MARCH MEETING, 1918

A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at the house of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 28 Newbury Street, Boston, on Thursday, 28 March, 1918, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, Fred Norms Robinson, Ph.D., in the chair.

The Records of the last Stated Meeting were read and approved.

The President announced the death, on the twenty-seventh instant, of the Rev. Edward Hale, a Resident Member. Mr. Henry W. Cunningham paid the following tribute to his memory:

The Society has lost one of its valued members by the death yesterday of the Rev. Edward Hale at his home in Chestnut Hill. Born at Northampton, February 22, 1858, the son of William Bainbridge and Harriet Amelia (Porter) Hale, he prepared for college at Phillips Exeter Academy and was graduated from Harvard in 1879 with high rank as a scholar. He spent the next three years in Italy tutoring the sons of Mrs. Langdon Williams, who had lived for a number of years in Rome. The following year he was secretary to President Eliot and gave some time during that year and the next at Harvard and under H. H. Richardson to the study of architecture, which he had expected to make his profession. But he finally decided to give up this work, though it was always an avocation of interest, and in later years amidst other duties he had the pleasure of designing houses for his brother, for several friends, and finally made the plans for his own home at Chestnut Hill.

In January, 1884, he entered the Harvard Divinity School, where he received the degree of S.T.B. in 1886; and then, after a summer spent in France and the Island of Jersey, he was on October 14, 1886, ordained and at the same time installed as Associate Minister of the South Congregational Church (Unitarian) of Boston, of which the Rev. Dr. Edward Everett Hale was the beloved pastor, though these two ministers were probably not related — certainly not near of kin.

Here he remained for nearly five years, during which time he served as secretary of a society for the relief of aged clergymen and also as president for three years of the Benevolent Fraternity of Churches. In the spring of 1891 he became the first minister of the recently incorporated First Unitarian Church of Essex County at Orange, New Jersey, where he remained for six years. During this period he had given some instruction at the Harvard Divinity School, going to Cambridge once a fortnight, and in 1897 he became Assistant Professor of Homiletics there, retiring from his ministry at Orange. In addition to this work he served as an official of several church and charitable organizations in Cambridge and Boston, and one year, during the absence of Professor Peabody, had charge of the arrangements for Appleton’ Chapel. For a portion of one year he edited the Christian Register, and in addition, at the request of a committee of the Divinity Faculty, performed with a loving hand the difficult task of editing the lectures of the late Rev. Dr. Charles Carroll Everett. Dr. Everett had left no manuscript of these lectures and the only available material was the notes taken by students. In 1901 he was honored by the election as President of the Meadville Theological School, but decided not to accept.

In addition to his other duties, he had in 1897 taken charge of the First Church at Chestnut Hill, and as this church and its work grew he decided in 1906 to devote his time to this and resigned his positions at Cambridge.

He was married at Boston, June 19, 1889, to Emily Jose Milliken, daughter of Elias Tarbox and Emily Motley (Jose) Milliken. His widow and one daughter survive him, as well as a brother, Philip Hale of Brookline.

When we recount the interests and activities of this quiet gentleman, it is a wonder that he accomplished so much, for he touched nothing lightly and whatever he attempted he did conscientiously. A man of strong character and ability, his heart entered as warmly into his work as did his head. He wrote easily, and on some occasions in verse.

In 1904, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his graduation from Harvard, his Class of ’79 made him Class Secretary to fill a vacancy and in this work he endeared himself to his classmates.

He was chosen a member of this Society in 1900 and was often present at our meetings, and he served for three years as a member of our Council. His only literary work for the Society was a Memoir of the Rev. Dr. Edward Henry Hall.366

Mr. Charles M. Andrews, a Corresponding Member, spoke as follows:

Before presenting the paper which I am to read this afternoon, I should like to say something in my own behalf and in behalf of the work which this society is organized to promote. The Colonial Society of Massachusetts is, I believe, the only body in the country which according to the name it bears confines its attention to the study of colonial history. Its founders deliberately called it the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, and I like to think that in doing so they had in mind not a society for the study of the colonial history of Massachusetts, but a Massachusetts society for the study of colonial history. There is a world of difference in these two renderings of its meaning, and because I prefer to give to the name its more comprehensive connotation and to think of our society as concerned with colonial history in all its aspects I take the liberty of stating briefly what I think the word “colonial” really means. I have been trying, for some years — if you will pardon the intrusion of a much used colloquialism— to put the “colonial” into colonial history, and to find out just what that word signifies as applied to the period from 1607 to 1783.

The term “colonial,” as used in the phrase “the colonial period of American history,” is not merely a convenient distinction marking off a certain chronological epoch or characterizing a certain stage of our development as a nation. It bears within itself a peculiar significance defining a relationship between two peoples or governments, standing to each other as mother country and colonies. These are correlative terms, each of which directly implies or involves the other, and neither can stand by itself alone. A colony must have a mother country and a mother country must have a colony, and each is bound to be influenced by whatever that relationship demands. The extent and nature of the relationship may vary greatly in different cases, even becoming merely nominal as with the great self-governing dominions of Great Britain to-day or involving complete dependence as with the old Spanish colonies in America. But whatever form the relationship takes, the fact that it exists is the main thing to be considered in dealing with any period of history that bears the name “colonial,” for all other aspects of the period are certain to be influenced by this dominant feature. In it lies the key to our colonial history.

First of all, then, if we are to study our colonial era, not as antiquarians but as historians, we must comprehend exactly what is meant by our relationship with Great Britain during this period of a century and three-quarters, a period longer by forty years than that which covers our growth and experience as an independent people. To do this requires a careful study of British history as well as American. I do not believe that any one can write the history of the American colonies who has not followed the transformations which took place in British ideas and forms of government during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, traced the changes which came about in the foreign policies of those who had the destinies of the British Empire in their hands, and grasped the significant fact that British colonial methods were themselves an evolved product, gradually shaped during many years of travail and uncertainty and adapted more or less unconsciously to the demands of a state which was expanding from an island kingdom into a world empire. We cannot understand, in the historical sense of the word, what was happening in the colonies unless we understand what was happening in England at the same time. The colonies reflected at every point in their careers the changes of constitution, purpose, and policy that were effected in England during our colonial period. No history of the colonies is possible that does not take these changes into account. Much always depends on a child’s bringing up; the child may wish in his mature years to forget some of the features of his education, but he cannot ignore them as factors in his early life.

In the second place, in dealing with the colonies themselves, we must remember that no single colony existed in isolation and that the history of no colony can be adequately written if all influences lying beyond its borders are ignored. Yet in the past we have been inclined to approach the British colonies in America as if each were an independent, self-contained state. It is true that the only unity that the colonies possessed lay in their connection with the mother country and the only single aspect common to all was conformity to British policy and to the rules and regulations that governed Great Britain in the exercise of her sovereign power. Nevertheless the fact that the authority of the mother country was obeyed or resisted to various extents and in various degrees in the different colonies makes it clear that we can ascertain the position of one only as we ascertain the position of the others also. The colonies should be studied comparatively, for exclusive devotion to a single colony generally destroys one’s sense of proportion and perspective, and leads to exaggerations and extravagances. This is true not only in regard to the influence of British policy, but even more in the matter of intercolonial characteristics and contrasts. Such likenesses and unlikenesses are in importance second only to the relationship with the mother country. There were features, common to all, that were making for individualism, initiative, and self-reliance, for in many respects the colonies all together were moving toward a common goal — the development of a spirit of self-government and independence. At the same time there were other features, often deep-seated and antagonistic, that were rendering united action a delusion and a discouragement. Both sets of characteristics played their part in bringing on the Revolution. The growing radical spirit of independence, hostile to all restraints and conventions, finally dominated the situation after 1773; while the seeming hopelessness of concordant action and the failure of the whole system of voluntary quotas and requisitions of men and money placed the British government on the horns of a dillemma after 1763, when they sought to obtain aid from the colonies in order to organize and defend the newly acquired western lands. The Revolution was the work, not of one colony or two colonies but of many colonies, and all must be taken into account. Furthermore, such a comparative study will aid in dissipating prepossessions and prejudices due to a desire for local glorification, and will raise colonial history to the level of an historical subject, objectively and scientifically considered.

In the third place, the term “colonial” always indicates a connection between two different types or stages of political and social development: one, represented by the mother country, old, settled, highly-organized, with deeply-rooted respect for history, law, tradition, and precedent; the other, represented by the colonies, new, imperfectly settled, a frontier land instinct with individualism and possessed of a very rudimentary sense of obligation and duty, such as accompanies membership in a more compactly organized social group. So far as our colonial history is concerned, the inevitable outcome of such conditions was the presence, particularly in the days before the Revolution, of widely differing ways of feeling and thinking, due in part to history and environment and in part to experience and conviction, that caused men to approach each in his own way the difficult points at issue. In Great Britain they did not all have the same opinion regarding the duty of the government toward America, and in the colonies there were many men of conservative, moderate, and radical leanings, who disagreed fundamentally regarding the necessity or otherwise of the connection with the mother country. Students of colonial history should give full weight to these various states of mind and not restrict themselves to those only with which they may happen to be in sympathy. They should make it clear that from 1763 to 1773, in both countries, there were vicissitudes of conflict, forces working for reconciliation as well as for independence, with the moderates and peace-makers mainly in control. They should trace the factors in this conflict in order to understand why after 1773 the extremists in both countries, reactionaries in Great Britain and radicals in America, gradually consolidating into parties, gained the upper hand, with the resultant coercion on one side and revolt on the other. It is impossible to be fair and impartial in treating the colonial phase of the situation if we study, as is usually done, only the radical side and, by calling its supporters “patriots” and glorifying their every action, disguise the fact that they were agitators and revolutionists — often uncontrolled and lawless men. It is equally impossible to be just if we ignore the credit due the moderates, made up of the propertied and mercantile classes and of those who honestly preferred the British connection or were true to their allegiance due the British crown, and cast them all out as Tories and enemies to their country. No good is done by calling every Son of Liberty a hero of unsullied motives and extolling his merits above those of other and sometimes better and wiser men. Many a Son of Liberty was a law-breaker and disturber of the peace, construing liberty in terms of muscle and not of right. Language is often the worst enemy of the truth, and nouns and adjectives, like figures and statistics, can be made to lie with exceeding facility. Much of the writing on the pre-Revolutionary period is rendered historically unsound quite as much by stresses and omissions as by deliberate perversions of the facts. As there have been neglected periods of colonial history, such as that from 1690 to 1750, and neglected phases, such as those of colonial commerce and the relationship with Great Britain, so there are neglected aspects of thought and opinion, such as characterized the men opposed to extremes of action in both countries, who though they failed in the end are deserving of as careful a consideration at the hands of the historian as are those who carried the day for revolt in the years before 1776.

Mr. Andrew then read the following paper, written by Dr. Ralph V. Harlow of Simmons College:

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

The brevity of this essay will render unnecessary the statement that it does not purport to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject: it is rather in the nature of an introduction, written with the hope that it may call attention to what is certainly a neglected aspect of the Revolution. The material used was gathered in the course of a fairly minute examination of the sources of Massachusetts history for this period. The aim of that work, however, was political and constitutional, but it brought up so many sidelights on economic conditions that it seemed worth while to put them in accessible form.

Without attempting to summarize the earlier issues, it may be pointed out that the Boston Tea Party had served not only to disclose the strength of the radicals in Massachusetts, but also to focus the attention of Parliament and the administration directly upon what many Englishmen regarded as the stubborn perversity of the colony. It became only too clear that a crisis of some kind was imminent, and the foreboding which consequently prevailed had already begun to leave unmistakable marks on the business world. In January, 1774, John Adams, then a young lawyer of promise, viewed with something akin to alarm the collapse of his practice, which, he wrote, had been “totally annihilated” for the year past, by the “inauspicious course of public affairs.”367 Such a complaint from a successful attorney indicates that general business prosperity must have been at a very low ebb.

If the agitation over the tea produced a cessation of business activity, the Port Bill ruined it, so far as Boston was concerned. By the summer of 1774, merchants were complaining in earnest. Incomes ceased, and as for collecting debts, John Andrews wrote that “you might as well ask a man for the teeth out of his head as to request the payment of money that he owes you.”368

What the Port Bill did for Boston alone the Association did for the whole province. The essence of that arrangement was a stringent non-export and non-import agreement, theoretically voluntary, actually enforced by the revolutionary committees. It fell to the Provincial Congress to carry out the recommendations of the national body. In order to prevent the further buying or selling of either British or West Indian goods, and to see that the Association was “strictly executed,” the local Congress urged all towns which had not already done so to appoint committees of inspection. These committees were authorized to seize the goods of recalcitrant traders. In accordance with this recommendation, the town of Boston appointed a committee of sixty-three, to enforce the edict.369

The result was all that could be desired. In December, 1774, John Adams reported “a total stagnation of . . . commerce almost.” Business was so completely at a standstill that artizans could find no employment, and no one could pay his debts. To make matters worse, the courts had been closed since September, so that even though the stubborn debtor had property, the creditor had no means of enforcing settlement.370 Thus the actual outbreak of hostilities was preceded by the collapse of commercial activity; business was at an end, and the debt collecting machinery was in ruins.371

During the first year of the war, conditions did not materially change. Boston, to be sure, was besieged by the American troops, and it naturally suffered, but the rest of the province encountered nothing more serious than it had already experienced. Trade naturally did not revive at once as soon as war was declared. For one thing, the non-exportation agreement was “sacredly observed” as late as November 5, 1775, and so intense was the feeling that it could not have been violated with safety.372 Then the fact that Britain was a naval power would make the resumption of commerce somewhat difficult. Privateering, carried on extensively toward the end of the war, was hardly under way in 1776. Because of the shutting off of imports, European and West Indian goods were scarce and costly. Provisions, however, were “plenty and cheap,” while beef was “a drug,” and the farmers were complaining that the commissary sent to Connecticut for all his beef.373 Apparently there was no cause for undue alarm. Opportunities for making money had of course been curtailed in some directions, as the inevitable result of war, but there seems to have been no difficulty in getting enough to eat. This, too, it should be noted, was the situation while Massachusetts was the principal scene of military operations, when, theoretically, economic conditions should have been at least as bad as at any subsequent period of the struggle.

Instead of bringing an improvement, however, the evacuation of Boston by the British was speedily followed by a disquieting change for the worse. The causes of this unexpected turn were both various and complex. In the first place, the reversal was certainly accompanied, if not actually occasioned, by a series of important legislative enactments. These statutes violated principles which economists call laws, and produced results which were in themselves distinguishing features of the period. For one thing, the General Court and the Continental Congress proceeded to dabble with that already well-known American form of alchemy: the attempt to transmute paper into gold, or at least into its equivalent. Consequently a brief survey of the fiscal policy of the government up to the end of 1777 will be of considerable assistance in any attempt to describe and explain economic conditions. From 1774 to 1777, inclusive, the state emitted bills of credit to the amount of £500,042. For the same period, treasurer’s certificates aggregating £656,000 were issued. But this was a mere nothing compared with the tremendous flood of continental currency that was literally poured into the state. Congress rather than the General Court was the guilty party when it came to wholesale inflation. It is impossible to estimate how much of this paper was in circulation, but some idea of its volume can be gathered from the attempts of Massachusetts to redeem her share of it. In 1780 the state issued £460,000 in bills of credit to help call in some of the continental notes, and shortly afterward voted a tax of £5,601,025 for the same purpose.374

In order to give proper weight to these various issues in 1776 the General Court passed a law not only to make the bills of credit of both Massachusetts and the United States legal tender in all payments, but also to prevent their depreciation. Any person convicted of receiving or paying out bills of credit for an amount less than their face value was declared ineligible to any civil or military office, and fined £40 for each offence. Moreover, a fine of £20 was imposed for offering to sell goods at lower prices for gold or silver than for paper.375 Although credit was being piled up in this generous fashion, the legislature was not inclined to vote correspondingly heavy taxes. The amounts called for are significant: £46,000 in 1775; none at all in 1776; £101,875 in January, 1777; and £205,662 in December of the same year.376

Thus the egg of paper money was laid, and out of it there was hatched, not merely one ugly duckling, but a whole brood. Depreciation, with the inevitable accompaniment of rising prices, was in evidence early in 1776. Colonel Otis wrote that the currency had depreciated, and that some persons refused to take it on any account.377 By midsummer the cost of living had doubled over the previous year. Not only were imported goods expensive, because of shortage due to the war, but all foodstuffs raised in the vicinity had advanced to “a very great price,” to quote Abigail Adams. Incidentally she was careful to point out that the high cost of the necessaries of life was by no means due to any real scarcity of provisions.378 It is clear that prices had begun to respond to the pressure of a steadily increasing volume of currency.

Rising prices, however, are not the only offspring of monetary inflation. Fluctuating or uncertain values generally appeal to the gambling instinct, and even thus early there are traces of a propensity towards speculation. In May, 1776, James Sullivan wrote that “public virtue is almost swallowed up in a desire of possessing paper currency; and parsimony, in the modest and charming dress of frugality, together with covetousness, . . . does us much injury.”379 Along with this tendency there was also to be found the time-honored disinclination to pay debts.380

Furthermore, this combination of cheap money and rising prices, along with the evidence of speculation, was bound to create suspicion and ill-will among the various groups and interests in the state. When the ordinary foodstuffs were raised right here in the state, it seemed absurd to pay twice as much for them as before. Something was wrong, clearly enough, and it was not long before both the farmer and the merchant began to make invidious remarks about each other’s greed. Abigail Adams was convinced that both parties were guilty of taking advantage of the prevailing financial and commercial conditions to reap exorbitant profits.381 Thus the financial experiment of the state and nation combined to unsettle still further conditions in a community, the ordinary economic life of which had already been deranged by war.

This unprecedented and disquieting advance in the cost of living seemed to be entirely unnecessary. In such a time of stress it was natural for the citizens to turn to the government for aid, as they did. But instead of blaming the legislature for its unsound financial policy, the people demanded action that would check the too profitable careers of greedy, extortionate dealers. Laws of economics are intangible things at best, and it was the grocer and butcher who actually took the money. If these unscrupulous speculators were really forcing up prices, as charged, the most obvious remedy was regulation by the government, and the General Court was not at all averse to a trial of strength with the marketmen. Surely if the legislature could manufacture money out of paper, and give it a value by statute, it could also control prices. In January, 1777, therefore, a law with the following preamble was passed: “Whereas the avaricious conduct of many persons, by daily adding to the now exorbitant prices of every necessary and convenient article of life and increasing the price of labour in general, unless a speedy and effectual stop be put thereto, will be attended with the most fatal and pernicious consequences. . . .” The Act went on to impose maximum prices for almost all the ordinary necessaries of life: food, fuel, and wearing apparel, as well as for day labor382

The prices named in the law applied to Boston. For other towns the respective selectmen were authorized to regulate prices in accordance with this scale, making the necessary allowances for differences in the cost of transportation. The law was also designed to prevent engrossing, and to that end the selectmen were empowered to seize goods held for gain, and also to confiscate the stock of merchants who refused to comply with the regulations.

So far as achieving its immediate aim was concerned, the measure was a failure, as a glance at the table of prices will show. Even if enforced, it is difficult to see how a mere statute could have put a stop to the evils let loose by financial inflation, and this law was not enforced. For example, James Warren wrote that the regulating act had been observed in some places, and disregarded in others, particularly in Boston, “where it is constantly violated in open daylight.” He considered the measure impracticable, because of its tendency to bring the authority of government into disrepute. Then Robert Treat Paine reported that the act, which had been urgently called for by almost everyone, was then “reprobated by many and obeyed by few.” Abigail Adams added her testimony, to the effect that the law was “no more heeded than if it had never been made.”383

The foregoing comments reveal how generally the law failed to accomplish its proper object. There is other evidence which indicates that the measure served to accentuate the growing cleavage between the producers on the one hand and the merchant and consumer on the other. Whatever may have been the cause, whether mere coincidence or conscious action by the farmer, certain it is that the towns were confronted by an uncomfortable shortage of food, and it is equally clear that for this situation they held the countrymen responsible. On January 31, three days after the law went into effect, William Pynchon of Salem wrote in his diary that “The contest between farmers and Salem traders, etc., as to prices of meal begins; the farmer threatens to starve the seaports.” In March Rufus King wrote from Cambridge that “Many towns this way are reduced to great Distress, by reason of the Act of the Genl. Assembly, stating the Prices of the necessaries of life. No Provisions brought to market. No Wood.” Families were moving out of town, and conditions were as bad as they had been during the siege. Two weeks later James Warren reported from Boston that the act in question “has yet produced no other consequences but bitterness and wrath between the Town and Country, the last of which is endeavouring to starve the Town in return for what they consider ill usage from them and have succeeded so well, that the market here is little superiour to what it was in the siege.”384

This shortage seems to have lasted through the spring and early summer of 1777. In April, according to Abigail Adams, there was a deficiency of all kinds of supplies, necessaries of life as well as luxuries. Then in July she reported a great scarcity in particular of coffee and sugar, and she inferred that the trouble was due to hoarding. Also Pynchon wrote that the people of Marblehead and Salem were quarreling for bread at the baker’s, and that there was a “scramble at the wharf in weighing out and selling Capt. Derby’s coffee.”385 Finally, in September, with the avowed object of food conservation, the General Court passed a law to prevent the manufacture of spirituous liquors from cider, wheat, corn, rye, oats, and barley.386

These conditions — food shortage, high prices, and general suspicion of motives — all served to aggravate the growing ill-will of the townsman toward the farmer. But the urban population by no means had a monopoly on these charges of unfair dealing. If accusations of greed could be made by one side, they could be countered by similar charges of speculation and profiteering. Abigail Adams, writing from the country, asserted that the people of Boston were actuated by a “spirit of avarice and contempt of authority,” and “an inordinate love of gain;” she also commented upon prevalent charges against the merchants, who were accused of monopolizing certain commodities, in order to create a scarcity and so force up the price.387

These convictions that the dealers were engaged in an unholy plot to enrich themselves at the expense of the luckless consumer were subsequently given more formal and authoritative expression. On May 21, 1777, there assembled a convention composed of all the committees of correspondence in Plymouth County. This gathering unanimously adopted resolutions condemning the “extraordinary lust for gain” which would “astonish all future generations, and give a vicious cast to [our] noblest achievements.” Then they continued: “This Convention, alarmed at the rapid progress of avarice and extortion, which, like a resistless torrent, has overspread the land, and threatens the utter extinction of every virtuous and patriotic sentiment, earnestly entreat their countrymen to pause a moment from the pursuit of wealth, and reflect on the tremendous consequences” which would follow such a “defection from public spirit and virtue.” They concluded by charging that internal enemies were “monopolizing warlike stores, cloathing, provisions, &c. as well for the purpose of enhancing the prices of these commodities, and so depreciating the currency, as for reducing the people to distress and want.”388

Thus far an attempt has been made to show in what respects the action of the legislature contributed to bring about that change for the worse which was so conspicuous a feature of the years 1776 and 1777. The evidence summarized reveals a discouraging situation: financial inflation, an alarming increase in the cost of living, speculation, unpatriotic greed, and worst of all, pronounced ill-will of one section toward another. Unfortunately these characteristics by no means complete the catalogue of economic difficulties that arose to torment the state in time of war. There were yet other manifestations of a collapse of prosperity, occasioned not so much by governmental interference with natural laws as by the inevitable derangement of commerce, and the long-continued interruption of trade and fishing.

An able contemporary analysis of; the situation is to be found in a letter written by Robert Treat Paine. He explained that the war —

has thrown property into channels, where before it never was, and has increased little streams to overflowing rivers: and what is worse, in some respects by a method that has drained the sources of some as much as it has replenished others. Rich and numerous prizes, and the putting six or seven hundred per cent on goods bought in peace time, are the grand engines. Moneys in large sums, thrown into their hands by these means, enables them to roll the snow ball of monopoly and forestalling; and thus while these people are heaping up wealth . . . the remaining part are jogging on in their old way, with few or no advantages, and the salary men and those who live on the interest of their money are suffering exceedingly.389

This letter calls attention to the gains of the few. There is other contemporary evidence which emphasizes the losses of the many. For example, in explaining why Salem could not pay the amount called for in the last apportionment of taxes, John Pickering, on behalf of the town, dwelt upon the economic conditions brought on by the war. In normal times, he wrote, the principal source of revenue had been shipping, and that industry was practically at a standstill. Privateering was carried on to a limited extent, but it was a poor substitute for trade and the fisheries. There were opportunities for large profits, to be sure, but the danger of total loss was even greater. Moreover, this activity was confined to a very few men, and the gains were consequently enjoyed by them; the general public got little out of it. To make matters worse, population was diminishing, and the town was overburdened with the care of dependent families of men engaged in the service of the state, captured by the enemy, or lost at sea. Then too there were almost no farms in Salem, so the town was anything but self-supporting.390

At the same time, Gloucester sent in a more elaborate account of its misfortunes. Since the year 1775 the town had lost 60 fishing boats, the total value of which was £18,000, and 18 merchantmen, valued at £7,200. The estimated loss on trade and fishing since 1775 amounted to £19,000. Many of the wharves and stores had been destroyed, large numbers of men were in the army and navy, or were prisoners of war, and many of the foremost merchants had moved out of town. The writer asserted that only three vessels from Gloucester were then engaged in foreign trade, and that the business of the shopkeepers was at an end. To make matters worse, not more than 16 men in town raised their own provisions.391

The agent for the little town of Wellfleet, on the Cape, reported that before the war, residents of the town had about 30 vessels employed in the whale fishery, and that those were nearly all “hauled up,” and the business at an end. Moreover, the vessels still in service had been let to continental or state agents, because their owners lacked the wherewithal to engage in the West Indian trade. Those inhabitants who were so fortunate as to have any money left were buying farms in other parts of the state and moving away. The land in Wellfleet did not produce provisions enough to support ten per cent of the inhabitants, and the people had nothing to exchange for supplies. Adjacent towns carried their surplus products to Boston, Salem, or Newbury, where they could get West India goods in exchange. To make matters worse, in 1776 the oysters in the bay all died, for some unaccountable reason, and that meant a further loss of about £1000.392

The town of Dartmouth asserted that the whaling business, formerly the chief industry, was gone. And finally, Rehoboth mournfully — and ungrammatically — reported that only three-fourths as much grain as usual had been raised, and that much of the land lay waste and uncultivated. Many houses were old and falling to pieces, and the inhabitants were too poor to repair them. In conclusion, the writer announced that “there is not one Trader in town nor any privateer oned in town, the costing Botes have no imploy.”393

Even when allowance is made for exaggerations, conscious or otherwise, that may have been made for the purpose of securing a reduction of taxes, these reports show that the seaports were going through a real commercial crisis, the direct result of the war. To be sure, before peace was made privateering enabled many individuals to regain much of their lost prosperity, but the climax of that activity was not reached until 1782,394 while, as the evidence just summarized suggests, it was hardly under way in 1777. Thus there were added to the manifold evils connected with a depreciated currency the even more serious misfortunes due to a ruined commercial structure.

Meanwhile the subject of price regulation by the government was again attracting attention. In view of the lack of success attendant upon this venture, it is not surprising that the forces opposed to it gradually gained in strength. By the end of May, 1777, the Boston town-meeting was convinced that the regulating act should be totally repealed, on the grounds that it could not be enforced, that it was a prolific source of friction between town and country, and that it raised rather than lowered prices. If the act could be repealed, it was argued, and trade freed from its shackles, heavy imports would soon reduce prices. Trade must be allowed to regulate itself. Incidentally it was asserted that the law had thrown many honest traders out of business.395 On the other hand, the Plymouth convention referred to above urged that the people obey the price regulations, and that the law be continued.396

Instead of repealing this measure, however, the General Court passed another, on the ground that the prices fixed by the first were “not adequate to the expence which will hereafter probably be incurred in procuring such articles.” This second experiment authorized the selectmen in the various towns, as frequently as once in two months, to fix prices for labor, and for necessaries of life. As in the first, prices were named for the most important commodities. In addition, the selectmen were empowered to seize and sell goods held by any person who should disobey this or the earlier law. Finally, each town was directed to choose not less than three, nor more than seven persons, to prosecute all violations of either law.397

There is nothing to indicate that the new law was more effectively executed, or more successful in its operation than the old, and the advocates of repeal finally got the upper hand. On June 30 a convention representing all New England states met at Springfield, Massachusetts, to discuss the problem. Its advice, given to the four legislatures, recommended the repeal of all laws which attempted to regulate prices.398 In September, on the ground that the price fixing measures “have been very far from answering the salutary purposes for which they were intended,” the General Court completely repealed both laws.399 Thus, with its failure publicly confessed in the preamble, the legislature brought to a close its experiments in the control of prices by statute.

For the next year and a half, that is, for the rest of 1777 and the whole of 1778, the economic situation was not complicated by the appearance of any new factors. For one thing, there was enough food to go around, so the troubles of the towns were less serious than had been the case the preceding year.400 Prices nevertheless continued their relentless advance, and during this particular interval the rise was rapid. In the Boston memorial referred to above, it was stated that the people were “pain’d to observe, that they are obliged to give eight times as much for their provisions” as usual. By this time, some observers, with rare insight for the times, were pointing out that the primary cause of this particular evil was the volume of money in circulation.401

During the same time, too, friction between the producer, the merchant, and the consumer steadily grew worse, evidently because some business men were oblivious to patriotic appeals in the midst of exceptional opportunities for speculation. One unsigned communication in the Boston Gazette explained that “the farmer is complaining of the extortion of the merchant, in with-holding his merchandize or selling at an extravagant price; and the merchant is complaining of the farmer’s withholding his corn, and the necessaries of life; and the tradesman and mechanic are complaining, that between both the merchant and the farmer they shall suffer, as they can procure neither food nor raiment. — These difficulties and distresses are seen, and in some measure felt, by all ranks of people.”402 In somewhat less philosophical fashion the people of Boston insisted that their hardships were greatly increased “by the more than brutal conduct of those Wretches within a few miles of this capital known in the Odious Character of Forestallers.”403 By the spring of 1778 such complaints became almost chronic. For example, a certain “S.M.” in the Boston Gazette asserted that —

a private, selfish, and basely avaricious spirit has universally succeeded in the room of public virtue. . . . This is our unhappy case in this day of darkness. We know from what we every day feel, that commerce is so managed, as that it becomes a public nuisance, instead of a common benefit, and thousands of widows, orphans, and poor people, are ground almost to death by the greediness of avaricious merchants, monopolizers, farmers, sharpers, forestallers, mushroom traders, whose importance their own conceit is the fruit of having oppressed the necessitous, together with innumerable hawkers and hucksters, all of whom have been, and still are, outdoing one another in raising the price of everything. . . .

The truth is, . . . the thirst after gain is grown so insatiable, that neither reason, nor religion, nor a regard to the salvation of the country, lay the least restraint upon the generality in money getting.404

Still another letter, unsigned, runs:

The many impositions practis’d on the inhabitants of this town by those who supply our market, are so gross, that I am often surpris’d that people can continue so moderate, and suffer those extortioners to proceed in their abuse. If a market-man is allow’d to ask any price he thinks fit, having nothing but his own rapacity and our necessity to govern him, the whole property of this town may in a little while be drawn away, by purchasing a few potatoes, and a few other necessaries of life: every advantage is now in the hands of these people, and like rapacious wolves, they seem determined to improve them to our ruin: . . . Such horrid principles are the prevailing motives of our market, neither gratitude or affection for the town . . . have any share in all they do; and with justice may it be affirm’d, that within the circle of 10 or 15 miles of this town, those who frequent our market are as implacable enemies, and delight as much in distressing Boston, as any British troops . . . in America.405

By all odds the most important feature of this period was neither the high cost of living, nor the profiteering schemes of the merchants, but the unusual prosperity of the agricultural population. Evidence of this state of affairs is to be found as early as 1777. While the legitimate merchants were enduring all the hardships which resulted from the interruption of commerce, the farmers were making money.406 For their wares, with both the towns and the army constantly calling for more, the demand was almost always greater than the supply, so that the market was uniformly good.407 Moreover, the farmer was favorably rather than adversely affected by the rising prices. Whereas the merchant was compelled to pay exorbitant rates for the very necessaries of life, in spite of the fact that his business may have been ruined, the farmer could raise almost all of his own food supplies, so that whatever he got for the surplus was almost clear gain. Moreover, the actual cost of production had not kept pace with the advance in prices, so their continued rise meant a steadily increasing margin of profit.408

Indirect evidence on this point is to be found in the fact that merchants were leaving the coast towns, and buying farms in the interior. Both Gloucester and Wellfleet reported this circumstance, and the latter in particular laid emphasis on this transfer of capital from shipping to agriculture.409 Then people in Boston were firmly convinced that all their sacrifices in the war thus far had “opperated Hitherto intirely for the good of the land holder.”410 More positive proof of this rural prosperity is given in a letter from Orne of Salem to Pickering. He wrote that in spite of the copious emissions of paper money, not a merchant had £500 in his possession, while numbers of men who had hitherto been accounted wealthy then found it difficult to support their families. On the other hand, he continued, “our farmers who used to beg forbearance for the payment of Interest have now taken up their bonds and are now insolent with their thousands.”411 Although conditions were certainly abnormal when the wealthy farmer could lord it over the poverty-stricken merchant, they were not bad enough to produce serious suffering. So far as the evidence shows, people were able to get enough to eat, and, apparently, the wherewithal to pay for it.

The hardest times of the war, so far as the towns of Massachusetts were concerned, came during 1779 and 1780, and then, in addition to another heavy advance in the cost of living and the always vexatious greed of the dealers, the maritime sections had to endure the hardships of a real food shortage. Before the winter was over, the supply of wheat was almost exhausted. In February George Williams of Salem reported a great scarcity of bread in the state, and announced that a committee had been sent as far south as Maryland to procure flour. Both the poorer people and the merchants were said to be in great distress.412 In April, 1779, he wrote again, as follows: “we are in great distress hear for the want of Bread, Many Family’s has none to eat, our wicked Farmer’s has the modesty under a good grace to ask for Flour the small price of £45 to 50 per ct. . . . Many hear that had a good Living must be reduced to Beggary, on accot of the above price, the sea port Inhabitants are all most discouraged. . . .”413 Soon after this, “Mobility” in the Boston Gazette warned the forestallers, those “enemies to the freedom and happiness” of the country, that “Hunger will break through stone-walls, and the resentment excited by it may end in your destruction.”414 In June and July the distress was temporarily mitigated by the capture of British supplies, but prices were higher than ever. More grain, too, was coming into the market, although the farmers were still characterized as “all most as cruel as the enemy.”415

That this alleviation was only temporary is shown by later reports. For example, the committee of correspondence of Barnstable described the situation as “singularly unhappy.” Because of the interruption of the fisheries, which formerly furnished the principal commodity for commerce, trade had come to an end, as the town had nothing else to export, “a few onions only excepted.” There was little agriculture in the town, and the people were suffering “a greate scarcity of the necessaries of Life.”416

In mid-summer, the Boston committee complained that for two weeks past it “has been almost impossible to purchase a single joint of Fresh Meat which has obliged a very large Proportion of our Inhabitants to live on Vegetables only; owing entirely, as we imagine, to a parcel of avaritious Butchers who live in a few adjacent Towns, & not to the Honest & industrious Farmer.” A postscript added that “the Butchers who supply’d the town with Small Meat have intirely stopped coming to Market.”417

The shortage during the winter and spring of 1779 was due obviously enough to the failure of the supplies raised the preceding year to last through. But it is evident that the following summer did not bring the expected relief. The crops were certainly late, and apparently short as well. The letter of a “Countryman” in the Boston Gazette throws some light on the situation. He asserted that there was no general disposition among the farmers to withhold supplies, in spite of various attempts to regulate prices. The scarcity was due, so he wrote, to a variety of causes: heavy rains, which prevented the farmers from threshing their grain as early as usual; moreover, the extraordinarily wet season had prevented sheep and lambs from fattening; then, August was the cheese-making season, so little butter was being made. A week later he reported a “vast increase and amazing supply of cattle, sheep and grain” in every part of the state, and assured the towns that they need no longer worry about the danger of famine.418

If his last assertion is true, that the quantities of foodstuffs on hand were amply sufficient for all needs, they certainly were not brought into the towns. During the fall naturally there was some improvement, but even on September 17 Boston was reported to be in “a very suffer^g condition,” and prospects for the winter were far from bright.419

As a matter of fact the gloomy forebodings of the fall were only too well fulfilled, and March again found the towns in trouble. John Clarke wrote: “Certain I am, that these seaports are in a forlorn situation. Subjected as we are to the inhumanity (for it deserves no milder name) of our brethern in the country, it is impossible we shd much longer have a being. One more such winter as the last would finish us.” Again, John Eliot reported that the town of Boston was “really poor,” and that unless conditions soon change for the better, “it is my opinion that we cannot subsist.” He continued: “Many have perished on our coast this winter. Many widowed families add to the distress of the North End, who were in good circumstances before the commencement of this tedious season. Most of the ready money wch was in the town the country people have drained, — such was the necessity of obtaining fuel at any price.” He also said that the effect “upon all orders of men in the seaports [was] a hearty wish for peace, which sentiment did not invade the mobility till the present time. Did the country farmers feel like the Bostonian mechanics, I don’t know what would be the consequence.”420

Just as the combination of high prices and food shortage in 1777 had produced the price-regulating acts, so this more serious deficiency called forth a legislative programme, the aim of which was the amelioration of unfortunate economic conditions. Three statutes were passed, the first of which was designed to prevent hoarding. It provided that no person, bakers excepted, should “purchase, engage, or buy” any more corn, wheat, rye, oats, barley, flour, or meal than should be sufficient to maintain his family and immediate dependents until the next harvest. Bakers were permitted to keep a three months’ stock of flour on hand. No person was to buy more “dead meat” or live cattle than would be needed for one year. The law also forbade forestalling, and buying at wholesale with the intent to sell the same goods again at wholesale. It also imposed a penalty on travelling traders. When originally enacted the law was to expire by limitation on October 20, 1779, but it was continued by subsequent renewals to July 1, 1780. In order to see that the law was enforced, the towns were directed to appoint inspectors of the market, who were expected to get the forestallers into court.421

In June this measure was reinforced by another. The preamble stated that “Whereas it has been represented to this court that many people within the state are so lost to a sense of public virtue as to withhold the necessaries of life, and to refuse the public bills of credit of this state and the United States of America,” it consequently became necessary for the legislature to act. According to this second law, families were forbidden to have on hand more than one year’s supply of grain, meal, or meat. The selectmen were empowered to confiscate any supplies in excess of this legal maximum. Furthermore, persons who refused to accept either state or national bills of credit were made liable to a fine of not less than £50, and not more than £500, or to six months’ imprisonment.422

Finally, in September, 1779, in order to prevent any unnecessary depletion of the insufficient supply of foodstuffs, the General Court passed a stringent embargo, prohibiting the export, by land or sea, of rum, wine, spirits, molasses, sugar, coffee, chocolate, linen, cotton, live stock, shoes, leather, hides, and “provisions of all and every sort,” with the sole exception of reasonable ships’ stores. To secure the enforcement of this measure, selectmen and committees of correspondence were authorized to seize wagons laden with any of the commodities enumerated, if it appeared that they were bound for the state border. The penalty for violating this law was a fine, equal in amount to the value of the goods carried out.423

These measures, designed to put a stop to engrossing, hoarding, and exporting foodstuffs, completed the legislative programme on the food problem. So far as it went, it was satisfactory, but it was by no means comprehensive enough to meet with universal approval. There was a conviction, apparently widespread, that something should have been done to check prices, which had gone up faster and higher than ever before. With corn at $4 a bushel in hard money, or $80 in paper, molasses at $20 per gallon, tea $40 per pound in the same medium, and other things in proportion,424 it is not surprising that some restraining action should have been desired. When it became evident that the General Court would not concern itself with this question, the problem was taken up by various unofficial bodies. For example, on June 16, 1779, the merchants of Boston agreed to do all in their power to prevent a further rise in prices; they worked out a new scale, which was subsequently approved by a general meeting of the inhabitants of the town. The merchants also bound themselves not to take gold or silver coin for their goods, and not to sell gold or silver in any form. Then the meeting of the inhabitants of Boston ordered the committee of correspondence to send a circular letter to all similar committees in the state, urging them to join with Boston in this campaign to reduce prices.425

As a result of this letter, on July 14, 1779, a convention met at Concord, consisting of 174 delegates, representing 121 towns, from eight counties. This gathering proceeded to work out a new scale of prices, differing in some respects from that drawn up by the Boston merchants, and the people were earnestly requested to observe this new list.426 On October 6, the convention reassembled, and agreed to a horizontal reduction of all prices.427

Theoretically, regulation by voluntary action may have held out better prospects of success than the earlier method of legislative enactment; people will sometimes do of their own accord what they cannot be made to do under compulsion. But, whether better psychology or not, this attempt failed as completely as the other. As the Concord convention itself mournfully admitted, “We have observed with extreme concern and anxiety the various Evasions” of the regulations agreed upon.428 The most striking commentary on this experiment is to be found in the prices for October, 1780, when depreciation had reached its limit. They were five times higher than those quoted a year before.

The year 1780 was the turning point in the economic history of the state during the war. Henceforth conditions in the towns steadily improved. Complaints of food shortage ceased to appear. Then, too, as the financial policy of the state was put upon a sounder basis, prices rapidly fell to something like normal. For the farmers on the other hand, who had been enjoying extraordinary prosperity, the current turned in the opposite direction, and they were soon face to face with hard times.

So far as the food question was concerned, the crisis was safely over, and conditions in the summer and fall of 1780 were normal. Partial evidence on this point is to be found in the repeal of the food embargo, on June 7, 1780. Moreover, the law against engrossing, which had been twice renewed, was allowed to expire by limitation on July 1 of the same year.429 Then, in October, Abigail Adams wrote that supplies were plentiful.430 After 1780, too, complaints of hard times in the towns practically ceased. As a matter of fact, the writer has found only one. On May 29, 1781, Pynchon recorded in his diary: “Trade in Boston in great confusion, almost stagnated; the credit of the new emission is sunk 30 per ct. upon failure of the old in its credit; all growl; some rave and stamp; others curse and swear, some at Congress, some at the General Court, some at Whiggs, others at Tories, — all at the French.”431 It would of course be unsafe to prove too much from the mere absence of complaints, but when they were so numerous during all the earlier years of the war, there must be some reason why only this one has come to light for the later years. Apparently conditions had improved so much that the towns were at least quiet.

The fact that hard money was available again is another evidence of improvement. It had never entirely disappeared, but after 1780 it became plentiful enough to attract attention. In January, 1781, a writer in the Massachusetts Spy asserted that it was not difficult to get hard money then, and in March a committee reported that the situation in general was much more promising than at any former period, and that in particular the finances were on a better footing. Finally, by January, 1782, John Pickering could write that “specie is our only currency.”432

With the reappearance of coin as the medium of exchange, paper currency began to appreciate, and prices began to fall. In the Massachusetts Spy of January 11, 1781, “Sidney” made the flat statement that the paper was appreciating. Then, in the letter referred to above, John Pickering wrote: “I think money . . . continues to encrease in its value, good Beef & Mutton 4 d a pound,Flour 24/ a & Indian corn 5/ a bushel.” A comparison of these prices with those of October, 1780, shows a truly remarkable decline. In view of these conditions, economists would expect to find evidence of an actual shortage of money. References to that condition appear in October, 1780, for the first time since the beginning of the war.433

The cause of this change is to be found in part in the increased volume of privateering, which became more and more profitable toward the end of the war. Then the presence of the French fleet off Rhode Island may have had some influence. Certain it is that the French were sending their commissaries into Massachusetts for supplies and were paying for them in hard money.434 These factors helped, but by far the most important cause was the adoption of a sounder financial policy by the state itself. For one thing, the government was making a genuine effort to pay a much larger proportion of the cost of the war through taxation. From 1775 to the end of 1778, taxes to the amount of £962,973 were voted. In January, 1779, a single tax bill was passed, calling for £1,014,422, more than the total amount raised during the preceding four years. And the total for 1779 and the first half of 1780 was £17,878,706.435 These figures to be sure must be considered in the light of the current prices. The purchasing power of £1, in paper, was not very great in 1780. Nevertheless there is evidence that these amounts did bear heavily on the tax payer. “Frugalis Monito” in the Boston Gazette said that the burden of taxes was being felt, and Abigail Adams wrote that the taxes were “enormous.”436

Another phase of the new fiscal policy of the government was the repeal of the tender laws. This was accomplished, in spite of considerable opposition, partly in January, and completely in July, 1781.437 This repeal marked the end of the various attempts to break the force of economic laws by the interposition of legislative enactments.

Thus it is clear that by the summer of 1780 the financial policy of the government, judged by the generally accepted principles of economics, had become more sound; that so far as prices were concerned, there was a return to something like normal by 1782; and that there was little or no indication of unrest in those seaport towns which had complained so bitterly early in the war. But these very gains of the financial interests worked to the disadvantage of the farmer. High taxes and low prices were precisely the very things he did not want, and the drop from inflation to normal came so quickly that he had no opportunity to make the necessary adjustments. It is significant that after 1780, practically all the complaints come from the country.

Evidence of this growing unrest begins to accumulate in 1781. For example, some of the arguments against the repeal of the tender acts came from the farmers. One “Sidney” in the Massachusetts Spy urged that it would be impolitic to repeal the measure, on the ground that it would be unjust to that large number of people who had based their calculations upon a continuance of the law. The repeal passed the House by the narrow margin of 76 to 64, while the vote in the Senate was 19 to 7.438

In May the town of East Sudbury expressed approval of the action of its representative in voting against the repeal, and instructed him to use his influence to have the act revived, on the ground that the repeal placed an unreasonable burden on the debtor.439 A gentleman signing himself “Benevolus,” in commenting on these instructions, wrote that they appeared to be the work of “Men of little property, less honesty, and deeply in debt.”440 This suggestion that some of the farmers at least were looked upon as debtors is significant in view of later developments in the state. Evidently the agricultural classes were beginning to feel the weight of the new financial policy.

In the summer of 1781 considerable interest was manifested in the disposal of the eastern lands of the state. Some of the opinions expressed reflect more or less suspicion on the part of the poorer classes regarding the attitude of the legislature on this question, and may well be considered as a part of the gathering unrest among the farmers. “The Independent Whig,” in the Boston Gazette, advised that no more land be disposed of without the express approval of the people, and that the proprietors of lands already granted be compelled to fulfill their contracts. Moreover, he urged that the state tax all wild land which had passed into private hands. Finally he suggested an agrarian law, to prevent any one person from owning more than one thousand acres.441 No such issue as this was raised during the prosperous years before 1780, and when considered in connection with other evidence of discontent, the suggestions are significant of the situation among the poorer classes and the farmers.

By January, 1782, some of the interior counties were betraying signs of more serious dissatisfaction. For example, on January 21, a town meeting in Worcester expressed its disapproval of the late excise act, and voted to instruct the representatives to try to secure a repeal of the law. At a second meeting, the town gave in detail its reasons for opposing the measure. First, “It is an indirect method of levying monies; as those who pay said duties cannot know what sum they pay, which is contrary to the genius of a free people.” Next, if duties were necessary, they should be laid on luxuries. Spiritous liquors, they asserted, were “absolutely necessary” for the farmer, “whose fatigue is almost insupportable in hay time and harvest, and for the beginners in bringing forward new townships, where they have nothing to drink but water. . . .” Then, the method of collection was expensive, and there was reason to believe that tavern-keepers would take advantage of the law to make an unwarranted increase in prices. The law was unfair, because it favored the border counties at the expense of the interior; the former could buy their supplies across the line, and so avoid payment. The tax was so adjusted that it bore heavily on the purchaser of small quantities, while the merchant would hardly feel it at all. Finally, the law was condemned on the ground that it would be “attended with many difficulties, and has a direct tendency to embarrass and obstruct trade; and it is the opinion of this town, if it is continued, it will create great uneasiness among the good people of this commonwealth, and not answer the designs of government in passing the same.”442

Two months later, the Massachusetts Spy reported a dialogue between “Mr. Smallthought,” a representative of S——, and “Mr. Trueman,” one of his constituents. “Mr. Trueman” asks when the House will adjourn, and is informed that it will probably rise that day. In some surprise he ventures to remark: “The people of Hampshire and Berkshire are assembling to complain of grievances, and matters look in that quarter as if it would not do to rise until they were settled.” “Mr. Smallthought” coolly replies that all business has been adjourned, and that no more work will be undertaken.443

That the inland counties were preparing for action of some kind was evident enough. That same issue of the Massachusetts Spy referred to a circular letter sent out by the town of Hardwick, in Worcester county, proposing a convention for the discussion of grievances. Those named dealt directly or indirectly with the farmers’ burden. In order to save expense, the smaller towns were urging that there be a judge of probate in every town, and that constables, instead of sheriffs, be allowed to serve writs. Most significant of all, complaints were being circulated concerning the processes of debt collecting.444

In accordance with this suggestion, on April 9, 1782, a meeting of 34 delegates from 26 towns in the county convened at Worcester to take into consideration “the grievances which have created great uneasiness in the minds of the Good People of this county.” The resolutions of this body, adopted unanimously, all dealt more or less directly with finance, and revealed the gathering discontent in this quarter of the state. It was asserted that much of the prevailing uneasiness was due to the failure of the government to explain satisfactorily how “the IMMENSE SUMS OF PUBLIC MONEY” collected for several years past had been disposed of. The convention demanded an immediate accounting by all who had handled public funds. Then, after urging the need of a law to permit the payment of certain taxes in commodities rather than in money, the convention adjourned to the second Tuesday in May.445

Such complaints were not confined to Worcester. In the Boston Gazette of May 6, “Senex” complained of various evils, particularly the expensive proceedings in the courts of law. “The mode of trial in use among us,” he asserted, “is the most sure and ready way to aggrandize the rich, by the oppressing the poor, to the beggaring their families.” He also charged that the lawyers, sometimes, instead of a benefit, might be “a sore curse to the state.”446 Such complaints indicate a growing discontent among the debtor classes in the state. The grievances discussed in public hint broadly at such evils as a shortage of money, debts, and the inability to pay them, and in general dissatisfaction with the whole fiscal policy of the state.

On May 14, the Worcester convention reassembled, with twelve new members from eight additional towns. Among the subjects discussed were: the disposition of the public funds, the desirability of moving the General Court away from Boston, the need of a more complete separation of the business of the courts of common pleas from that of the general sessions, and the evils of the excise law.447 The convention met again in August, 1782, but nothing was done.448

These gatherings are important, not so much for what they accomplished, because they did little beyond formulating lists of grievances, but rather for the light they throw on the causes of discontent. Excise, high taxes, judicial procedure, avaricious lawyers, all sound very much like the complaints which preceded Shays’s rebellion. The farmers were certainly involved in a period of hard times.

The causes of this unfortunate situation were not obscure. The period after 1781 was pecularily one of readjustment, marked by falling prices. During the war the farmer had experienced all the thrills of rapidly accumulating wealth. He paid off his mortgage, and his wife and daughters — so he said — forced him up to a higher and more expensive standard of living. That was all very well, while the unparalleled prosperity lasted; when it stopped, the farmer was left high and dry. As prices went back toward normal, he could not contract his scale of expenditures fast enough to keep pace, because habits of luxury, once acquired, are very hard to lose. An interesting survey of this whole period, written in 1788, apparently by one who knew, was printed in the Hampshire Gazette. In discussing the cause of and the cure for hard times, “A Farmer” gave a brief history of his own experience. He explains that at the age of sixty-five he found himself without money, whereas in former days he had been well off. Before the war, his profits from his farm were good, averaging a hundred and fifty silver dollars a year. He never spent more than ten dollars a year, all told, and that went for salt, nails, and other necessaries that he could neither raise nor make on the farm. He never bought anything “to wear, eat, or drink,” as his farm provided all the necessaries of life. He put his surplus cash at interest, or bought cattle, and so made a steady profit. After a time his wife became dissatisfied with her home-made outfit, and began to buy luxuries, such as a “calico gown,” and a “set of stone tea-cups, half a dozen pewter tea-spoons, and a tea kettle, things that never were seen in my house before.” After that his household expenses steadily climbed. Furniture and clothing of all kinds were purchased. Butter, formerly sold at market, was henceforth used at home. Lambs, hitherto sold for cash, were now eaten at home, or if sold, were exchanged for worthless luxuries. Breakfast, which formerly took ten minutes, now consumed an hour. In short, instead of saving money, as he had done at one time, his family expenses were now fifty or sixty dollars a year more than the income from his farm. This too was the situation when his family was smaller than it had been in his prosperous days, because his daughters had married. Rather than spend all of his accumulated savings, this particular farmer determined to go back to the standard of living of 1770. He resolved that in the future “No one thing to eat, drink, or wear, shall come into my house, which is not raised on my farm or in the parish, or in the country, except salt and iron work no tea, coffee, sugar, or rum. The tea-kettle shall be sold. . . .” Henceforth he was determined to live within his means.449 How he came out with his scheme of retrenchment, and how his wife looked upon the proposed reform, no one knows.

A letter from Stephen Higginson summarizes the same course of events in briefer form. “The people at large,” he wrote, “have for several years lived in a manner much more expensive and luxurious, than they have Ability to support, and their Ideas can not now be brought to comport, with their real situation and means of living.”450

The main outlines of the economic history of the state during the war stand out with considerable clearness. During the first part of the struggle, the merchants suffered, and the farmers prospered. Then, during 1780, conditions changed so that the reverse of the earlier situation prevailed. The difficulties of the farmers go far toward explaining Shays’s rebellion. The trouble began during the war, and all the characteristic features of that movement, except organized resistance to authority, were in evidence before 1783. The cause of this agrarian movement is not to be sought so much in unusually poor conditions in 1786, as in the extraordinarily good ones from 1776 to 1780. The return to normal after those “boom times,” so far as the farmer was concerned, meant chiefly the disappearance of that income which had enabled him to live more like his contemporaries in town. After an alluring taste of luxury, the farmer had to turn back, or go into debt. Very likely he did a little of both, and the discomfort which necessarily accompanied his attempt at retrenchment resulted eventually in armed rebellion, directed, significantly enough, against those forces most intimately concerned in the process of debt collecting: the lawyers and the lower courts.

The paper was discussed by several members, who gave many interesting instances of the temper and action of the people at the time of the Revolution. Mr. Barrett Wendell included in his remarks a description of some of the “smugglers’ holes” found in many of the houses of the pre-revolutionary merchants residing in the coast towns.

Mr. Samuel E. Morison, after remarking that the paper was not only interesting in itself, but a valuable contribution toward a work that he hoped to see written some day — a history of Massachusetts during the Revolution — continued as follows:

The pre-revolutionary agitation in Massachusetts, and the military events of the years 1775–1776 have been described from every angle, and in minutest detail; but practically nothing has been written on the political, constitutional, social and economic history of the Commonwealth during the period 1776–1783. Yet there is a mine of material awaiting the investigator in state, town, and county archives. The possibilities of such a work, when handled by a thorough scholar and skilful writer, may be seen in Professor H. J. Eckenrode’s Virginia in the Revolution. This book, the worthiest contribution for many years to Revolutionary history, both from a literary and a historical viewpoint, might well serve as a model for histories of the other twelve colonies during the same period.

I venture to suggest that there is perhaps one factor in the economic change about 1780 that the writer has overlooked: the political change involved in the adoption of the state constitution that year. Down to October, 1780, revolutionary Massachusetts had been governed by what was practically a unicameral legislature, elected on a low property franchise, and reflecting fairly well the wishes of the farming class, which was the most numerous. The Constitution of 1780 substituted a government of “checks and balances,” in which a Senate, so constituted as to represent wealth, had equal power with the popular house. The mercantile class thus acquired a greater influence over legislation than it had formerly possessed, and proceeded to use its power by placing the weight of taxation on the farmers and the poorer classes. The taxes at the close of the war were enormous, yet the customs duties on imported luxuries were not only very low, but more often than not evaded. Smuggling habits of the pre-revolutionary period were so strong that the most respectable Boston importers paid duties on a small part only of their cargoes, smuggling in the rest, as amusingly described in Samuel Breck’s Reminiscences. Hence the brunt of taxation fell upon land, and upon polls; over one-third of the enormous state tax was raised by poll-taxes between 1780 and 1786. At the same time, the new, vigorous state government began to distrain upon tax delinquents of the easy-going six years that had past; the creditor, which largely corresponded with the mercantile class, began to use the newly opened courts to collect debts; and through the same influences the Tender Act was repealed, so that the farmers were unable to pay their debts with the money they had received for their crops, and in many cases had their entire property sold at a mere fraction of its value in order to discharge their indebtedness to the Commonwealth or to individuals.

It may be doubted whether the mercantile class was more prosperous after 1780 than before; privateering, if I remember rightly, declined after 1779, and only two or three privateering firms — the Derbys and Cabots, possibly the Tracys — came out ahead in the end. It is my impression that the merchants began to feel the consequences of speculation and inflation after 1780; that, aided by their new political power, they began to pass on the burden to their country debtors, and that a state of things ensued like the old story about the pig that wouldn’t jump over the stile; only, in this case, the Yankee farmer was both unable and unwilling to negotiate the financial stile: hence Shays’s Rebellion.

Mr. William C. Lane read the following paper, written by Mr. Clifford B. Clapp of the Dartmouth College Library:

THE GIFTS OF RICHARD BAXTER AND HENRY ASHURST TO HARVARD COLLEGE 451

I

Every little contribution toward the critical re-reading of the early records of Harvard College will doubtless be useful. In the histories of the college by Peirce, Quincy, and Eliot there are some uncertainties in the transcription and interpretation of such records as relate to gifts. We are concerned, in the present instance, with the benefactions of Richard Baxter, Henry Ashurst, and, incidentally, Nathaniel Hulton.

John Dunton, writing of his visit to the college in 1686, reported that Richard Baxter was one of the benefactors.452 This may have been his own observation, or may have been derived from Cotton Mather’s very similar statement in the Magnalia, published in London shortly before.453 There has been slight recognition by Harvard historians of a gift by Baxter, although in Flynt’s list of donations, the dates of which were unknown when it was compiled, appears the item, as given by Quincy, “Rev. Richard Baxter, many books.”454

Baxter, himself, tells what some of these books were, and says that he was stopped from sending almost the whole of his library. A statement of his first gifts is to be found in the Baxter manuscripts in Dr. Williams’s Library, London.455 In a letter to John Woodbridge undated, but in reply to a letter from Woodbridge dated March 31, 1671, Baxter says:

I have directed to M^r Broadstreete at Boston, as my gift to your university library D^r Castles Polyglott Lexicon w^th y^e first of M^r Pooles 4 Volumes of y^e Criticks; I had sent w^th y^m y^e Polyglott Bible,456 but y^t I understood y^t my friend M^r Boyle had sent it before; I shall, if God will y^t M^r Poole live to finish y^m send y^e other 3 Volumes of y^e Criticks, or take care y^t they be sent, if I live so long: For M^r Davy a Merchant hath promised them to me for your Library. The Lord direct & blesse your labours. I rest

Your unworthy Brother.

RI: Baxter.

If you write direct your Letters to Alderman Ashurst at y^e Golden Key in Aldersgate Street Having sent your Letter to your unkle Woodbridge, I have forgot your freinds name in Boston, & so am faine to send to M^r Broadstreete.457

In a letter to Baxter dated February 5, 1672, Governor Bradstreet wrote:

Rev^rend and much hon^red S^r.

I und^rstand by y^r he to my Cosen John Woodbridge that y^w have sent two bookes. vz. D^r Castles Polyglott Lexicon, & the first of M^r Pooles 4 Volumes of the Criticks as y^r guift to our Univ^rsity Library, & am informed by others that the bookes togeath^r w^th a łre directed to my selfe are safely arrived att Boston, the letter has not yet come to my hands, but detayned there (I suppose) upon their dayly expectacon of my comeing thith^r w^ch hitherto, the weath^r & other occac̄ons hath prevented. It will not be long I hope before I go thither & then god willing I shall dispose of them according to y^r order, & in the meane tyme was willing to give y^w notice of w^t I und^rstand concerning them, least hearing noething by this convayance, y^w might thinke they were either miscarryed or wee too vngratefull for soe great a beneficence, be pleased for the p^rsent to accept of my humble and hearty thanks on the behalfe of my selfe & our Colony for this y^r Loveing and liberall guift. . . .

Yo^r Loueing affectionate though

vnknowne ffriend & serv^t

Simon Bradstreete.

Andov^r

ffebruary 5^th 71.

be pleased to p^rsent my salutac̄ons & due respect to Alderm̄ Ashurst, & pdon my giueing y^w this trouble.

[Addressed] ffor

The Reu^rend and my much hon^red ffriend m^r Richard Baxter preacher of gods

Word in London

theis p^rsent.

Leave this łre att Alderm̄ Ashurst his house att the golden key in Aldersgate streete to be delivered.458

John Woodbridge459 graduated from Harvard in 1664, preached at Killingworth and Wethersfield, Connecticut, and died in 1691. His mother was Mercy, daughter of Governor Thomas Dudley. Simon Bradstreet (1603–1697),460 then of Andover but later of Boston, married Anne, the “poet,”461 daughter of Governor Dudley, so that the relationship described as “cosen” would at this day be termed nephew.462

Baxter’s words do not indicate much familiarity with Harvard, but he must have long taken some interest in the college, as in other matters relating to New England. He could have derived such interest from the early graduates who returned to England, among them Benjamin Woodbridge, “first fruits” of the college and uncle of John Woodbridge of Killingworth. With Benjamin he was in correspondence in 1659.463 John Woodbridge, brother of Benjamin and father of John of Killingworth, after preaching at Andover in New England, returned to old England, where he spent the period of the Revolution, although later he again came to America.464 Leverett, Bradstreet, and others went to England on missions for the colony.465 The Rev. John Knowles, sometime minister at Watertown and deputed preacher to Virginia, whose letter partly quoted in this paper is so important, returned to England, where for nearly thirty-five years he was aid and adviser to Harvard College.466 He was a trustee of the General Court’s Humble Proposal467 hereinafter mentioned; and he was proposed for president of the college in 1672.468 John Eliot corresponded with Baxter, beginning at least as early as 1657,469 and translated and printed in the Indian tongue his Call to the Unconverted. Baxter’s much loved friend, Henry Ashurst, was, as we shall see, one of Eliot’s steadfast supporters, a servant of the Massachusetts General Court, and a benefactor of Harvard. When the king was restored, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel fell into difficulties, and Baxter, at the instance of Ashurst, used his influence with the Lord Chancellor for the restoration of the Corporation.470 These few instances may suggest the strength of the New England appeal to the interest of Richard Baxter.

When the time came that he must inevitably part with his beloved library, Baxter’s troubles became Harvard’s opportunity. The circumstances may best be related in his own words, written about 1682, when, in defending himself against the charges of want of learning and want of accuracy brought against him by another clergyman,471 he says:

About seven or eight years ago as I remember, I was accused for Preaching, and Fined by Sir Thomas Davis; and the Warrant was sent by him to Sir Edm. Bury Godfrey to levy it on me by Distress: I had no way to avoid it but bona fide, to make away all that I had: Among the rest I made away my Library, only borrowing part of it for my use. I purposed to have given it almost all to Cambridge in New-England: but Mr. Knowles472 (yet living) who knew their Library, told me that Sir Kenelme Digby473 had already given them the Fathers, Councils and Schoolmen, but it was History and Commentators which they wanted. Whereupon I sent them some of my Commentators, and some Historians among which were Freherus, Reuberus and Pistorius Collections, and Nauclerus, Sabellicus, Thuanus, Jos. Scaliger de Emendat. Temp. &c; But Goldastus I kept by me (as borrowed) and many more which I could not spare; and the Fathers and Councils and Schoolmen I was stopt from sending.474

In another place he writes:

My wife did, without any repining, encourage me to undergo the loss, and did herself take the trouble of removing and hiding my library awhile (many scores of books being so lost), and after, to give it away, bona fide, some to New England, and the most at home, to avoid distraining on them.475

Two further bits of evidence are available to show that the gift went forward and to indicate approximately its importance. In one of the most interesting of all letters relating to the early college, John Knowles writes to Governor Leverett from London, May 1, 1675:

Alderman Ashurst hath about fifty books of history for the College from Mr. Baxter. I hope he will send them by one of these ships. I desire that you keep up a good correspondency with Mr. Baxter; he is a true friend to the College. Let somebody write to him; he will hold it well.476.

The Account Book of John Richards, Treasurer of Harvard College at that period, has the following item under date of October 27, 1675:

Paid m^r Peter Sergeant ꝑ order of Presid^t & fellowes money 24^s w^h is for frait & charges of a case of Bookes from London a gift of m^r Rich^d Baxter.477

It is useless to mourn over the fact that only about fifty books were given instead of the whole library.478 The original intention of Baxter was magnificent, and his actual donations entitle him to much honor at Harvard. It is to be regretted that his portrait, once owned by the college, was destroyed in the fire of 1764.479

II

Henry Ashurst, Alderman of London,480 woolen draper,481 sometime at the Three Kings482 and at the Golden Key483 in Watlirig Street, seems to have been a number of years ago almost forgotten in Massachusetts, being confused with his son Sir Henry Ashurst, the well-known agent of the colonies. Several references to Sir Henry in historical and bibliographical publications concern in reality his father.484 And yet Alderman Ashurst was for a quarter century before 1680 eminent in trade, and so known to New Englanders.485 He was Treasurer of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England; addressed by John Eliot and by the Massachusetts General Court, and made the medium of many important communications; the close friend of Richard Baxter; universally esteemed and loved; and noted for his charitable activities.486 By the Massachusetts General Court he was constituted in 1659 one of the Trustees of the Humble Proposal for the Enlargement of University Learning in New England, and was one of the three who signed the letter announcing as a fruit of the movement the donation of Judge Hill.487

Peirce, Quincy, and Eliot all fell into errors in regard to gifts by Alderman Ashurst. The true facts are now given for the first time. The earliest gift is stated to have been made in 1672. “In addition to the above,” wrote Peirce, who, however, does not state the exact year, “several hundred pounds were given to the College by others, among whom Mr. Henry Ashurst gave £100.”488 Quincy has: “1672. Henry Ashurst, 100 0 0.”489 Quincy believed that the gift was from Sir Henry, for he says, “To these benefactors, are to be added Sir Kenelm Digby, Sir Thomas Temple, Sir Henry Ashurst, Sergeant Maynard, and John Dodderidge.”490 And Eliot records: “1672 Mr. Henry Ashurst, (the same, probably, who was afterwards Sir Henry, agent of the Colony,) 100 0 0.”491 The three references to this gift in the early college records clear the matter up. In one place is recorded “Sundry Donations to the Colledge received by Cap^t John Richards Treaf.,” one being “1672 By m^r Henry Ashurst 100 00 00.”492 The second states that on January 20, 1673, “The Overseers ordered the Treaf to pay to D^r Leonard Hoar, One hundred pound tow^ds his Transportation from England hither.”493 The third extract is from Treasurer Richards’s Account Book under date of May 31, 1673:

Colledge Cr. ꝑ 100¹ in money rec^d of Major Leverett (viz rec^d by Doct^r Leonard Hoar) w^h the said Leverett rec^d of m^r Peter Sergeant by bill from m^r Ashhurst as a benevolence of sundry in England to the Colledge

Colledge D^r to 100¹ aboue paid to m^r Leonard Hoar ꝑ order of the overseers of the Colledge towards defraying charges of transportation out of England as ꝑ order & receipt now given but dat. Febr. 10. 72.

It thus appears that the £100 received in 1672 or 1673 was not a gift from Alderman Ashurst, but was merely transmitted by him to New England.

Alderman Ashurst died in November, 1680. With regard to another gift or bequest, Peirce says: “A legacy of £40 was bequeathed to the college by Deacon William Trusdale, and one by Mr. Henry Ashworth of £100 sterling. Whether these two legacies were received, it does not appear.”494 Quincy has: “1683. Henry Ashworth, £128 0 0.”495 Eliot has in one place, “1683 Mr. Henry Ashworth bequeathed 100 0 0;”496 and in another place he says that “Henry Ashworth” sent £100.497 All these statements are derived from an entry made by Thomas Danforth between 1683 and 1699 as follows:

1683 More Donations not contained in Cap^t Richards Account. & are yet resting due to the Coll. . . . m^r Henry Ashworth legacy of 100^ff in England 128 00 00.”498

That Danforth inadvertently or through mistake wrote “Ashworth” for “Ashurst” is a reasonable conjecture, but is placed beyond doubt by a passage presently to be quoted. The difference between the statements of the amount as given by Quincy and by Eliot is explained in the Danforth entry, one being sterling, the other Massachusetts currency. It will be noted that Nathaniel Hulton’s bequest, recorded by Quincy as of this date but in fact ten years later, is put down as “£100 sterling, 130 0 0;”499 and by Peirce as “£100 sterling, being £130, Massachusetts currency.”500

It is now very interesting indeed to turn to the funeral sermon preached by Richard Baxter at the death of Ashurst, prefaced December 7, 1680, by an address beginning, “To my Worthy Friends, Mrs. Judith Ashhurst, Widow of Henry Ashhurst, Esq; and Mr. Henry Ashhurst their Son, with all his Brethren and Sisters, Grace, and Peace.”501 In the course of this sermon, Baxter recalls the work of Ashurst in behalf of the religious instruction of the Indians in the colonies, and exclaims:

O how sad will the news of his death be to old Mr. Eliots, if he live to hear it, and to his American Converts? And he hath left by his Will an hundred pound to the Colledge there, and fifty pound to their Corporation.502

The personality of Alderman Ashurst was rather remarkable, according to the accounts we have,503 and it may well have been the determining influence upon Nathaniel Hulton, who bequeathed £100 to Harvard. Baxter informs his hearers, in the funeral sermon for Ashurst, that “His last words (save his farewel, and Come Lord Jesus), were to an old Friend (Mr. Nathaniel Hulton).”504

Mr. Lane also exhibited a parchment dated 3 July, 1701 — the day after Commencement of that year — given by Harvard College to Samuel Mather.505 Appended to it is a remarkably fine impression, in red wax, of the College Seal, the earliest impression by nearly half a century known to be extant.506 The document, which is here reproduced in facsimile, is owned by the Harvard Club of New York City, and reads as follows:507

Per Integrum illud Spatium viz: Septennium Quo apud nos com̄oratus est Samuel Mather Collegij Harvardini Cantabrigiae in NovAngliâ alumnus et in Artibus Liberalibus Magister, bonarum Literarum Studijs vitæ probitatem adjunxit adeo ut nobis Spem amplam fecerit se in Ecclesiæ et Reipublicae com̄odum victurum. Quapropter hoc De illo Testimonium perhibemus, Nos quorum nomina Subscripta Sunt. Datum ex Collegio Harvardino Cantab^æ Nov-Anglorum Julij 3^tio 1701.

Crescentius Mather^S præses

Sam^† Willard Socius

Henricus Flynt
Jabez ffitch
Nathaniel Saltonstal

Testimonial issued by Harvard College to Samuel Mather, 3 July 1704

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts from the original in the possession of the Harvard Club of New York City

1 I should be glad for any information concerning the copy which Franklin kept for himself, in case it is still in existence.

2 Cf. our Publications, x. 238–239.

3 “During the past winter a new edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations was printed. I could not refuse the request of certain persons to be the editor of it. What is curious about the matter, is that excepting my ideas concerning punishments, that these people know and approve, all the other theses that I support, as well in my notes as in a letter with which I have headed the edition, are exactly the opposite of those that were expected of me; and my history in that respect resembles very much the story of Balaam; it was expected that I would curse tyrants much less odious than those that men bless; and I did the exact contary: I doubt that I shall be forgiven, but this does not worry me.

“Here then, sir, are three copies of this Vattel: one for your own library, another for that of Philadelphia, and a third for such other library and colony as you may choose. You will find on a blank sheet, at the beginning of each copy, my idea upon government and royalty. I believe it is new and yet the simplest of all, and the only one that is just and sane. Impracticable, and consequently useless and dangerous to discuss in Europe, I thought that, sowed in America, it would take root there, germinate and fructify some day.”

4 “There are generous and broad-minded peoples, whose merits will make them in due time completely independent and self-governing States. ‘My dear friends (some wise man will then say to them), you cannot do better than adopt the English Constitution as your own, with one little alteration which, in my opinion, might bring even nearer perfection this balanced and delightfully moderate form of government. This alteration is to make neither royalty, nor nobility, nor legislative office hereditary. It is quite possible to inherit as little skill in the art of governing men, as in that of curing their diseases, or of teaching them to think, to sing, or to dance. Take care, though, not to base your government on suffrage; that would be still worse; it would hardly ever be the best or the wisest, but rather the strongest and the most adroit who would get control of you. Who, then, shall choose the fathers of our country? Why! my friends, from time immemorial, nature has pointed them out to primitive societies; and subsequent societies have always been blind and deaf to the voice of nature. The eldest fathers of your land-holding families are the only kings, if you need any, the only legislators, the only possessors of signorial rights (seniores) worthy of you. You will call them from the plough; they will leave their sons there; and the mere fact of their age will win for these sons the respect and reverence of your grandchildren and of your great-grandchildren, together with the acknowledged right when they become literally the elders of the nation, to control it in their turn.’”

5 Publications, xix. 273–290.

6 “On March 11, 1663, Bray Rossiter was allowed twenty pounds ‘in reference to openinge Kellies child and his paynes’ in visiting and administering to two officials of Connecticut. ... It is not quite certain whether . . . the ‘opening’ of the child was before or after death” (our Publications, xix. 276). My attention has just been called to Some Early Post Mortem Examinations in New England, a paper read by the late Charles J. Hoadly before the Connecticut Medical Society in May, 1892. From the documents in the case there printed (pp. 3–14) it appears that Elizabeth Kelley, the daughter of John and Bethia Kelley, died in the night of March 26, 1662, and that the autopsy was performed on March 31st. There is a copy of Mr. Hoadly’s paper, of which only fifty copies were printed, in the Harvard College Library.

7 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 269, 283, 286. The name of the accused is here given as Peirce.

8 Journal (1908), i. 319–320. Winthrop calls the accused Percy. This case is mentioned in Hoadly’s paper (p. 15)

9 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vi. 171. On submitting this passage to Dr. Frederick C. Shattuck, I received an interesting reply from which the following is quoted: “Third, it would seem probable that an autopsy was held, from the statement that the kidneys as well as other insides were wasted. At the same time one cannot be sure. In those days, even more than at present, there were doctors who knew a good many things that were not true. It seems to me fair for you to assume that an autopsy was probably held.”

10 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vi. 199. The children died respectively on the 5th, 7th, and 15th of December (vi. 177).

11 Magnalia (1702), bk. iv. ch. iii, § 7, p. 156.

12 Ibid. bk. iii. ch. xxvi, §8, p. 118. This case’ also is mentioned in Hoadly’s paper (p. 14).

13 Diary, i. 389–390.

14 Diary, i. 229. Mary Stoddard was the first wife of Simeon Stoddard (d. 1730).

15 Boston Gazette, February 13, 1753, p. 3/1.

16 Boston Gazette, August 16, 1753, p. 2/1.

17 Now that part of Hanover Street between Blackstone and North Bennet Streets.

18 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 226. Dr. George A. Perkins states (Family of John Perkins of Ipswich, 1882, i. 49 note 10) that Dr. Perkins was a descendant of the Rev. William Perkins of Topsfield, but I have been unable to trace the descent.

19 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xix. 234.

20 I Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, vii. 178.

21 See p. 18, below.

22 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xvi. 116–117. That this was Dr. William Lee Perkins may, I think, be safely assumed, since there is no evidence that there were in Boston at that time a Dr. William Perkins and also a Dr. William Lee Perkins. There is, however, a still earlier allusion to him. In the Massachusetts House Journal, under date of January 21, 1761, we read:

Whereas it is represented to both Houses that Dr. William Perkins of Boston, hath thro’ Carelessness, or something worse, been instrumental in spreading the Small Pox in Boston, and unless speedy Care be taken, there is Reason to fear said Contagion will proved universal: Therefore,

Voted, That ... be a Committee forthwith to take said Matter under Consideration, that they may be impowered to send for the said Wm. Perkins, . . . (Journal, p. 203).

On January 22 the committee reported that “the within named William Perkins . . . hath been guilty of very great Carelessness by means whereof the Child of Nathaniel Barber & the son of Richard Wheat received the small Pox.” As printed in the House Journal and as recorded in the Court Records (xxiii. 583, 588–589), the name in every instance reads William Perkins; but as printed in the Massachusetts Province Laws (xvi. 681), the name in one instance reads “William P. Perkins” and is so indexed. An examination of the original order and the report of the committee (Massachusetts Archives, lxxxvii. 342–344) shows that the name is William Perkins except in one instance, where it is apparently written “Doct W^m P Perkins.” There is a wide space between the P which stands by itself and the P which begins Perkins, and the P which stands by itself has what may be a line drawn through it. As, so far as is known, no Dr. William P. Perkins existed at that time, it is probable either that the P which stands by itself was crossed out or that the scribe wrote P by mistake for L.

23 Letters and Diary of John Rowe, p. 125. On May 30, 1767, Dr. Perkins again dined with Rowe (p. 133).

24 Letters and Diary, pp. 220, 241.

25 The Rev. Jeremiah Condy died August 28, 1768 (Boston News Letter, September 1, p. 1/1). The marriage of his widow to Dr. Perkins must have taken place between 1768 and 1773, for she died on July 7, 1773: “Died Yesterday Morning, Mrs. Sarah Perkins, Consort of Dr. William Lee Perkins” (ibid. July 8, p. 3/1). On August 21, 1772, Martin Gay was appointed guardian to Sarah and Thomas Hollis Condy, “Children of Jeremy Condy, late of said Boston Clerk deceased” (Suffolk Probate Files, nos. 15198, 15199).

26 Details in regard to the three marriages of Elizabeth Wentworth follow.

“Yesterday Morning at King’s-Chappel, Mr. John Gould, jun. [of this Town, Merchant, was married to Miss Elizabeth Wentworth, an agreeable young Lady” (Boston Gazette, April 10, 1758, p. 3/1). Elizabeth Wentworth was the daughter of Samuel Wentworth (1708–1766; H. C. 1728), who was a son of Lt.-Gov. John Wentworth (1671–1730) of New Hampshire. In his Annals of King’s Chapel, Foote fell into several mistakes in regard to the Gould family. Thus he quotes the above marriage notice and adds: “He went to England, and was a loyalist addresser of the King in 1779” (ii. 122 note 39). Exactly when John Gould, Jr., died I do not know, but as his death must have occurred before the remarriage of his widow to Nathaniel Rogers in 1765, obviously John Gould the Loyalist was a different person. Again, speaking of the Rev. John Troutbeck of King’s Chapel, Foote, after stating that he married (May 8, 1759) Sarah Gould, went on to say: “Mrs. Troutbeck had brothers, — John and Thomas Gould, — neither of whom left any children. Her father, from whom she inherited some property, was a distiller, which gives the point to some scurrilous verses, very popular at the time of the Revolution, in a ‘Ballad of the Boston Ministers,’ first printed in 1859 in the N. E. Hist, and Geneal. Reg. xiii. 132; xxv. 420” (ii. 189 note). John Gould, Sr., the father of Mrs. Troutbeck, was a merchant, not a distiller; and the verses in question obviously refer not to Mr. Gould but to Mr. Troutbeck:

John, of small merit, who deals in spirit,
As next in course I sing; Fain would I treat, as is most meet,
This chaplain of the King.
His Sunday aim is to reclaim
Those that in vice are sunk;
When Monday’s come, he selleth rum,
And gets them plaguey drunk.

As printed in the Register (xiii. 132), there is this footnote: “Rev. John Troutback; he was also a distiller.”

John Gould, Sr., died January 9, 1772: “Last Wednesday departed this Life, in the 72d Year of his Age, John Gould, Esq; well known for his extensive Trade, and great Integrity; and no less remarkable for fulfilling all his Engagements with the most nice and scrupulous exactness — His Remains are to be interred at 3 o’Clock this Afternoon under King’s Chapel” (Boston Gazette, January 13, p. 3/2). On January 9 John Rowe noted, “My Worthy Friend Old M^r Gould Died;” and on the 13th, “I Attended as a Relation The Funerall of my Old Friend M^r John Gould” (Letters and Diary, p. 223). Yet in the index (which is otherwise defective) to that book, he is entered as Robert Gould, as he is also in 2 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, x. 39. His will (dated December 28, 1771, proved January 17, 1772) mentions his daughter Sarah Troutbeck and the three children of his son John deceased, and contains this item: “I give unto my Daughter in law M^rs Eliz^th Rogers ten guineas” (Suffolk Probate Files, no. 15077). So far from leaving no children, as Foote affirmed, John Gould, Jr., left at least three — John, Samuel, and Elizabeth. On June 5, 1772, John Trecothick was appointed their guardian (Suffolk Probate Files, no. 15150).

The second marriage of Elizabeth Wentworth took place October 15, 1765, as appears from a notice in the Boston Evening Post of October 21:

PORTSMOUTH, New-Hampshire, Oct. 18.

Last Tuesday afternoon was married at his Excellency’s the Governor’s, by the Rev. Mr. Caner of Boston, Nathaniel Rogers, of Boston, Esq; to Mrs. Elizabeth Gould, of the same place; a Lady very amiable and highly esteemed (p. 3/2).

In the Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxx. 361, as also in Sabine’s American Loyalists, ii. 236, his name is given as Nathan Rogers. By this marriage there was one child — George Wentworth Rogers — who was baptized at King’s Chapel on September 3, 1766, and doubtless died in infancy (Wentworth Genealogy, i. 526). This Nathaniel Rogers has apparently never been identified. “Mr. Rogers,” says the Wentworth Genealogy, “is supposed to have been lost at sea, as he was never heard from after he sailed from this country” (i. 526). No authority is given for this surmise, nor is it stated when, from where, or to where Mr. Rogers sailed. Had he simply disappeared, Mrs. Rogers might have found it difficult to marry again, as she did in 1774. Moreover, on her marriage to Dr. Perkins she was called the “Widow of the late Nathaniel Rogers” (see below). I suspect that Elizabeth Wentworth’s second husband was the Nathaniel Rogers who died August 9, 1770: “Last Thursday Noon Nathaniel Rogers, Esq; of this Town, Merchant, was suddenly seized with a Paralytic Disorder, and died in a few Hours after” (Boston Evening Post, August 13, p. 3/1). That this Nathaniel Rogers was married we learn from a statement in the Boston Gazette of January 29, 1770, to the effect that among those present at a certain rout and card party the previous Wednesday were “Nathaniel Rogers, Samuel Waterhouse and John Erving, Esq’rs; with their Ladies” (p. 3/1); and from a letter written by himself January 19, 1770, in which he speaks of “M^rs Rogers” (Massachusetts Archives, xxv. 351). But though a man of property he died intestate, and his cousin, Thomas Hutchinson, Jr., was admitted administrator of his estate on August 24, 1770 (Suffolk Probate Files, no. 14779).

Mr. and Mrs. Rogers were married at Portsmouth at the house of Gov. Benning Wentworth of New Hampshire by the Rev. Dr. Caner of King’s Chapel. Their child was baptized at King’s Chapel. The Nathaniel Rogers who died August 9, 1770, was buried under King’s Chapel (Foote, Annals, ii. 239). It may fairly be assumed, I think, that the Nathaniel Rogers who married Mrs. Gould in 1765 and the Nathaniel Rogers who died August 9, 1770, were one and the same. If so, he was a well known Boston merchant. On May 27, 1736, his father George Rogers — who was a son of the Rev. Nathaniel Rogers (1669–1723; H. C. 1687) of Portsmouth, N. H. — married Lydia Hutchinson, a sister of Gov. Thomas Hutchinson (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 198). George Rogers died September 5, 1747 (Boston News Letter, September 10, p. 3/1), leaving two children, Nathaniel and Sarah. In 1762 Nathaniel Rogers received the degree of A.M. from Glasgow University and the same degree ad eundem from Harvard College in the same year. The statement that he graduated A.B. at Glasgow in 1755, found in the earlier Harvard Quinquennials (and repeated in Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, vi. 336, xxvi. 401), is a mistake, as I ascertained in 1909 from W. Innes Addison, and the error was corrected in the 1910 Quinquennial. In the New England Historical and Genealogical Register it is stated that his wife was “Elizabeth-” (xii. 341). In 1776 Nathaniel and Sarah Rogers sold to Daniel Malcom a piece of property in Boston, and “In Witness thereof we the said Nathaniel and Sarah and Elizabeth the wife of the said Nathaniel in testimony that she releases all her Right of Dower in the premises hereunto set our hands & seals this twenty second day of March,” and on March 25 “M^r Nathaniel Rogers Miss Sarah Rogers and M™ Elizabeth Rogers” acknowledged the instrument (Suffolk Deeds, cviii. 154). The Boston News Letter of November 12, 1767, stated that “Nathaniel Rogers, Esq; of this Town, Merchant, went Passenger in Capt. Cotting” the previous Friday (p. 2/1). On November 20, 1768, he wrote a letter, printed in the Boston Gazette of November 21, in which he said that “during my late residence in England I strove for the acquaintance of men of all parties, that I might gain a just knowledge of their sentiments relating to the public affairs in America,” and that “the last summer a general alarm appeared in the kingdom that we were taking the most imprudent steps” (p. 2/2). From a letter written by him on December 12, 1768 (printed in the “Hutchinson Letters,” Boston, 1773, pp. 38–40), it appears that he desired to be made Secretary of Massachusetts. The Boston Gazette of December 4, 1769, stated: “We hear that Mr. Nathaniel Rogers, Trader in this Town, expects to be Secretary of the Province of New-Hampshire, in the Room of the late Theodore Atkinson, Esq;” (p. 3/1). Theodore Atkinson, Jr. (H. C. 1757) was the son of Theodore Atkinson (H. C. 1718) and Hannah (Wentworth) Atkinson, the latter a daughter of Lt.-Gov. John Wentworth (1671–1730) and so a sister of Gov. Benning Wentworth (H. C. 1715) of New Hampshire. Theodore Atkinson, Jr., married his first cousin Frances Wentworth, a daughter of Samuel Wentworth (H. C. 1728) and hence a sister of the Elizabeth Wentworth whose second husband was Nathaniel Rogers. Theodore Atkinson, Jr., died October 28, 1769, and on the 11th of November following his widow was married to another first cousin, Gov. Sir John Wentworth (1737–1820; H. C. 1755) of New Hampshire. If the Nathaniel Rogers who expected to succeed Theodore Atkinson, Jr., as Secretary of New Hampshire was the Nathaniel Rogers who in 1765 married Mrs. Gould, the reason for such an expectation is furnished by the double connection of his wife with Gov. Sir John Wentworth. Mr. Rogers did not obtain the position, and in 1770 there is again allusion (as in the Boston Gazette of June 11, p. 3/1) to his becoming Secretary of Massachusetts. In 1768 “M^rs Elizabeth Rogers” gave to King’s Chapel its Baskerville Bible of 1763 (Foote, Annals, ii. 345 note 2).

The third marriage of Elizabeth Wentworth occurred April 21, 1774: “Last Evening was Married, at His Excellency Governor WENTWORTH’s, by the Rev. Dr. BYLES, Doctor WILLIAM LEE PERKINS of Boston, to Mrs. ROGERS, second Daughter to SAMUEL WENTWORTH, Esq; late of the same Place” (New Hampshire Gazette, April 22, 1774, p. 3/2). In the Wentworth Genealogy (i. 527) it is stated that “The marriage was thus announced in the Portsmouth Gazette: ‘Last Evening ... of Boston, formerly of Hampton Court, Great Britain, to Mrs. Rogers, . . . same place.’” By the “Portsmouth Gazette” is meant the New Hampshire Gazette published at Portsmouth, but the words italicized by me are not in the original. The Boston News Letter of April 28, 1774, stated that Mrs. Rogers was the “Widow of the late Nathaniel Rogers, Esq;” (p. 3/1).

Anna Perkins married George Henry Apthorp, a son of James and Sarah (Wentworth) Apthorp, the latter a daughter of Samuel Wentworth (H. C. 1728) and thus a sister of Elizabeth Wentworth.

27 New England Chronicle, November 2, 1775.

28 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xviii. 267.

29 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 913, 916; Memorial History of Boston, ii. 563.

30 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xix. 220, 223.

31 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxvi. 258. On March 8, 1781, Samuel Curwen (Journal and Letters, 1864, p. 339) met Dr. Perkins in London.

32 Suffolk Deeds, clxxi. 247. It was recorded January 9, 1792.

33 There are copies in the Boston Athenaeum and in the Harvard College Library. A second edition of this Essay, with additions, was published at London in 1790. Cf. Watt, Bibliotheca Britannica, ii. 747.

34 Medical Commentaries, London, 1786, xi. 298–300. This work was reprinted at Philadelphia in 1795, Dr. Perkins’s article appearing in vi. 188–190.

35 Memoirs of the Medical Society of London, 1792, iii. 580–581. In the table of contents (p. xxiv), the article is described as “by William Lee Perkins, M.D., C.M.S. of Court Hampton.” The Medical Society of London consisted of Fellows, Corresponding Members, and Candidates. Presumably the letters “C.M.S.” indicate “Candidate of the Medical Society;” but whether Dr. Perkins ever became a member I do not know.

36 Wentworth Genealogy, i. 527.

37 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xx. 39.

38 “D I E D ] . . . At Quincy, Mrs. Elizabeth Perkins, Æt. 64, widow of the late Dr. Wm. L. Perkins” (Columbian Centinel, March 13, 1802, p. 2/4). Cf. Wentworth Genealogy, i. 527. In addition to the authorities cited in the footnotes, see Sabine, American Loyalists, ii. 177; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, v. 414⁷, xix. 67, 234, 263.

39 Here a word has been crossed out or altered so as to be undecipherable.

40 “Geniture, or Horoscope of John Hancock,” dated “London, 1760,” and signed “Roger Rintoul.” See 2 Bostonian Society’s Publications, i. 56.

41 “Price 6^d London Printed & Sold by Preston, at his Warehouses, Exeter Change, & 97 Strand. Where may be had all the Songs in the above Opera detatched. Pr. each 6^d.” See also: “The Songs, Duets, Trios, & Choruses, of the Historical Romance of Richard Cœur de Lion as performed at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane, The Music by Mons^r Gretry, Adapted to the English Words by M^r Linley. Price 8^s London: Printed for S. A & P. Thompson N° 75 S’ Pauls Church Yard.” (No date.) Curiously enough, the words of Antonio’s song as printed by Preston differ from the words as printed by Thompson and in the many editions of Burgoyne’s historical romance.

42 “Richard Cœur de Lion. A Comic Opera, as performed at The Theatre Royal Covent Garden. Taken from a French Comedy of the same Name, written by Monsieur Sedaine; by Leonard MacNally, Esq. London: . . . M, DCC, LXXXVI.”

43 “Richard Cœur de Lion. An Historical Romance. Translated from the French of Monsr. Sedaine. By Lieut. General Burgoyne. . . . Dublin: . . . M DCC XCIV.” (No. 4 in vol. viii of Jones’s British Theatre, Dublin, 1795.)

44 “Richard, Cœur de Lion, Comédie en Trois Actes, en Prose et en Vers, mis en Musique. Represéntée, pour la premiere fois, à Paris, par les Comédiens Italiens ordinaires du Roi, le 21 Octobre 1784; & à Fontainebleau, devant leurs Majestés, le 25 Octobre 1785. ... A Paris, ... M. DCC. LXXXVI.”

45 For an account of MacNally’s comic opera and of Burgoyne’s historical romance, see the Universal Magazine for October, 1786, lxxix, 211–212. Antonio’s song (in Burgoyne’s words) is printed on p. 210, and on p. 212 it is stated that “The Characters of the Historical Romance performed at Drury-lane, were thus represented; . . . Antonio, Miss Romanzini.” Cf. Biographia Dramática (1812), iii. 205.

46 Toppan’s Edward Randolph (Prince Society), iv. 61.

47 “1683. George, John, — was appointed lieutenant of the Portsmouth 1672. From this vessel he was removed to the same station on board the Foresight on the 27th of July 1674. He was promoted, on the 29th of May 1677, to be first lieutenant of the Leopard; and on the 11th of September, in the following year, to the same station on board the Happy Return. On the 13th of January 1679, he was again made lieutenant of the Leopard. On the 14th of April 1683, he was appointed first lieutenant of the Grafton, and on the 17th of December following was promoted to the command of the Deptford ketch. On the 23d of March 1683–4, he was removed into the Rose, after which his name does not occur in the service” (Charnock, Biographia Navalis, ii. 98).

48 Our Publications, xvii. 4, 11 note 3.

49 Toppan’s Randolph, vi. 183, 186, 188, 191.

50 iv. 92.

51 Thomas Dudley, born February 26, 1670; H. C. 1685.

52 Toppan’s Randolph, iv. 92.

53 iv. 118, vi. 198.

54 Randolph lived in John Usher’s house.

55 Toppan’s Randolph, vi. 202.

56 Massachusetts Archives, cxxvi. 334, 335.

57 cxxvi. 334.

58 cxxvii. 74.

59 cxxviii. 140.

60 Massachusetts Archives, cxxviii. 153.

61 Ibid.

62 cxrix. 44.

63 Toppan’s Randolph, iv. 224.

64 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 216, 218.

65 Littlefield, Early Boston Booksellers, p. 148.

66 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 216, 218.

67 Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, i. 374; Andros Tracts (Prince Society), i. 4, 118, ii. 53, 194; Calendar State Papers, America and West Indies, 1689–1692, no. 196.

68 “1690. Condon, David, — was appointed second lieutenant of the Unicorn in 1672, and of the Foresight in 1673. On the 28th of July 1678, he was promoted, by sir John Narborough, to be first lieutenant of the Portsmouth. On the 4th of March 1681–2, he was appointed to the same station on board the Dragon; as he was also, on the 14th of April 1685, on board the Rose. On the 25th of May 1690, he was promoted to the command of the same ship: he was afterwards made Captain of the Heart Ketch; in which vessel he was unfortunately killed on the 9th of June 1692. We have diligently searched for some authentic particulars relative to this action, but without success. We know only, that the ship itself was taken after being very gallantly defended, for a considerable time, by a very superior force” (Charnock, Biographia Navalis, ii. 308).

69 Our Publications, xvii. 17–26.

70 Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 11.

71 Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 92.

72 cvii. 96a.

73 “Boston June 12, 1689 The Gov^r & Councill with y^e Rep^rsentatives now assembled in the Convention, Hauing re[ad] & considered the Peticⁿ of Sundry Gentⁿ & march^tshereunto annexed, Do consent that reasonabl Security to y^e Sattisfac^con of this Court being first given Cap^t George be ꝓmitted if he soe meet, to attend their motion and that the Sailes y^t were brought on shoare be redeliv^ed passed on y^e affirmative by y^e Mag^ts

ꝓ order Th° Danforth

Voted A non Concurrence. As Attests

Ebenezer Prout: Clerk”

(Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 93.)

74 Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 111.

75 cvii. 174.

76 Massachusetts Archives, lxxxi. 34.

77 cvii. 251.

78 cvii. 256.

79 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlv. 216.

80 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2539:12.

81 Ibid. no. 2539: 1.

82 Massachusetts Archives, cxxvii. 74.

83 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2538: 6.

84 Massachusetts Archives, boon. 43.

85 cvii. 272, 274.

86 cvii. 274.

87 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2516.

88 Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 265, 277, 278, 279.

89 cvii. 279.

90 cvii. 277.

91 Now Vineyard Haven.

92 Suffolk Court Files, no. 253:77.

93 On southeast side of Naushon Island, in Vineyard Sound.

94 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 10a.

95 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2520.

96 “Mart. Vineyard. Sep^tr 22^d 89 Worshipf^ll S^r I send the bearer post, to inform, that one Hawkins, hath lately taken William Lord, in a Barqu^e from Jamaica, this day, following a Vesle into this port, being the Sabath, gave advantage, to raise such force to deter them, from Comeing so neer as to fetch out the vesle: of which wee thought meet to give Speedy advice, that, at least Such as are designed westward, might know the daing^r. the s^d pirates are in a Sloope, belonging to M^r peeter Coffin, & S^d barqu^e being all needf^ll at p^rsent — am

Yo^r Wo^rships humble S’vant

Matt Mayhew.”

(Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 10a.)

97 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 31, lxxxi. 80.

98 cvii. 229.

99 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2539: 9.

100 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 61.

101 General Court Records, vi. 85. See p. 40 note 1, below.

102 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 79, 117.

103 xxxv. 238.

104 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 141a.

105 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2539: 7, 13; Massachusetts Archives, cxrviii. 136.

106 Toppan’s Randolph, iv. 300.

107 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 95, 96.

108 Records of the Court of Assistants, i. 305–307.

109 Records of the Court of Assistants, i. 320.

110 i. 321.

111 Sewall, Diary, i. 309.

112 i. 309.

113 General Court Records, vi. 116, 119; Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 251-252a, xxxvi. 394.

114 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xvi. 104

115 Ibid. p. 107.

116 The New England Weekly Journal of October 18, 1731, noted the death on the 11th of Benjamin Gallup, who, when “Lieutenant under Capt. Pease,” captured “a Man called Pounds.”

117 Gay Transcripts (Massachusetts Historical Society), Philips, i. 53.

118 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2539: 7, 13.

119 A Vindication of New England, Andros Tracts, ii. 53.

120 Massachusetts Archives, cxxvi. 344.

121 See p. 39, above.

122 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2539: 13

123 “Rebeca Thomas aged 46 years or there about testifieth and saith that she going to the prison to carry victuals for thomas Hawkins who then was in an other Rome, she said unto thomas Pounds what a sad thing it was to see so many men brought into trouble; and for thomas Hawkyns it was a sore grief to his mother thomas Pounds said he would Clear Hawkyns for 2 pence, I said how can that be, seeing he was the first man that borded y^e Salem ketch; y^e said Pounds replied and said if he had nott, he would have kild ye Dogg” (Suffolk Court Files, no. 2539:14).

124 Savage, Genealogical Dictionary.

125 The following advertisement was printed in the London Gazette of April 30, 1691: “A large two Sheet Map of New-England, from Cape Cod to Cape Sables; Describing all the Sands, Shoals, Rocks, &c. Together with a Sand draught of the Mattathussetts Bay, (alias Boston Bay), exactly survey’d by the Author, Tho. Pound. Sold by Phil. Lea, Globemaker, at the Atlas and Hercules in Cheap-side, W. Court on Tower-hill, G. Flower near Ratcliffe.”

126 English Pilot, Fourth Book, 1758.

127 Massachusetts Archives, cix. 576.

128 English Pilot, Fourth Book, 1706–1729.

129 The Pound Chart of Boston Harbor, with slight variations, is found: as an inset to Robert Morden’s A new map of the English Empire in America [1695]; in Philip Lea’s Hydrographia Universalis [1700]; Sanson’s Neptune François [1700]; the English Pilot, Fourth Book, 1706, 1716, 1729, as an inset to A large draught of New England, New York and Long Island, based partly on Pound’s New England; the English Pilot, Fourth Book, 1732, 1737, 1742, 1745, 1748, 1749, 1753, 1755, 1758, as an inset to A correct map of New England, 1731, based on Southack; inset to Senex’s A new map of the English Empire in America, 1719; inset to Daniel Neal’s A new map of New England, 1720; Halley’s Atlas Maritimus, 1728; and elsewhere.

130 Charnock, Biographia Navalis, ii. 401, and his Log.

131 Log of the Rose.

132 Log of the Dover.

133 Will.

Six years ago I wrote to the late Sir John K. Laughton, asking his opinion on several points. His reply, dated Navy Records Society, June 1, 1912, is in part as follows:

“My advanced age and failing eyesight prevent my examining into the interesting question you raise, so I think I am acting upon the spirit of your enquiry by turning it over to my son, who will, I believe, in a few days’ time succeed me as Secretary of this Society. It is quite possible and not improbable that there may be letters of Thom. Pound at the Record Office; if not, I fear nothing can be done except by one of those lucky accidents which come at times when least to be expected.

“I am also putting a query about him in the Mariners’ Mirror, which may tap some unknown vat — but considering the point as you state it, I should say that there is little doubt that Thomas Pound the Pilot, Thomas Pound the Pirate, Thomas Pound the Captain, and Thomas Pound the Cartographer, are not four men but one man.”

An attempt has been made to connect Capt. Thomas Pound with Capt. Thomas Pond, who was supposed to have given to the Corporation of Youghal, Ireland, in 1690, “a silver boat which holds three noggins [i.e. gills], which is to be drank full at the several feasts of the mayors with the usual toasts,’ Capt. Pond dead or alive.’” This is quoted in Notes and Queries (October 19, 1861, Second Series, xii. 310) as from the manuscript Memoirs of the Town of Youghal (Handbook of Youghal, 1852), but here the name reads Capt. Thomas Ponel, and the boat itself has the name so spelled (Council Book of the Corporation, 1878, plate 7). On August 2, 1690, Youghal, with its garrison of three companies of foot, surrendered to fifty dragoons under command of Capt. Thomas Pownal (Harris, Life of William III, p. 285). In the Council Book of the Corporation, under date of January 6, 1693, is found: “Whereas it appears that a small Silver Cup, now in the possession of Robt. Ball, Aid., was given him by Capt. Thomas Pownall for the use of the Corporation: Ordered, that said Aid. Ball forthwith deliver the said Silver Cup unto Mr. Mayor, who is to pay him 4s. 9d., which he gave Capt. Pownall’s servant who gave him the said cup from his master, and said Silver Cup is henceforth to be kept by the Mayor of Youghal for the time being, for the Corporation” (p. 390). And in further confirmation that it was Capt. Pownall otherwise Ponel, and not Capt. Pound, who gave the boat, it bears the Pownall Crest, a Lion’s Gamb, holding a key (Heraldic Journal, in. 56) on one side, and on the reverse “The guift: of: Cap’: Thomas: Ponel: to: the: Corporation Of: Youghall 1690.” This monteth or loving cup is boat shaped, five inches long, two and three fourths inches wide and two inches high (Council Book, plate 7).

134 An Account of the late Revolution in New England, Andros Tracts, ii. 194.

135 The Revolution in New England Justified, Andros Tracts, i. 118.

136 A Vindication of New England, Andros Tracts, ii. 53.

137 The Red Lion was at the northeast corner of North and Richmond Streets.

138 Perhaps the house of William Colman, at the northeast corner of North and Fleet Streets.

139 Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts (London, 1765), i. 374. “An anonymous letter,” says Hutchinson, “gives a more circumstantial account of this revolution, than any that has yet been printed.”

140 Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies, 1689–1692, no. 196.

141 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2539:1.

142 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2538:6. At bottom, upside down, is an extract from the Council Record of August 12, 1689:

“Inform, being given this day from Salem y^e Tho. Hawk, and

It^s ordered y^t a suitable vessell well-mand be forthwith sent out from Salem to seeke after and surprise y^{e e} s^dkatch and men in her and to bring him in and y^e militia of Salem and Marblehead are desired and ordered forthwith to put this order in Execution.”

143 2 Collections Maine Historical Society, ii. 32–34.

144 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2516.

145 Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 277.

146 Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 278.

147 Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 279.

148 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2537:7.

149 Massachusetts Archives, lxxxi. 80.

150 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 31. This is endorsed: “Copy of Com̄ission, to Capⁿ Sam^ll Pease Com̄and^r of y^e Sloop Mary. 1689.”

151 ‘“Outward bound, Nov. 23, 1688, Sam. Pease, Master, Shipp Fortune, Coland, 200 tons, 12 guns, 20 men, Tobago” (Massachusetts Archives, vii. 60).

152 Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 229. This is an abstract.

153 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2539:13.

154 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2539:7.

155 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 61.

156 General Court Records, vi. 90.

157 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 117.

158 xxxv. 125.

159 Andros Tracts, iii. 236.

160 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 159.

161 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 95.

162 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 96.

163 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2538: 9.

164 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2537: 6.

165 Ibid. no. 2520.

166 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlv. 216.

167 Suffolk Court Files, no. 2359:12.

168 Records of the Court of Assistants, i. 305

169 Records of the Court of Assistants, i. 307–309.

170 i. 320–321

171 Records of the Court of Assistants, i. 321–322.

172 Massachusetts Archives, cvii. 301.

173 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 150.

174 General Court Records, vi. 106.

175 Massachusetts Archives, xxxv. 238.

176 £ 13. 6. 8. Coles’s Dictionary (London, 1701) gives the value of a mark silver as worth 13s 4d, and of a mark gold as 33s 4d. See Sewall’s Diary, i. 202 note.

177 General Court Records, vi. 116.

178 vi. 119–120.

179 Gay Transcripts (Massachusetts Historical Society), Phips, i. 31

180 Ibid. i. 55

181 Gay Transcripts, Phips, i. 53.

182 All dates are New Style, unless otherwise specified.

183 J. B. Williams, History of English Journalism, p. 26

184 Perfect Diurnall, no. 156, p. 1250, July 27, 1646. The book was written by John Vicars. Professor C. N. Greenough points out the probability that the title of Cotton Mather’s great work, Magnalia Christi Americana, was modeled on this.

185 Williams, p. 121, calls this notice of Walker’s “the first practical realization” of a scheme of advertising. But Pecke’s first notice antedates Walker’s by nine months.

186 Perfect Diurnall, no. 33, p. 392, July 29, 1650.

187 Ibid. no. 104, December 8, 1651

188 In the Gay Collection alone are 1028 tracts not listed in the Thomason Catalogue

189 Mr. Frederick L. Gay had himself noted many of these titles, as Mr. John H. Edmonds calls to my attention. To Mr. Edmonds I am indebted for several suggestions.

190 The newspapers at that time had double dates, the one cited in the text being dated March 13–20. As here printed, the date of the day of publication only is given

191 Misprint for “Dignity.”

192 Misprint for “Civil.”

193 Misdated “1652.”

194 Misprint for “Churches.”

195 The newsbook is wrongly dated June 2–12, instead of June 5–12.

196 The title-page of the H copy, after the material given in the advertisement, reads: “by an Assembly of Divines meeting at Boston in New England, June 4^th 1657. Now Published by a Lover of Truth. London . . . 1659.” From the preface it appears that the manuscript had been in England for some time, and was finally printed to show the continuity between the English and the colonial creeds. I find no indication of the author; the preface, indeed, declares it a joint production of the Assembly in question 1657.

197 John White (H. C. 1685).

198 Belknap Papers (Massachusetts Historical Society), vii. 7. The endorsement is in Belknap’s hand

199 As, when this letter was written, Belcher had been in Boston for two months, and as Belcher was in London on December 27, 1704, it follows that Dudley’s letter to Belcher was written February 6, 1705–6. Belcher’s arrival is mentioned neither in the Boston News Letter nor in Sewall’s Diary

200 In a letter to the Council of Trade and Plantations, dated March 10, 1705, Dudley said: “By the last ships I received H.M. picture and coat of armes, the armes were the next day fixed in the Council Chamber; and I issued warrants to the Sheriffs forthwith to reforme the armes in all their Court-houses before the next session of any Court. H.M. picture I have set up in my owne house, where it is alwaies in the view of all masters of sea, strangers etc.” (Calendar of State Papers, American and West Indies, 1704–1705, p. 448: cf. Palfrey, History of New England, iv. 295 note). Exactly when Dudley removed Anne’s portrait from his own house to the Council Chamber does not appear, unless the letter in the text means that it was removed on February 6, 1706.

201 Anne’s birthday was no doubt celebrated each year from 1703 to 1714. The celebration in 1705 was thus described in the Boston News Letter of February 12:

On Tuesday the 6th Instant, being Her Majesty’s Birth Day; The Honourable the Lieutenant Governour, and the Gentlemen of Her Majesties Council, with

202 Gay Transcripts (Massachusetts Historical Society), Miscellaneous, i. 172. On October 29, 1706, it was “Ordered. That M^r Commissary Belcher take care to provide an Iron Rails to be placed at the foot of her Maj^ty’s Picture affixed in the Council Chamber to keep persons off from rubbing it, and a handsom Curtain to draw over and cover it from being soil’d with dust; and a handsom Curtain to draw over and Cover the Princess Sophia’s Picture” (Council Records, iv. 325).

203 It is possible that this letter was taken to England by Belcher himself, for on March 13, 1708, Sewall took leave of him and he did not return to Boston until April 29, 1709 (Sewall’s Diary, ii. 220, 254).

204 Gay Transcripts (Massachusetts Historical Society), Miscellaneous, i. 174

205 Were they bayberry candles? On June 5, 1739, the Corporation of Harvard College voted to send to Joseph Mico in London “a box of thirty or fourty w’ of Bay-berry Candles, as a Small Acknowledgment of his great Kindness to us, in taking Care of M^r Penoyer’s Legacy for us” (College Book, iv. 218).

206 Gay Transcripts (Massachusetts Historical Society), Miscellaneous, i. 173.

Belcher’s visits to Hanover were well known, for on September 23, 1714, “Mr. Jonathan Belcher, A Gentleman who had been Twice at the Court of Hanover, on the Occasion of His Majesty King GEORGE’s Accession to the Crown, and his being Proclaimed, made a very Splendid Entertainment for His Excellency the Governour and Council, with a great many other Gentlemen, at his House in Hanover Street, where were Drank His Majesties Health, The Prince [of Wales], Royal Family, &c. the House being all over very finely Illuminated” (Boston News Letter, September 27, p. 2/2).

207 Boston News Letter, October 8, 1711, p. 2/1.

208 House Journal, p. 18.

209 Presumably an error for the 6th.

210 “The Pictures of their Majesties King GEORGE II. and Queen CAROLINE, beautifully drawn at length, are put up in the Council Chamber in this Town, and according to the Inscription at the bottom of them, they are the Gift of His Majesty to this His Province of the Massachusetts-Bay, at the Desire of His Excellency Jonathan Belcher, Esq; Governour of New-England” (New England Weekly Journal, October 19, 1730, p. 2/1).

“An Accompt presented by Will^m Price of his time and trouble in framing & setting up the Kings & Queens Pictures, mending Picture Frames &c, amounting to the sum of £ 7.

“Advised & consented that a Warr^t be made out to the Treasurer to pay to the s^d Will^m Price the sum of Six Pounds in full of the s^d Accompt” (Council Records, February 19, 1731, ix. 278–279).

211 “The Pictures of their Majesties King GEORGE II. and Queen CAROLINE, beautifully drawn at length, are put up in the Council Chamber in this Town, and according to the Inscription at the bottom of them, they are the Gift of His Majesty to this His Province of the Massachusetts-Bay, at the Desire of His Excellency Jonathan Belcher, Esq; Governour of New-England” (New England Weekly Journal, October 19, 1730, p. 2/1).

“An Accompt presented by Will^m Price of his time and trouble in framing & setting up the Kings & Queens Pictures, mending Picture Frames &c, amounting to the sum of £ 7.

212 House Journal, p. 21: cf. Massachusetts Province Laws, xiii. 571.

213 Prytaneum Bostoniense, p. 18; Old State House Memorial, sixth edition, 1893, p. 217.

214 The following table will be useful:

215 In the Act of Settlement (1701) she is called “the most Excellent Princess Sophia Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hannover.” On February 1, 1705, N. Luttrell wrote: “Some dayes since, the queen of Prussia, daughter to theprincesse Sophia of Hanover, dyed at Hanover” (Brief Historical Relation, v. 515). On March 11 and July 3, 1701, he called her “the princesse Sophia, dutchesse dowager of Brunswick” (v. 26, 67); on October 18, 1701, “the princesse Sophia, electoresse dowager” (v. 100); and elsewhere the Princess Sophia (v. 168, 170, 405, vi. 24, 26, 34, 79, 154, 538). In his will, dated December 6, 1727, Governor William Burnet bequeathed to his son Gilbert “Gold and Silver Medals bearing the images of King George the First, and the Princess Sophia, and King George the II.; and the gilt tea-table plate, all of which were given to my father by the said Princess Sophia, late Electoress Dowager of Brunswick” (Collections New York Historical Society, Abstracts of Wills, ii. 350).

216 Boston News Letter, December 10, 1747, p. 2/1. On June 29, 1749, the Council “Voted that his Excellency [Governor Shirley] be desired to request of his Majesty, the Pictures of the Royal Family to be set up in the Council Chamber in the room of those that were lost in the late Fire, as also his Majesty’s Arms to be set up in the Council Chamber” (Council Records, xii. 108).

217 See the notice of him in the Dictionary of National Biography

218 The plate originally contained the portrait of Sophia brought to England by Lord Raby and was “dedicated to his Lordshipp by his must humble Servant, E.C. W Faithorne fee. Cum Privilegio. Sold by E Cooper at the 3 Pigeons in Bedford Street.” Then that portrait was “entirely erased, and a different one of the same person substituted with the face nearer the top of the oval, without high cap or lappets, with a black veil and jewels at breast, ‘W Faithorne’ erased.” Then another change took place, “E.C.” and the address were erased and instead, “I.B. Sold by Iohn Bowks opposite to Stocks Markt & at Mercers Hall Cheapside; before ‘fec’ I Simon, by whom probably the alteration only was executed.” See J. C. Smith, British Mezzotinto Portraits (1884), ii. 475, ii. 819, iii. 1115. For portraits of Sophia, see, besides those listed in the A.L.A. Portrait Index, W. H. Wilkins’s Caroline the Illustrious, i. 88, and A. W. Ward’s The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian Succession (1903), where several are reproduced.

219 History of Plymouth Plantation (1898), p. 374. Reference to this irruption of insects is also made by Morton in his New England’s Memorial (1669, p. 91); by Joeselyn in 1674 (Account of Two Voyages to New-England, p. 254); by Hubbard in his History of New England (written about 1680, but not printed until 1815), pp. 194, 662; and by Prince in 1755— all under the year 1633, and all based on Bradford’s account. Prince says:

This Spring, especially all the Month of May, there are such [Numbers] of a great Sort of Flies, like for Bigness to Bumble-Bees, which come out of Holes, in the Ground [in Pc] replenish all the Woods, eat the green Things, and make such a constant yelling Noise, as all the Woods ring of them, and [deafen] the Hearers. The Indians tell us that Sickness will follow: and so it [proves] in June, July, and August. They have hot by the English been heard or seen before or since (br) [i.e. to the Beginning of 1647, when Gov Bradford ends his History: but have in like Manner at distant Periods risen up since, and are known by the Name of Locusts.’] (Annals of New England, 1755, ii. 92.)

The abbreviations Pc and br stand respectively for Plymouth Colony and “Gov Bradford’s History, in Mss.;” while “The Articles of Plymouth Colony” are distinguished “by single Comma’s.”

220 Cf. Twenty-first Annual Report of the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, 1909, Part ii. pp. 201–204

221 In 1907 C. L. Marlatt wrote:

“The Plymouth swarm of 1634, the first after European settlement, was noted by the early Puritans and is referred to in the two earliest published notices of this curious insect. (See Bibliography.) One of these records gives the definite date of 1633, but, as shown by the subsequent appearances of the swarm, this date is probably an error for 1634. No published records have been found of the later appearances prior to 1789, but definite records have been made of each return since that year” (The Periodical Cicada, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology — Bulletin No. 71, p. 58).

Though Bradford’s passage, quoted in the text, could hardly have been written before 1646 (see his History, pp. 115, 123), yet several tests can be applied to its accuracy. First, Bradford speaks of an infectious fever of which “upwards of 20 persons died, men and women, besides children,” and which did not cease until “towards winter.” On July 12, 1633, Winthrop wrote: “Mr. Edward Winslow, governor of Plymouth, and Mr. Bradford, came into the bay, and went away the 18th;” and on July 24 Winthrop noted: “Much sickness at Plymouth, and above twenty died of pestilent fevers” (Journal, 1908, i. 103). Secondly, Bradford mentions by name three persons who died in 1633 — Thomas Blossome, Richard Masterson, and Samuel Fuller. Blossome must have died on or before March 25, 1633, as under that date there is mention of “Widdow Blossome;” and “Henry Rowly maried Anna, the late wife of Tho: Blossome, the 17 of October, 1633” (Plymouth Colony Records, i. 11, 16). Fuller died between July 30, 1633, on which day he made his will, and October 28 following, when his will was proved (Mayflower Descendant, 1. 24–28; Plymouth Colony Records, i. 18). Exactly when Masterson died I have been unable to ascertain. Thirdly, Bradford states that the disease “also swept away many of the Indians from all the places near adjoining.” Under date of November, 1633, Winthrop noted “A great mortality among the Indians” (Journal, i. 111). Since Bradford was certainly right about the fever, about the death of Blossome and Fuller, and about the sickness among the Indians, it is rash to assume that he was wrong about the swarm of cicadas.

The first part of Mr. Marlatt’s statement invites our consideration. The Plymouth swarm, he says, “is referred to in the two earliest published notices of this curious insect.” Turning to his bibliography (p. 154 of his pamphlet), it is found that the second notice is Morton’s New England’s Memorial of 1669, which of course is a reference to the Plymouth swarm of 1633. But no such conclusion can be drawn from the first notice, dated 1666. This is a brief article entitled “Some Observations of swarms of strange Insects, and the Mischiefs done by them,” printed in the Philosophical Transactions of January 8, 1666, No. 8, i. 137–138. Though the portion relating to this country is given by Mr. Marlatt (p. 146 of his pamphlet), it is quoted here in full:

“A great Observer, who hath lived long in New England, did upon occasion, relate to a Friend of his in London, where he lately was, That some few Years since there was such a swarm of a certain sort of Insects in that English Colony, that for the space of 200 Miles they poyson’d and destroyed all the Trees of that Countrey; there being found innumerable little holes in the ground, out of which those insects brake forth in the form of Maggots, which turned into Flyes that had a kind of taile or sting, which they struck into the Tree, and thereby envenomed and killed it.”

It is to be noted that no year is given and that Plymouth is not mentioned, hence Mr. Marlatt’s assertion that the notice refers to the Plymouth swarm is merely an assumption. It may equally well be regarded as an allusion to the swarm of which Winthrop wrote under date of 1648:

“About the middle of this summer, there arose a fly out of the ground, about the bigness of the top of a man’s little finger, of brown color. They filled the woods from Connecticut to Sudbury with a great noise, and eat up the young sprouts of the trees, but meddled not with the corn. They were also between Plymouth and Braintree, but came no further. If the Lord had not stopped them, they had spoiled all our orchards, for they did some few” (Journal, ii. 348).

Who was the “great Observer” mentioned in the 1666 notice? The names of John Josselyn and of John Winthrop, Jr., immediately occur to one. Josselyn’s first visit to New England was made in 1638, when he anchored before Boston July 3 and sailed from Nantasket October 15. In his second visit, he remained here eight years, arriving at Boston July 28, 1663, and leaving October 10, 1671 (Account of Two Voyages, 1674, pp. 12, 29, 41, 215). Josselyn was probably unknown in England until the publication in 1672 of his New England’s Rarities. On the 6ther hand, John Winthrop, Jr., was in London from October 15, 1661, to March 4, 1663 (see the Winthrop Papers, iv. 74–81); during that time he became a member of the Royal Society; and he was a friend and correspondent of Henry Oldenburg, the Secretary of the Royal Society: hence not improbably Winthrop was the “great Observer.”

222 See 2 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xviii. 467–471.

223 Shakespeare’s words “usurping hair” (Love’s Labour’s Lost, iv. 3) are interpreted by Malone as referring to the false hair, or periwigs, worn by ladies of that day, before men had adopted the practice.

224 See, for example, Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 126, 274.

225 Anthony Wood paid 32s. 6d. for a periwig in 1668, and 1s. 6d. for a block. (Clark, Life and Times of Anthony Wood, ii. 129, 130.)

226 Diary, i. 2, 4.

227 i. 256, 285. Anthony Wood paid 4s. per quarter.

228 i. 285. For a later mention of being trimmed, see ii. 169. On December 25, 1706, he paid 6d. for “a great Tooth’d comb at Dwight’s.”

229 Sewall, Diary, i. 96. Much of this kind of moral “uplift” was doubtless suggested by reading English sermons on like topics. For example the Rev. Thomas Hall, “a plain but fervent preacher” at King’s Norton, printed in 1654 “Comarum ‘Aκoσμiα. The Loathesomeness of Long Haire. . . . With an appendix against Painting, Spots, naked Backs, Breasts, Arms, etc., together with a Discovery of the Nakedness, Madness, and Folly of the Adamits of our time.”

230 i. 104, 112, 145. Cf. “An Arrow against Profane and Promiscuous Dancing,” 1684. As I write the Vatican has issued a letter against modern dances, mentioning some by name

231 Diary, i. 115.

232 i. 169.

233 i. 178.

234 But see p. 115, below, and the law passed by the General Court in October, 1679, which recited:

“Whereas there is manifest Pride openly appearing amongst us in that long Hair like Womens Hair is worn by some men, either their own, or others Hair made into Perewigs: And by some Women wearing Borders of Hair, and their Cutting, Curling, and Immodest laying out their Hair, which practice doth prevail and increase especially amongst the younger sort.

“This Court doth Declare against this ill custome as Offensive to them, and divers sober Christians amongst us, and therefore do hereby exhort and advise all persons to use moderation in this respect; And further do impower all Grand juries to present to the County Court such Persons, whether Male, or Female, whom they shall judge to exceed in the Premises; and the County Court are hereby Authorized to proceed against such Delinquents either by Admonition, Fine, or Correction, according to their good discretion.”

The law was one of a series intended to turn the people “again unto the Lord our God from whom we have departed with a great Backsliding.”

Attention may be called to an earlier protest, twice recorded in the Corporation Records of Harvard College (College Book i. 53 and College Book iii. 29):

“Forasmuch as the wearing of long haire after the manner of Ruffians and barbarous Indians, hath begun to invade new England contrary to the rule of Gods word w^ch sayth it is a shame for a man to wear long hair, as also the Commendable Custome generally of all the Godly of our nation until w^thin this few yeares Wee the Magistrates who have subscribed this paper (for the clearing of o^r owne innocency in this behalfe) doe declare & manifest o^r dislike & detestation against the wearing of such long haire, as against a thing uncivil and unmanly whereby men doe deforme themselves, and offend sober & modest men, & doe corrupt good manners. Wee doe therefore earnestly entreat all the Elders of this Jurisdiction (as often as they shall see cause) to manifest their zeal against it, in their Publike administrations, and to take Care that the members of their respective Churches bee not defiled therw^th, that so such as shall proove obstinate & will not reforme themselves may have god & man to bear witness-against them. The third Month, 10. day 1649.”

This was signed by Governor Endecott, Deputy-Governor Dudley, Richard Bellingham, Richard Saltonstall, Increase Nowell, William Hibbins, Thomas Flint, Robert Bridges, and Simon Bradstreet.

235 Vincent Alsop’s “What distance ought we to keep, in following the strange Fashions of Apparel which come up in the days wherein we live?” This was Sermon XXI in Samuel Annesley’s collection entitled “A Continuation of Morning-Exercise Questions and Cases of Conscience, practically resolved by sundry Ministers, In October, 1682,” London, 1683, pp. 589–632. Remarks on wigs will be found on pp. 605, 608, 610, 628.

236 Sewall, Diary, i. 342. See a reference to another sermon by Mather on Apparel, ii. 174.

237 Sewall, Diary, i. 43.

238 i. 95.

239 i. 102.

240 i. 464. It was never printed

241 Son of Samuel, born June 21, 1681, and therefore quite old enough to determine how he should wear his hair. He was for many years Secretary of the Province.

242 Eunice Tyng, second wife of Samuel Willard

243 Diary, ii. 36.

244 ii. 48.

245 Diary, i. 92.

246 i. 93.

247 i. 152

248 i. 222.

249 i. 231

250 iii. 54.

251 iii. 135.

252 Diary, iii. 270.

253 iii. 272.

254 i. 111.

255 i. 158.

256 i. 494.

257 ii. 251.

258 See Sibley, Harvard Graduates, ii. 239.

259 Diary, iii. 154, 156.

260 i. 453.

261 John Dunton, the bookseller.

262 “or flowers” is written in the margin against this line.

263 I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Mr. Matthews and to Dr. S. E. Morison for aid in the preparation of the manuscript for the press.

264 H. R. Spencer, Constitutional Conflict in Provincial Massachusetts (1905), p. 133.

265 Shute embarked on board the Sea Horse December 27, 1722, and sailed January 1, 1723; cf. our Publicatioas, xvii. 66–68.

266 On December 15, 1725, the Indian delegates were admitted to the Council Chamber and “Articles of Submission and Pacification” were signed: see House Journal of that date, pp. 75–76; Boston News Letter, December 16 and 23.

267 By the Province Charter, seven constituted a quorum: see our Publications, ii. 18.

268 The following extracts relate to the choice of Councillors and Representatives. Two bodies were appointed: one a committee to consider claims and titles to land, the other to assist at the ratification.

“Ordered, That John Stoddard Esq; go up with a Message to the Honourable Board, to Acquaint them that the House is ready to proceed to the Choice of Seven Gentlemen, to be present at the Ratification of the Treaty with the Indians, agreable to the Instrument delivered by His Honour the Lieut. Govemour, to the Indian Delegates” (December 22, 1725, House Journal, p. 89).

“Edmund Quincy Esq; brought down the following Vote of Council, viz. In Council, December 22. 1725. Ordered, That the Honourable William Toiler Esq; John Turner Esq; and the Secretary [Josiah Willard], with such as shall be appointed by the Honourable House of Representatives, be a Committee to receive the several Claims or Titles (that may be had or obtained) of the English to the Lands in the Eastern Parts of this Province; and to repair to Falmouth, at the Time proposed, for the Ratification of the late Treaty, and that they procure the said Claims and Titles, and take care as far as possible to make out the same to the Satisfaction of the Indians; and to distinguish and ascertain what Lands belong to the English, in order to the Effectual Prevention of any Contention or Misunderstanding on that Head for the future. Sent down for Concurrence. Read.

“Voted, That this House will proceed to the Choice of Five Persons to be Employed in the Affair contained in the above Vote of the Honourable Board, to Morrow Morning (December 22, 1725, House Journal, p. 90).

“The Vote of the Council brought down last Night, for appointing a Committee to be present at the Ratification of the Treaty with the Indians according to the Instrument delivered by His Honour the Lieut. Govemour to the Indian Delegates, and sent down for Concurrence. Read and Concur’d, and Voted, That Col. Dudley, Col. Stoddard, Mr. Lindall, Mr. Shove, and Mr. Wainwright, be joyned with the Committee of the Honourable Board, in that Affair” (December 23, 1725, House Journal, p. 91).

“A Message from His Honour by Mr. Secretary, Viz. Gentlemen of the House of Representatives, . . . I am satisfied of the good Disposition of the several Tribes to Maintain the Peace, and that the Delay of the Ratification must be attributed to the Penobscut Indians sending Intelligence so late to the other Tribes, . . . and therefore I have appointed the 15th. of the next Month to meet them at Casco for that End, and I purpose to have the Company of several of His Majesty’s Council, and if you think proper to Appoint any of your Members to attend that Service, it will be very Acceptable to me” (June 9, 1726, House Journal, p. 32).

“The House Entred into the Consideration of His Honours Message of the Ninth Instant, and came into the following Vote, Viz.

“Voted, That Maj. John Quincy and Capt. Amos Turner be added to the Committee, Appointed by this Court the 23d. Day of December last, to Receive the Claims or Titles of the English to the Lands in the Eastern parts of the Province, and to repair to Falmouth at the Time Proposed for the Ratification of the Treaty, &c. And that Mr. Thomas Cushing, Maj. John Chandler, Col. Richard Kent, Capt. Daniel Epes, Henry Phillips Esq; Capt. Edward Goddard, Capt. Thomas Wells, Mr. Edward Arnold, Col. Paine, Mr. John Paine and Maj.Samuel Moodey be added to the aforesaid Committee, who are hereby desired to Attend His Honour the Lieutenant Governour at the Ratification of the late Treaty with the Indians, according to His Honours Appointment for Meeting the Indians the Fifteenth of the next Month at Casco. Sent up for Concurrence” (June 17, 1726, House Journal, p. 54).

“Symonds Epes Esq; brought down the Vote of the 17th. for Appointing a Number of the Members of the Court to Attend on His Honour the Lieut. Governour at the Ratification of the late Treaty to be held by His Honour’s Appointment the 15th. of July at Casco, pass’d in Council, viz. In Council June 22d. 1726. Read and Concurr’d with the Amendments, Viz. Dele the words — be added to the aforesaid Committee who are hereby desired — and add — be desired together with the said Committee — and Ordered, That John Otis Esq; be of the Committee for Claims in the room of the Secretary, and that John Wheelwright, Elisha Cooke, Joseph Hammond, Samuel Thaxter, Thomas Palmer, and Edward Hutchinson Esqrs; be desired to Attend His Honour the Lieut. Goveniour at the Ratification. Sent down for Concurrence. Read and Concurr’d” (June 23, 1726, House Journal, p. 65).

It would appear, then, that as finally constituted the committee on claims and titles consisted of three Councillors and seven Representatives, as follows, the names of Councillors being printed in italics: William Dudley (H.C. 1704) of Roxbury, then Speaker; Timothy Lindall (H.C. 1695) of Salem; John Otis (1657–1727); John Quincy (H.C. 1708) of Braintree; Edward Shove of Dighton; John Stoddard (H.C. 1701) of Northampton; William Tailer, Lieutenant-Governor from 1711 to 1716 and from 1730 to 1732; Amos Turner (d. 1739) of Scituate; John Turner (1671–1742); and John Wainwright (H.C. 1709) of Ipswich. And those appointed to attend Dummer at the ratification were six Councillors and eleven Representatives, as follows, the names of Councillors being printed in italics: Edward Arnold of Duxbury; John Chandler (1665–1743) of Woodstock; Elisha Cooke (H.C. 1697); Thomas Cushing (d. 1740) of Boston; Daniel Epes (1679–1760) of Salem; Edward Goddard of Framingham; Joseph Hammond (d. 1753); Edward Hutchinson (1678–1752); Richard Kent (1673–1740) of Newbury; Samuel Moody (H.C. 1689) of Falmouth; John Paine (d. 1731) of Eastham; Nathaniel Paine of Bristol; Thomas Palmer; Henry Phillips (1681–1729) of Charlestown; Samuel Thaxter (1665–1740); John Wheelwright (d. 1745); and Thomas Wells (1678–1750) of Deerfield.

269 From Edward Goddard’s manuscripts, extracts from which are printed in W. A. Goddard’s Genealogy of the Descendants of Edward Goddard (Worcester, 1833), pp. 64–83.

270 Simon Stone (1631–1708); Rev. Nathaniel Stone (1667–1755; H.C. 1690). Cf. New England Historical and Genealogical Register, x. 229–230; Bond, Watertown Genealogies (1860), i. 585–586.

271 Goddard “also held commissions as Lieutenant and Captain of a troop” (Barry, History of Framingham, p. 261).

272 Rev. David Goddard (1706–1754; H.C. 1731). Edward Goddard died February 9, 1754; his wife died February 4, 1754; David Goddard died January 19, 1754.

273 Second edition (1849), edited by W. Willis, pp. 46–47.

274 First Series (1853), iii. 377–405.

275 A fly leaf contains the words:

1726

Memorandum

Edw^d Goddard 1726

276 At Framingham.

277 William Dummer, acting governor from January 2, 1723, till July 18, 1728.

278 Thomas Sanders, of Gloucester; entered the service of the Province in 1725; commanded the Province sloop of war at the siege of Louisburg; and in 1761 was sent by Gov. Bernard to convey Professor Winthrop, of Harvard College, to Newfoundland where the transit of Venus might be observed. (W. Goold, Portland in the Past, pp. 222–223.)

279 Boston Light.

280 Mt. Agamenticus, 673 feet above the sea, some 6 miles due west of Bald Head Cliff.

281 Now Portsmouth.

282 Wood Island Light off Fletcher’s Neck. Not to be mistaken for Wood Island near Portsmouth Light.

283 Biddeford Pool.

284 John Wentworth (1671–1730), Lieutenant-Governor of New Hampshire under Shute, who took chief command after the latter’s abrupt departure in 1722.

285 Rev. William Shurtleff, of Portsmouth. He was born at Plymouth, graduated from Harvard College in 1707, and came to Falmouth as chaplain of the New Hampshire officials. (Goold, p. 192; Smith’s Journal, p. 46.)

286 Rev. Jabez Fitch, born 1672, son of James Fitch of Norwich, Connecticut. He was graduated from Harvard College in 1694, and settled at Portsmouth, N. H., in 1725. (Smith’s Journal, p. 46.)

287 Probably Richard Hubbard, doorkeeper to the General Court.

288 Papuduck or Purpooduck, the region now known as South Portland. Purpooduck Point is now called Spring Point. (Willis, History of Portland, p. 96.)

289 “Yesterday died Capt. John Alden of this Place, in the 65th Year of his Age” (New England Weekly Journal, February 2, 1730). He was a son of the Capt. John Alden (died March 14, 1702) who was accused of witchcraft in 1692, and a grandson of Pilgrim John Alden.

290 Maj. Samuel Moody, son of the Rev. Joshua Moody (H.C. 1653) of Portsmouth. He was graduated from Harvard College in 1689, and commanded the fort at New Casco (between what are now called Bartlett and Princes Points) from 1709–1716. He then moved to Old Casco (now Portland) and became leader of the little colony there. On what is now Hancock Street, he built and armed the garrison house to which the diary refers

291 George, afterwards George II, and Caroline.

292 Probably Edward Shove from Dighton, Massachusetts. He was admitted inhabitant of Falmouth in September, 1727. (Smith’s Journal, p. 53.)

293 Richard Coller or Collier came from Plymouth Colony in 1715. He died in 1732. (Willis, History of Portland, pp. 321–322.)

294 John Wainwright (H.C. 1709): see p. 154, below.

295 Paul Mascarene, later Colonel, who had been a party to the treaty and was the commissioner of the government of Nova Scotia. (Smith’s Journal, p. 157.) For an excellent sketch of Mascarene, by J. M. Hubbard, see Capt. R. H. R. Smythies’s Historical Records of the 40th Regiment (1894), pp. 527–545.

296 Edward Shove of Dighton already referred to.

297 Rev. John Swift (H.C. 1697), minister at Framingham from 1701 until his death in 1745. Edward Goddard withdrew from his church in 1733. (Barry, History of Framingham, pp. 112, 262.)

298 Avexis or Arexis, one of the four Indian delegates who had signed the treaty at Boston. (Collections Maine Historical Society, hi. p. 380.)

299 Avexis or Arexis, one of the four Indian delegates who had signed the treaty at Boston. (Collections Maine Historical Society, hi. p. 380.)

300 Later referred to as “our chaplain.” Perhaps the Rev. John Robinson (H.C. 1695) of Duxbury.

301 Here are some words in shorthand.

302 Here follows a résumé of the sermon in shorthand.

303 “A Memorial of Ebenezer Pemberton Chaplain at His Majesty’s Castle William, praying that his Sallary may be advanced to 50 s. per Annum, . . . read and Committed to the Committee of Muster-Rolls” (Massachusetts House Journal, June 1, 1726, pp. 18–19). He graduated at Harvard College in 1721, later settled in New York, and was pastor of the New Brick Church in Boston from 1754 to 1777.

304 Here follows a résumé of the sermon in shorthand.

305 Rev. John White, who claimed his ancestor’s titles to land in Purpooduck in 1749. (Smith’s Journal, p. 47.)

306 In the margin is a hieroglyphic, evidently the mark of the sachem.

307 Now called merely Chebeag Island.

308 Sacchetyhock or Parker’s Island, now Georgetown.

309 Capt. Samuel Penhallow, in the service of Massachusetts and New Hampshire from 1703. (Goold, p. 159.)

310 Near the present Arrowsick.

311 Kennebeck Mouth.

312 The Rev. Joseph Baxter on May 2, 1717, notes Col. Minot’s arrival at George Town. (New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxi. 54.)

313 I.e. Cadets.

314 Joseph Heath, frequently in the employ of the Province as an interpreter. (Goold, p. 172.)

315 See p. 129 note 3, above.

316 Now called Atkins’ Bay

317 I.e. Damiscove Island.

318 The words “Small point Damaris Cove, Segwin Sagadahoc rock” are in the margin.

319 “The earliest English name by which the island now called Bangs’, and the main land in Cape Elizabeth opposite to it, were known, was Portland.” (Willis, History of Portland, p. 581.)

320 Between Peaks Island and Long Island.

321 Either Great Hog or Little Hog Island, now Great Diamond and Little Diamond respectively.

322 Capt. Edward Winslow’s company of volunteers raised as a guard to the Lieutenant-Governor at the ratification. See House Journal, June 28, 1726, p. 73; August 24, p. 2. “An Accompt of Major Samuel Moodey, amounting to£ 7 for Twenty Barrels of small beer, supplied Capt. Edward Winslow, at the Ratification of the Peace at Casco-Bay. Read, and Resolved, that the Sum of Seven Pounds, be allowed and paid out of the publick Treasury, to the Accomptant Major Samuel Moodey, in full discharge thereof. Sent up for Concurrence” (August 27, 1726, House Journal).

323 Capt. Samuel Jordan, mentioned as an interpreter in the account of the conference (Collections Maine Historical Society, iii. 382, 399) and preferred by the Indians as being the most easily understood.

324 Capt. John Giles or. Gyles, in command of the block-house at St. Georges River. On November 25, 1726, he petitioned the Court to “take into Consideration his extraordinary Services in Interpreting to the Indians, and make such Enlargement to his pay . . . as . . . shall seem meet,” and on December 1 he was allowed £ 18: House Journal, pp. 4, 15. For his “account of ye No of Indians in each tribe 1726,” see Collections Maine Historical Society, iii. 355–358.

325 Capt. Joseph Bean. (Ibid. iii. 381.)

326 Here follows a résumé in shorthand.

327 Here follows a résumé in shorthand.

328 Capt. Silvanus Davis had been commander of the old fort at Casco. In the course of the wars he was taken prisoner and carried into Canada. (Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts (1795), ii. 21 note; our Publications, xvii. 45.)

329 Some words have been trimmed off.

330 Alias Seguaron. (Collections Maine Historical Society, iii. 380.)

331 Or Meganamoumba. (Ibid.)

332 Probably the four Boston delegates and Wenemouett.

333 Some of the words are interlined, making it difficult to know where they should be inserted. “Then His Honour Ordered the Presents to be delivered. And proceeded, There were two of your Young Men sent to Canada last Year, in the Service of this Province, I would see them, that I might make them a Consideration for their Trouble & Loss of Time in performing the Message, upon which only one of them, viz. Loron’s Son appeared, the other the Sachem said was left at Penobscut, the Lieut. Governour taking two fine Firelocks in his Hand, presented one to him that was present, the other His Honour delivered to the Chief Sachem Wenemouett, desiring of him that it might be given to the other Young Man” (Collections Maine Historical Society, iii. 398).

334 Fort Loyal.

335 Here follows a résumé of the sermon in shorthand.

336 Probably Benjamin Ingersoll, selectman and innholder at Falmouth, who moved to North Yarmouth in 1738. (Willis, p. 296.)

337 See p. 129 note 3, above.

338 Amos Turner of Soituate: see p. 129 note 3, above.

339 David Franklyn, master of the sloop George, “a Transport in His Majesty’s Service Eastward:” cf. Massachusetts Province Laws, xi. 10.

340 Or Portland Head.

341 Stage, Redin’s, Trott’s, Bass, Folly, and Green Islands.

342 Or Porpoise.

343 Here a resume of the sermon follows in shorthand.

344 East of York Harbor.

345 On August 25 the General Court considered the petition of Andrew Andross “Praying for such relief in the Premises as to this Court in their known Wisdom shall seem meet.” It was resolved that he be paid ten pounds out of the public treasury, and the petition referred to the next session for further consideration.(House Journal, August 25, 1726, p. 3.)

346 Simon Goddard (1702–1758) of Shrewsbury.

347 Joseph Goddard (1655–1728).

348 A water-color by D. Bell is preserved in the Harvard Library.

349 See our Publications, vi. 228, 228n, 229n, 231.

350 College Book, vii. 341. In a Diary of Caleb Gannett, now in the College Library, is this entry under date of July 3, 1778: “Went to Boston. Packed, catalogued & removed, the Books lately given by the Gen^l. Court to Harvard College from sequestered Libraries, from Deblois’ Store where they were deposited to Decⁿ Storer’s Store. Left a Catalogue of all the books received in virtue of the Court’s Grant, at Dr. Eliot’s for Capt. Parkman — Paid 12/ for removing the aboves^d. books. Ferriage /5.”

351 College Book, viii. 329.

352 The dates of births, marriages, and deaths here given are chiefly derived from the Haverhill Vital Records, the Ipswich Vital Records, the Newbury Vital Records, the Newburyport Vital Records, and the Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 168, xxviii. 43, 92, 117, 168, xxx. 301, 309. See also Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, iv. 382; Sibley, Harvard Graduates, iii. 354–355; Felt, History of Ipswich, pp. 93, 172, 173, 177; T. F. Waters, Ipswich (1917), ii. 54–60, 100, 151; Hammatt Papers (1880), pp. 384–387; H. Davis, Ancestry of John Davis (1897), pp. 48–49; T. Gamble, Jr., Data concerning the Families of Bancroft, . . . Wainwright, etc. (1906), pp. 86–96; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ii. 214, v. 165, x. 341. I have also consulted Sibley’s manuscript notes on Harvard graduates given to the Massachusetts Historical Society. In the printed accounts, there is hopeless confusion between the John Wainwright who graduated at Harvard in 1709 and the John Wainwright who graduated in 1711; and it is with regard to those two that Savage fell into error.

353 Diary, ii. 234. Noting the death of “Captain Wainwright” on August 29, 1708, Palfrey (History of New England, iv. 274) describes him as “lately the commander at Port Royal” — thus confusing (3) Simon with his brother (4) Francis.

354 “Ipsvnch, Aug. 4th. Yesterday died here Col. Frauds Wainwright” (Boston News Letter, August 6, 1711, p. 2/2). See also Sewall, Diary, ii. 319–320.

355 Harvard Graduates, iii. 354–355.

356 History of Massachusetts (Boston, 1767), ii. 169–170.

357 Massachusetts Archives, li. 160.

358 Massachusetts Archives, li. 173.

359 Ixxi. 300–301.

360 Diary, iii. 306. On November 7, 1700, Francis Wainwright’s sister Anne was married to Adam Winthrop (H. C. 1694).

361 See pp. 130 note, 135, above.

362 A letter written to Dudley by Stoddard and Wainwright June 28, 1725, is printed in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlvii. 1607–1612.

363 See our Publications, xviii. 341 note. In the Haverhill Vital Records (ii. 482) and in the House Journal (January 7, 1736), he is described as “Captain Wainwright.” Dr. Morison tells me that this rank was obtained by service in themilitia a few months the year he died: see Massachusetts Archives, xci. 26; Massachusetts Province Laws, ix. 156.

364 Diary, ii. 237–238.

365 The Faculty Records (i. 32) give his age as sixteen and his place of residence at entrance as Haverhill.

366 Publications, xvii. 403–409.

367 Warren-Adams Letters, i. 21–23, January 3, 1774.

368 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, viii. 335–339, 343–344, August 1, 10, 20, 1774.

369 Boston Gazette, December 12, 1774.

370 John Adams, Works, ix. 348–350, 351, December 12, 28, 1774

371 J. Rowe, Diary, April 21, 1775: “All Business at an End and Communication Stop’d between Town & Country — No Fresh Provisions of any kind brought to this market so that Boston is in a most Distressed Condition.”

372 Warren-Adams Letters, i. 175–179, November 5, 1775.

373 Warren-Adams Letters, i. 175–179, November 5, 1775.

374 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 416, 442, 504, 508, 547, 551, 559, 589, 606, 608, 610, 638, 740, 1180, 1202

375 v. 472.

376 v. 423, 564, 742

377 Massachusetts Archives, cxciv. 292–293, March 18, 1776

378 Familiar Letters of John Adams, pp. 182–183, June 3 and August 25, 1776.

379 Amory, Life and Writings of James Sullivan, i. 76, May 9, 1776

380 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, iv. 305–308, June 1, 1776

381 Familiar Letters of John Adams, pp. 182–183, June 3, 1776.

382 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 583.

Table of Prices, 1776–1782

Authority	Wheat	Flour	Corn	Rye	Beef	Sugar	Butter	Tea
Regul. Act 1777 (Jan.)	7s 6d a bu.		4s a bu.	5s a bu.	3–4d lb.	8d lb.	10d lb.
Mrs. Adams Apr. 20, 1777			5s a bu.	11–12s a bu.	8d lb.	£4 cwt.	1s 6d lb.
Regul. Act June, 1777				6s bu.		10d lb.	10d lb.	$7–81 lb.
Mrs. Adams Mar. 20, 1779		£50 cwt.	$25 bu.	$30 bu.	$1–8s lb.	12s lb.	12s lb.
Mrs. Adams June 8, 1779			$4.2 $80.3 bu.		6–8s lb.	$4. lb.		$40 lb.
Concord Conv. July 14, 1779	£9 bu.		£4. 10s bu.	£6 bu.	6s lb.	14s lb.	12s lb.	£5.16s lb.
Concord Conv. Oct. 6, 1779	£9 bu.	£30 cwt.	£4. 4s bu.	£5. 14s bu.	5s lb.		12s lb.	£6 lb.
Mrs. Adams Oct. 15, 1780		£140 cwt.	£30 bu.	£27 bu.	ss. lb.	£200 cwt.	$12. lb.	$90 lb.
Pickering Jan. 7, 1782		24s cwt.	5s bu.		4d lb.

1 Pynchon, Diary. 2 Hard money. 3 Paper money.

383 Warren-Adams Letters, i. 303–306, March 23, 1777; Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, i. 219–223, Paine to Gerry, April 17, 1777; Familiar Letters of John Adams, p. 261, April 20, 1777. Further evidence on this point is to be found in Boston Gazette, June 2, 1777.

384 Pynchon, Diary, p. 4, January 31, 1777; King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, i. 25, March 8, 1777; Warren-Adams Letters, i. 303–306, March 23, 1777.

385 Familiar Letters, pp. 261, 285–287, April 20, July 30, 1777; Pynchon, Diary, p. 29, April 28, 1777.

386 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 731

387 Familiar Letters, p. 261, April 20, 1777

388 Boston Gazette, June 16, 1777.

389 Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, i. 219–223, April 12, 1777.

390 Massachusetts Archives, cxcvii. 118, June, 1777.

391 Massachusetts Archives, cxcvii. 120, June, 1777

392 Ibid. p. 121

393 Ibid. pp. 123, 124, June, 1777.

394 Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, ii. 770–771.

395. Boston Gazette, June 2, 1777.

396 Ibid. June 16, 1777.

397 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 642.

398 v. 1012, notes.

399 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 733.

400 v. 1016, notes. “Memorial of the Town of Boston,” March 23, 1778.

401 Boston Gazette, February 2, 1778.

402 Ibid.

403 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 1016, notes.

404 Boston Gazette, April 6, 1778.

405 Ibid. December 21, 1778.

406 Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, ii. 779–780.

407 Massachusetts Archives, cxcvii. 121, June, 1777.

408 “Memorial of the Town of Boston,” March 23, 1778, quoted in Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 1016, notes. This document states that the cost of raising agricultural produce, so far as the important item of labor was concerned, was proportionally less than normal. It had been customary to pay the value of one bushel of corn for a day’s work, and at this time the daily wage equalled the cost of only three pecks of corn.

409 Massachusetts Archives, cxcvii. 120, 121.

410 Authority as in note 3, above

411 Pickering MSS., xvii. 120–121, March 29, 1778.

412 Pickering MSS., xvii. 242–243, February 28, 1779.

413 Ibid. p. 253, April 6, 1779.

414 Boston Gazette, April 26, 1779: see also ibid. June 24, 1779.

415 Familiar Letters, pp. 364–367, June 8, 1779; Pickering MSS., xvii. 273–274, July 3, 1779.

416 Massachusetts Archives, cci. 168, July 15, 1779.

417 Massachusetts Archives, cci. 239, August 17, 1779.

418 Boston Gazette, September 13, 20, 1779.

419 Massachusetts Archives, cci. 305, September 17, 1779; Pickering MSS., xvii. 301, October 19, 1779

420 6 Massachusetts Historical Collections, iv. 176–183, March 29, 1780.

421 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 924, 1118, February, 1779.

422 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 1073, June 24, 1779.

423 v. 1114, September 23, 1779; repealed June 7, 1780, p. 1395.

424 Familiar Letters, p. 364, June 8, 1779; see price table on page 168 note above, for a summary of these various lists.

425 Boston Gazette, June 21, 1779.

426 Ibid. August 2, 1779; Massachusetts Spy, August 5, 1779.

427 Boston Gazette, October 18, 1779.

428 Ibid. October 25, 1779.

429 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 1118, 1395.

430 Familiar Letters, pp. 387–388, October 15, 1780.

431 Diary, p. 96, May 29, 1781

432 Massachusetts Archives, cciii. 50, August 28, 1780; Massachusetts Spy, January 11, 1781; Boston Gazette, March 26, 1781; Pickering MSS., xviii. 125, January 7, 1782

433 Boston Gazette, October 9, 1780; Familiar Letters, pp. 387–388, October 15, 1780.

434 Massachusetts Archives, cciii. 50, August 28, 1780.

435 Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 423, 564, 742, 782, 886, 933, 1079, 1137, 1202, 1399, 1421

436 Boston Gazette, October 9, 1780; Familiar Letters, pp. 387–388, October 15, 1780.

437 Boston Gazette, February, 5, 1781; Massachusetts General Laws (1823), i. 58 (1781, ch. 7).

438 Massachusetts Spy, January 11, 1781. The vote by counties, with the exception of Dukes and Nantucket, as given in the Boston Gazette of February 5, 1781, was as follows:

	For repeal	Against
Suffolk	14	5
Essex	11	3
Middlesex	6	12
Hampshire	10	11
Plymouth	5	3
Barnstable	7	0
York	4	1
Bristol	2	4
Worcester	5	21
Cumberland	1	0
Lincoln	1	0
Berkshire	10	4

439 Boston Gazette, May 11, 1781.

440 Boston Gazette, May 28, 1781.

441 Ibid. July 9, 1781; February 4, 1782.

442 Massachusetts Spy, January 31, 1782.

443 Ibid. March 28, 1782.

444 Ibid.

445 Massachusetts Spy, April 18, 1782.

446 Boston Gazette, May 6, 1782.

447 Massachusetts Spy, May 23, 1782.

448 Ibid. September 12, 1782.

449 Hampshire Gazette (Northampton), September 3, 1788.

450 Higginson, Life and Times of Stephen Higginson, pp. 84–85, July, 1786.

451 I am indebted to Mr. Lane and to Mr. Matthews for various additions and suggestions.

452 “The Library of this Colledge is very considerable, being well furnish’d both with Books, and Mathematical Instruments. Sir Kenelm Digby, Sir John Maynard, Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Joseph Hill; were Benefactors to it; and the Reverend Mr. Theophilus Gale, left his whole Library for that use” (Life and Errors, London, 1705, p. 157).

453 “There were other that enriched its library by presenting of choice books with mathematical instruments thereunto, among whom Sir Kenelm Digby, Sir John Maynard, Mr. Richard Baxter, and Mr. Joseph Hill, ought always to be remembered” (Magnalia, 1853, ii. 11). He then speaks of Gale’s bequest. The first edition of the Magnalia was published in 1702 — that is, three years before Dunton’s book.

454 “Names of Donors, preserved in Flynt’s Alphabetical List of Benefactors, the date of whose donations do not appear on the College books” (Quincy, History, ii. 530). Flynt’s list has apparently disappeared since Quincy’s day.

455 Andrews and Davenport, Guide to the Manuscript Materials for the History of the United States to 1783, in the British Museum, etc., pp. 343–346. Copies of these letters are in the Gay Transcripts (Massachusetts Historical Society).

The Baxter manuscripts are mentioned also, although not in detail as to his correspondence, in Historical Manuscripts Commission Report, iii. 367, in “The Manuscripts in the Library of the Rev. Dr. Williams.” On p. 365 is the statement that “A carefully executed Catalogue of the entire collection [meaning manuscripts in the library] was drawn up by W. H. Black, Esq., in 1858.” The report is by Joseph Stevenson.

456 Edmund Castell’s Lexicon Pentaglotton (doubtless a misprint for Heptaglotton), London, 1669, 2 vols.; Matthew Poole’s Synopsis Criticorum, London, 1669–1676, 5 vols.; and Biblia Polyglotta, London, 1655, 6 vols., are all recorded in the Catalogue of the Library printed in 1723. Poole was a frequent companion of Henry Ashurst.

457 Gay Transcripts, Richard Baxter Papers, p. 76.

458 Gay Transcripts, Richard Baxter Papers, pp. 77–78.

459 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vi. 273, 277, 279–280, xxxii. 292, 293; Palfrey, History of New England, iii. 83 note; Sibley, Harvard Graduates, ii. 155–158.

460 Mather, Magnalia, i. 138–140.

461 Mather (Magnalia, i. 135) says that her poems afforded “a monument for her memory beyond the stateliest marbles.” Prof. S. M. Tucker says she “was not a poet” but was “the most interesting as well as the most pleasing figure in early New England verse” (Cambridge History of American Literature, i. 154).

462 There is no doubt that the writer of this letter was Gov. Bradstreet. While his son Simon was indeed cousin to John Woodbridge, he was also brother, having married in 1667 his cousin Lucy, sister of John Woodbridge. In the journal of Simon, the younger, he writes under date of 1669, “April 7. My Brother Jno. Woodbridge was ordained Pastour of Kenellworth;” and under 1671, “Octob. 26. My Brother M^r Jno. Woodbrige married M^r Abigail Leet.” But he wrote under May, 1671, “This Spring my Cosn Jno. Denison dyed” (New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ix. 45–46). This John Denison was a son of Daniel Denison, whose wife was Patience, daughter of Gov. Dudley: hence Simon Bradstreet and John Denison were first cousins. Add to this, that the younger Simon Bradstreet was of New London at this time, while his father was at Andover but in politics at Boston also.

463 Andrews and Davenport, p. 345. Copies are in the Gay Transcripts.

464 Mather, Magnalia, i. 595–597; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vi. 279–280.

465 Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv. pt. ii. 27, 32, 36, 37; Eliot, Biographical Dictionary (1809), p. 297.

466 Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 118–120; 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 62–66; Mather, Magnalia, i. 589–591; our Publications, viii. 194–195.

467 See 3 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, i. 301–308; Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv. pt. i. p. 362.

468 See our Publications, viii. 193–198.

469 Andrews and Davenport, pp. 343 ff. Copies are in the Gay Transcripts.

470 Baxter very modestly says: “When the King was restored, the Corporation was dead in Law, . . . The care of the recovery and of restoring the Corporation and all the work, was the business of Mr. Ashhurst: for which he desired my solicitation of the Lord Chancellor Hide, who did readily own the justness of the cause and goodness of the Work” (Baxter’s Practical Works, 1707, iv. 908). Calamy declares, in speaking of this matter, “Whereupon Mr. Baxter receiv’d Letters of Hearty Thanks, from the Court and Governour in New-England, and from Mr. Elliot, and Mr. Norton, All acknowledging the Signal Service he had done them” (Abridgment, 1702, p. 687). Cf. our Publications, vi. 181 note, and Proceedings American Antiquarian Society, ii. 65, where Robert Boyle receives the credit.

471 H. Maurice, A Vindication of the Primitive Diocesan Episcopacy, 1682.

472 This passage is inaccurately quoted by W. Orme in his Life and Times of Baxter (London, 1830, ii. 384; Boston, 1831, ii. 279), where “Mr. Knowles” is turned into “Mr. Thomas Knowles.” Baxter’s “Mr. Knowles” was unquestionably the Rev. John Knowles (1600–1685). The misquoted passage (with an extract from Knowles’s letter to Leverett) is repeated without suspicion in the North American Review, cvii. 572, by Mr. C. A. Cutter, at that time (1868) assistant in the Harvard College Library.

473 For a list of the works in Digby’s gift, consult A. McF. Davis’s A Few Notes concerning the Records of Harvard College (Harvard University Bibliographical Contributions, no. 27, 1888), pp. 13–14.

474 True History of Councils, London, 1682, p. 57. All the books mentioned as having been given to Harvard College, except the Sabellicus, are recorded in the Catalogue of the Library printed in 1723, as follows:

Germanicarum Rerum Ulustrium Scriptores ex Bibl. Marquardi Freheri. Tom. 1–3. Francof. 1624; Hanov. 1611.

Germanicarum Rerum illustrium Scriptores, ex bibl. Joan. Piscorii. Tom. 1–3. Francof. 1613; Hanov. 1613; Fran, ad Moen. 1653. With a fourth vol. “Ex Bibl. Justi Reuben. Hanov. 1619.”

Naucleri Memorabilium omnis Ætatis Comment. Chronic. Tubing. 1516. Thuani Historiarum Sui Temporis Tom. 1–5. Genevæ, 1620. Scaligeri Opus de Emendatione Temporum. Lugd. Bat. 1598.

Apparently none of these books survived the fire of 1764; but the Library now has copies of all except Nauclerus, although not in every case the same edition.

475 In his A Breviate of the Life of Mrs. Margaret Baxter, quoted by Orme, i. 393 note.

476 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 63.

477 Cf. 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, vi. 339.

478 The entire fifty books, more or less, including those listed above, should be identified within a fair degree of probability by reference to the catalogue of 1723, elimination of works known to have come from other donors, and comparison with Baxter’s judgment of the best books, as given in his Christian Directory, question 174: “What Books especially of Theology should one choose, who for want of Money or Time, can read but few” (Practical Works, i. 717–721). Also his opinions of books and writers scattered throughout his works.

Joseph Stevenson notes, in his report on “The Manuscripts in the Library of the Rev. Dr. Williams,” in Historical Manuscripts Commission Report, iii. 367, “A catalogue of the Library of the Rev. Mr. Richard Baxter, who died 8 Dec. 1691. It consisted of 1,448 works and occupies 23 folios.” If this is to be taken in the ordinary sense, we may suppose that here would be a work of great interest to Harvard College in connection with Baxter’s intended and his actual gift. There is no doubt, also, that its publication would be of value to bibliographers, and to students of seventeenth century scholarship.

479 Quincy, History, ii. 479.

480 Ashurst was elected Alderman from Cordwainer Ward on July 7, 1668, and on July 9 was sworn and discharged on the payment of a fine of £420 (A. B. Beaven, Aldermen of the City of London, 1908–1913, i. 118, 346. Beaven says, ii. 103, that Ashurst was buried December 1, 1680, and that his will was dated July 10, 1678, and proved December 23, 1680). The reasons for his declining to serve are given by Baxter as follows: “Some may think that he wanted a publick Spirit, because he avoided being a Magistrate, and payed his Fine rather than take an Aldermans place. But it was only to keep the peace of his Conscience, which could not digest, 1. The Corporation Declaration and Oath; Nor 2. The execution of the Laws against Nonconforming Ministers and People” (Practical Works, iv. 908).

481 He was generally called a draper, but occasionally “woollen draper:” see 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xvii. 246. In Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England he appears as executor or is otherwise mentioned in several wills, and is called “Woollen draper” (pp. 756, 885–886). Pennoyer, the benefactor of Harvard, in his will (Waters, p. 505) speaks of “woollen cloth and other woollen commodities and linen, all which I desire may be bought and provided by Mr. Henry Ashurst, draper, . . . to be sent over to the Corporation for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England and the parts adjacent in America.” Ashurst was a merchant-tailor, “A tailor who supplies the materials of which his goods are made. Hence, a member of the company of Merchant-Taylors” (Oxford English Dictionary). Baxter’s funeral sermon states that “he was Master of the Merchant Taylors company” (Practical Works, iv. 909). The date when he was Master was 1670–1 (H. B. Wilson, History of Merchant-Taylors’ School, 1812, p. 1156).

482 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 5.

483 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xvii. 251. Ashurst was also addressed at Aldersgate Street (p. 246) and at St. John Street (p. 253).

484 In the index to Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, i-xx, published in 1887, several of the references credited to Sir Henry relate to Henry his father. The Brinley Catalogue (1878), i. 71, no. 575, notes Baxter’s funeral sermon as for “Sir Henry Ashhurst.”

485 The earliest mention of Ashurst in connection with New England seems to be in the Aspinwall Notarial Records (pp. 30–31, 94–95, 334–335, 399, Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxxii), where he is referred to in the years 1645–1650.

486 See the article in the Dictionary of National Biography, ii. 181; the works of Baxter cited in this paper; Calamy’s Abridgment, p. 689; Orme’s Life and Times of Baxter (1830), i. 423–425; Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings in England, p. 74; Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv. pt. ii. 27, 32, 329; I Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xvii. 246–253; 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, ii. 281

487 See 3 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, i. 301–308.

488 History, p. 37.

489 History, i. 509.

490 History, i. 186.

491 Sketch, p. 165.

492 College Book, iii. 60.

493 College Book, iii. 56.

494 History, p. 50.

495 History, i. 510.

496 Sketch, p. 166.

497 Sketch, p. 25.

498 College Book, iii. 60.

499 History, i. 509.

500 History, p. 70. Eliot has: “1695 Nathaniel Hulton, senior, citizen and salter of London, 100 0 0” (Sketch, p. 166). Hulton died in 1693. Waters (Genealogical Gleanings in England, i. 202, 509) gives two wills, one dated July 20, 1692, by Nathaniel Hulton “citizen and Salter of London,” the other July 29, 1692, by Nathaniel Hulton, “citizen and sadler of London,” both having codicils dated January 1, 1693. The two codicils of this date are substantially the same. The one for the will of July 29, 1692, reads: “I give and bequeath to Mr. Encrease Mather Minister of the Gospell in New England the Summe of One Hundred pounds of Lawfull money of England for the use of the Colledge there of which hee is president.” Under date of June 1, 1709, President Leverett records in his Diary (pp. 18–19) that Increase Mather “present^d to the Presid^t an Extract from the Codicil of M^r Hulton’s Will to be Entred, and it is Entred in y^e Same Book in hæc Verba. ‘This is a further Codicil to be annexed to the last Will & Testam^t of me Nath^l Hulton the Elder Citizen & Salter of London, w^ch I Will shalbe taken as a further p^t thereof . . .’” By the “Same Book” Leverett means College Book, iv. 34, where Hulton is described as “Citizen and Salter of London.” On September 24, 1695, Treasurer Brattle records the receipt “of the presid^t for M^l Nath^l Hulton of London his Legacy of £100 Ster^l 130” (College Book, iv. 49). In Harvard College Papers, i. 38, is a copy of a letter relating to his gift from Hulton to Mather dated March 5, 1691 [1692].

501 “Faithful Souls shall be with Christ. The Certainty Proved and their Christianity described, and exemplified in the truly Christian Life and Death of that excellent Amiable Saint, HENRY ASHHURST, Esq; Citizen of London.” The running title is: “A Funeral Sermon Preach’d at the Death of Henry Ashhurst, Esq;” (Practical Works, 1707, iv. 899–911).

502 iv. 908. By Corporation, Baxter means the New England Company: cf. our Publications, vi. 180 note 2.

503 To quote from Calamy: “In the whole Course of his Life he [Baxter] had scarce a Friend whom he Valu’d and Respected, and by whom he was more Belov’d, than that Noted Citizen Mr. Henry Ashhurst, commonly call’d Alderman Ashhurst; who was the most exemplary Person for Eminent Sobriety, Selfdenial, Piety and Charity, that London could Glory off. He was a Christian of the Primitive Stamp, and did good to all he was able, especially needy, silenc’d Ministers: To whom in Lancashire alone, he allow’d 100 1 per Annum. He left behind him the Perfume of a most Honour’d Name, and the Memorials of a most Exemplary Life, to be imitated by all his Descendents. Mr. Baxter gave him his true Character in his Funeral Sermon” (Abridgment, 1702, p. 689). In this funeral sermon Baxter said: “Those that hear it the common speech of Magistrates, godly Ministers and People, that [we have lost the most excellent pattern of Piety, Charity, and all virtue that this City hath bred in our times] will think that there is some reason for this praise; . . . his esteem and honour and love was at home and abroad, by his Children, Servants, Neighbours, Fellow citizens” (Practical Works, iv. 907). Lastly, in the dedication to Sir Henry Ashurst and his wife of “A Treatise of Knowledge and Love compared,” Baxter says: “And it is to renew the Record of that Love and Honour which I owed to your deceased Father (formerly, tho’ too slenderly recorded,) to be the Heir and Imitator of whose Faith, Piety, Charity, Patience, Humility, Meekness, Impartiality, Sincerity and Perseverance, is as great an Honour and Blessing as I can wish you, next to the Conformity to our highest Pattern” (Practical Works, iv. 498).

504 Ibid. iv. 910.

505 It is uncertain whether this was the Rev. Samuel Mather of the class of 1690, who went to England in 1688, apparently never returned, and settled at Witney, Oxfordshire; or Samuel Mather of the class of 1698, who became a physician at Windsor, Connecticut.

506 The College owns the general diploma, with seal attached, issued in 1752.

507 The wording of the document is almost identical with that of a similar document dated April 19, 1676, given to George Alcock (1655–1677) of the Class of 1673: see Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xlix. 17–18. The seal that undoubtedly was once attached to that parchment is now, unfortunately, lacking.

508 cvi. 236.

509 cvi. 291. In the same issue a correspondent says: “It is the copperhead snake which Ohioans had in mind when they invented this epithet for their disloyal neighbors — and I think there is no doubt that it was invented in Ohio” (pp. 291–292). That the word “was invented in Ohio” may be true, but is probably incapable of proof, and the earliest known instance is from Illinois, in reference to Indiana.

510 Mr. Hart merely states that the badges were worn; Messrs. Hosmer and Rhodes say that they were worn at a meeting held in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, May 1, 1863.

511 “Meanwhile, ‘Copperheads’ appeared. The epithet was applied by their enemies to all Democrats; but it should properly be given only to those extreme opponents of the war who went so far as to seem by their agitation to give aid to the South. The name came from the habit of wearing as a badge a button cut from the head of a copper cent, on which was the head of the Goddess of Liberty. The movement began late in 1862” (Short History of the United States, 1913, p. 582).

512 Writing in 1899 Mr. Rhodes said:

“I have made and had made a considerable search for the first use of the term ‘Copperhead.’ The earliest that I have found it employed is in the Cincinnati Commercial of Oct. 1, 1862, in an article entitled ‘Comfort for “Copperheads.”’ The writer charges the Gazette (a rival Republican journal) with a course which is ‘driving the fighting Democrats into the ranks of the Vallandigham party.’ In the Commercial, when used afterwards, Copperhead is printed without the quotation marks. It occurs several times in October, November, and December, 1862. The curious may also find several illustrative uses of the word in the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 22; N. Y. Tribune, Jan. 12, Feb. 11; N. Y. Times, Feb. 13. Robert C. Winthrop in Boston, Nov. 2, 1864, spoke as if he were not ashamed of the name. ‘Abandon the Constitution,’ he said, ‘and the Ship of State is left tossing upon a shoreless sea, without rudder or compass, liable at any moment to be dashed to pieces on the rocks. And though I have no heart for pleasantry on such a topic, let me add that if in such a case the good ship shall escape such a catastrophe and be rescued from final wreck, it will be only because she will have been treated in advance to a thorough sheathing of copper from stem to stern’” (History of the United States, iv. 224 note).

The “pleasantry” was not original with Winthrop, occurring as early as October 22, 1862: see p. 209, below. A file of the Cincinnati Commercial is not accessible in Boston or Cambridge. I have examined the Chicago Tribune for September-December, 1862, and January 1–22, 1863; the Crisis from September, 1862, to May, 1863, both included; and various other papers and magazines during the first few months of 1863.

513 See p. 209, below.

514 ii. 300. The Crisis was a weekly Democratic paper published at Columbus, Ohio, by Samuel Medary (1801–1864), who had been territorial Governor of Minnesota in 1857–1858 and of Kansas in 1859–1860. Many of the extracts from other papers quoted in the text were reprinted in the Crisis and have been obtained from that source.

515 Crisis, October 22, ii. 312.

516 Ibid.

517 Crisis, October 22, ii. 312.

518 Ibid.

519 ii. 305.

520 Clement Laird Vallandigham (1820–1871); George Hunt Pendleton (1825–1889); Samuel Sullivan Cox (1824–1889).

521 Crisis, October 22, ii. 310.

522 Crisis, October 29, ii. 315. The word Butternut does not appear to have been employed at the time the convention was held.

523 Crisis, November 5, ii. 328.

524 ii. 325.

525 Crisis, November 12, ii. 332.

526 Crisis, November 19, ii. 344.

527 Crisis, December 3, ii. 358.

528 On the word “sneak,” see p. 236 note 1, below.

529 Harper’s Weekly, vii. 80.

530 William Alexander Richardson (1811–1875).

531 The assertion that Northern soldiers were called “Butternuts” at the outbreak of the war is of interest. Is it correct? Writing in 1853 Mrs. Stowe said: “I seem to have so much to fill my time, and yet there is my Maine story waiting. However, I am composing it every day, only I greatly need living studies for the filling in of my sketches.” The “Maine story” was the Pearl of Orr’s Island, “the first seventeen chapters of which,” according to Mrs. Fields (Life and Letters of H. B. Stowe, pp. 168, 170, 285), “appeared in April of this year” — that is, 1861. This is a slight mistake, since the first chapter was printed in the Independent of January 3 and the seventeenth in the issue of April 4, after which the story was not resumed until December 3, 1861. Hence the following words, which occur in the first chapter, were written certainly before 1861 and perhaps as early as 1853: “The old fishermen stood upon the wagon, his coarse butternut-colored coat-flaps fluttering and snapping in the breeze.” This extract (quoted in the Oxford English Dictionary, but with date of year only) is the earliest known with reference to clothes. On March 22, 1862, “The butternut gentry,” meaning Confederate prisoners, were mentioned (Bartlett’s Dictionary of Americanisms, 1877, p. 88). On June 11, 1862, a Confederate soldier was called an “ambitious butternut” (ibid.). After the battle of Antietam (September 17, 1862) a story went the rounds to the following effect. A Maryland soldier named Joe Parsons was blinded by a shot, and, meeting a rebel soldier, this conversation took place: “‘Who be yer,’ said I, ‘a rebel?’ ‘You’re a Yankee.’ ‘So I am,’ says I. . . . ‘Well,’ says I, ‘you’re a rebel; but will you do me a, little favor?’ ‘I will, says he, ‘ef I can.’ Then I says, ‘Well, old butternut, I can’t see nothin’. My eyes is knocked out, but I ken walk.’” Parsons then takes on his shoulders the “old butternut,” who promptly directs him to the Confederate camp. (Crisis, December 31, 1862, ii. 391.) A letter dated Murfreesboro’, Tennessee, January 30, 1863, said: “The ‘Butternut’ coat and pants, and the unbleached cotton and woollen shirts have, even when new, a dirty, untidy appearance — especially when placed side by side with the deep and sky blue uniforms of our army” (Cincinnati Daily Gazette, February 5, 1863, p. 1/1).

532 Crisis, iii. 39.

533 New York World, February 16, p. 2/1. Commenting on Vallandigham’s speech, the New York Times of February 17 said: “Yet even this ‘copperhead’ traitor is compelled, by the force of public sentiment, to declare himself in favor of the Union” (p. 4/4).

534 Crisis, iii. 55. James Brooks (1816–1873) was the editor of the New York Express.

535 Crisis, March 18, iii. 63.

536 Dr. Edson Baldwin Olds (d. 1869), who late in 1862 had been placed in a “bastile.” “To drag a man of seventy from his house at night without legal warrant, and take him summarily to Fort Lafayette, was a procedure likely to set to thinking voters who were bred to liberty, especially as in this case the victim was an intelligent man of high character, who had served his constituents three terms in the legislature and six years in Congress” (Rhodes, History of the United States, iv. 165). There is some doubt as to the exact age of Dr. Olds. According to several biographical dictionaries he was born in 1819. The American Annual Cyclopaedia for 1869 stated that he died January 24 “at Lancaster, Ohio, aged about 66” (p. 496). His father, the Rev. Gamaliel Smith Olds, was born February 11, 1777 (Granville Vital Records, p. 61), graduated at Williams College in 1801 (General Catalogue of Williams College, 1910, p. 35), married Julia Whitney in 1812, and “had four children, three of whom died in infancy, and one in the prime of manhood” (C. Durfee, Williams Biographical Annals 1871, pp. 137–139).

537 Crisis, March 25, iii. 65.

538 Remarks of Hon. Mr. [Lyman] Truman, of the 24th District, on the Bounty Re-Enlistment Bill, In the Senate [New York], March 19, 1863, p. 6.

539 Crisis, April 1, iii. 80. James Henry Lane (1814–1866).

540 Crisis, April 29, iii. 92.

541 Ibid.

542 Vanity Fair, vii. 37.

543 Crisis, May 6, iii. 120.

544 iii. 127.

545 In F. Moore, Rebellion Record (1864), vii, Poetry and Incidents, pp. 85–86.

546 Crisis, iii. 338.

547 This story, which went the rounds of the American newspapers, first appeared in the Pennsylvania Journal of May 24, 1775.

548 Crisis, April 1, iii. 74.

549 Doubtless a misprint for 1787. In another report of this speech, Vallandigham is made to say:

“There, sir, is a piece of coin from the mint of the sovereign State of Connecticut, coined by her, in the exercise of a high power of sovereignty, and bearing date 1787. Yes, the Confederation was dissolved, and that State went back again to its sovereignty and coined money. I believe it never issued any ‘greenbacks;’ they were of a later invention. But here is the evidence of that great fact, which designing men, consolidating empire here at the price of liberty, are desirous continually to ignore. It is a copper coin with a copper head upon it. (Great laughter and cheers for the Copperheads.) It is the head of Liberty. (Renewed applause.) It bears the superscription and image of Freedom. It reads, ‘By the authority of the State of Connecticut’” (Crisis, March 25, iii. 66).

Vallandigham appears to have been fond of making unusual exhibits. In a speech delivered in Congress on February 3, 1862, he said:

“Here, Sir, is one of the Continental bills of November, 1776. It bears small resemblance to the delicate paper issues and exquisite engravings of the present day in the United States. It smacks a little of the poverty of ‘Dixie’ — as is, said. Instead of the effigy of Lincoln, it bears on its face a veritable but rudely carved woodcut of the wild boar of the forest. It was bad money, Sir, but issued in a noble cause. It is redolent of liberty; it smells of habeas corpus, free speech, a free press, free ballot, the right of petition, the consent of the governed, public indictment, speedy public trial by jury, and all the great rights of political and individual liberty for which martyrs have died and heroes contended for ages — although I am not quite sure, Sir, that even now it is altogether without somewhat of the odor of rebellion lingering about it” (in Life, 1872, p. 178).

550 In the supplement to the 1911 edition of the Century Dictionary is the definition: “4. A private token, equal to one cent, struck in the United States during the Civil War.” In his Dictionary of Numismatic Names, their Official and Popular Designations, Albert R. Frey says: “Copperheads. A name commonly applied to the tokens issued during the Civil War in the United States (1862–1865). In the latter part of the year 1862 the first of these copper tokens were issued in Cincinnati, Ohio, and other western cities. Many of them have on the obverse the Indian head copied from the United States cent, and this feature probably gave them their name” (p. 54, American Journal of Numismatics, 1917, 1. 54. For this reference I am indebted to Mr. Horace L. Wheeler of the Boston Public Library). No example of copperhead in this sense has been adduced. The word was perhaps applied to any copper coin with a head on it: see the extract dated April 15, p. 224, below. Thus a letter dated Washington, April 28, 1863, quoted in the Chicago Tribune of May 1, said:

COPPERHEADS.

The heavy coinage of “nickels” still continues, the number last week made at the mint in Philadelphia being 53,000. When the people who are hoarding them discover that they have no intrinsic value over thirty-seven or forty cents a pound, and that they are a legal tender for amounts less than fifty cents only, they will let the coppers loose in such loads as to make them a nuisance (p. 2/3).

By “nickels” are meant one-cent coins made of copper-nickel, first coined (of that material) with head in 1858. What we now commonly call “nickels” —that is, five-cent coins made of copper-nickel — were first coined in 1866. Perhaps, therefore, the name “copperhead,” applied to a coin with a head on it, was derived from Vallandigham’s speech of March 7, 1863.

Attention should also be called to the fact that the word Copperhead had been used in other senses before the Civil War. Speaking of the Indian, De Vere says: “Along the frontier line he was perhaps as frequently called a Copperhead [as a Redskin], an ancient term of contempt, of which W. Irving makes frequent use in his quaint History of New York” (Americanisms, 1872, p. 22); and proceeds to quote two extracts. In both instances, however, Irving applies the term not to Indians but to the Dutch; moreover, Irving apparently uses the term only twice, and the second instance was not introduced into his famous burlesque until nearly forty years after its original publication. In the edition of 1809 we read:

“Then might be seen on their right hand, the vassals of that renowned Mynheer, Michael Paw, . . . He brought to the camp a stout band of warriors, . . . These were the men who vegetated in the mud along the shores of Pavonia; being of the race of genuine copperheads, and were fabled to have sprung from oysters” (bk. vi. ch. iv. vol. ii. pp. 104–105).

In the edition of 1848 occurs, apparently for the first time, this passage, referring to the Dutch and the Yankees:

“Already, however, the races regarded each other with disparaging eye. The Yankees sneeringly spoke of the round-crowned burghers of the Manhattoes as the ‘Copperheads;’ while the latter, glorying in their own nether rotundity, and observing the slack galligaskins of their rivals, flapping like an empty sail against the mast, retorted upon them with the opprobrious appellation of ‘Platter-breeches’” (bk. vii. ch. i. p. 385).

It is hardly necessary to add that both terms were invented by Irving. In 1828 J. K. Paulding, referring to the dwellers on the western border of Tappan See, settled by the Dutch, wrote: “Since the period of the first settlement of this region, the only changes that have ever been known to take place, are those brought about by death, who if report says true has sometimes had his match with some of these tough old copperheads;. . .” (The New Mirror for Travellers, p. 102, quoted in Thornton’s American Glossary, i. 205). The Oregon Weekly Times of October 10, 1857, said that “Dan had a hatred of ‘copper heads,’ as he called the Indians, which was refreshingly orthodox” (also quoted by Thornton).

551 New York World, March 9, p. 2/5.

552 P. 5/6. This advertisement, with the exception of the final sentence, was also printed in the Crisis of April 1, iii. 77. Bromley & Co., however, were not the only manufacturers of the badges. In the New York World of March 27 (p. 5/2) another firm advertised:

COPPERHEADS!

COPPERHEADS, attention! THE COPPERHEAD, or BADGE OF LIBERTY. NOW READY. Let all White Men accept the insult, and wear the grand old emblem of Liberty. The Copperhead Mailed, post paid, on receipt of 15 cents, or $10 per hundred by express. All orders out of the city should be addressed at once to the original manufacturers,

A. C. BLONDIN & CO.,

New-York City Postoffice.

This aroused the ire of Bromley & Co., who inserted another advertisement in the World of March 31 (p. 5/2):

POLITICAL.

COPPERHEADS, ATTENTION. — THE UN-dersigned are the original and sole manufacturers of the true COPPERHEAD BADGE OF LIBERTY, worn by the great Copperhead Party of the United States. Sold at fifteen cents by the single badge, and mailed, or $10 per one hundred sent by express. Terms cash. We are permitted to refer to the editors of the New-York Caucasian. Beware of imposters who copy our advertisements. When you order, write plainly your postoffice address, town, county, and state, and be very particular to address your letters thus:

BROMLEY & CO., Manufacturers,

Box 4265, New-York City.

553 Crisis, iii. 74.

554 iii. 76

555 iii. 79

556 See pp. 230–235, below.

557 Crisis, iii. 89.

558 iii. 93.

559 iii. 108.

560 Old Guard, i. 93.

561 Crisis, iii. 117.

562 iii. 134. Another contemporary account says: “A remarkably large number of national flags, with all the stars of the Union as it was, on hickory poles, formed a very prominent feature in each of these processions. A profusion of butternuts and liberty or copperhead pins, Union badges, and other appropriate emblems of Liberty and Union, were also distinguishable features” (in J. L. Vallandigham’s Life of Clement L. Vallandigham, 1872, p. 251).

563 Crisis, May 27, iii. 124. A full report of the trial is printed in Vallandigham’s Life, pp. 262–284.

564 Crisis, iii. 125. In a speech made at Columbus on July 4, 1862, Vallandigham said: “To-day the cause of a free government has triumphed; a victory of the Constitution, a victory of the Union, has been won, but is yet to be made complete by the men who go forth from this the first political battle-field of the campaign, bearing upon their banners that noble legend, that grand inscription — The constitution as it is, and the Union as it was” (Crisis, July 16, 1862, ii. 194; Life, pp. 209–210).

565 xv. 144.

566 Crisis, May 27, iii. 143. The Old Guard for June satirically remarked: “It is said that the Loyal Leagues are issuing a splendid new badge, it being a negro’s head in India rubber, with this appropriate motto in silver letters: ‘The Constitution be damned!’” (i. 143).

567 See p. 236, below.

568 From a copy in the Boston Public Library. A fourth edition of Copperhead Minstrel was published in 1867, but without the badge on the cover. A pamphlet entitled The Copperhead Catechism was published in New York in 1864. Between the words Copperhead and Catechism is a cut of the head of Liberty with a snake wound round its neck and pointing its fangs into the face of Liberty.

569 Crisis, ii. 308. A letter in the same issue is headed: “THE ELECTIONS! . . . Crow, Chapman, Crow! [Here was a great Shanghai rooster elegantly drawn in pencil]” (ii–305).

570 ii. 344. The Logan Gazette, or (as it was sometimes called) the Logan County Gazette, was established at Bellefontaine, Logan County, Ohio, in 1830; in 1870 its name was changed to the Examiner, and it is still published under that name: see History of Logan County, 1880, p. 283. For information about it I am indebted to our associate Mr. Clarence S. Brigham and to Professor Arthur W. Hodgman of the Ohio State University.

571 Webster’s International Dictionary states that the term Black Republican was “first applied in Civil War times;” but Thornton (American Glossary, i. 67–68) gives fourteen extracts ranging from January 3, 1856, to March 10, 1861. The expressions “Black Republican party,” “Black Republican chivalry,” and “ranting Black Republicans,” occur in the Democratic Review for January, 1856 (xxxvii. 25, 26).

572 This is probably a reference to an extract from the New York Express already quoted from the Crisis of March 11: see p. 216, above.

573 See p. 216, above.

574 Harper’s Weekly, vii. 130.

575 Crisis, March 18, iii. 63.

576 Crisis, March 18, iii. 61.

577 Crisis, April 1, iii. 77.

578 Crisis, April 15, iii. 92–93.

579 Crisis, April 15, iii. 93.

580 Crisis, April 29, iii. 110.

581 Crisis, April 15, iii. 92.

582 iii. 95.

583 Crisis, April 22, iii. 101.

584 Crisis, April 29, iii. 110.

585 Old Guard, i. 92.

586 i. 94.

587 Crisis, May 6, iii. 118.

588 iii. 119.

589 Harper’s Weekly, vii. 144. In the legend attached to a cartoon in Harper’s Weekly of January 31 (see p. 212, above) are the words “Peace Sneaks.” It is clear from the extracts here given that the Republicans indulged in a play on the words “snake” and “sneak” — and perhaps such a pun was intended in that legend.

590 This title is taken from the catalogue of Libbie’s sale of April 25–26, 1918, no. 225, p. 19. The broadside was bought, by the Library of Congress, and I am indebted to our associate Mr. A. P. C. Griffin for the information that the woodcut is identical with the one in Harper’s Weekly of February 28.

591 Vanity Fair, vii. 33.

592 vii. 45.

593 Memoirs, London, ii. 44. Mrs. Joseph Pennell also states that Leland “wrote, with his brother [Henry Perry Leland], ‘The Book of Copperheads’ and illustrated it” (Charles Godfrey Leland, 1906, i. 254). As the pamphlet contains on its last page an extract from the Richmond Enquirer of May 18, and on p. 22 a cartoon dated May 23, it could not have been published earlier than the very end of May; but possibly some of the cartoons or rhymes had appeared elsewhere before being published in book form. The following is taken from Vanity Fair of May 2 (vii. 35):

Yea! Verily!

“The Philadelphia ‘Copperheads,’”

Quoth UNCLE SAM to me,

“Are in a very shaky state,

As whoso reads ‘THE BOOK’ may see!”

“How so?” quoth I with mild surprise.

“Why, see you not how dire their need

Must be whose chief dependence lies,

As theirs, upon ‘a broken REED’?”

This would seem to be an allusion to William Bradford Reed of Philadelphia, who is satirized in Leland’s pamphlet, a cartoon on p. 10 having the inscription:

There once was a twistified Reed, who took for his pattern Snake-Weed; Till the Copperheads all, great, middling, and small, Seemed straight by the side of this Reed.

On the other hand, I have found no proof that the cartoons or rhymes were printed independently, and Mrs. Pennell kindly informs me that as her uncle’s books and papers are stored in London she can throw no light on this matter.

594 In the catalogue of the Boston Public Library this is attributed to Leland, though on what authority is not stated; and Mrs. Pennell, as she kindly writes me, hesitates to say anything about it. “Ye Introduction” to this skit begins: “Ye ‘sneak’ is a sly-bird. Ye rattle-snake, indeed, hath some chivalry, even if it is in its tail; but ye Sneaks yclepid ‘Copperheads’ hath none.”

595 Title-page, verso, “To the Reader;” pp. 2–9, “Murder Punished, &c.;” pp. 9–17, “An Account of a Discourse betwixt T. D. and T. S. about Fourteen Days after he was Prisoner in Newgate;” pp. 17–21, “A Discourse betwixt H. B. and T. S. Prisoner in Newgate, after some Friends went away dissatisfied, fearing he had not a Sense of his Sin, &c.;” pp. 21–22, “On Friday-night he uttered these expressions in Company with H. B. being the Day that the other Prisoners were Executed;” pp. 22–30, “On Saturday at Night, in Company with Mr. Baker, he Discoursed thus;” pp. 30–33, “The Prayer of Tho. Savage in Newgate, with those that sate up with him the Night before his Execution;” pp. 33–40, “The Last Speech of Thomas Savage, at the Place of his Execution, at Ratcliff;” pp. 41, 42, “A Relation of what pa[ ] the Imprisonment an[ Execution of Hann[ah Blay];” pp. 43–62, “2 Tim. 2. 22 Flee also Youthful Lusts.”

596 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlviii. 324.

597 Though these errata would alone seem to make this copy unique, it appears that a certain number of other copies were similarly annotated: H. M. Dexter (Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years, Appendix, p. 68) suggests that they were fairly numerous: “Copies circulated by the author,” Dexter writes, “contain nearly a page of errata on back of title.” The Massachusetts Historical Society has a copy (given by John Cotton to Richard Mather) with the errata as in the Gay copy; but I have not thus far succeeded in finding any others.

I am indebted to the assistant librarians of the John Carter Brown Library and of the Yale University Library for collations of the first edition of the Singing of Psalms with the second edition (1650). In the second edition only one of the errata noted by John Cotton has been corrected, that on page 51, line 7.

598 So far as I am aware, Shepard’s authorship of this work has been asserted only by the Rev. John A. Albro, who on p. cxcii of the first volume of his edition of the Works of Thomas Shepard, 3 vols., Boston, 1853, includes Singing of Psalms a Gospel Ordinance in his list of Shepard’s works. He gives no evidence of Shepard’s authorship, however. It is, of course, possible that Albro may have seen the Gay copy of this book. Who owned the Gay copy in 1853 or thereabouts I am unable to learn. Cotton Mather (Magnalia, 1820, i. 255) mentions “a discourse about singing of psalms, proving it a gospel-ordinance” as Cotton’s; in his account (ibid. i. 343–357) of Thomas Shepard, Mather gives no indication that Shepard had any part in planning or writing this work.

599 Miscellaneous Works of George Wither, printed for the Spenser Society, 1872, Publications of the Spenser Society, Issue No. 12, First Collection, pp. 121–122

600 Quoted in part by Phoebe Sheavyn, The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age, Manchester [England], 1909, pp. 81–82, where other interesting examples are given.

601 Samuel Butler: Characters and Passages from Note-Books, ed. A. R. Waller, Cambridge [England], 1908, p. 262

602 Perfect Diurnal, No. 310, July 2–9, 1649, p. 2561

603 Thomason (Catalogue, ii. 125) says this pamphlet was published about the middle of August, 1655. He dates his copy August 20.

604 See, for instance, London Gazette, No. 886 (May 14–18, 1674); the Compleat Library, Vol. 2, p. 220 (March, 1693).

605 Howell, State Trials, xiv. 1106–1107 (London, 1816).

606 For a full account of this matter, see J. F. Jameson’s edition of Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence, New York, 1910, pp. 3–5.

607 Magnalia, i. 351.

608 Shepard’s Works, vol. i. p. clxxxvi.

609 Magnalia, i. 255

610 Plain Dealing, ed. J. H. Trumbull, p. 52 note.

611 On Simmons, see Henry R. Plomer, A Dictionary of Booksellers and Printers who were at work in England and Ireland from 1641 to 1667, London, 1907, p. 164.

612 Printed from the original manuscript in the possession of the American Antiquarian Society, “Worcester Papers,” i. 11.

613 History of American Literature during the Colonial Period, ii. 16.

614 Oakes probably died in the night of July 24–25, since his death is sometimes given as July 25: see our Publications, xviii. 369 note 9.

615 Sibleystated (Harvard Graduates, i. 181) that “An Elegy on Oakes was written by Daniel Gookin, H. U. 1669,” but in his additions and corrections (ii. 529) said:

“For ‘Daniel Gookin, H. U. 1669’ read ‘Cotton Mather, H. U. 1678.” ‘I have been unable to learn from what source Sibley obtained his information regarding Gookin.

616 Jonathan Mitchell (H. C. 1647), Oakes’s predecessor as pastor of the Cambridge church, died July 9, 1668.

617 The Committee consisted of Messrs. Winslow Warren and William Crown-inshield Endicott. Mr. Warren’s illness prevented him from serving.

618 The will of May 2, 1659, is printed in C. M. Endicott’s Memoir of John Endecott (1847), pp. 113–116; in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register (1861), xv. 126–128; and, together with various other documents, in Essex Institute Historical Collections (1888), xxv. 137–157. See also Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. ii. pt. ii. pp. 151, 279, 289, 311, 387.

619 The date has been so effectually crossed out as to be illegible.

620 This John Endicott was a son of Zerobabel Endicott

621 Printed from the original will, in the possession of Mr. Endicott.

622 Massachusetts Archives, xv B. 95.

623 Massachusetts Archives, xv b. 96. Other documents relating to the disputed will are in the same volume, pp. 96a-106

624 The map is here reproduced

625 Suffolk Deeds, ii. 48.

626 Suffolk Deeds, ii. 48.

627 xi. 195.

628 Suffolk Deeds, xxxviii. 56; xv. 167. Mr. John H. Edmonds kindly furnishes the following receipt (Massachusetts Archives, xlviii. 148):

Recd of m^r Richard Russell ye 12 of May 1676 one hundred & thirty thre pounds of Indigoe att 3^s a fi: which is in part of ye Arears of Rent due for a house in Boston y^e Governor Endicott Liued in I say Reed as atturney To John Bell and Susen his wife of London

Edward Shippen

629 Suffolk Deeds, xxxviii. 98

630 cxiv. 137.

631 iv. 61, 141

632 iv. 61

633 vi. 233.

634 x. 107–108.

635 Suffolk Deeds, xii. 216.

636 xci. 76.

637 See our Publications, vi. 93, 94.

638 Suffolk Deeds, xvi. 133.

639 xxv. 166

640 xxv. 168

641 Suffolk Deeds, xii. 356

642 xxiv. 98

643 xlii. 284

644 The book was given to the Massachusetts Historical Society by the heirs of John Pickering, October 29, 1846, and has inscribed on a fly-leaf in front the following entry:

This volume was formerly Gov^r Endecott’s, as appears by his autograph on the titlepage. It was bought at an auction, in Salem, & presented to me by John S. Appleton Esq^r of that place. The binding was almost destroyed; but in putting on the present binding we took great pains to imitate the original as nearly as possible.

Jn^O Pickering

645 The letter is printed in Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 98.

646 Leverett’s Wharf was a little to the south of the then lower end of what is now State Street.

647 Diary, i. 159–163.

648 Wait Winthrop (1642–1717).

649 Diary, i. 164.

650 Diary, i., 193.

651 Council Records, ii. 149.

652 With this account, compare an account of expenses of a journey from Boston to New Jersey about 1688, in our Publications, xix. 28–32.

653 Entry after footing was made.

654 Entries after footings were made.

655 Entries after footings were made.

656 Entries after footings were made.

657 Entries after footings were made.

658 Entries after footings were made.

659 John Winthrop (1638–1707).

660 Entries after footings were made.

661 Entries after footings were made.

662 Entries after footings were made.

663 Entries after footings were made.

664 Entries after footings were made.

665 Entries after footings were made.

666 Entries after footings were made.

667 Entries after footings were made.

668 Entries after footings were made.

669 Entries after footings were made.

670 Entries after footings were made.

671 Entries after footings were made.

672 December, 1909, Publications, xii. 382–398

673 January, 1911, Publications, xiii. 226–234

674 December, 1908, Publications, xii. 191–203.

675 A paper and some documents communicated at this meeting will be printed in vol. xxi.

676 Pp. 104–108, above.

677 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology, Bulletin No. 71 (1907).

678 Bulletin No. 71, pp. 58–59.

679 Journal (1908), ii. 348. Cf. p. 106 note, above.

680 Report Conn. Exp. Sta. 1903, Part III, p. 214.

681 Bulletin, No. 71, pp. 54–55.

682 C. W. Hooker, The Periodical Cicada in Massachusetts, in Twenty-first Annual Report of the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station (1909), part ii. p. 201.

683 P. 206.

684 Propositions concerning the Subject of Baptism (1662); Anti-Synodalia Scripta Americana; A Defence of the Answer and Arguments of the Synod Met at Boston in the Year 1662 (1664); The First Principles of New-England, Concerning the Subject of Baptisme & Communion of Churches (1675); and A Discourse Concerning the Subject of Baptisme (1675). The first two items (published together, though separately paged) were printed at London, the last three items were printed at Cambridge.

685 Cf. our Publications, xix. 333.

686 Early Interest in Dighton Rock, and Middle Period of Dighton Rock History, in our Publications, xviii. 235–299, 417, xix. 46–149. In the present paper, references to sources are generally omitted whenever these are indicated in the Bibliography, pp. 438—462, below.

687 Described in the Nouvelle Biographie Générale as a chemist and “homme politique,” born in 1763, died about 1832.

688 Newport Mercury, June 2, 1795, p. 3/1; June 9, p. 3/2.

689 Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1903, ii. 734.

690 ii. 721–1009.

691 ii. 943.

692 Newport Mercury, August 9, 1796, p. 3/1; Columbian Centinel, August 6, p. 3/1, August 13, p. 2/4.

693 Newport Mercury, September 13, p. 3/3; Boston Mercury, September 13, p. 2/4. Cf. 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, vii. 337.

694 Columbian Centinel, September 14, p. 2/4; Independent Chronicle, September 15, p. 2/5; Boston Gazette, September 19, p. 3/2.

695 Independent Chronicle, September 15, p. 2/5, September 29, p. 3/1; Boston Mercury, September 30, p. 2/4; Boston Gazette, October 23, p. 3/2; Columbian Centinel, September 24, p. 3/3.

696 Boston Mercury, October 14, p. 2/3.

697 Annual Report of American Historical Association for 1903, ii. 1017, letters of May 5, 16.

698 ii. 947.

699 These will be referred to hereafter as C, meaning the manuscript volumes entitled Correspondence and Reports; R, meaning the volumes entitled Records; and T, the Trustee’s Records. References to T and R are by dates, not by numbered pages.

700 Born January 16, 1795; died October 20, 1864. At his suggestion, the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries was founded in Denmark about 1825. Rafn was its perpetual secretary, editor of most, if not all, of its publications, practically sole author of many of them. The society was under the patronage and titular presidency of Frederick VII, King of Denmark. See 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, 1866, viii. 80–84, 175–201; and no. 67.

701 No. 16, p. 355. The original is in Latin. The reference here, as in all footnotes similarly expressed, is to the corresponding number in the Bibliography, pp. 438–462, below.

702 Now preserved in C i. 79. Some writers, including Bartlett, have asserted that the activity of the society in this matter was in response to a circular letter from Rafn to the American newspapers; but this is clearly an error.

703 No. 16, p. 357.

704 Pp. 356–361.

705 This remark was later distorted by at least two writers (Beamish, 1841 and 1907, and Bodfish, 1885) into the statement that the mounds and other things mentioned were in the western part of Bristol County, Massachusetts.

706 Both name and date of this drawing as here given and from this source always subsequently known, are partially erroneous. See our Publications, xix. 83.

707 The one in Swansea was never found. Concerning that at Rutland, Webb later wrote that its alleged inscription had nothing artificial about it (No. 16 p. 400).

708 C ii. 54; R, July 19, 1833

709 T, September 3, 1833; R, July 19, 1834.

710 C ii. 41.

711 T, October 14, 1834; C ii. 25, 31.

712 C ii. 30; T, January 6, 1835.

713 The answer given was that there were none; but at a later date Webb called Rafn’s attention to the so-called “Fall River Skeleton in Armor” and to the Newport tower, which were accepted by Rafn as Norse remains.

714 T, vol. i; C ii. 31.

715 C ii. 33. This reply was published in full in no. 16, pp. 361–371.

716 Published in part in no. 16, p. 372.

717 C ii. 52; no. 483, viii. 189

718 T; C ii. 30, 34.

719 See same references as for third letter.

720 C ii. 30.

721 The Winthrop and the Kendall were copied from the Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and had been mentioned by Webb in his letter of 1830. The Sewall was especially copied for this occasion from the original at Harvard College (see our Publications, xix. 61 f). The Danforth was unknown to Webb previous to September 27, 1834 (C ii. 25), but he had heard of the papers in Archaeologia by Lort and Vallancey. On October 14, he had not yet seen Archaeologia, and hence was not yet acquainted with Danforth; but by November 30 he had found it, and inserted a reference to it in the revised reply to Rafn (C ii. 33). Of it he says that it “purports to be ‘a faithful and accurate representation of the Inscription.’ This is not sent with any idea that it will prove serviceable in your present inquiry, but simply to shew what strange things have been conjured up by travellers, and sent to Europe for examination” (no. 16, p. 371). This derogatory opinion as to the merit of Danforth’s drawing we have already claimed is wholly unjustified (our Publications, xviii. 254). His statement that it purports to be a faithful and accurate representation is also an error, rendered worse by being placed within quotation marks, whose only possible source must have been Vallancey’s description of it in Archaeologia (viii. 303) as “a fac simile copy of the inscription, taken before the stone was impaired or injured, exactly half a century prior to Dr. Greenwood’s drawing.” In this distorted quotation by Webb lies the source of the still more distorted claim by Wilson in 1862 that “Dr. Danforth executed what he characterized as ‘a faithful and accurate representation of the inscription,’” and a nearly similar statement in the unpublished manuscript by the Rev. C. R. Hale, written in 1865 (see our Publications, xviii. 254 note). Naturally it was meant by its author faithfully and accurately to represent the inscription, and it succeeded far beyond most subsequent drawings. But Danforth never made any claim as to its merits, nor did Vallancey state that he had done so.

722 Reproduced with alterations by Rafn in no. 16 as “Rhode Island Historical Society’s 1830.”

723 Reproduced with alterations in no. 16 as “View of the Assonet Inscription Rock. J. R. Bartlett del.”

724 C ii. 52; no. 483, viii. 189

725 C ii. 45.

726 C ii. 48. Apparently they never heard of his drawings of Dighton Rock.

727 C ii. 40, 49, 74; no. 16, pp. 397 f.

728 No. 16, pp. 397–399.

729 C ii. 49; no. 16, pp. 400–404.

730 This rock has subsequently been rediscovered. Its inscription is described and figured in no. 312, and in W. H. Munro’s History of Bristol, p. 388.

731 C ii. 74.

732 No. 483.

733 This report was printed, and a copy is preserved in C ii. 101

734 No. 41.

735 No. 16, p. 365.

736 This is an error of memory. Two modes only were used, the continuous lines and the broken lines alluded to above. The third mode, the use of shaded lines, was a later addition by Rafn.

737 No. 482.

738 Wilson, no. 493. Denied by A. H. Everett, no. 156.

739 Nos. 276, 310, 355

740 No. 293.

741 See our Publications, xix. 87, 112.

742 The tide tables of 1834 do not give these data. But Professor Frederick Slocum of Brown University, to whom I referred the problem, tells me that the relations of Full and New to Perigee and Apogee were nearly the same in 1913 as in 1834. He kindly calculated the results for me, and remarks: “By analogy it would seem as if the tides of September 4, 1834, should have been 8 or 9 inches lower than the tides of August 20 or September 18. Theoretical considerations would lead to the same conclusions.”

743 Compare it with the Shove lithograph, Plate XXXVII.

744 I am informed that the measurements of the originals are: of the View, about 9 x 11.4 inches (23 x 29 cm.); of the Drawing, about 15.3 x 35 inches (39 x 89 cm.).

745 No. 16, Tab. X. Measures about 7¼ x 10 inches.

746 No. 16, Tab. XII, Number IX. Measures about 5 x 11½ inches.

747 Plate XXXII.

748 Among others, Squier called attention to this disadvantage. He says of the interpolations that they are “hardly to be distinguished, by the lighter manner in which they are engraved, from the rest of the so-called inscription — a circumstance which has been a fruitful source of error to superficial inquirers” (no. 436). It is to be noticed also that even a photographic or a photostatic copy of the drawing in the Antiquitates is very likely to blur the shaded lines so that they are not distinguishable from the others.

749 The reproductions known to me are as follows:

Of the View in whole or in part: Aall, 1838; Schoolcraft, 1839; Laing, 1844; Lelewel, 1852; Horsford, 1887; Winsor, 1889; no. 34. Also a painting in oil prepared for A. H. Everett, 1838, for which see p. 320 note 2, below.

Of the Drawing: Aall, 1838; Barber, 1839; Beamish, 1841; Laing, 1844; Hermes, 1844; Guillot, 1844; Holmberg, 1848; Schoolcraft, 1851 (in part); Gravier, 1875; Andree, 1878; Mallery, 1889; Onffroy de Thoron, 1889; Gaffarel, 1892; Neukomm, 1896; Brittain, 1903. Note also reproduction prepared for A. H. Everett, 1838, for which see p. 320 note 2, below.

750 No. 16, pp. 387 f.

751 This is quoted from a letter from M. Weslauff, President of the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries, who speaks of the rock as “a very important monument” (no. 485).

752 The text is not explicit as to how many winters were spent in each place. It does state that the return to Greenland was in 1011, and that Snorre was then three years old. It would seem that, in order to make the narrative consistent, the corrections given in parentheses above must be made to the statements of the text.

753 Magnusen is called by Rafn an expert in Runic inscriptions. But his expertness has been called in question. Rau (no. 370) tells of the instance of the Runamo rock in Sweden, which in 1833 was visited by a committee of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, including Magnusen. In 1841 Magnusen published an illustrated quarto work of 742 pages, the principal feature of which was his translation of the marks on Runamo Rock. He made out a runic inscription of thirteen lines. In 1842 and 1844, the rock was visited by J. J. A. Worsaae, who reported “that there is no runic inscription whatever on Runamo Rock, and that the marks considered as runes by Finn Magnusen are simply the natural cracks on the decayed surface of a trap dike filling up a rent in a granite formation.” Rau regards the arguments of Worsaae as absolutely convincing. At any rate, it is not difficult to believe the story, after one has examined Magnusen’s methods in dealing with Dighton Rock.

754 The former shaped like a lower-case n, the latter somewhat like a trident. They are easily found on the Baylies drawing in the position indicated. Magnusen’s exposition can be followed best by reference to Plate XXVI (our Publications, xix. 106), whose lower drawing is the one used by Magnusen. Plate XXXV (p. 316, below) is a fair substitute, although most of the figures referred to are shown in rather faint dots. Number 23 on that plate is the N, number 21 the M, and between them the mastless ship. The original text uses special forms for the letters C. M, N. and O. differing somewhat from those here employed.

755 The combination of figures, largely triangular, whose centre lies above the MA monogram. It is number 3 in Plate XXXV. The helmet next spoken of is number 8 lying to the right of the MA monogram. The heifer is number 22.

756 Ventilogium. This is a word that is not often correctly translated. It is not given in most Latin dictionaries; but may be found in Du Cange’s Glossarium, 1846. The ship here mentioned demands a complaisant imagination for its recognition in the jumble of lines between the P at the extreme left of the drawing and the first human figure. It is number 40 on Plate XXXV.

757 The key is easily identified inside the drawing representing Gudrida, the large human figure at the left.

758 This ship is the one mentioned under I, between the N and the runic M.

759 This is of course the figure of the bird, at the middle bottom of the drawing; number 14.

760 The apparently human figure just to the right of the central part of the drawing; number 25.

761 Thorfinn’s shield is the series of lines, to the right of Thorfinn, Bhaped like an hour-glass at the top, thence curving down to a small triangle near the bottom of the human figure; number 10.

762 The two human figures at the right; numbers 26, 27.

763 All the implements of war here enumerated can be sufficiently well made out by an active imagination between the shield and the Skrellings. Numerous bows can be imagined, as to the right of 26 at his feet, to the left of 26 above 31, above the head of 26, and at 32. 34 is an arrow. Other lines leftward of 26, also 28, 29, 30, 35 must be the clubs and branches, and the stones with ropes attached. The huge ball resting in the ballista is probably number 31.

764 No. 16, pp. 378–382. Here translated with some condensation from the original Latin.

765 Pp. 355–396.

766 In a footnote on p. 390 he also mentions Gebelin’s interpretation.

767 P. 378.

768 The actual distance is nearly five feet on the rock.

769 The one that Magnusen called Gudrida.

770 An upright line terminating above in a dot

771 No. 16, pp. 396–405.

772 P. C. Sinding, nos. 417, 418

773 Our Publications, xix. 115.

774 Plate XXXII.

775 I do not wish to deny that the picture-completing apperceptive process may construct almost anything it seeks to find in the complex and innumerable details of texture and light reflections of the surface. In that manner I can myself see, though rather ill-proportioned, the whole name Thorfinn there, if I wish to relax into the seeing of dreamlike unrealities. And of course in like manner I can see numerous alternatives with equal ease. But critical examination does not justify the assumption of the actual existence of such subjectively originating lines.

776 Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord, 1836–1839, pp. 361–385. Letters of Webb (1839) to Rafn (pp. 361–368), with Rafn’s remarks (pp. 369–385), reprinted in Supplement to the Antiquitates Americanos, 1841

777 G. C. Mason, Jr., Old Stone Mill at Newport, in Magazine of American History, 1879, iii. 541–549.

778 Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord, 1840–1844, pp. 104–119.

779 Ibid. pp. 110, 118. See also no. 209.

780 See Winship’s Sailors’ Narratives of Voyages along the New England Coast, 1524–1624 (1905), pp. 15, 43 f, 56.

781 20th Annual Report of the Peabody Museum, 1880–1886, iii. 543 f.

782 Nos. 39, 41.

783 No. 482.

784 See Minnesota Historical Society’s Collections, 1915, xv. 221–286.

785 The evidence for all here mentioned is examined, apparently authoritatively, in no. 471. See also no. 496.

786 Studien over Vinlandsreiserne, published in English in Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord, 1888, pp. 307–370.

787 M. L. Fernald, Notes on the plants of Wineland the Good, in Rhodora, xii. 17–38.

788 No. 158

789 No. 246.

790 No. 494.

791 Nos. 214, 215, 216.

792 The statements in this paragraph are condensed from nos. 150, 483.

793 Considerable confusion in discussion has arisen from the habit, much indulged in, of calling the characters on Dighton Rock runes. The only runic characters claimed for this rock were the Sol, initial of Snorre, the doubtful Th, and the trident-like M, initial of madr. The letters forming the numerals, words and name most discussed were regarded by Magnusen and Rafn as Roman, or modified Roman forms. Hence the many criticisms founded on their lack of resemblance to runes were irrelevant.

794 No. 158.

795 No. 156. In 1864, E. E. Hale presented to the American Antiquarian Society the two representations of Dighton Rock which A. H. Everett used in his lectures. They are greatly enlarged copies, with some slight differences, of the Rhode Island version in Antiquitates. Each measures nearly 4x6 feet. The View is based on Bartlett’s, but is an oil painting, executed for Mr. Everett by a certain “Bower” of Providence — doubtless the sign-painter, Samuel J. Bower, mentioned in the 1838 directory. See no. 211.

796 No. 398.

797 No. 31.

798 Nos. 15, 83, 310, 366. The hoax is said by C. e. Hammett, Jr. (Bibliography and Literature of Newport, 1887, p. 28) to have been due to two well known Newport wags. Their names, not given by Hammett, are disclosed in a letter written November 10, 1875, by Dr. David King (1812–1882) of Newport to Justin Winsor, then librarian of the Boston Public Library. In this letter, which is pasted into a copy of Brooks’s pamphlet owned by the Library, Dr. King said:

“The above mentioned pamphlet was compiled for M^r Hammett by the Rev. Charles T. Brooks, late Pastor of the Unitarian Church of Newport. The remarks, introductory and conclusive, were written by Mr. Brooks.

“The letters from Brown University were written by W^m H. Cranston, and by Henry Tisdale of Newport. W^m H. Cranston was a Lawyer, and became, subsequently, Editor of the Daily News of Newport. He was, also, for several years Mayor of Newport. Henry Tisdale was a very bright intelligent man, a silversmith, and for [several years a member of the City Council of Newport. The letters signed, one the Oldest Inhabitant of Newport were written by David Melville, at one time Surveyor of the Customs of Newport. The lines by a Lady at p. 55, were composed by M^rs W^m L. Littlefield of this City.”

799 (A) Favorable to Norse origin of inscription: Lossing (in 1850–52 suggested that the inscription was the record of a battle with Indians made by Scandinavians acquainted with and using Phoenician letters, but in 1876 stated that the Norsemen left no traces, except the tower at Newport), Hosmer, Anderson (1874, but in 1907 was “hospitably disposed” to Horsford’s location of Vinland), Goodrich, Bodfish, Gagnon, Henrici, Neukomm.

(B) Favorable to Rafn’s localities at least approximately, but reject Norse character of inscription: De Costa, Horsford, Goodwin, De’Roo.

(C) Unfavorable to Rafn’s localities and Norse inscription: Cabot, Haven, Wilson, C. R. Hale, Gaffarel, Lodge, Slafter, Higginson, McLean, Reeves, Power, Fiske, Baxter (1893), Ruge, Fischer, Avery, Vignaud.

(D) Bibliographical and critical: Watson, Winsor, Hermannsson.

800 Whittier, Complete Poetical Works (1894), pp. 9–11.

801 One of thèse quotes M. Madier de Montjau as author of the paper; whereas this gentleman did nothing more than “analyze” the paper by Gravier at the Congress.

802 Washington, Kendall, Davis: see our Publications, xix. 81, 104, 115.

803 xviii. 235, 238, 239, xix. 105, 109, 111, 147.

804 No. 476.

805 No. 482.

806 Nos. 433, 434.

807 No. 435.

808 No. 436.

809 No. 437.

810 No. 436.

811 Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord, 1840–1844, 119127. For a cautious verdict on this tablet, see Hodge’s Handbook of American Indians, i. 506.

812 No. 399.

813 No. 336.

814 No. 401.

815 Plate XXXV.

816 See p. 379, below.

817 No. 402. See our Plate XXXVI.

818 No. 403

819 No. 75.

820 No. 76.

821 No. 414.

822 No. 12.

823 Prehistoric Man in America, in Forum, 1890, viii. 502.

824 Nos. 297, 298.

825 See letter of Bushnell, 1915, in our Publications, xviii. 235.

826 See especially articles on Archæology, Engraving, Graphic Art, Inscribed Tablets, Pictographs, Popular Fallacies, Sign Language, Tattooing, Totem.

827 Early History of Mankind, 1878, chap, v, on Picture-Writing.

828 See especially American Anthropologist, 1892, v. 165.

829 Nos. 401, 403. Compare with Plate XXXV.

830 See our Publications, xix. 122. I have found no indication that Moulton ever lived nearer to Taunton than Roslyn, Long Island.

831 I doubt very much whether any marks exist on the south, or down-stream end of the rock. There are some, however, on the up-stream end, ordinarily wholly invisible, but on rare occasions in unusually favorable light appearing with great clearness; see below, p. 406. If these are the ones here meant, then this person is the third previous observer who has seen them. His description differs much from that of Dr. Stiles, but is reconcilable with the actual characters.

832 No. 143.

833 “Notes on New Books,” in National Intelligencer, September 13, 1848

834 No. 261.

835 No. 342.

836 No. 183.

837 Rafn’s drawing, Plate XXXIV.

838 For a cut of this stone see Squier’s Aboriginal Monuments of the State of New York, 1849, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, ii. 172, art. ix. Squier accepts the stone as probably “a genuine remnant of antiquity;” so also apparently does Schoolcraft (no. 401, p. 109).

839 John Patterson Lundy, Princeton, 1846; D.D. Andalusia College, 1869. Rector of Church of the Holy Apostles (Presbyterian) in New York, 1869 to 1875. Author of Monumental Christianity. Bom 1823, died 1892.

840 No. 139.

841 No. 43, p. 27.

842 Nos. 481, 482.

843 V. Baker, Massasoit’s Town Sowams in Pokanoket, pp. 36–37.

844 Magnalia, bk. i. ch. i. p. 2.

845 No. 27, p. 82.

846 No. 128, p. 308.

847 Fernald received his M.D. at the Harvard Medical School in 1872, and afterwards practised in Boston. The initials of his self-conferred title stand for “God’s United States and Foreign Alliance.” He was born December 5, 1847, at Wolfborough Centre, N. H.; died March 15, 1916. Besides this book, he published also: The Downfall of Rome; or, History Repeating Itself, 1896; and in 1899 issued two editions of a large folded sheet printed on both sides, entitled: Genealogy of the Ancient Fernald Family, From Adam to Date.

848 For evidences of what appear to be delusions of persecution, including thirty-nine attempts upon his life, see pp. 136, 137, 182, 191, 211 f, 256, etc.

849 P. 33, Plates 64, 69. Cf. the Biglow Papers.

850 Pp. 5, 8, 9, 20 (7), 29, 32, 33 (2), 36, 37, 38, 44, 50, 60, 66, 67, 71, 78, 79 (2), 82, 87, 88, 108, 124, 127, 133, 135, 162, 166 (2), 241, 259, 267, 278, 369, 398, 427.

851 Very likely an edition of one of Lossing’s pictorial histories, since Lossing is the only historian I have yet discovered who uses the Job Gardner drawing.

852 Pp. 20, 33. See Fig. 5, on this page.

853 Plymouth Colony Records, xii. 242.

854 When the Court acquired or assumed the right to dispose of them is not on record. Doubtless they were conveyed by Massasoit in the original, now lost, Cohannet deed of about 1637, or soon thereafter, for Philip included them in his confirmatory deed of 1663.

855 See our Publications, xviii. 241; Land Records at Taunton, Book 3, p. 287 (1680); Book 3, p. 174 (1691); Book 7, p. 720 (1717).

856 Plymouth Colony Records, v. 191, 240.

857 Plymouth Colony Records of Deeds, Book 5, p. 199.

858 Land Records at Taunton, Book 3, p. 287

859 Our Publications, xviii. 286; also Probate Records at Taunton, Book 3, p. 469.

860 Bristol County Probate Records, Book 20, p. 396.

861 Land Records, Book 71, p. 13.

862 Probate Records, Book 54, p. 506

863 Book 78, p. 117.

864 Land Records, Book 166, p. 107; Book 170, pp. 25, 161; Book 220, p. 300.

865 Nos. 10, 17, 18, 20, 218. See also J. E. Olsen, in Nation (1887), xlv. 395.

866 Land Records, Book 253, p. 92. The boundaries of the land conveyed with the rock in this and subsequent deeds are thus described: “Beginning at a point where an east and west line drawn 17½ feet south of the Rock known as the Writing or Dighton Rock intersects a line drawn north and south 35 feet east of said Rock, thence by said north and south line north 35 feet, thence west to Taunton River channel, thence south by said river 35 feet, thence east to the first mentioned bound.”

867 Land Records, Book 253, p. 93.

868 Book 259, p. 49.

869 A footnote adds: “It appears that the people of Massachusetts took no particular interest in the rock prior to this time.”

870 No. 293.

871 Land Records, Book 470, p. 211.

872 Nos. 210, 214–216.

873 No. 211.

874 See p. 406, below.

875 No. 324, evidently adapted from Barber.

876 No. 482.

877 I am indebted to Mr. Matthews for the following note:

a letter from S. F. B. Morse dated Paris, March 19, 1839, was printed in Niles’ Register of April 27th (lvi. 134). The issue of September 21 stated that the secret of the Daguerre “will be known here when the British Queen arrives,” the arrival of that vessel at New York being announced in the same issue; and the issue of September 28 contained an extract disclosing the secret from the London Globe of August 23 (lvi. 52, 64, 73). What is described as “the first attempt” was “a photographic plate of the central high school, taken by Joseph Sexton” in Philadelphia (lvii. 172). In the issue of January 11, 1840, appeared this item:

“The Daguerreotype. The New York Observer has been favored with the sight of a large number of pictures from a collection of the exquisitely beautiful results of this wonderful discovery, just arrived from Paris. . . . The collection is in the hand of M. Gourraud, a gentleman of taste, who arrived in the steam packet British Queen” (lvii. 312).

The issue of May 9 announced that “likenesses from the human face have been successfully taken by it” in Philadelphia; and the issue of May 30 stated that Robert Cornelius of Philadelphia “is now engaged, most successfully in making miniature liknesses, by means of the process designed by Mons. Daguerre” (Iviii. 160, 208).

In March, 1840, M. Gouraud visited Boston, where his “collection of photogenic drawings” was exhibited privately on March 6, and publicly from March 11 to April 8. He also delivered lectures at the Masonic Temple on March 27, April 3 and 4, at the first of which he took “a beautiful view of Park Street, with the intervening trees, and part of the Common, covered with snow,” and at the second “a fine view of the State House, from a front window of the Temple” (Boston Advertiser, March 7, p. 2/2; March 28, p. 2/4; April 4, p. 2/4). A communication from him was printed in the issue of March 26 (p. 2/2–3), and reprinted at the end of a 16-page pamphlet published in Boston the same year entitled “Description of the Daguerreotype Process, or a Summary of M. Gouraud’s Public Lectures, according to the Principles of M. Daguerre. With a Description of a provisory Method for taking Human Portraits.” This concludes with the words, “I will now say . . . that by adopting a confidential communication which I have received from M. D. G., the French Professor at Cambridge, since I arrived in Boston, I think it is very probable that we shall succeed in obtaining a Daguerreotype portrait in much less time than by the process above described.” “M. D. G., the French Professor at Cambridge,” was Anatole de Goy, Instructor (not Professor) in French in 1840–1841.

Finally, in the Boston Advertiser of April 6, 1840 (p. 3/2), appeared an advertisement of G. W. Prosch of 140 Nassau Street, New York, beginning: “The Daguerreotype apparatus of improved construction warranted to be correct, and better adapted to the purpose than the French, of which any reasonable person can be satisfied upon inspection. It is more portable and less expensive manufactured and for sale by the subscriber.”

878 No. 178.

879 L. E. Richards, Letters and Journals of S. G. Howe, ii. 102.

880 No. 402.

881 See number 39, p. 394, below.

882 Nos. 419, 420.

883 No. 222.

884 In 1890, Mr. Young was proprietor of a crockery and glassware store. Later directories list him as justice of peace and notary. On his business cards he also called himself a “Compiler and Special Writer.” He died January 15, 1918.

885 Our Publications, xix. 63. See also no. 219.

886 It may have been C. Thomas’s account of the rock in Hodge’s Handbook.

887 Besides the Rock, this photograph shows several other features of interest. In the middle background is Grassy Island, several times referred to in this study. To the left of the island and the rock is Taunton River, coming down from the north near the extreme left of the picture. Leftward from and beyond that point is the upper part of the village of Dighton. Rightward, the land in the background is in the town of Berkley, the water is Smith’s Cove, and the foreground is Assonet Neck.

888 The most extraordinary statement of this character was made by Jerome V. C. Smith, later mayor of Boston, in a letter to Rafn dated June 15, 1842:

“I am satisfied from a careful examination, that the rock once stood on the dry land, perhaps 20 rods from the water, but the river has gradually forced itself against the eastern bank, or Berkley side, and actually excavated the land, ‘till the rock has nearly gained the middle of the river at high tide. A boy who went as a guide, assured me that the river gained a little every year upon the Berkley side, which convinced me that my theory in regard to the original location of the rock was right. At the present rate of washing, it is not improbable that within the next 50 years it will be entirely out of sight, in the very centre of the channel” (no. 427).

Smith’s boy seems to have been cast in much the same mold as that used later in constructing the one who told me his wonder-tales. Smith’s accuracy will be appreciated when the reader is informed that the furthest reach of the tide does not exceed 75 feet beyond the rock, and that, as measured on the unpublished A. M. Harrison charts of 1875, in the office of the United States Coast Survey, the river is 1500 feet wide at this point.

889 In Economic Geology, 1910, v. 623.

890 Visible in the middle background of Plate XLVII.

891 Since then I have found also an adze, a small broken pestle-like stone, and several holes filled with decayed organic material, reaching down nearly two feet into the former surface, some of them the remains of small trees, others of stakes driven into the ground as parts of an ancient weir, dwelling or other structure.

892 I find definite early estimates ranging from 200 to 260 years ago, for about half of these meadows, involving about fifty acres in all. By measurements on the large scale A. M. Harrison charts of 1875, and by recent pacing of most of the boundaries, which in all of these cases can be identified from old descriptions with practical certainty, I am led to believe that there has been no appreciable change. But such comparisons cannot be exact enough to be decisive.

893 Visible to the left of Dighton Rock in Plates XLII and XLIV.

894 Some additional measurements of the above-ground portions made by previous observers and probably as reliable as any that could be given were mentioned in my second paper (xix. 53, 105 n).

895 Handbook of Rocks, 5th ed., 1911, p. 214.

896 Visible to the right of Dighton Rock in Plates XLII and XLIV.

897 xix. 112 note.

898 xviii. 248.

899 The line of intersection of the plane of the face with the plane of the horizon, allowing for a magnetic deviation of 13° West, is directed N 58° — 60° E, or almost exactly ENE by compass.

900 See drawing and description on p. 366, above.

901 My own photographs of 1919 support the same conclusion.

902 See Fig. 7, p. 416, below.

903 See no. 298, pp. 37–42.

904 On a photograph by C. W. Brown, taken May 15, 1915, and not here reproduced because in other respects not helpful to our study, the CORTEIX is even clearer and more decisive than on the Hathaway photograph; and following the M is an almost certain IC or IG. My own recent examination of the rock and photographs of it convince me that the G and a V following it are as certain as any of the other characters.

905 Les Corte-Real, 1883; Gaspar Corte-Real, in Recueil de Voyages et de Documents pour servir a l’Histoire de la Géographie depuis le XIII^e jusqu’à la fin du XVI^e Siècle, 1883; Discovery of North America, 1892.

906 The expedition of Gaspar Cortereal in 1501 had brought back to Portugal 67 natives, apparently designed for use as slaves. In a paper on The Portuguese Royal Society of Canada, 1890, vol. viii. sect. ii. pp. 133 f), the Rev. George Patterson asks: “What more likely than that these navigators should have fallen victims to the vengeance of the friends or clansmen of the kidnapped, or perhaps been overpowered in an attempt to capture more.” In the absence of any knowledge of the circumstances under which the kidnapping took place, whether by violence or by persuasion, and whether knowledge of it reached the particular natives with whom Miguel came in contact, such an assumption is no more probable than the one that I make.

907 See Winship’s Sailors’ Narratives, pp. 21, 45.

908 See Fig. 7 (on p. 416), and note that in two facsimile signatures reproduced by Harrisse in the second paper cited above, the name is spelled Miguell CorteReall. In the figure, I have drawn in heavy lines all the component parts of name and date that are unambiguously observable in the Hathaway photograph. The light and dotted lines in the name indicate how it may be dubiously completed. Neighboring and overlying lines and figures are also drawn in light lines. Of the two “deers,” the one at the right, though fairly clear in the photograph, is a little uncertain and has never heretofore been observed. It is much more distinct in my own photographs. The “bird” is inserted to show the position where Baylies and his companions probably saw it and where with difficulty it may still be imagined in the Burgess and Hathaway photographs. I do not believe, however, that there ever was really any bird portrayed in that position on the rock.

909 I have found some evidence pointing in this direction. Apparently it was a time of transition between the use of Gothic and of Roman forms in lettering, and their intermingling, as in this inscription, was customary. Our associate Mr. R. Clipston Sturgis says in a recent letter: “Letters in use in Portugal in 1500 would be just the same as those in use in other parts of Europe at that date. It was at the end of the highest period of the Renaissance in Italy, and the various beautiful forms of Gothic lettering had been gradually abandoned for those based upon Roman types.” Lewis F. Day says: “Writers of old never seem to have been bound hard and fast to one type of letter. Even in the same phrase various forms of the same letter occur” (Lettering in Ornament, 1902, p. 34). One of his illustrations shows the use of an angular and a rounded C in the same word; another is a modern imitation of mediaeval lettering, in which the curved E is used exclusively in the midst of letters otherwise of Roman type. In Antiquitates Americanæ (pp. 379, 380), Rafn discusses early and mediaeval use of angular C and O. According to the Traité du Numismatique du Moyen Age by A. Engel and R. Serrure (1905, iii. 1350 ff), the coins of Portugal between 1357 and 1481 employed both forms of E in the same words and phrases, the curved form occurring much more frequently than the other, and the majority of the other letters being of the now prevalent Roman forms. Conrad Haebler’s Typographie Ibérique du Quinzième Siècle (1902) gives “Reproductions en facsimile de tous les caractères typographique employés en Espagne et en Portugal jusqu’à l’année 1500.” His No. 42 shows a page of a book printed in 1485, having a border of capital letters in which occur both the angular and the rounded C, both the angular and the rounded E, and an O that is intermediate. Such forms of letters as I make out in the inscription would have been appropriate for Miguel Cortereal to have employed in 1511.

910 Our Publications, six. 71, 125.

911 Our Publications, xix. 285–289.

912 H. Bond, Genealogies and History of Watertown, i. 62; S. Roads, History and Traditions of Marblehead, p. 117; T. F. Harrington, Harvard Medical School, i. 175; Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War, ii. 260; F. B. Heitman, Register of Officers of the Continental Army (1914), p. 109.

MARCH MEETING, 1918

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

THE GIFTS OF RICHARD BAXTER AND HENRY ASHURST TO HARVARD COLLEGE451

I

II

THE GIFTS OF RICHARD BAXTER AND HENRY ASHURST TO HARVARD COLLEGE 451