory is given, either because they drain swamps or because they flow through or near rock chasms which are called Purgatories. There is, of course, no connection between these swamps or rock chasms and the Purgatory River of Colorado; and the Purgatories of New England do not come within the scope of this paper.

600 The printed word is “asserting,” — an obvious misprint.

601 Maj. Z. M. Pike, An Account of Expeditious to the Sources of the Mississippi, etc., 1810, p. 163.

602 Account of an Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, . . . under the command of Major Stephen H. Long, . . . compiled by Edwin James, Philadelphia, 1823, ii. 66, 76, and note.

603 But “Purgatory Cr.” is found in one of the “Maps and Plates,” published in 1822, which accompanied the work in question. It also appears as “Purgatory Cr.” In the General Atlas published by F. Lucas, Jr., 1823, No. 49; as “Purgatory Cr.” in S. Hall’s New General Atlas, 1830, No. 44; and as “Rio de las Animas or Purgatoire,” in the map by J. Gregg in his Commerce of the Prairies, 1844.

604 Journal of Jacob Fowler, edited by E. Coues, 1898, pp. 41, 148 (American Explorers Series, i). In a letter to the present writer, Dr. Coues aptly characterized Fowler as the “bronco speller.”

605 Lieut. W. H. Emory, 4, 5 August, 1846, Notes of a Military Reconnaissance, from Fort Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego, in California, 1848, p. 17.

606 Lieut. J. W. Abert, 13, 14 September, 1846, in W. H. Emory’s Notes, etc., 1848, pp. 436, 437. On 14 January, 1847, Abert refers to the stream as “the ‘Rio de los Animas,’ or Purgatory” (Notes, etc., p. 523).

607 G. F. Ruxton, Adventures in Mexico and the Rocky Mountains, 1847, p. 291.

608 Capt. J. Pope, Report of Exploration of a Route for the Pacific Railroad, 1854, p. 16. (Pacific Railroad Reports, vol. ii., Part iv.)

609 W. A. Bell, New Tracks in North America, 1869, i. 80. No doubt “Pickel-Wire” is a misprint for “Picket-Wire.”

610 The Rocky Mountain Directory and Colorado Gazetteer, For 1871, p. 61.

611 G. Barringer, Étude sur l’Anglais parlé aux États-Unis (La Langue Américaine), in Actes de la Société Philologique, 1874, iii. 302. The author is of course mistaken in locating the Purgatory in New Mexico.

612 R. I. Dodge, The Plains of the Great West and their Inhabitants, 1877, p. 21.

613 J. D. Whitney, Names and Places: Studies in Geographical and Topographical Nomenclature, 1888, p. 161. In a note, Prof. Whitney quotes Col. Dodge, and refers to Emory and Abert as “the earliest scientific explorers of this region.” It is clear that Prof. Whitney had not made a study of the subject; for, as we have already seen, Emory and Abert had been preceded by Pike and Long.

614 H. Inman, The Old Santa Fé Trail: The Story of a Great Highway, 1897, p. 395. In a note Col. Inman adds: “‘River of Souls.’ The stream is also called Le Purgatoire, corrupted by the Americans into Picketwire.”

615 The Purgatory River is sometimes referred to as the Rio de las Animas Perdidas. Thus, Col. Inman, alluding to the top of Raton Peak, recently wrote: “Far below this magnificent vantage-ground lies the valley of the Rio Las Animas Perdidas” (The Old Santa Fé Trail, 1897, p. 486). Such a designation is wrong, and is due to confusion with the Animas River, the tributary of the San Juan mentioned at the beginning of this paper. In a letter to the present writer, the late Dr. Coues spoke of the confusion as one made by “blundering writers;” yet Dr. Coues himself twice fell into the trap, and on my pointing out the mistake, characteristically remarked that he was waiting “to get a chance to abuse himself in print about it.”

616 New Tracks in North America, 1869, i. 88, 89.

617 Our Wild Indians: Thirty-three Years’ Personal Experience among the Red Men of the Great West, 1882, pp. 229, 230. The following description of a bull-whacker is from the pen of John White, an English traveller: —

“The men were of the wildest Western type, either miners from the mountains or ‘bull-whackers’ from the plains. The profession of ‘bull-whacking’ has, in ante-railway days, been one of the foremost in the West. The bull-whacker is a teamster, who uses his waggon and team of oxen for bringing supplies westward from the Missouri, and otherwise carrying on the trade of the country. The number of prominent men in the Far West, who started in trans-Missourian life as bull-whackers, is said to be very great, and the gains of the profession, hitherto, to have been very large. The good bull-whacker must be fearless of Indians, and the cleaner he shoots his men, the better; he must be able to stand any hardship; he is generally of fine physique, with a vigorous rollicking, devil-me-care look about him, which makes him a handsome specimen of manhood,” etc. (Sketches from America, 1870, p. 259).

618 In 1859 a French Canadian settled at the mouth of Gray’s creek four miles below Trinidad; in 1860 settlers built cabins in the valley opposite Trinidad; and in 1862 several persons “staked off a number of lots, built cabins, and thus originated the nucleus” of Trinidad. (The Rocky Mountain Directory and Colorado Gazetteer, For 1871, pp. 397–398.) Florida was ceded by Spain to the United States in 1819.

619 J. F. Meline, Two Thousand Miles on Horseback: Santa Fé and Back, 1868, pp. 93–95.

620 So Dr. Coues wrote me. After my own investigations were completed, I applied to Dr. Coues in the hope of obtaining further information. In spite, however, of his immense knowledge in such matters, he was unable to furnish me with any facts not already known to me, except the reference to Escalante’s Diary. When Dr. Coues acknowledged himself baffled, others need not be ashamed of their ignorance.

621 “Dia 8, salimos del rio Pinos y Vega de San Cayetano, rumbo oesnoroeste, y á las cuatro leguas llegamos al rio Florida, que es mediano y menor que el de los Pinos; . . . Pasado el rio Florida, caminamos al oeste dos leguas y al oesnoroeste poco mas de otras dos; bajamos una cuesta pedrosa y no muy dilatada, llegamos al rio de las Animas, cerca de la punta occidental de la sierra de la Plata, en que tiene su origen . . . . Dia 9: salimos del rio de las Animas, . . . anduvimos por ella una legua al oeste, y declinamos al oeste cuarta al noroeste, y andadas tres leguas por un monte frondoso de buenos pastos, llegamos al rio de San Joaquin, por otro nombre de la Plata, el cual es pequeño” (Escalante’s Diario y Derrotero, 8, 9 August, 1776, in Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, second series, 1854, i. 388). My attention was called to this work by Dr. Coues; but I am indebted to our associate, Mr. A. P. C. Griffin, for kindly procuring me a copy of the entries for 8 and 9 August. Maps of Escalante’s route will be found in the Atlas accompanying the Exploration du Territoire de l’Orégon, des Californies et de la Mer Vermeille, exécutée pendant les Années 1840, 1841 et 1842, par M. Duflot de Mofras, Paris, 1844, No. 1; in P. Harry’s account, written in 1860, of Escalante’s Diary, in Captain J. H. Simpson’s Report of Explorations across the Great Basin of the Territory of Utah for a direct wagon-route from Camp Floyd to Genoa, in Carson Valley, in 1859 (published in 1876), p. 489; and in H. H. Bancroft’s History of the Pacific States of North America, xx. 342. There is nothing in Escalante’s Diary for those two days to indicate that the names Pinos, Florida, Las Animas and La Plata — all of which are retained to the present day — originated with himself; while he does distinctly say that in years past several expeditions started from New Mexico to exploit certain lodes of metal in the cañon of the Rio de la Plata.

622 Escalante’s name is Rio de las Animas. How “Perdidas” came to be added is a mystery which cannot be fathomed. Curiously enough, I cannot find the slightest allusion to the Animas River from the days of Escalante to those of Captain J. N. Macomb, who explored the stream in 1859. (See Professor J. S. Newberry’s Geological Report in Captain Macomb’s Report of the Exploring Expedition From Santa Fé, New Mexico, to the Junction of the Grand and Green Rivers of the Great Colorado of the West, 1876, pp. 76, 78, 79.)

623 “Purgatorio: Geog. Altura de la serranía de Turumiquire, en la sección Cumaná, Venezuela, á 1548 m. sobre el nivel del mar. Río de la sección Cumaná, Venezuela; naoe en la serranía de Paria y desagua en el golfo del mismo nombre” (Diccionario Enciclopedico Hispano-Americano de Literatura, Ciencias y Artes, 1895, xvi. 657).

624 The Century Atlas, 1897, No. 68.

625 So I am informed by a correspondent.

626 “PURGATORIO. — Frazione del com. di Capriata d’Orba, prov. di Alessandria. L’ ufficio postale è a Capriata d’Orba. PURGATORIO. — Frazione del com. di San Massimo, prov. di Molise . . . . PURGATORIO (Amine del). — Frazione del com. di Spoleto, prov. dell’ Umbria” (Dizionario Corografico dell’ Italia compilato per cura del Prof. Amato Amati, Milano, vi. 672). This work is undated, but was published about 1869.

627 Dorothy Quincy was baptized at the Church in Brattle Square, 17 May, 1747.

628 An interesting memorial of Madam Hancock’s interest in the First Church of Shirley remains in the large Bible, inscribed with her name, which she gave for the pulpit on the occasion of the opening for public worship of the new Meeting-House, on the twenty-fifth of November, 1773. See post, pp. 321–323.

629 The Records of the Church in Brattle Square, and the Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxx. 141, give the date of Madam Hancock’s marriage as 27 July, 1796.

630 Captain James Scott died 19 June, 1809, at the age of 63 (Columbian Centinel of Wednesday, 21 June, 1809, No. 2631, p. 2/4, which see). His will is in Suffolk Probate Files, No. 23,366.

631 Loring’s Hundred Boston Orators (1853), pp. 106, 107. Madam Scott’s will is in Suffolk Probate Files, No. 29,160.

The Columbian Centinel of Saturday, 20 February, 1830, No. 4786, p. 1/3, contains a long obituary notice of Madam Scott from which the following extract is taken: —

She was near to, and in sight of the battle ground, when the first blood flowed in Lexington . . . . Madam Hancock was justified in the opinion of her friends, when she gave her hand to a second husband, Capt. James Scott, whose amiable temper and worthy character, she had long and intimately known. With this excellent man, she enjoyed as much happiness as may well consist with the lot of humanity.

632 These dots are in the original from which nothing has been omitted in printing.

633 The reference is to the childless rich widow of the richer Thomas Hancock from each of whom Governor Hancock inherited a fortune. See Note on Lydia Hancock, post, pp. 321–323.

634 Katharine Quincy was baptized 3 June, 1733 (Records of the Church in Brattle Square). She died, unmarried, 9 June, 1804, at the age of 71, her funeral “proceeding,” on the eleventh, “from the house of James Scott, esq.” (Boston Gazette of Monday, 11 June, 1804, No. 798, p. 2/3).

635 Lydia (Henchman) Hancock.

636 Edmund Quincy, the son of Judge Edmund and Dorothy (Flynt) Quincy, was born 13 June, 1703 (Braintree Town Records, p. 682); married Elizabeth Wendell 15 April, 1725 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxviii. 128); was a merchant in Boston; and a prominent member of the Church in Brattle Square, where his children were baptized. He died on Friday, 4 July, 1788, at the age of 85 (Massachusetts Centinel of Saturday, 5 July, 1788, ix. 129/3). His letter-book is in the Cabinet of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Two letters contained in it, addressed to his son-in-law John Hancock and to Madam Lydia Hancock, describing the evacuation of Boston, are printed in the Society’s Proceedings for April, 1858, iv. 27–41. A notice of Mr. Quincy is appended to the letters (pp. 41–44).

637 Hancock had been commissioned by Hutchinson Captain of the Independent Corps of Cadets in May, 1772. He was dismissed by Governor Gage 1 August, 1774, whereupon the company disbanded and returned their colors to the Governor.

638 Governor Thomas Hutchinson.

639 Lieutenant-Governor Andrew Oliver.

640 These were the famous letters which Dr. Franklin secured in England and sent over to Thomas Cushing, Speaker of the House, early in December, 1772. They were printed in Boston in the summer of 1773 and produced the greatest excitement and alarm throughout the Province. Cf. Hutchinson’s History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, iii. 394, 395 and notes; Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson (London, 1883), i. 159 et seq.; and 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for February, 1878, xvi. 42–49

641 This lady may have been Mrs. Lydia Boyle whose death, at the age of 76, was announced in the Mercury and New England Palladium of Friday, 26 November, 1802, p. 3/1, without the date of her demise being mentioned. Her funeral, however, occurred, on the twenty-sixth, and proceeded from the house of her son, Col. John Boyle, bookseller and stationer, No. 18 Marlborough Street, Boston. See Suffolk Deeds, clxxxii. 168. Col. Boyle was twice married, and if the reference in the text was not to his mother it was, doubtless, to his first wife, Cœlia, daughter of Martin Gay the Loyalist (see ante, iii. 379–400), to whom he was married 12 March, 1772 (Records of the West Church, Boston). She died at Hingham, Massachusetts, 11 April, 1776 (New England Chronicle of Thursday, 25 April, 1776, No. 401, p. 3/2). See History of Hingham (1893), ii. 265. Col. Boyle married (2) Elizabeth Casneau, 20 June, 1778 (Records of the New North Church) and had by her several children who were baptized at the Church in Brattle Square, among them Dorothy Hancock Boyle, baptized 18 May, 1788. Col. Boyle died of apoplexy in Boston, 18 November, 1819 (Boston Town Records). The Columbian Centinel of Saturday, 20 November, 1819, No. 3716, p. 2/4 thus announces his death: —

In this town, John Boyle, Esq. aged 73. During the revolution he commanded a regiment and was aid-de-camp to Gov. Hancock.

642 The Nation, 7 September, 19 October, 23 and 30 November, 1899, lxix. 187, 296, 390, 409.

643 Publications, iii. 61, 62.

644 Reprinted from Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for March, 1883, xx. 122–157.

645 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for March, 1883, xx. 149–151.

646 Records of the Court of Assistants (1673–1092), ii. 139. The citations of these Records which occur in this communication are from the original manuscript.

647 Records of the Court of Assistants (1673–1692), ii. 139. In connection with Jack’s case are two bills of costs and expenses, which have one or two points of interest: —

Joseph Hawley’s Bill of Charge As An Evidence In the Case Referring to Jack the Negro is as followeth:

Imp: To hire of An horse & shoeing: —	00 – 15 – 00
To ferridg	00 – 01 – 04
To time; 15 days out & home	01 – 10 – 00
To horse Pasturing &c.
charge for the horse on the Journey:	00 – 06 – 00
	02 – 12 – 04

This is Justly Due In money wch I Doubt not that yo^r Hon^rs will Alow or to be payd At Money price:

Sept. 10 1681:

Joseph Hawley

Allowed E[dward] R[awson] S[ecretary] in Country pay [Endorsed]

Hauley’s Costs

— (Suffolk Court Files, xxiv. 2020: 1)

II.

A Bill of

Charges due to Medad Pumry for time and expence About Jack Negro imp^r to make Irons to secure him at Northampton

And to conuey him to Springfield	00 – 04 – 00
it my selfe one jorney to Springfield
with Petter Henricks
To ferig and horse pasture	0 – 00 – 01 – 00
To 15 days out And home to giue in
Testimony at the Court of Assistance
To horse hire for the jorney	0 – 0 – 15 – 00
To pasture for my horse here	0 —— 06 – 00
To ferrige	00 —— 01 – 04
	03: – 02 — 4

Allowed E R S

in Country pay

[Endorsed]

Medad Pumry &

Hawley’s Costs.

– (Ibid. xxiv. 2020: 2).

648 Suffolk Court Files, xxiv. 2023.

649 Suffolk Court Files, ccxii. 26.559: 4, not dated.

650 Ibid, ccxii. 26.559: 3

651 Ibid, ccxii. 26.559: 2.

652 This blank is in the Record.

653 Records of the Court of Assistants, ii. 138.

654 Suffolk Court Files, ccxii. 26.559: 1.

655 Suffolk Court Files, ccxii. 26.559: 6.

656 Edward Rawson.

657 This was John Green of Cambridge who was appointed to office 3 June, 1681 (Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 322) as successor to Edward Mitchelson (see ante, iii. 454) whose daughter Ruth he had married. During the Usurpation, Green was superseded in office (1687) by Samuel Gookin, but was re-instated 15 August, 1689. He died 3 March, 1690–91. (See Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 567, 568, 610.)

658 Records of the Court of Assistants, ii. 139.

659 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for March, 1858, iii. 317–320.

660 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 246.

661 Whitmore’s Biographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony, lxii.

662 Records of the Court of Assistants (1673–1692), ii. 262.

663 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, under date of 25 April, 1693.

664 Gloucestershire Pleas, pl. 216.

665 Pollock and Maitland’s History of English Law, ii. 492.

666 This is very well summarized in Laws respecting Women, London, 1777: —

This benefit of clergy does not extend to women; for by an express act of parliament it is directed, that women convicted . . . . . ; and by a subsequent statute (3 & 4 W. & M. c. 9), a woman being convicted of an offence for which a man may have his clergy, shall suffer the same punishment that a man shall suffer that has the benefit of his clergy allowed; . . . . but the benefit of this Statute can be pleaded only once (4 & 5 W. & M. c. 24, s. 13). Such was the law until the beginning of the present century (pp. 342, 343). Upon the whole then it appears, that women cannot claim the benefit of their clergy, but the benefit of the statute, which is equivalent to it. Before the passing of which law, women were entitled to no mitigation of the punishment for felonious offences (p. 343).

667 The same authority says: —

The judgment against a woman for high treason is not the same as against a man traitor, . . . but she is to be drawn to the place of execution and there burnt. For the public exhibition of their bodies, and dismembering them, in the same manner as is practised to the men, would be a violation of that natural decency and delicacy inherent, and at all times to be cherished in the sex. And the humanity of the English Nation has authorized by a tacit consent, an almost general mitigation of such part of their judgments, as savours of torture and cruelty; a sledge or hurdle being allowed to such traitors as are condemned to be drawn; and there being very few instances (and those accidental and by negligence) of any person being embowelled or burnt, till previously deprived of sensation by strangling (p. 344).

668 Blackstone states that, “the punishment of petit treason in a man is, to be drawn and hanged, and in a woman to be drawn and burned” (Commentaries iv. 204). And he goes on to say that “the usual punishment for all sorts of treasons committed by those of the female sex” is death by burning. This continued till the statute 30 George III., which changed the penalty to hanging.

669 And if any perſon . . . . . ſhall . . . wittingly, and willingly, and felloniouſly, set on fire any Dwelling Houſe, . . . . the party or parties vehemently ſuſpected thereof, ſhall be apprehended by Warrant from one or more of the Magiſtrates, and committed to Priſon, there to remain without Baile, till the next Court of Aſſiſtants, who upon legal conviction by due proof, or confeſſionof the Crime, ſhall adjudge ſuch perſon or perſons to be put to death . . . . . [1652.] (Massachusetts Colony Laws, edition of 1672, p. 52).

670 Mr. Abner C. Goodell, in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for March, 1883, xx. 149, 150.

671 John Duntou’s Letters from New-England (Prince Society’s Publications), p. 118.

672 Ibid. p. 121 and note.

673 Magnalia (1702), Book vi. p. 40. See also Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, iii. 69, 70, where may be read the full title of this discourse which was first printed, separately, in Boston in 1699.

674 Mather’s reference is to William Cheney (see ante, iii. 62) of Dorchester. He was son of William Cheney, the emigrant, of Roxbury and married Deborah (born 24, baptized 30 May, 1641), daughter of Deacon John Wiswall of Dorchester, who removed to Boston and became Ruling Elder of the First Church. Notwithstanding his good social connections, Cheney was neither a valuable nor respected member of society, as may be seen in Tilden’s History of Medfield, pp. 343, 344, where his seven legitimate children are enumerated — not nineteen or twenty as Mather’s fertile brain imagines — the last of whom, a posthumous child, lived less than three weeks (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxi. 16, 18, 30). The facts concerning the crime for which Cheney was hanged are set out in the Records of the Court of Assistants, under date of 6 September, 1681 (ii. 139 ²), and in Suffolk Court Files, xxiv. 2024. Cheney’s remarkable will, made the day before his execution and in recognized anticipation of it, contains valuable particulars, was witnessed by Hudson Leverett and two others, and was proved 29 September, 1681 (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 1189). His widow married Ebenezer Williams, Senior, of Dorchester, where she died, 26 February, 1717–18 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxi. 130; Suffolk Probate Files, Nos. 1617, 3950; Suffolk Deeds, xxi. 571, 572; and New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1851, v. 90, 468). We do not find these facts in Pope’s Cheney Genealogy, p. 42.

675 The passages from the two Mathers were quoted in the communications in The Nation, — the first attributed, however, to the wrong Mather, and the other so curiously and carelessly misquoted, as, on its very face, to fail of sustaining the correspondent’s contention.

676 Old Virginia and her Neighbours, ii. 265 note.

677 Boston News-Letter, No. 3440, 7 September, 1769, p. 2/2. The passage was sent to Mr. P. A. Bruce, by whom it was printed in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography for January, 1897, iv. 341

678 South Carolina Statutes at Large, 1840, vii. 422.

679 Mitchell, Present State, p. 133, note.

680 See the Public Domain; Report of the Public Land Commission, 1883, p. 10. General Walker makes the settled area in 1790 only 240,000 square miles, though many settlements had been made beyond the mountains (Economica, p. 60)

681 Noah Webster, Essays, p. 365

682 Tryon to the Earl of Dartmouth, 11 June, 1774 (New York Colonial Documents, viii. 441).

683 Burnaby, and Webster’s Essays, l. c.

684 The population of Massachusetts increased 8,310 yearly before the Revolution. Adam Smith, Malthus, and Franklin accepted the estimate given in the text. Between 1700 and 1719, an aggregate of 105,972 persons emigrated to the Dutch East Indies; between 1747 and 1766, 162,598 (Saalfeld, Geschichte des holländischen Kolonialwesens in Ostindien, ii. 189). Franklin, in 1751, estimated the aggregate number of English inhabitants in the North American colonies at 1,000,000, of whom only 80,000 had immigrated into the country. The Germans came in larger numbers, nearly 20,000 going to Pennsylvania in 1749 (Kalm, i. 58).

685 Maize was the principal plant cultivated by the Indians. They also raised squash and pease (Kalm, i. 139, 140).

686 Professor Shaler.

687 Wealth of Nations, i. 371. All my references to this work are taken from the edition of Prof. Thorold Rogers.

688 Thirty years in England (Wealth of Nations, ii. 196).

689 12 Charles II.

690 In Connecticut in 1792; in Pennsylvania in 1794.

691 Present State of the Nation.

692 Franklin, Works, viii. 173.

693 Commentaries, i. 121.

694 Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, i. 371.

695 I am aware that Adam Smith asserts that he “had never even heard of any tobacco plantation that was improved and cultivated by the capital of merchants who resided in Great Britain” (Wealth of Nations, i. 167). As an object of speculative investment a tobacco plantation was not so desirable as a sugar field, and it was as a speculation that Adam Smith treated the question. The involved condition of the planters of the tobacco colonies is beyond all doubt. See Burnaby’s Travels, p. 19.

696 American Museum, ii. 447. See Kalm, i. 102, 185, 186.

697 American Museum, ii. 344. Wealth of Nations, ii. 145, 146.

698 Washington to Arthur Young, 1 November, 1787.

699 Present State, p. 140

700 Travels, p. 46

701 Travels, i. 185.

702 Travels, ii. 190

703 Young, Travels in France, i. 384.

704 Washington to Young, December, 1791. See also Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia (Eighth edition), p. 130.

705 Kalm, Travels, ii. 125

706 Ibid. ii. 245

707 “The price of improved lands varied with the price of wheat, — the principal article for making money. When wheat was at 3s. a bushel, land was worth £3 an acre, and wheat at 5s. meant land at £5” (Hazard’s Register of Pennsylvania, iii. 408).

708 A year of comparative high prices in England.

709 Huskisson, Speech on Parnell’s Resolutions on the State of the Corn Laws, 5 May, 1814.

710 While the balance of exports of wheat from 1742 to 1751 had been 4,700,509 quarters, the balance of imports from 1766 to 1775 had been 1,363,149 quarters; and not until 1785 did the price fall to the rate at which the bounties on exportation attached, or at which any exports were made (Tooke, History of Prices, i. 8). The Corn Laws, it is hardly necessary to add, merely postponed the final dependence on foreign supplies.

711 Franklin, Works, vii. 434.

712 “The market for butcher’s meat is almost everywhere confined to the country which produces it. Ireland and some parts of British America, indeed, carry on a considerable trade in salt provisions; but they are, I believe, the only countries of the world which do so, or which export to other countries any considerable part of their butcher’s meat” (Wealth of Nations, i. 240).

713 4 Geo. III. chap. 15 (Wealth of Nations, ii. 158, 227).

714 Encyclopedia Britannica (Ninth edition), art. Agriculture.

715 One of Jefferson’s achievements was the invention of a new mould board for ploughs. See Jefferson’s Writings, vii. 87, 445; and Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, iv. 313–322.

716 Adam Smith thought the dearness of labor in America would prevent a successful culture of the silk-worm (Wealth of Nations, ii. 230).

717 Shaler, in Tenth Census, iii. 135.

718 Franklin, Works, vii. 393.

719 Gov. Franklin to the Earl of Hillsborough, 14 June, 1768 (New-Jersey Archives, x. 30–32).

720 Gov. Franklin to the Earl of Dartmouth, 28 March, 1774 (Ibid. x. 444).

721 New York Colonial Documents, viii. 449.

722 “Take this Province [New York] throughout, the expence of transporting a bushel of wheat, is but two-pence [by water], for the distance of one hundred miles; but the same quantity at the like distance in Pennsylvania [by land], will always exceed us one shilling at least” (Independent Reflector, N. Y. 1753).

723 “High roads, which, in most trading countries, are extremely expensive, and awake a continual attention for their Reparation, demand from us, comparatively speaking, scarce any public notice at all” (Ibid.).

724 Smith’s History of New York (Quarto edition), p. 203.

725 The old marine policies give an idea of the risks of navigation: —

“Touching the Adventures and Perils which we the Insurers are contented to bear, and do take upon us in this Voyage, they are of the Seas, Men-of-War, Fire, Enemies, Pirates, Rovers, Thieves, Jettisons, Letters of Mark and Counter-Mark, Surprisals, Takings at Seas, arrests, Restraints and Detainments of all Kings, Princes and People, of what Nation, Condition, or Quality soever, Barratry of the Master (unless the assured be owner of said vessel) and Mariners, and of all other Perils, Losses, and Misfortunes that have or shall come to the Hurt, Detriment, or Damage of the said Ship.”

726 No attention need be given to the prices of commodities as fixed by law. Such regulation laws were, as a rule, the result of some foolish financial experiments for creating money and capital through the fiat of the legislature, — experiments that invariably terminated in disastrous failure.

727 Mitchell was answering the statement of those who were seeking to show that the earnings of the colonists at agriculture were three shillings and sixpence a day.

728 Present State, p. 300, note.

729 Wealth of Nations, ii. 191. See also Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, iii. 187.

730 Governor Franklin to the Earl of Hillsborough, 14 June, 1768 (New Jersey Archives, x. 32).

731 Hewat, in Carroll’s Historical Collections of South Carolina.

732 Some Considerations: Humbly Offered to Demonstrate How prejudicial it would be to the English Plantations, Revenues of the Crown, the Navigation and general Good of this Kingdom, that the sole Trade for Negroes should be granted to a Company with a Joynt-Stock exclusive to all others (American Historical Record, i. 24).

733 Bancroft, iii. 416

734 Cf. Froude, History of England, viii. 480.

735 Mason, African Slave Trade in Colonial Times (American Historical Record, i. 311–319, 338–345).

736 Barry, History of Massachusetts, ii. 248, 249.

737 In 1750, 15,000 hogsheads of molasses were annually converted into rum in Massachusetts alone; and in 1774, sixty distilleries produced about 2,700,000 gallons of rum.

738 European Settlements, ii. 174.

739 Mason, African Slave Trade in Colonial Times; Moore, Slavery in Massachusetts, pp. 66, 67, 107.

740 Wealth of Nations, i. 391.

741 Russell, Agriculture and Climate of North America, 141.

742 John Adams, Works, ii. 498; Jefferson, Works, i. 29.

743 Cairnes, Slave Power (Second edition), p. 143.

744 “The experience of all ages and nations, I believe, demonstrates that the work done by slaves, though it appears to cost only their maintenance, is in the end the dearest of any” (Wealth of Nations, i. 391).

745 “To borrow the words of Tocqueville, the overthrow of slavery in the Northern States was effected ‘by abolishing the principle of slavery, not by setting the slaves free.’ The Northern people did not emancipate negroes who were enslaved, but they provided for the future extinction of slavery by legislating for the freedom of their offspring. The operation of this plan may be readily supposed. The future offspring of the slave having by the law of a particular State been declared free, the slave himself lost a portion of his value in that State. But in the South these laws had no force, and consequently in the South the value of the slave was unaltered by the change. The effect, therefore, of the Northern measures of abolition was, for the most part, simply to transfer Northern slaves to Southern markets. In this way, by an easy process, without incurring any social danger, and at slight pecuniary loss, the Northern States got rid of slavery” (Cairnes, Slave Power, Second edition, p. 157).

746 “We will neither import nor purchase any Slaves imported after the first day of December next; after which time we will wholly discontinue the Slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our Commodities or Manufactures to those who are concerned in it.”

747 A Summary View of the Rights of British America.

748 The omitted passage read as follows: —

“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him; captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. The piratical warfare, the opprobrium of Infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And, that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another” (Jefferson, Works, i. 23, 24; Peter Force in National Intelligencer, 16 and 18 January, 1855).

749 Works, viii. 403.

750 Historical Magazine, September, 1861, v. 261.

751 Jefferson, Works, ix. 278, 279; i. 48, 49.

752 Journal of Rev. Francis Asbury, Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, New York, 1852, i. 11.

753 Asbury, Journal, i. 484.

754 Ibid. i. 486. Asbury was ordained Deacon 25 December, Elder on the twenty-sixth, and Superintendent on the twenty-seventh, each time by Coke. It may be explained that the title of “Superintendent” was at first used, but was soon displaced by that of “Bishop.” In the Minutes of the Annual Conferences for 1785, 1786, and 1787, Coke and Asbury were called Superintendents; in 1788, for the first time, the two men appear as Bishops. Yet, as we have seen, the title of Methodist Episcopal Church was adopted at the Baltimore Conference of 1784. Just before leaving England, Coke had been ordained Superintendent by Wesley; but Wesley was utterly opposed to the assumption of the title of Bishop, and thus expressed himself in a letter to Asbury written 20 September, 1788: —

“How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called Bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool; a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content: But they shall never, by my consent, call me Bishop! For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, put a full end to this!” (H. Moore’s Life of the Rev. John Wesley, ii. 340.)

In regard to the assumption by the American Methodists of the titles of Episcopal and Bishop, and the heated controversies thereby engendered, the reader is referred to the Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, New York, 1840, i. 21, 22; Minutes of Several Conversations between The Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., The Rev. Francis Asbury and Others, etc., 1785, p. 3; J. Whitehead’s Life of the Rev. John Wesley, ii. 416, 417; H. Moore’s Life of the Rev. John Wesley, ii. 327–340; L. Tyerman’s Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, New York, 1872, iii. 435–449.

755 Asbury, Journal, i. 495.

756 Ibid. i. 496.

757 Ibid. i. 502.

758 Neither our associate Mr. W. C. Ford, who found the title in a catalogue (but attributed to Dr. Cook) and called my attention to it, nor our associate Mr. L. Swift had ever seen the book.

759 Copies will be found in the Boston Public Library and in the Harvard College Library. The latter has also a copy of Extracts of the Journals of the Rev. Dr. Coke’s Three Visits to America, London, 1790. It is dedicated to John Wesley, and in the preface Dr. Coke says that —

“the very favourable reception my little Journals have met with, demonstrated by the rapid sale of the former editions, induces me to publish the whole of them collectively; and to add thereto an extract of the Journal of my first visit to America, which was never printed before.” (p. v.)

After the death of Dr. Coke, which took place in 1814, there was published at Dublin, in 1816, Extracts of the Journals of the late Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D.; comprising several Visits to North-America and the West-Indies; his Tour through a Part of Ireland, and his nearly finished Voyage to Bombay in the East-Indies: To which is prefixed A Life of the Doctor. A copy of this book is in the Boston Public Library.

760 Under date of 13 August, 1776, Wesley wrote: —

“I preached at Taunton, and afterwards . . . went to Kingston. Here I found a clergyman, Dr. Coke, late a gentleman commoner of Jesus College, Oxford, who came twenty miles on purpose to meet me. I had much conversation with him; and a union then began, which, I trust, shall never end.” (L. Tyerman’s Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, iii. 214.)

761 Extracts, etc., 1793, p. 33.

762 Ibid. p. 35. The expression “high-headed,” the meaning of which is perhaps not obvious at a glance, is explained by the following extract: —

“Q. 18. Should we insist on the Rules concerning Dress? A. By all means. This is no Time to give any Encouragement to Superfluity of Apparel. Therefore give no Tickets . . . to any that wear High-Heads, enormous Bonnets, Ruffles or Rings.” (Minutes of Several Conversations, etc., 1785, pp. 9, 10.)

The noun “high-head” was not uncommon at that period, but Coke’s adjective “high-headed” is unrecorded in the Oxford Dictionary.

763 Extracts, etc., 1793, pp. 35, 36.

764 Extracts, etc., 1793, p. 37.

765 See Minutes of the Annual Conferences, i. 12, 18, 20, 21, 24.

766 Minutes of Several Conversations between The Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., The Rev. Francis Asbury and Others, at a Conference, begun in Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, on Monday, the 27th. of December, in the Year 1784. Composing a Form of Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers and other Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. Philadelphia, . . . M, DCC, LXXXV. Pp. 15–17. A copy of this little book will be found in the Boston Athenæum.

767 Extracts, etc., 1793, p. 39.

768 Ibid. pp. 40, 41.

769 Extracts, etc., 1793, p. 45.

770 Ibid. p. 46. The official record is as follows: —

“It is recommended to all our brethren to suspend the execution of the minute on slavery till the deliberations of a future Conference; that an equal space of time be allowed all our members for consideration, when the minute shall be put in force. N. B. We do hold in the deepest abhorrence the practice of slavery; and shall not cease to seek its destruction by all wise and prudent means.” (Minutes of the Annual Conferences, i. 24.)

In 1795 it was recommended that a general fast be held for the purpose, among other things, of lamenting “the deep-rooted vassalage that still reigneth in many parts of these free, independent United States;” while in a recommendation for a general thanksgiving, it was remarked that “for African liberty; we feel gratitude that many thousands of these poor people are free and pious.” (Minutes, etc., i. 64.) Thereafter all references to slavery apparently disappear from the Minutes.

771 In 1789 a congratulatory address was sent to Washington by the Methodists at their Conference, much to the disturbance of the English Wesleyans. Washington’s reply to this address will be found in Sparks’s edition of his Writings, xii. 153, 154.

772 The extract occurs in a letter written 23 November, 1854, by J. W. Wallace to Dr. Griswold, from an original in the possession of Wallace.

773 Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia, etc., Richmond, 1828, p. 27. The reference is to “An act to authorize the manumission of slaves,” passed in May, 1782, by which, under certain conditions, manumission was permitted. (See the Virginia Statutes at Large, xi. 39.)

774 Journal of the House of Delegates, etc., p. 31.

775 Madison’s Letters and Other Writings, i. 199, 200.

776 Ibid. i. 217, 218.

777 Jefferson’s Writings, edited by P. L. Ford, iv. 184, 185.

778 This document is printed at the end of Mr. Davis’s paper entitled “Previous Legislation,” a Corrective for Colonial Troubles, communicated at the Stated Meeting in March, post, pp. 403–414.

779 Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley, 1873, p. 126.

780 The officers of the Social Law Library in 1829 were: — President, William Sullivan; Trustees, Lemuel Shaw, William Minot, Benjamin Rand, Samuel Hubbard, and George Morey; Treasurer and Clerk, Edward Blake; Librarian, James Boyle.

781 Rhode Island Colonial Records, iv. 375.

782 Moore’s History of North Carolina, 1880, i. 99. See below, p. 389.

783 In the Newport cemetery is a stone which records the death of Ann Howard, wife of Martin Howard, 28 September, 1758, aged 59 years. Another stone is to the memory of Sarah Howard, daughter of Martin and Ann Howard, who died 13 January, 1734, aged 3 years, 11 months, 13 days. In the Friends Records is the following entry: —

Ann Howard, of England, died at Widow Wait Carr’s house, Newport, 11 June, 1719 (Arnold’s Vital Record of Rhode Island, vii. 109).

784 See will of Ebenezer Brenton, below, p. 387, note.

785 Rhode Island Colonial Records, v. 386.

786 Ibid. v. 505.

787 Ibid. vi. 257, 336.

788 Mason’s Annals of the Redwood Library and Athenæum, Newport, R. I., 1891, pp. 42, 45, 59.

789 A fac-simile of Martin Howard’s autograph is in Mason’s Annals of Trinity Church, Newport, Rhode Island, 1698–1821 (1890), p. 91 note.

790 Major Ebenezer Brenton (1687–1766) of South Kingstown, Rhode Island, had two daughters, Ann and Elizabeth. Ann married, as her first husband, Jonathan Concklin, 14 June, 1740, at Trinity Church, Newport (Rhode Island Vital Record, x. 438, 443). Brenton’s will, dated 16 March, 1765, proved 13 April, 1766, makes his son-in-law Martin Howard, Jr., of Newport, executor, and bequeaths to him a life estate in a farm at South Kingstown, with remainder to his grand-daughter, Ann Howard (Austin’s Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island, pp. 254–257).

791 I am indebted to the present Rector of St. Paul’s, the Rev. F. B. Cole, of Wickford, Rhode Island, for this interesting extract from the parish Register. This entry was inaccurately printed by Mason in his Annals of Trinity Church, Newport, R. I., 1698–1821, p. 91. See Arnold’s Vital Record of Rhode Island, x. 337, 343.

792 Sabine says that “James Center married one of his [Howard’s] daughters, and after her decease, became the husband of another” (Loyalists, i. 547). I do not find a record of either of these marriages, or of the birth or baptism of another daughter of Martin Howard. Elizabeth Howard may have been one of Center’s wives, but that he did not marry her sister Ann Howard I shall hereafter show. Ann Howard’s birth is imperfectly recorded in the Newport Town Records: —

Howard, Ann, of Martin, . . . . Aug. 15 —

(Arnold’s Vital Record of Rhode Island, iv. 101).

793 Rhode Island Colonial Records, vi. 514 and note; vii. 196.

794 John G Wanton had no middle name but assumed the initial G as a designation. A son of Governor Gideon Wanton, he was a Friend, a merchant of Newport, and a corporator of Rhode Island College, now Brown University. See Friends Records in Arnold’s Vital Record of Rhode Island, vii. 37 (two entries), 80 (two entries), 211.

795 Letter of Miss Maud Lyman Stevens.

796 These pamphlets are entitled: —

A Letter from a Gentleman at Halifax, to his Friend in Rhode-Island, containing Remarks upon a Pamphlet, entitled, The Rights of the Colonies Examined. Newport: M.DCC.LXV.

II.

A Defence of the Letter from a Gentleman at Halifax, to his Friend in Rhode-Island, Newport: M.DCC.LXV.

The facts concerning these publications are briefly told by Charles E. Hammett, Jr., in A Contribution to the Bibliography and Literature of Newport, R. I., 1887, p. 63: —

Late in 1764, Hopkins’s pamphlet, “The Rights of [the] Colonies Examined,” (with no other signature than the initial “P”) was published at Providence by the authority of the General Assembly; shortly afterwards also with the imprint of William Goddard (Providence, 1765), and in the next year at London, by John Almon (London, 1766), the title here being changed to “The Grievances of the American Colonies Candidly Examined.” The position taken by Hopkins was also supported in James Otis’s “Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved” (Boston, 1764), but was opposed in the anonymous pamphlet, “A Letter from a Gentleman at Halifax to his Friend in Rhode Island, etc.” (Newport, S. Hall, 1765), which was written by Martin Howard, Jr. In the same year appeared an answer to Howard by James Otis (published, however, anonymously) entitled “A Vindication of the British Colonies Against the Aspersions of the Halifax Gentleman, etc.” (Boston, Edes and Gill, 1765). A second anonymous pamphlet by Howard was entitled “A Defence of the Letter From a Gentleman at Halifax to his Friend in Rhode Island” (Newport, Samuel Hall, 1765), and this, in turn, was answered by Otis in his anonymous pamphlet, “Brief Remarks on the Defence of the Halifax Libel on the British American Colonies” (Boston, Edes and Gill, 1765). See Ibid. pp. 66, 67.

797 Moore’s History of North Carolina, 1880, i. 99.

798 Ibid. i. 99, 100.

799 Abigail Greenleaf was born in Boston, 17 September, 1743 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 249). For several years, her parents were connected with the New South Church and the West Church, but they subsequently transferred their relations to Trinity Church. Her sister, Anstis Greenleaf, married Benjamin Davis (see these Publications, vi. 126). A very fine portrait of Mrs. Davis by Copley is owned by Mrs. Stephen Greenleaf Bulfinch of Cambridge.

800 Moore’s History of North Carolina, i. 117.

801 Bancroft, in his account of the North Carolina Regulators, says: —

Besides, the Chief-Justice was Martin Howard, a profligate time-server, raised to the bench as a convenient reward for having suffered in the time of the Stamp Act, and ever ready to use his place as a screen for the dishonest profits of men in office, and the instrument of political power. Never yet had the tribunal of justice been so mocked (History of the United States, 1854, vi. 184, 185).

Sabine briefly sums up the character and career of Chief-Justice Howard and says that —

The suspension from office of one who “was notoriously destitute not only of the common virtues of humanity, but of all sympathy whatever with the community in which he lived,” was a matter of much joy. In 1775, he was present in Council, and expressed the highest detestation of unlawful meetings, and advised Governor Martin to inhibit and forbid the assembling of the Whig Convention appointed at Newbern . . . . . His reputation does not appear to have been good, nor does it seem that the calm and moderate respected him; while from others he sometimes received abuse, and even bodily harm. Careful pens speak of his profligate character, and of his corrupt and wicked designs, and aver that the members of the Assembly hated him (Loyalists of the American Revolution, 1864, i. 547).

802 Moore’s History of North Carolina, i. 117–119.

803 Craven County.

804 Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1857, i. 363, 364.

I had hoped to glean some further particulars of Judge Howard’s career in the South from the Records of North Carolina, but as these documents have been printed without index, table of contents or strict chronological arrangement, the value to historical students and scholars of the twenty volumes thus far published is seriously impaired.

805 See Rhode Island Colonial Records, vi. 514, 588, 589; vii. 196, 216.

806 Rhode Island Colonial Records, vii. 216.

807 Loyalists of the American Revolution, i. 547.

808 The date of Judge Howard’s death is erroneously given by Sabine (Loyalists, i. 547) as December, 1781, and by Mason (Annals of Trinity Church, Newport, p. 91 note) as 9 March, 1782.

809 I am indebted to the courtesy of the Rev. H. E. J. Bevan, the present Rector of St. Luke’s, for this valuable register.

810 The will was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, at London, 14 January, 1782, when administration “was granted to Abigail Howard, Widow, the relict & Annie Howard Spinster, the daughter of the said Deceased.” An exemplified copy of this will was sent to Boston and recorded in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Volume lettered Probate Courts, 1761–1784, pp. 158, 159). It was also recorded in the Records of Land Evidence of Newport, Rhode Island, viii. 497, 498. It will be observed that the will makes no mention of any descendant of the testator except his daughter Ann; but see his letter to Judge Iredell (above, p. 392) in which he refers to his “little family,” and Sabine’s statement quoted above (p. 387, note).

811 For this and other extracts from the Register of Trinity Church, Newport, I am indebted to the courtesy of its Rector, the Rev. Henry M. Stone. I also wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to our associates Mr. Albert Matthews, Mr. Henry W. Cunningham and Mr. Henry E. Woods for valuable aid in the preparation of this paper.

812 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 306; xxx. 58.

813 See Bond’s Genealogies and History of Watertown, pp. 905, 906, for a sketch of this family of Spooner. See also Suffolk Probate Files, Nos. 13.391 and 14.399.

814 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxii. 250.

815 Ibid. xxx. 470. Elizabeth Sparhawk was also a lineal descendant of Chief-Justice Sewall and a niece of the second Sir William Pepperrell (Materials for a Genealogy of the Sparhawk Family in New England, in Essex Historical Collections, vols, xxv., xxvi., xxvii.). Her father, Nathaniel Sparhawk, Jr., married his cousin-german Catherine Sparhawk, 1 January, 1766, at Kittery (Kittery Church Records), where their eldest daughter, Elizabeth — recorded Eliza — was baptized, 6 December, 1767 (Ibid.).

816 The Jarvis Family (Hartford, 1879), p. 209 gives the date of Elizabeth Sparhawk Spooner’s birth as 25 November, 1799.

817 The Register of Trinity Church records the burial of Mrs. Mary Greenleaf, wife of Stephen Greenleaf, Esq., 23 September, 1780, at the age of 68.

818 Little Cambridge, legally known as the Third Precinct of Cambridge, was that part of the town which was south of the Charles River. It was incorporated as the town of Brighton 24 February, 1807.

819 For notices of Charles Apthorp and his family, his portrait, and a view of his mural monument, see Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 142–147, 466.

820 The Life and Letters of Charles Bulfinch, Architect, 1896, p. 70.

821 These children of John and Hannah (Greenleaf) Apthorp, born between 1766 and 1772, were named Hannah, Frances Western, and John Trecothick. I have been unable to find any public record of their birth or baptism. (i) Hannah married her cousin, Charles Bulfinch, the architect, 20 November, 1788 (Trinity Church Register), and died 8 April, 1841, aged 74 (Boston City Records), (ii) Frances Western married Charles Vaughan, 7 July, 1791 (Trinity Church Register), and died at Hallowell, Maine, 10 August, 1836 (Letter of Francis W. Vaughan). A family letter, dated 27 February, 1790, states that she would be of age in November of that year, (iii) John Trecothick died 8 April, 1849, aged 79 years, 3 months, and 15 days (Boston City Records).

John Apthorp’s will, dated 8 October, 1771, was proved 19 December, 1772. It makes generous provision for his two daughters in England, Grizzell and Catharine, children of his first wife,¹ and for his then wife, Hannah (Greenleaf), and her three children. He names as one of his executors his brother-in-law Martin Howard, Chief-Justice of North Carolina, who accepted the trust (Middlesex Probate Files).

Sheriff Stephen Greenleaf, the last to hold the shrievalty in Suffolk under the Crown, was so fortunate as to escape the confiscation of his property at the Revolution. He was rich and lived on a fine estate in Tremont Street facing the Common. His mansion was adorned with many fine portraits from the pencils of Blackburn and Copley, which have survived to our own time. The portrait of himself and that of his daughter Mrs. Davis are owned by Mrs. Stephen Greenleaf Bulfinch of Cambridge (see above, p. 390, note). In his will, dated 15 May, 1787, proved 10 February, 1795, he bequeaths to his daughters Mary Phips and Abigail Howard all his family portraits except that of his daughter Hannah Apthorp, deceased, which he gives to her children. He then devises two fifth parts of all his real and personal estate to his daughter Mary Phips, and two fifth parts to his daughter Abigail Howard. The following paragraph of the will explains the reason for this unusual division of his property and recalls the fallen fortunes of two of his sons-in-law: —

Item. In consideration of the children of my late daughter Apthorp, deceased, having a handsome estate left them by their father, and considering also the reduced circumstances of my two aforesaid daughters by the late War, I think it right and hope they will esteem it so to give only the remaining fifth part of my estate to my said Grandchildren, and accordingly I do hereby give and bequeath to Hannah Apthorp, Frances Western Apthorp and John Trecothick Apthorp, the three children of my daughter Hannah Apthorp, deceased, one fifth part of all my estate, real and personal, to be divided equally between them or the survivors of them their heirs and assigns forever as they shall respectively come of age.

The executors named in the will are the Rev. Dr. Samuel Parker, Joseph Greene, William Scollay and the testator’s daughter, Abigail Howard (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 20.395).

Sheriff Greenleaf’s mansion has been described by Col. John T. Apthorp, one of the orphan grandchildren referred to: —

You know the place where their childhood was spent, — the fine old house, standing back from the street, on about the spot where Temple Place now is, the whole space to the corner of West Street being enclosed in the garden attached to the house (afterwards known as Washington Gardens). I remember well the low brick wall that enclosed it, and the fine old trees that overhung the street, and the belt of shrubbery that bordered the wall (The Life and Letters of Charles Bulfinch, Architect, 1896, p. 70).

This estate was acquired by Mr. Greenleaf by several purchases between 1742 and 1754. It had a frontage of two hundred and ninety-two feet on Tremont Street on which it measured one hundred and forty-two feet and four inches. The lot was two hundred and ten feet deep on the north-easterly line, — next to the church property; but the symmetry of the estate was destroyed by a lot having a frontage of sixty-five feet and nine inches on West Street and a depth of one hundred and ten feet which Mr. Greenleaf did not acquire. This property was appraised at Mr. Greenleaf’s death at the modest sum of $15,000. It was sold by his executors for $18,166.66 to Henry Jackson, Esquire, of Boston (Suffolk Deeds, clxxxii. 229), and later was conveyed to Trustees for Madam Swan. As an illustration of the enormous rise in the value of real estate in Boston during the past century, it is interesting to note that the sixteen estates now constituting the Greenleaf property, — seven on Tremont Street, eight on Temple Place, and one on West Street, — were taxed in 1902 by the Boston assessors for $3,714,000, of which amount $3,297,800 was on the 38,938 square feet of land, and $416,200 on the buildings.

¹ Mr. Apthorp’s first wife was Alice (or Alicia) Mann, born 30 May, 1739, daughter of Galfridus Mann and niece of Sir Horace Mann, British Ambassador to Florence from 1740 till his death, 6 November, 1786 (Betham’s Baronetage, 1803, iii. 255, which gives his name as Horatio). She died at Gibraltar, 20 October, 1763 (Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 143, 144, notes). Her brother Horatio Mann (1737–1814), who succeeded his uncle in the baronetcy, changed his given name to Horace, and thus, perhaps, arose the confusion in the minds of American writers who have described Mrs. Apthorp, some as sister and others as niece of Sir Horace Mann, British Minister at Florence.

822 Suffolk Probate Files, Nos. 15.270, 15.271, 15.272.

823 Trinity Church Register.

824 Suffolk Deeds, clxxxii. 78. Madam Howard’s executor sold this estate for $6,000 to John Quincy Adams, 18 January, 1802 (Ibid. cc. 45).

825 A block of sixteen three-story brick dwelling houses built by Bulfinch on the south-westerly side of Franklin Place between Hawley Street and what is now Devonshire Street. A plan and elevation of the Tontine Crescent appeared in the Massachusetts Magazine for February, 1794 (iv. facing 65), which states that the entire range of the Crescent will be four hundred and eighty feet long, that half of it is nearly completed, and that work upon the remainder will be pushed in the spring (Ibid. p. 67). The Plan is reproduced in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for April, 1794, i. between 66, 67. This block of houses stood until about 1855 when they gave place to stores and warehouses. See The Life and Letters of Charles Bulfinch, Architect, 1896, pp. 97–104.

826 The beautiful Miss Emily Marshall, afterwards Mrs. William Foster Otis, also lived with her father, Josiah Marshall, in the Tontine Crescent, — in the house nearest to the Federal Street Theatre, which Mr. Marshall bought in 1823 (Suffolk Deeds, cclxxxi. 134).

827 Mr. Apthorp had been a Warden of Christ Church, Cambridge, in 1796; and he was Treasurer and Receiver General of the Commonwealth, 1812–1817.

828 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 21.249.

829 The Trinity Church Register records her burial 5 October, 1801.

830 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 21.534. The will is dated 10 October, 1798, and was proved 13 October, 1801.

831 Among these bequests is one to her niece Frances Western Apthorp, daughter of John and Hannah (Greenleaf) Apthorp, who subsequently married Charles Vaughan, Senior, whose son, Charles Vaughan, Jr., was the father of Mr. Francis Wales Vaughan, the Librarian of the Social Law Library, who discovered the identity of the Copley canvas, long in his official custody.

832 David Phips (H. C. 1741) was a son of Lieutenant-Governor Spencer Phips. Born in Cambridge, 25 September, 1724, he held the offices of Colonel of the militia, Representative to the General Court, in 1753, and Sheriff of Middlesex, 1764–1774. He married Mary Greenleaf, eldest daughter of the Sheriff of Suffolk, 13 September, 1753 (Trinity Church Register), by whom he had seven children (1757–1770). He inherited his father’s homestead on Arrow Street, near Bow Street, Cambridge, later known as the William Winthrop estate, where he resided till the Revolution, when he adhered to the Crown. Paige says that he “went with his family to England, where he died, 7 July, 1811. His estate here was confiscated; but the loss was repaired by benefits which the British Government bestowed on him and on his children” (History of Cambridge, p. 627).

833 The Inventory mentions the portrait of Judge Howard which is appraised at fifty dollars, and “5 painted, 2 Gilt frame family Pictures $100” (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 21.534).

834 Suffolk Probate Files, Nos. 21.596, 21.597, 21.598.

835 Dr. Spooner graduated at Harvard College in 1778. He was an Overseer of the College (1810–1834), Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

836 For these and other facts pertaining to the Spooners I am indebted to the kindness and courtesy of Miss Isabella Mary Hubbard Jarvis of East Oakland, California, a daughter of Edward Scott Jarvis. The following extract from a recent letter of Miss Jarvis is of interest: —

I remember very distinctly seeing the Commission of Chief-Justice Howard in my Aunt’s [Anna Howard (Spooner) Jarvis] possession. It was written on parchment, signed by the King’s own hand, sealed with the Royal Seal, and tied with a broad blue ribbon. I wish that I had it now; it would be almost invaluable, but it was destroyed by fire long years since.

837 Edward Scott Jarvis was Collector of the Customs for the District of Frenchman’s Bay, Maine, 1818–1841 (Letter of the Hon. James Phinney Baxter).

838 The Jarvis Family, Hartford, 1879, p. 209 and Supplement, p. 12.

839 The Life and Letters of Charles Bulfinch, Architect, 1896, pp. 239, 288.

840 See Suffolk Deeds, ccccii. 302, and ccccv. 233.

841 Mr. Jarvis’s first wife was Miss Mary Hubbard Greene of Boston, to whom he was married 15 August, 1816, by his classmate the Rev. Charles Lowell (West Church Records).

842 Town Records of Surry.

843 As we have already stated (above, p. 385, note), Chief-Justice Shaw was a Trustee of the Social Law Library in 1829 when Mrs. Jarvis, then Anna Howard Spooner and sister-in-law to Leonard Jarvis, gave her grandfather’s portrait into its keeping.

844 Palmer’s Necrology of Alumni of Harvard College, 1864, p. 39.

845 Rhode Island Colonial Records, v. 8–14

846 Cf. William Douglass’s Summary, etc. (edition of 1749), i. 493, 494.

847 History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay (edition of 1767), ii. 436.

848 14 George II. c. xxxvii. The Statutes at Large (edition of 1742), vii. 473, 474.

849 See Publications of this Society, iii, 22, 23.

850 See Ibid. vi. 157–172.

851 See Publications of this Society, vi. 305–307.

852 History of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay (edition of 1767), ii. 395, 396.

853 This document was communicated by Mr. Davis to the Society at its February Meeting. See above, p. 380.

854 “Debitis nobis pastorem qui reformabit et eriget collapsam ecclesiam.”

855 The date of the election is found in the Histoire Générale d’Espagne by Ferreras translated into French by Hermilly, 1751, viii. 531. In the biographical dictionaries, the year only is given.

856 The reference is to Dr. Allen’s work, which was first published in January, 1861, entitled Hebrew Men and Times from the Patriarchs to the Messiah.

857 The reference is to Dr. Allen’s work, which was first published in January, 1861, entitled Hebrew Men and Times from the Patriarchs to the Messiah.

858 Manchester New College, now Manchester College, Oxford.

859 James Martineau, D.D., LL.D., was born in Norwich, England, 21 April, 1805. His early education was in the Norwich Grammar School and the school of the Rev. Lant Carpenter at Bristol. In 1821 he began to prepare for the calling of a civil engineer, but deeply moved by the death of a young friend, a minister, he decided to enter the ministry. He spent five years at Manchester College, taught for a year, and then, in 1828, was ordained as a minister in Dublin. From Dublin, three years later, he went to Liverpool, where he remained for twenty-five years; during this period he published Endeavours after the Christian Life, became one of the editors of the Prospective Review (later succeeded by the National Review), and began to teach in Manchester College. In 1853 the College was removed to London, and in 1858 Mr. Martineau found it necessary to remove there also. From 1858 to 1869, in addition to his work as a teacher, he was, with John James Tayler, the Principal of Manchester College (then become Manchester New College, London), joint minister of the Little Portland Street Chapel. On Mr. Tayler’s death, in 1869, Mr. Martineau succeeded him as Principal and also continued in charge of the Little Portland Street pulpit alone till 1872, when he resigned the pulpit. In 1885 he resigned as Principal of Manchester New College, after serving it for forty-five years in all. In the period which followed, he published first his Types of Ethical Theory, then, in 1887, his Study of Religion and, in 1890, the Seat of Authority in Religion. He was one of the Foreign Honorary Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He died 11 January, 1900. A full account of his life and work is given in A. W. Jackson’s James Martineau, a Biography and Study, Boston, 1900.

In an article entitled James Martineau, in the Atlantic Monthly for September, 1900 (lxxxvi. 317–327), our associate Dr. Charles Carroll Everett closes with these words: —

His [Martineau’s] power consists in the fact that he dwelt among the realities which systems so imperfectly represent. To some who love and admire him most, the Endeavours after the Christian Life is still regarded as his best contribution to the world. Others find most inspirations in his splendid personality, all aglow as it was with religious faith. He had fairly faced doubt and denial. He had explored the gloomiest stretches of world-weary speculation, and he could still stand in all the joy of his first faith, and proclaim that –

God’s in his heaven,

All’s right with the world.

Whatever we may think of his system as a whole, his works will long remain a storehouse of important thoughts in regard to the matters with which philosophy and theology have to do. It is pleasant to remember that the first collection of his miscellaneous works was made and published in this country, and that Harvard was the first university to give him official recognition.

860 Hebrew Men and Times from the Patriarchs to the Messiah.

861 In 1853, the President and Fellows of Harvard College had filed a petition asking the Supreme Judicial Court to decree the separation of the Harvard Divinity School from the University. The Society for Promoting Theological Education, which, from its organization in 1816, had taken large part in maintaining the Divinity School, was expected to assume entire charge of the School in case the petition was granted, and in 1859 agreed, though reluctantly, to do so, at the same time protesting against the step as “unnecessary and inexpedient.” “The Court reserved its decision from year to year, till, in 1865, under a change of views on the part of the Corporation [the President and Fellows], the petition was dismissed by the Court at the request of that body.” (The Society for Promoting Theological Education, printed in 1898 and made up in large part from the pamphlet compiled by Rev. William Newell, D.D., Secretary of the Society, in 1877).

The constitution of the Faculty of the Harvard Divinity School has been for twenty years or more substantially that here suggested by Mr. Martineau; the professors have been chosen both as “eminent for learning and candour” and as representing “different theological complexions.”

862 John James Tayler, Principal of Manchester New College, London (now Manchester College, Oxford), from 1853 till 1869 when Mr. Tayler died and Mr. Martineau succeeded him.

863 Rev. Edward Everett Hale.

864 The allusion is to Mr. Allen’s removal to a new home, at Jamaica Plain.

865 Hebrew Men and Times from the Patriarchs to the Messiah.

866 The reference is to the London Inquirer, newspaper, an organ of the English Unitarians. It is not improbable that this letter of Mr. Allen was addressed to the Editor of the Inquirer.

867 The passage occurs in a letter to the editor of the Glasgow Herald, dated 20 January, 1863, printed in The Liberator of 20 February, 1863, xxxiii. 29/5.

868 The Rev. Stephen Higginson Tyng, D.D., of the Harvard Class of 1817, is doubtless here referred to.

869 Dr. Allen was editor of the Christian Examiner, at first in the department of current literature only, from July, 1857, till November, 1869.

870 In the History of the Harvard Church in Charlestown (Boston, 1879), p. 204, note, is an account of the Christian Examiner Society, which was organized 27 January, 1829, and disbanded 5 February, 1863. The Examiner continued to be published till November, 1869. It was succeeded in 1870 by Old and New, which survived till 1875.

871 Democracy on Trial, by William Francis Allen, in the Christian Examiner for March, 1863, lxxiv. 262–294

872 Edward Tertius Whitfield, a publisher, chiefly of Unitarian works, in the Strand.

873 It should be remembered that Dr. Martineau belonged to the high Tory party and naturally reflected its opinions.

874 James Spence, author of The American Union, — a Defence of the South.

875 Francis W. Newman.

876 Rev. Edward Brooks Hall, D.D. (1800–1866), H. C. 1820.

877 The allusion here is to Charles Henry Pearson, who in July, 1862, succeeded R. H. Hutton as editor of the National Review, a position which he retained for one year. See Charles Henry Pearson, edited by William Stebbing, 1900, pp. 94–96; and the Dictionary of National Biography, xliv. 162–164.

878 The Emancipation Proclamation.

879 It is a matter of regret that a gap in the preserved correspondence occurs at this point. It would have been interesting to read what Dr. Martineau wrote to Dr. Allen after what he had declared to be “impossible objects” had become accomplished facts.

880 Dr. Allen was Lecturer on Ecclesiastical History in the Harvard Divinity School from 1878 till 1882.

881 Christian History in its Three Great Periods.

882 The reference is to George Croom Robertson (1842–1892), a graduate of the University of Aberdeen in which he was made assistant-professor of Greek in 1864. At the time of his appointment (1866) to the professorship of Mental Philosophy and Logic in University College, London, Dr. Martineau was also a candidate. Robertson belonged to the empirical school of philosophy and for that reason had the active support of Grote and Mill against Dr. Martineau.

883 William Kingdon Clifford (1845–1879), F.R.S., a mathematician and philosophical writer of note. He was a graduate and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Professor of Applied Mathematics in University College, London.

884 Study of Religion: Its Sources and Contents. Dr. C. C. Everett’s Notice appeared in the Unitarian Review for June, 1888. xxix. 485–508.

885 Rev. James Edwin Odgers, D.D.

886 Of which a copy is at the rooms of the American Unitarian Association.

Dr. Odgers writes to me as follows concerning this “proposal”: —

I have no doubt that this refers to a matter discussed between myself and Mr. Allen, — first opened to me by him when I was in Boston in October, 1888. I regret that I cannot lay my hands upon documents in relation to it; but I destroyed a number of letters and papers when I left Bowdon for Oxford, in 1894. The successor of the National Review, the Modern Review, and the revived Christian Reformer had come to an end; and in 1888, the English Liberal Non-conformists were without an “organ” of the higher and more solid sort. I believe I am right in saying that Mr. Allen proposed to me (October 10, 1888) to attempt turning the Unitarian Review into an International Theological Quarterly, England to furnish a sufficient subsidy and a co-editor. On my return, I printed and circulated his letter, asking for expressions of opinion, which were discouraging. To this, Dr. Martineau undoubtedly refers in January of the next year. His reasons are based upon just the same sort of considerations as he refers to in his memorable letter to Mr. Allen printed at the end of Mr. A.’s Unitarianism Since the Reformation (1894), pp. 247–249 . . . . Dr. Martineau would have nothing to do with a Unitarian Review; and Boston intended to fly that flag.

887 See above, p. 441, note 2.

888 An English penny weekly magazine of a sort indicated sufficiently by its title.

889 Professor Charles Barnes Upton, of Manchester New College.

890 Rev. James Edwin Odgers, D.D. Mr. Allen was a guest of Mr. Odgers at his house in Bowdon, Cheshire, at the time this letter was written.

891 Miss Mary Catharine Jevons was a cousin of William Stanley Jevons, LL.D., F.R.S., the economist and logician.

892 Our senior Vice-President, William Watson Goodwin, D.C.L., calls my attention to the fact that in using this Greek word (meaning man-midwife) Dr. Martineau “refers to the common, jocose remark of Socrates, that he was the son of a midwife (see Plat. Theaet. 149 A, ὡς ἓγώ εἰμι υἱὸς μαίας), and that he acted as a midwife to deliver other men of the thoughts that were in them, though he never gave birth to anything new himself. This is found in the Theaetetus, after the words quoted.”

893 By the Rev. Howard N. Brown, in The Unitarian for October, 1890, v. 490–492.

894 Frederic Henry Hedge, the leading article in the Unitarian Review for October, 1890, xxxiv. 281–301, written by Mr. Allen, then editor of the Review.

895 Memorial of Joseph and Lucy Clark Allen (Northborough, Massachusetts). By their children. Boston, 1891.

896 Positive Religion: Essays, Fragments and Hints, Boston, 1891.

897 Dr. Martineau’s statement is not strictly accurate. Mrs. Martineau was Helen Higginson, eldest daughter of the Rev. Edward Higginson (1781–1832), Unitarian minister and schoolmaster at Stockport and Derby. She was married at Derby 18 December, 1828, and died 9 November, 1877, at the age of seventy-three (Dictionary of National Biography, xxvi. 372; and Supplement, iii. 146–151).

Mrs. Kirkland, born Elizabeth Cabot, was baptized at Beverly, Massachusetts, 2 October, 1785, married at King’s Chapel, Boston, 2 September, 1827, and died 17 August, 1839. She was a daughter of the Hon. George Cabot, United States Senator from Massachusetts, and his wife Elizabeth Higginson, daughter of Stephen and Elizabeth (Cabot) Higginson. Stephen Higginson (1743–1828), the eminent merchant of Boston and the reputed author of the Writings of Laco, was Mrs. Kirkland’s maternal uncle and the father of Stephen Higginson (1770–1834), long Steward of Harvard College who was sometimes styled the Man of Boss.

898 Miss Caroline Julia Bartlett, ordained in 1889, since the wife of Dr. Augustus Warren Crane of Kalamazoo, Michigan. She is now called Mrs. Bartlett Crane.

899 Monton is a suburb of Manchester. Miss Bartlett preached in the pulpit of Dr. Martineau’s nephew, the Rev. Philip Higginson, whose church is regarded as the most beautiful Unitarian Chapel in England.

900 An Historical Sketch of the Unitarian Movement since the Reformation (American Church History Series), New York, 1894.

901 The reference is to Dr. Allen’s golden wedding anniversary which occurred 22 May, 1895.

902 The Old School and its Work. An Address before the Alumni of the Harvard Divinity School, 23 June, 1896. It is also printed in Dr. Allen’s Sequel to Our Liberal Movement, Boston, 1897, pp. 1–21.

903 Daughter of Dr. Frederic H. Hedge.

904 Sequel to Our Liberal Movement, Boston, 1897.

905 The reference is to Miss Anna Swanwick (1813–1899), LL.D. She was a Hebrew, Greek and German scholar, and translator, and was deeply interested in social questions, especially that of women’s education. She was of the Councils of Queen’s and Bedford Colleges, London, and assisted in founding Girton College, Cambridge, and Somerville Hall, Oxford. A prominent Unitarian and a delightful conversationist, Miss Swanwick was the friend of Crabb Robinson, Tennyson, Gladstone, Browning, Martineau and Sir James Paget who, with many other distinguished men, were frequent visitors at her house. She received from the University of Aberdeen the degree of Doctor of Laws (Dictionary of National Biography, Supplement, iii. 374).

906 Many of the details of this episode were printed in McClure’s Magazine for December, 1898, xii. 179–185.