DECEMBER MEETING, 1907

A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Thursday, 26 December, 1907, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, Henry Lefavour, LL.D., in the chair.

On taking the chair, the President delivered the following address:

In opening the first session of the new year, gentlemen, I can assure you that the position to which you have called me is one the opportunities and honor of which I deeply appreciate. I am sensible of the compliment conveyed in your selection, and I know that I am sure of your co-operation in my attempt to meet the obligations of the office. The Society of which we are members, when compared with similar historical societies in this country, is a very young organization, yet we have reached the middle of our second decade. Although our membership is limited to one hundred associates, there stand on our membership roll nearly one hundred and fifty names, one-third of whom have already ended their earthly labors, thus showing that the Society in its fifteen years of activity has represented to a considerable extent the maturity of the community.

The work of the Society is shown in the seven valuable volumes already published, and these are a contribution to the history of the colony that not only justifies the hopes of the founders of the Society but will serve always to keep alive the enthusiasm of those who are to follow us.

The study of history has always interested mankind, for not only have we craved the answer to our natural curiosity but, just as in the material sciences we are enabled only by the observation of repeated phenomena to forecast the results of a new combination of forces, so, in the realm of human activity, we are dependent upon the experience of the past in forming judgments regarding the wisdom of new policies. But history, if it is to be of service, must be founded on clear observation and accurate knowledge, and here is found the field of usefulness of such a society as ours in the search for the data and the collection of the evidence that shall enable us to determine the flow of events and the causes of results.

Whatever may be the influence of Massachusetts in the present or in the future, there can be no question in our minds as to her position in the past. To every student of Massachusetts history, and more especially to every student of Massachusetts legislation, it is clear that there have been certain traditions, certain conservative influences which it is not difficult to trace back to their sources. For these influences and traditions which find expression not only in our own Commonwealth, not only in the sister colonial States, but even in the constitutions and statutes of the newest States of this nation, and which are in some measure at least the explanation of the enviable character of much of the Massachusetts legislation, have their sources back in the lives and deeds of the men of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. It was these men who, unfettered by the traditions and restrictive influences of the autocratic and monarchical governments of Europe, found the chance here to study the real problems of society, to search for the laws and rules of human justice, and to elaborate those forms of political organization which should contribute most largely to human happiness. Their results — mistaken perhaps, in part, but largely wise — have been the foundations of our public policy, and we may well propose to ourselves the worthy task of making such studies and investigations as shall enable us to appreciate more justly the characters and motives of those men, to clarify the obscurity and confusion which surround many of the controversial points, and to secure a better foundation for future historical research.

We are all proud that our ancestors were of and among these men; but it is not a selfish pride, rather, it is a filial devotion, which leads us to strive, as best we may, to make their lives more effective and to perpetuate the influences of which they were the source.

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

The President announced the death of Stanley Cunningham, a Resident Member, in Cohasset, on the twenty-eighth of November last, and stated that Mr. Lindsay Swift had been appointed by the Council to write the customary Memoir for the Transactions.

Mr. Henry E. Woods, the Corresponding Secretary pro tempore, reported that letters had been received from the Hon. Andrew Dickson White of Ithaca, New York, accepting Honorary Membership, and from Mr. Francis Philip Nash of Geneva, New York, accepting Corresponding Membership.

The Rev. William Wallace Fenn of Cambridge was elected a Resident Member.

Professor James K. Hosmer of Washington, who had been invited to repeat to the Society the address on John Harvard in England which he had delivered in Cambridge before the Harvard Memorial Society on 18 November, 1907, was then introduced to the members, and spoke as follows:

JOHN HARVARD IN ENGLAND.

There is a story current at Cambridge that a husband and wife, well endowed with means, and entertaining the praiseworthy purpose of establishing a new university, once visited Cambridge, and were shown through the institution by a high officer. Having completed their tour of inspection, and standing in Memorial Hall, about to say farewell, the husband remarked in commercial phrase, and perhaps with a touch of the too common American idea that money will buy everything, “Well, Mr. Eliot, for how much could your plant here, be duplicated?” Mr. Eliot mentioned the amount at which the endowment could be estimated, and the probable value of the real estate and apparatus. “Well, husband,” said the wife, “we can do better than that, can’t we?” “Madam,” said President Eliot, with a glance at the portraits that hung along the walls, “we have one possession which money cannot buy, and which is very precious, — more than two hundred and seventy years of devotedness.”

I think that the President of the University, in touching upon this matter of the past of the institution referred to, touched upon something which, in the idea of Harvard men, is inestimably precious. In other respects the University may be surpassed. Elsewhere there may be a greater number of students, conceivably abler and more famous professors, more splendid buildings; but the fact that at Cambridge there lies around everything this solemn past, stretching through eight generations, each one of which has cherished the institution as the thing in the world best worth upholding, — here Harvard has a unique distinction which cannot be bought, and which cannot be taken away.

If this consideration is just, what shall we say about our debt of obligation, to the man who prolongs this past by fifty years, at least; who prefixes, as it were, to our temple a vestibule which is charged with the most picturesque and romantic associations? This has been done of late years by Mr. Henry FitzGilbert Waters, of the class of 1855, the revealer of John Harvard. Whereas twenty-five years ago John Harvard was almost unknown to us, Mr. Waters has effected an uncovering, to such an extent that there is scarcely another worthy of early New England concerning whose antecedents and surroundings we know so much.

The subject of my address is John Harvard in England. In the first place I wish to say something about the England into which John Harvard was born; and then, against this as a background, to outline the figure, as well as I can, — somewhat shadowy, it must be confessed, in spite of all that has been done.

At the time of the Reformation things in England proceeded somewhat conservatively. While in many ways there was a change, the authority of Rome being thrown off, together with a considerable modification of doctrine and ceremony, yet, at the same time, much was retained. There was a retention of the old hierarchy of bishops and archbishops; of much of the old form, of many of the old doctrines. There was a party in England to whom this halfway Reformation was greatly unsatisfactory. They were for going to extremes of Congregationalism and individualism; and they, as the age of Elizabeth proceeded, became known as the Separatists, Robert Browne being their leader. Nor within the Church of England itself were things harmonious. One strong party was reactionary, going back towards Rome; they cherished more and more ancient forms; they made of importance the position of the altar at the east, vestments and postures; they retained the practice of confession; in some instances they retained the old doctrine of transubstantiation. This party was found on the one hand, and on the other a party which subscribed to the stern theology of Calvin, and would hear of nothing but simplicity in the matter of the ceremonies; and these, as time went on, became known as the Puritans. The rift, at the outset narrow, widened gradually into a chasm which could be filled only with blood.

The Stuarts succeeded the Tudors; and at last, in 1625, came to the throne Charles I. He was by no means a man without ability; he had great courage and thorough sincerity; but at the same time he was narrow-minded. He felt that he reigned by divine right; that his subjects had no rights which the sovereign was bound to respect. He undertook to reduce the nation to conformity with his will. He found efficient instruments in Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford; and between 1620 and 1640 twenty thousand emigrants, Puritan middle class English, took refuge in New England.

We reach at length 1640, the date of the assembling of the Long Parliament. John Harvard had already been in his grave two years; his life had come to an end; but Puritan England had not yet come to an end; and if we may say that the fife and spirit of the founder went on in his foster sons, and if it is the case that there were Harvard men who made their mark in those years in England, we may certainly go a little further, to the end of Puritan England. The war which for so long a time had been merely of words became at length one of weapons. At first the King seemed likely to succeed; but an alliance was made between the party of Parliament, the nation in the two Houses, and the Scotch Covenanters; and the tables were presently turned. The battles of Marston Moor and Naseby occurred, and the cause of the King was at length utterly prostrate. “Gentlemen,” said old Sir Jacob Astley, a general of the King in his last defeat, sitting on a drum among his captors, “Gentlemen, you have done your work, and may now go to play, unless you fall out among yourselves.”

It was a significant remark. Straightway they fell out among themselves. The Scotch Covenanters and their English sympathizers on the one hand went in for a temporizing policy; they were willing to make an agreement with the King; but there was on the other side the party of the Independents, who would hear of no half-way measures, and were determined to push things to the radical extreme. The Independents had in Cromwell a matchless general in the field; they had in young Sir Henry Vane a matchless statesman in Parliament. The war broke out afresh, and at the end of a year England was in the hands of the Independents. And just here came a very memorable manifestation. The rank and file of the Ironsides, Cromwell’s soldiers, the Independents in arms, issued a manifesto which they called an Agreement of the People, substantially to this effect: “Henceforth there shall be no longer in England a King; henceforth there shall be in England no longer a House of Lords or a privileged class; henceforth the government of the nation shall be with the Commons, and no authority shall be superior to that of the Commons but that of the people who elect them to be their representatives; and that authority of the people shall be supreme in all respects save one, — no man shall be restricted in his liberty of conscience.” That was the programme that was laid down by the Independents, and with it the English Commonwealth began at the beginning of the year 1649. It was nothing more or less than government by and for the plain people, as distinctly outlined as if Abraham Lincoln himself had written the document.

But it was all premature. The years from 1649 to 1658 were very strenuous years, when England was, as Milton put it, “indeed a mighty and puissant nation.” But the effort was premature. It was impossible to bring about government by the people in a country that was so hampered by monarchical and feudal survivals as was England at that time. Cromwell soon grew discouraged, and planned a Protectorate, a setting up of arbitrary power, which he intended should be only temporary. Vane persisted longer, in the year 1656 making the suggestion which should be to Americans forever memorable. It was this, that the nation should select out from itself its wisest men, and that they, having assembled, should lay down certain fundamentals; not, he says, laws by which the nation shall be governed, but fundamentals by which those who make the laws shall be restrained and guided. What Vane proposed for England was a written constitution, laid down precisely on American lines.

But it was all premature. When Cromwell died things fell into chaos. In 1660 came the Restoration, and Charles II came back among the plaudits of multitudes. Failure never seemed more complete; and yet John Richard Green — a historian who believes that England to-day is substantially a democratic republic, although characterized by feudal and monarchical survivals — Green has said that the history of England from that day to this is nothing more than a coming round, slowly and tentatively but very surely, to the programme which was laid down by the rank and file of the Ironsides in the Agreement of the People at the beginning of the English Commonwealth.

So much for Puritan England. What had all this to do with New England; or what had it to do with John Harvard? It is a bit startling to make the statement that the English Commonwealth, with its mighty heroes and martyrs, and its splendid record, came out of Boston here, — that it came, in fact, from this hill, within a few rods of the place where we are assembled now; but it is said by reputable historians that John Cotton lived here on the shoulder that was then called Cotton Hill, near where Pemberton Square is at the present time; and that John Cotton was the greatest of the Nonconformist ministers, whether in England or in America; and regarded in his time as, more than any other man, the source and the spring of the Independency (we call it here Congregationalism) which did such a magnificent work. Owen, Goodwin, and Nye, the three great Independent advocates, the spiritual leaders of the Independents in England, declared that they got their ideas from Cotton’s books. Cromwell had known him, and wrote to him repeatedly, asking for advice, and signing himself “your affectionate friend.” Vane, as an impressionable young man, lived with Cotton and was trained practically in Cotton’s study. There were other leaders who went from America and who had great influence in England. Hugh Peter, the minister of Salem, went back to England and had a most picturesque and influential career. Roger Williams vibrated back and forth between the two hemispheres, almost equally effective in both in behalf of toleration and freedom. Independency was called, both by friends and enemies, “the New England Way;” and it is curious indeed that even at that early time, when the Colony was clinging most precariously to the edge of the continent, a reaction went back from it to the Old World which was productive of remarkable results.

And now as to John Harvard. What can be said about his foster sons? It was in 1636 that the General Court passed a vote to establish the College, but the College was not on its feet until 1638, when it received Harvard’s bequest. The first class graduated in 1642, and more than half of them went back to England. Some of them had illustrious careers. From other classes also many returned. Let us spend a few minutes in reviewing the career of one. George Downing was the son of John Winthrop’s sister Lucy. He graduated in the first class at the age of eighteen. He was full of brilliancy and insatiable ambition. At first as a minister he went to the West Indies, and preached there with great effect; but very soon appearing in Old England, he became a chaplain among the Ironsides. Nor did he adhere long to the clerical duty to which he was first appointed; he soon assumed the character of a soldier, and rose rapidly to the rank of Scout Master General, or chief of the intelligence department, as it would be nowadays, a place requiring the greatest alertness and vigor of mind. He so distinguished himself that he grew to be a favorite with Cromwell, who after peace came made George Downing his principal diplomatic agent. He sent him to Italy, where he was the instrument of Cromwell in his interference to prevent the massacre of those

slaughtered saints, whose bones

Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold,

as Milton puts it, the Waldensian Protestants in their valleys of Piedmont. Later we find him in France, where, in conference with Cardinal Mazarin, the ruling spirit, he caused the English power to be respected. Thence he proceeded to The Hague, then, as now, a centre of diplomatic influence; and while there he had negotiations with Russia, with the Scandinavian countries, with Germany, with Holland itself. His work was conducted with ability; and it was through him, to a large extent, that there was such a recognition as came to prevail upon the Continent of the greatness of the power which had sprung up across the channel.

His Harvard culture had done great things for him. As an accomplished logician he could deal with intrigue and indirection. He was an expert Latinist, and Latin was the diplomatic medium of those days. The thoroughly efficient instrument of the English Commonwealth, he did man’s work in bringing about a nobler state of things in England.

Alas that there should be another side to the picture. At the Restoration George Downing went over to Charles II, and served him as resolutely and as zealously, apparently, as he had served Cromwell. With treachery which seems execrable, he was the means through whom old comrades of his were arrested and turned over to torture and execution. He enjoyed fat things at the hands of Charles II as a reward for the baseness which even in that degenerate age seemed extraordinary. If he could only have died when Cromwell died! If the wounds which Benedict Arnold received at Saratoga had been mortal, he would have been now one of the greatest figures of our Revolutionary War. And so, if George Downing had died at the close of the English Commonwealth, there would have been few names among the long list of Harvard worthies that better deserve to be honored.

So much for the England into which John Harvard was born. Now to outline the figure against this background! How distinct can we make it? We are told by wise men that heredity and environment are two factors which, working upon the personal element, are almost omnipotent in shaping the man. What can we say as to heredity in the case of John Harvard?

The river Avon is one of the most beautiful and interesting of English streams. I have a pleasant recollection of following it many scores of miles through the English Midlands. Rising not far from Naseby, flowing through Northamptonshire a thread-like rill, from there bordering Leicestershire, a silver ribbon, it reaches Warwickshire. At Stratford, with the resting-place of Shakspere near by, I had one evening the river, lighted with the hues of sunset, at my feet, a broad and brilliant scarf. Of course, the great association with Stratford is and always will be with Shakspere. Here it was that he passed his youth; here it was that he got the color and setting for As You Like It and A Midsummer Night’s Dream; became acquainted with the maidenly grace which he embodied afterwards in Perdita; the awkwardness of his clowns and the clumsiness of the country justices; and from the neighboring castles of Warwick and Kenilworth he received impressions of those feudal grandeurs of which he was afterwards to make such magnificent portrayal. We shall always associate Stratford with Shakspere. But henceforth, for Harvard men, there will be a most interesting association with the family of John Harvard. Hither some twenty years ago came Mr. Waters, an antiquarian. He had satisfied himself by a course of investigation, — the record of which reads like a thrilling detective story, the culprit in the case being unfriendly Fortune, who has undertaken to steal from the world the memory of a benefactor, — he had satisfied himself by his investigation that the maiden name of John Harvard’s mother was Katherine Rogers, and that she was a daughter of Thomas and Alice Rogers of Stratford. Mr. Waters came to Stratford to see what further he could find out, putting up at the Golden Lion. Walking through the street he noticed, as visitors generally notice, a beautiful old Elizabethan house in the High Street that attracted his interest, and he asked the landlord what the story of the house was. It had no story; nobody in Stratford knew anything about it. It was simply the old house in High Street. But Mr. Waters, again in the High Street in the afternoon, when the western sun falling strongly on the front brought out its beautiful carving, saw beneath the great window the date 1596 and the initials T. R. and A. R.; and it flashed upon him as by spiritual suggestion that those were the initials of Thomas and Alice Rogers, and that he had found the home of the grandparents of John Harvard. Practised antiquarian as he was, he at once pursued the matter. He went to the birthplace of Shakspere, where the borough records were kept, and there, in an upper room, discovered the proofs that in the time of Elizabeth the house was the home of Thomas and Alice Rogers, his wife, and he made it certain that from that house Katherine Rogers went forth to be married to Robert Harvard.

Thomas Rogers was a substantial burgess in the time of Elizabeth at Stratford. He was what we should call a market-man, a provision dealer, a butcher; he prospered in his private affairs and also won the esteem of his townsmen, being elected to be the bailiff or mayor. Now he built the old house in High Street, the handsomest place in town, where he lived with his wife Alice. Sons and daughters came to them in good number, and at length among the younger members of the family came a daughter, Katherine, who, at the age of twenty-one, in the year 1605, there is every reason to believe, was a beautiful and amiable girl.

Side by side with Thomas and Alice Rogers in Stratford had gone forward the life of John Shakspere and Mary Arden, his wife. John Shakspere was a man in the same calling and station. He, too, was, as we should say, a market-man. He was less successful in his private affairs than was Thomas Rogers, but he, too, had the esteem of his townsmen, for he was made alderman of the little borough of two thousand people, and finally he, in turn, attained to the position of bailiff.

There is every reason to suppose that the intimacy was great between the families of Thomas Rogers and John Shakspere. The latter too had sons and daughters in good store; the two families indeed came forward two and two. William Shakspere and Charles Rogers were contemporaries in the famous grammar school in Stratford of which the two fathers were officially trustees in their character as public magistrates, — there and also upon the village green. William Shakspere with Charles Rogers, Richard Shakspere with Richard Rogers, Edmund Shakspere with Edward Rogers, and so on. The two mothers went to the same church, and were close neighbors. The two fathers, — it can scarcely have been otherwise than that they were associates, and probably sometimes competitors, in their business; and, sitting side by side on the council bench of the little borough, they sustained together a public responsibility. There is every reason to suppose that there must have been an intimacy between the families.

Meanwhile, in London, at Southwark, a hundred miles away, — and that meant a great deal more in those days than at the present time, — was going on the life of Robert Harvard. He was a man twenty-nine years old, and a widower, and in 1605 was ready for a new marriage. It is the surmise of Mr. Henry C. Shelley, to whose very interesting book I acknowledge obligation, that it was William Shakspere who introduced Robert Harvard to Katherine Rogers; but the surmise of Mr. Waters seems to me more probable, — that Thomas Rogers, a man of rather large affairs, who would sometimes, probably, make business excursions as far as London, might have become acquainted with Robert Harvard, a man in the same calling with himself, there in Southwark, and seen in him an eligible son-in-law. At any rate, in the year 1605 Robert Harvard was married to Katherine Rogers, she being then twenty-one. The wedding procession went from the door of the house in High Street to the church of Holy Trinity, where, standing on the flag-stones which a few years later were to cover the dust of William Shakspere, Robert Harvard and Katherine Rogers were united in marriage. They set up their home in Southwark, in the shadow of St. Saviour’s Church, and very close to the Globe Theatre, in which at that time the ruling spirit was Katherine’s fellow-townsman, William Shakspere. And there, in November, 1607, John Harvard was born. Shakspere at that moment was at the zenith of his career. So much for heredity. In John Harvard’s case it seems as though we had a pretty definite story of the stock from which he came.

Record of the Marriage of Robert Harvard and Katherine Rogers in the Parish Register of Holy Trinity Stratford on Avon

Record of the Marriage of John Harvard and Anne Sadler in the Parish Register of St Michats South Malling Sussex

Engraved for the Colonial Society of Massachusetts

Now as to environment, what can be said? Who were the friends that came to the house of Robert and Katherine Harvard in the shadow of St. Saviour’s Church? It can scarcely be otherwise than that Shakspere was sometimes a visitor there. Shakspere had been a comrade of Charles, Katherine Rogers’s elder brother, and naturally, although Shakspere was twenty years older than Katherine, he would look in upon his young towns-woman there, far from home. Can we believe that Shakspere rocked John Harvard’s cradle? Very possibly. Can we believe that he held the little boy on his knee and told him stories? It is very possible that he did. Can we go further and say that John Harvard grew up to write Shakspere? I am not equal, quite, to that, though dealing with the story is a gymnastic that inclines one to bold ventures. In other ways we know narrowly about John Harvard’s environment. He must have gone to the grammar school of which his father, who became a vestryman of St. Saviour’s, was a trustee. We know the excitements which came into the life of a London boy there in the reign of James I. We know from old prints and charts of which Mr. Lane, the librarian of Harvard, has had such an interesting exhibition in Cambridge, something about the look of his surroundings. We know the sights upon which his boyish eyes fell; the narrow streets, the upper stories of the houses overhanging their lower stories, and beyond the streets the green fields; and up High Street only a few rods, the gateway of London Bridge, the heads of the malefactors, each one upon its pole, a gruesome spectacle which we are told was always present. We know quite narrowly as to the boy’s environment. When he had reached the age of eighteen a sad crisis came in the prosperous and peaceful family. The plague struck the city, and in the year 1625 Robert Harvard, two sons, and two daughters died within five weeks of each other, leaving Katherine a widow with her two sons, John and Thomas. It was only following what was then the custom of the world that Katherine Harvard within five months married again, this time a rich cooper, John Elletson; and he having died within a year, she married a third time, this time a most substantial man, Richard Yearwood, a member of Parliament during several terms, from 1620 to 1629.

We can tell why it was that John Harvard went to Cambridge, choosing that as his university. There is documentary evidence that an intimate friend of the family was Nicholas Morton, a chaplain at St. Saviour’s who had been a fellow of Emmanuel College at Cambridge; and it is only reasonable to suppose it was through his advice that Emmanuel College was selected. There he went when he was twenty years old.

And here again, at Cambridge, we need be in no doubt as to the environment of the young man. We know narrowly the curriculum of studies; we know the names and the reputations of the teachers under whom he must have sat; and we know the excitements which must have come into the life of the Cambridge students of those days. The Duke of Buckingham, the French Ambassador, and finally, even the King and Queen, were entertained at Cambridge by elaborate pageants, of which we have careful descriptions. Those John Harvard must have witnessed, and in many of them, as a member of the student body, he must have taken part. As regards the great movements of the world outside, we know exactly what was doing and what would be the things that came to his notice. Cambridge is in eastern England, in the heart of the country from which the twenty thousand emigrants were going who came over to New England. Close by was old Boston, and from there John Cotton was permeating the whole of eastern England with his influence. A great noble, whose seat was not far from Cambridge, the Earl of Lincoln, was deeply interested in the emigration, sending over two of his daughters to this country, for he was the father of the Ladies Arbella Johnson and Susan Humfrey. John Winthrop, Sir Richard Saltonstall, Thomas Dudley, and others of the New England emigration, had an important meeting at Cambridge during John Harvard’s time. His atmosphere was that of Puritanism, and he must have been affected by it.

Record of the Marriage of John Elletson and Katherine Harvard 19 January. 1625 in the Parish Register of the Saviours Southwark

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts

Record of the Marriage of Richard Yearwood Katherine Elletson in the Parish Register of All Saints Wandsworth the Surrery

We can tell, too, who John Harvard’s associates were. Jeremy Taylor was a student at Caius; Thomas Fuller, at Queens’; William Sancroft, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ralph Cudworth, author of The Intellectual System of the Universe, a marvel of erudition, even in that day of erudite men, were at Emmanuel. The most interesting contemporary, however, of John Harvard at Cambridge was undoubtedly John Milton. Can we infer that there was a contact between John Milton and John Harvard? Let us see. When John Harvard was twenty years old, Milton was nineteen. They were together there for four years, at least, perhaps for five years. Milton was a student at Christ’s College, it is true, and not of Emmanuel, but Christ’s is not far from Emmanuel, and one thinks that the Puritan reputation of Emmanuel must have attracted Milton sometimes thither. We know that there is nothing like a common friend to build up friendship. Can we make out that Milton and John Harvard had a common friend? We can do something, I think, in that direction. An interesting character in the Cambridge of those days was Thomas Hobson, a carrier, whose cart, going back and forth to London, once a week, was the only regular means of communication between the two cities. He was the postman and general messenger, and the two young men from London would inevitably do business with him. He had also another function. Sir Richard Steele, in a paper long afterwards in the Spectator, says that Hobson was the first man in England to keep a livery stable; that he kept forty horses for hire; and that he had a rule that when a customer came to hire a horse he must take the one that stood nearest the stable door, where Hobson took pains to have tethered the horse which it suited him to let out to that particular customer. Hence the phrase “Hobson’s choice,” says Dick Steele, which even to the present day, everywhere in the English-speaking world, we know as a practical synonym for inevitability.

As to the relations of the two Johns, with Hobson, they were both London boys of about the same age; their families of about equal means and station in life; and in the long vacations, if not at other times, they would be travelling back and forth. In those days the northern road was unsafe because of highwaymen, and the boys would naturally be intrusted to the sturdy guardianship of the old carrier. It is Mr. Waters’s surmise that the prevalence of the phrase in New England, “Hobson’s choice,” is due to the fact that the leaders here were largely Cambridge men, John Harvard among them. As to the fact that Milton was interested in Hobson, we have ample evidence: after his death Milton wrote two epitaphs, labored expressions of humor, but perhaps the closest approach to humor in all his writings. It seems to me entirely probable that the young men must have touched elbows in Hobson’s cart or jostled one another when experiencing Hobson’s choice at the stable door. At any rate the suggestion is thrown out for whatever it is worth.

So much for environment and heredity. Those are the two factors which, according to wise men, are almost all-powerful in shaping men. It seems as if we ought to be able to put our finger on John Harvard; and yet, in spite of all, the man eludes us.

It was the most natural thing in the world that he should come to New England. In 1637 when he came over, the emigration from England was at its height. Laud and Strafford were pushing their policy of Thorough; and so John Harvard only swam with the current.

Now as to the man himself. He never said a word or wrote a line or did a deed, except his one ever memorable deed of gift to the College, of which any of his contemporaries thought it worth while to take notice and hand down. We can get at a few things indirectly. It is good negative evidence, as Mr. Shelley brings out, that his conduct was correct, that his name was absent from the list of admonitions during the seven years at Cambridge. We can tell something about a man from the friends he chooses. The one man with whom we know John Harvard was on very friendly terms was John Sadler, who afterwards attained honorable distinction. He was a favorite of Cromwell, who offered him high judicial position, and it is said to have been from a suggestion of Sadler’s that he performed one of the creditable acts of his career. The Jews had been excluded from England since the days of Edward I, and at the suggestion of Sadler Cromwell took off the disability, enabling them to open a synagogue in London. In the year 1636 Harvard married Anne Sadler, the sister of his friend. There is a document dated 1637, showing that John Harvard parted with certain property to a ship captain named John Man, presumably passage money for himself and his wife, his library and his belongings, to America.

View of Emmanul College Cambridge

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts from a plate in David Loggans Cantrabrigia Illustrata

A word ought to be said about his library. We judge a man a good deal from the books that he buys. What kind of a library was it that John Harvard gathered around him and brought to this country? You can see it at Cambridge; Mr. Lane has it on exhibition there. It was an up-to-date library for the time. Of course there was a prevalence of Calvinistic theology, but there were also represented the Catholic controversialists. In general literature we find there Bacon’s Essays, Chapman’s Homer, and one or two other books of that kind; while a refined scholarship was indicated by the fact that there were good editions of some of the best Greek and Latin classics.

I think we can say that he was a man of low vitality, both in body and mind, his vigor being sapped, probably, by the presence in his constitution of the insidious disease by which he was so early swept away. A personality refined, correct, scholarly, colorless, and yet in a wonderful way absorbing and reflecting color. A personality very vapory, but yet how marvellously prehensile! He takes hold in the strangest way of great events and of great men. It seems almost as certain as anything can be in the past that he was in contact with Shakspere and with Milton. As a young man from Cambridge, he must have heard his step-father, Richard Yearwood, talk; and what would he say, coming home from his seat in Parliament at St. Stephen’s to Southwark? He might say that he had just looked into the face of Hampden, and listened to the eloquence of Pym; that he himself, perhaps, had taken part in the debate on the Petition of Right; and how Sir John Eliot had exclaimed: “None have gone about to break Parliaments but in the end Parliaments have broken them.” It seems altogether probable that he must have come face to face with young Harry Vane, for, arriving in Boston in the same month in which Vane sailed thence for England, what more natural than that Vane should seek out the intelligent new arrival for the latest news from the great arena whither he was going back to play so conspicuous a part?

In connection with John Harvard’s proprietorship of the Queen’s Head Inn, which was the principal item of his mother’s bequest to him, and the estate out of which it is supposed that the money came, for the most part, for Harvard College, he comes, almost uncannily, into relations with Chaucer; for next door to the Queen’s Head was the Tabard Inn, which was, some three hundred years before, associated with the Canterbury Tales; and he reaches forward two hundred years to Dickens, for closely adjacent to the Queen’s Head Inn was the White Hart in which Mr. Pickwick met Sam Weller.

Will it be said that the basis of fact is really small for such a biographical superstructure as Mr. Shelley has reared, a book of three hundred pages? I find a figure to suit the case in the Elizabethan house in the High Street of Stratford. I was talking with a friend the other day who said he had paced the front of it, and it seemed to him from that rough measurement that it was not more than sixteen feet wide. The house rises until it seems to need the support to the right and left of the substantial masses of masonry that are there. And in the front each story overhangs one below, culminating in the beetling gable which fairly threatens the street: you think it needs to be buttressed. Yet, it has stood there into its fourth century; and, cherished as it will hereafter be by all Harvard men as the early home of John Harvard’s mother, it will stand for centuries more. And so the story of John Harvard, it seems to me, is authentic and likely to stand.

It seems inappropriate to speak of a worthy of the old New England time except by a scriptural parallel. Let us say, in that connection, that John Harvard was like Apollos. Apollos is no significant figure in the apostolic story, but he was associated with great men, and had to do with epoch-making events. Paul planted and Apollos watered; and what our New England Apollos watered was the perishing seed which the great Pauls of the New England Church had too feebly planted; and God gave the increase.

Mr. William C. Lane exhibited some photographic facsimiles of documents relating to John Harvard, lately received by the Harvard College Library, and spoke as follows:

The two most important of these are the will of Katherine Yearwood, John Harvard’s mother, and the will of Thomas Harvard, his brother. Both of these wills were first noted by Henry F. Waters, and together establish the identity of John Harvard. In the first, his mother refers to him as “John Harvard Clarke.” The second made John Harvard and Nicholas Morton executors. It was proved in the Surrogate’s Court, and letters of administration were issued on May 5, 1637, to Nicholas Morton alone, with provision that letters should be issued to John Harvard, the other executor, when he should come to seek them. This date is just about the time when it is known that the John Harvard who founded Harvard College left England, and the fact of the absence at this time of Thomas Harvard’s brother and executor, and of his never having qualified as executor afterwards, may be regarded as proof that he had left England. Taken in connection with the statement in the mother’s will, it identifies the founder of Harvard College.

The other documents are photographs from the parish registers of Southwark, containing the marriage of Katherine Harvard and John Elletson, and of Wandsworth, containing the marriage of Richard Yearwood and Katherine Elletson, 28th of May, 1627; of the parish register of South Mailing, containing the marriage of John Harvard of “the parish of St. Olives near London” and Anne Sadler of Ringmer, April 19, 1636; and of the record of a conveyance made by John Harvard and his wife, Ann, of a messuage and three cottages to John Man, February 16, 1637. Mr. Waters discovered that this John Man was a sea-captain, and finds from his will that the four houses described were situated in Bermondsey Street. He infers that the sale may have been in consideration of a passage to America in Captain Man’s vessel. The record of Harvard’s mother’s first marriage, to Robert Harvard, we expect to have from the Stratford parish registers. One other interesting document I hope to get, of which a facsimile was made in 1887, namely, the counterpart of the lease from St. Catherine’s Hospital to “John Harvard, clerk, and Thomas Harvard, citizen of London and cloth-worker,” of certain tenements in the parish of All Hallows, Barking. These facsimiles were for sale at the time by a London bookseller, but a recent inquiry brings the reply that all copies have been sold. I hope, however, that it will be possible to obtain a copy from some source, so that the expense of rephotographing it may be avoided.

Mr. Lane also exhibited a view of Harvard College as it appeared during the Revolutionary War, engraved by Paul Revere after a drawing by Josh. Chadwick, concerning whom Mr. Lane solicited information. Only three other original impressions of this plate are known.584 The copy exhibited was recently bought at auction in Boston and given to Harvard College by seven graduates, of whom four are members of this Society.

On behalf of Mr. Worthington C. Ford, a Corresponding Member, Mr. Henry H. Edes made the following communication:

The following letters were written by William Plumer, whose long public career requires no detailed account. They describe an outbreak in New Hampshire which was the counterpart of that of Shays in Massachusetts, and are written with the vivacity of an eye-witness and participant, and with all the freedom of a young man confident of himself. His criticisms of men and measures are of interest. That he was unjust in some of his opinions he would have confessed in after years; but he could hardly have expressed himself so forcibly if there had been no common belief prevailing at the time of the truth of the characters thus drawn. He gives definite pictures of the daily events during the uprising, and conveys much information on the leading actors. Thus the letters are good material for history. They are copied from the originals in the Library of Congress, Washington.

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusaetts from a proof of St. Memin’s plate in the possession of William James Campbell. Esquire

LETTERS OF WILLIAM PLUMER, 1786–1787.

I TO WILLIAM COLEMAN.585

Londonderry, May 31, 1786

My dear Sir,

’T is near a year since I have had an opportunity of writing to you, and it is longer since I have received a line from your pen. Was I certain this would reach you I should write things that prudence restrains me from trusting to my present uncertain mode of conveyance.

We have both met with disappointments. At Amherst586 we expected to have compleated our tuition under Mr. Atherton.587 From thence you went to Mr. Shannon,588 at Hollis, and from thence I am told you went to Mr. Payne’s589 office at Worcester. I hope you find your account in each change.

From Amherst I returned to my parents at Epping.590 To increase my attachment to that town my father purchased me a farm value £700. I then resolved to oversee my lands and trade a little; but the scarcity of money, the trouble and scanty gains of a Country trader, still induced me to think of the study of law. In March, 1785, the town, to increase my attachment to it, elected me their representative to the General Court. This amused and pleased me a few months; but in November, with the full consent and approbation of my parents, I came to Mr. Prentice’s591 office, where I now am diligently plodding over Coke, Littleton and other sages of the Law. How vain is the attempt of even parents and friends, to oppose the voice and inclinations of Nature!

If I had continued at Mr. Atherton’s office, I should have been 18 months nearer an admission to the Bar than I now am; which to a man twenty seven years of age is a matter of some consequence. But by this delay I now am reading law with my parents’ approbation, am the owner of a small farm, have a decent house wherein to lay my head, and have formed connections with several influential men in the State which may prove useful to me in the profession. Whether these changes will eventually terminate in my favor time only can determine. The belief that they will reconciles me to my condition. From the accounts I have received your changes have been fortunate.

The aspect of public affairs in this State are gloomy. Money scarce, business dull, and our feeble government unhinged. Our Courts of Law are firm, and in these degenerate days, dare to be honest. The Inferior Court of Common Pleas have resolved that the Law authorizing justices to try actions under £10 is unconstitutional. This law was passed at the close of the last November session,592 at a time when there was scarce a quorum of the House present, and the number of Justices who were members was more than ten to one who was not in Commission. Singly and alone I entered my protest against the law, and I am glad the Court have had firmness to act their own opinion. If our elective government is long supported, it will owe its existence to the Judiciary. That is the only body of men who will have an effective check upon a numerous Assembly.

Write me when you have opportunity, and believe me to be your affectionate friend,

William Plumer.

II TO SAMUEL PLUMER, JR.593

Londonderry, June 6^th 1786

My dear brother,

To morrow morning I intend to go to Concord. My business will defray my expences, and I shall have an opportunity of visiting several of my friends from different parts of the State, with whom I shall keep the Election festival . . . .

[Concord,] June 9^th.

I wish I had leisure to narrate the adventures of this and the preceeding day. Several towns have sent delegates to form a Convention, to petition the legislature to emit paper money, open the ports, prohibit the proprietors of Allen’s claim594 from holding offices, abolish the Inferior Courts, restrain lawyers, &c. A number of active young gentlemen joined them, and at the instance of some of my friends I took an active part with them. The scene was farcical, and the name of a Convention is here a term of reproach . . . .

17th. General Sullivan is elected President by a majority of 51 votes.595 John Langdon is speaker of the House. They have changed places. There is much animosity between them; Mr. Langdon appears mortified. There are 45 Representatives who were not members of the House the last year. The change is not for the better. If men are born legislators you may expect good laws; but if talents and extensive information are requisite to form the statesman, you will in vain look for them in the General Court. Our government is feeble, and some of our laws are better calculated to aid vice than to reward virtue. But we shall have no paper money this session, though much I fear the next.

Joseph Pearson Esq. is Secretary, vice Ebenezer Thompson Esq. This change is thought to be for the better! The fact is the former is but a few removes from an idiot, and the latter is a shrewd, cunning man . . . .

William Plumer.

III TO SAMUEL PLUMER, JR.

Londonderry, July 22^d, 1786.

My DEAR BROTHER,

We have no news except what relates to Conventions. Of these we have more than our share. On the 10th, 150 men met at Emery’s tavern in this town. They were from 15 towns, but were not elected by the towns. This meeting elected 67 of their own number, who met, chose a chairman, and appointed two clerks. After two days spent in debate, they resolved that they would adopt such measures as should compel the General Court to emit paper money. They appointed a committee of 18 to devise a plan and draw a petition to the legislature, and then adjourned to meet at Chester, the 20th of this month. The Convention is now in session in that town. They propose that the Gen! Court shall issue paper bills equal to the amount of the State notes, and that the holders of the notes shall receive the bills in payment for their notes. That if the holders of notes do not exchange them for bills by the 1st. of January next, the interest shall cease after that time; and if not exchanged by the 1st. of July next, all notes then outstanding shall be void, and of none effect.

They propose to issue a further sum to build ships, which are to be sold and appropriated to the payment of our foreign debts.

The money to be a legal tender for the payment of all debts.

The bills to be redeemed by the State by taxes to be assessed on the people, payable into the treasury by seven annual equal payments.

This is the most correct account I have been able to obtain from one of the best informed of their body.

I am personally acquainted with many members of this Convention, and I assure you they are men of feeble intellect. Very few of them know what they do, or are apprehensive to what their measures tend.

I hope these visionary schemes will not end in acts of rebellion against the constituted authorities — tho’ much I fear it.

My love to the family. Adieu!

William Plumer.

IV TO JOHN HALE.596

Epping, August 13, 1786

Dear Sir,

In Londonderry and its vicinity, there is much clamour upon the subject of the revival of Allen’s obsolete claim and the making of paper money. The Convention is again to meet the 22d at Chester. There are about 60 members. They were not elected by the towns, but by 150 men from 15 or 18 towns, who of their own motion assembled to do what seemed good unto them. The characters of this self-created Convention are not unlike King David’s pious companions — men in distress involved in debt and discontented. They have no leader; they want one who possesses David’s cunning and Joab’s valour. Talents, knowledge of history, civil government and an intimate acquaintance with the human heart, are requisite to form the statesman. No man is born a statesman. Knowledge must be acquired by patient laborious investigation. Tis preposterous to suppose that those who never opened the page of history examined a paragraph of the statute book, or read the title page of the human heart, should be able to direct the affairs of state!

In other times unnotie’d they might pass,

These times can make a statesman of an Ass!

The want of talents and information renders this Convention less dangerous to the State. An ignorant mob may however destroy a much better.government than they can establish.

The paper money of Rhode Island has already depreciated 500 p^r Cent, although it is founded on real estate. It seems the zealous advocates of paper currency intend to convince an infidel age of the truth of a part, at least, of the Scriptures, by demonstrating that riches take to themselves wings and flee away; that notes, bonds and other obligations are vanity and vexation; that it is best to revise the Apostolical age, and have all things in common; that the indolent, extravagant and wicked may divide the blessings of life with the industrious, the prudent and the virtuous.

William Plumer.

V TO JOHN HALE.

Exeter, Sept^r 18^th 1786

My dear Sir,

The Inferior Courts in the counties of Hampshire, Worcester and Middlesex in Massachusetts have within this three weeks been prevented, by armed men, from transacting their official business. Previous to the meeting of the Court in Middlesex, the governor597 of that Commonwealth, with advice of his council, issued his orders directing a portion of the militia to assemble at Concord in the County of Middlesex to protect the county Courts and suppress the daring insurrection. But on examining the laws he had no authority, and before the militia assembled he rescinded his orders. Two hundred and fifty insurgents met and forcibly prevented the Court from proceeding to business. The governor has issued his proclamation requiring the attendance of the General Court on the 27th. I hope they will pass a law giving their governor authority to call forth their militia when necessary. A state may suffer as much from not giving power to their officers, as by the officers abusing their power.

Most of the Massachusetts insurgents are men of desperate fortunes, some of them infamous, and most of them ignorant. It is feared that those who now appear as the ringleaders are kept in countenance by others of more consequence, but by men who are bankrupts in fame and fortune, by men who are disaffected with the government because they are unable to obtain offices of honor and profit. I hope these will be discovered and suffer the vengeance of an insulted government.

A self-created Convention has twice met at Rochester in the County of Strafford in this State. Their views are similar to that of the Chester Convention, but they have more information. Jonathan Moulton, Esq. of Hampton, in this County, is their President. This man is one of our Brigadier Generals of the militia.

Apropos, of his biography. His parents were poor and lived in obscurity.598 Jonathan was bound an apprentice to a Cabinet maker. When he was about 20 years of age he purchased the residue of his time of service of his master, and opened a huckster’s shop, and by his unwearied attention in buying and selling small articles he soon became an extensive dealer in English and West India goods. The property that he obtained from a valuable ship that was wrecked on Hampton beach gave him increased credit and business. There is too much reason to believe that he aided David Folsom, one of his Clerks, in forging and passing counterfeit bills of exchange. The instances of his fraud and deceit, injustice and oppression, are numerous. He has reduced many families from affluence to beggary. For 20 years he has been a constant suitor in the Courts of law. He has often attempted to corrupt judges, bribe jurors, suborn witnesses, and seduce the Counsel employed by his opponents. I am in possession of evidence of his conveying a right of land to a judge who was to decide the title to that and all the other land he claimed in that township. The fact was discovered and the judge never decided the cause. I know an instance of his making liberal promises to an influential juryman. His influence in the Courts was extensive, and his success ruined many; but now he is unable to obtain justice. It is difficult to find a jury, but some of whom or their relations or connexions he has wronged. A few months since he lamented to me his condition. He said, “Such were the prejudices against him that he could not obtain that common justice which is administered to the most obscure man.” So true it is that the successes of the wicked accelerate their ruin.

He is the owner of immense tracts of uncultivated wilderness. He has expended much money in making settlements in new townships, and in opening and making and repairing roads. And in this point of view his labours have been useful to the Country. But many of those whom he hath settled in his townships complain of his having ruined them. Those who are most intimate with him censure and condemn him the most.

He is a man of good natural abilities; his address is pleasing and his manners easy. He has uniformly and sedulously flattered the views and follies of mankind. He does business with great despatch. He is hospitable at home and abroad, he is more, he is often generous, even to profuseness.

The hand of time has visibly impaired his talents and injured his person; he is now sixty.

Notwithstanding the immense tracts of land he now owns, the money due to him and the relief he has obtained by the Tender law, yet his taxes, debts and suits threaten him with imprisonment. This has made him the advocate for paper money.

I am sorry that Capt. Horne of Dover,599 with his well disciplined troop of Horse in their uniform, escorted Moulton and several of his party to and from the Convention. I hope our militia will find better employ than paying homage to those who are sapping the foundations of our government.

The Rockingham Convention are disgusted with the Court for refusing to make paper money. It is whispered that the Convention intend to adopt coercive measures.

Thursday a bill was bro’t in to carry into effect the definitive treaty of peace with Great Britain. This bill was drawn with great caution nearly in the very language of the treaty. Yet the House negatived it, 42 to 34.600 This too much resembles sporting with things sacred; it discovers a want of both honor and policy. Public faith ought to be scrupulously guarded. National honor ought to be estimated higher than national wealth. On Friday the bill was again brought forward, and passed by a bare majority.601

This bill owes its passage to the talents and eloquence of John Pickering, Esq. On the preceeding day he was absent. Mr. Pickering is a lawyer of considerable eminence. He is a man of strict integrity, unblemished honor and of great humanity. He has a retentive memory, and possesses a vast fund of humor and pleasantry. His company is much sought for, and in him the poor have a substantial friend. As a lawyer he does more business, particularly as an advocate, than any other in the State; but obtains much less money from his practice than some little contemptible pettifoggers. He has no avarice; his fault is inattention to property. With a promising family of children, he has very little property for their support. He is very moderate in his fees. Of the poor he claims nothing; of those in easy circumstances he often trusts to their generosity, and frequently suffers thereby. Although the popular prejudices are strong against the Bar, yet no man accuses, but all repose entire confidence in him. As a member of the legislature he possesses the confidence of his brethren; but by his often speaking he has very much lessened his influence in that court. But he has read more than he has digested; his mind is a vast storehouse, in which the goods are placed in a promiscuous condition. He wants clearness of perception, accuracy of distinction, decision and firmness. He is peculiarly afraid of water; he travels far to avoid a ferry. He is a very zealous and sincere professor of Christianity, and is a member of Mr. Buckminster’s602 Church at Portsmouth.

The law relative to the British treaty prohibits all further confiscation of the estates of absentees. It permits those who did not take up arms in the late war against the United States to return and live in the State. It allows those who were in arms to return and live a year without any molestation to collect their debts and settle their affairs; and that none of them shall be subject to prosecution for any thing by them done during the war. Some of the members, particularly those from Londonderry, Runnels603 and M^cMurphey,604 reported, “That the Act authorized the tories to return, and obliged the State to repurchase and restore to them the confiscated estates, and that a heavy tax would be assessed on all the people for that purpose.” These reports have inflamed the minds of many, and enraged the members of the Rockingham Convention. They are now collecting an armed force to compel the Court to repeal the law and emit paper currency. They contemplate a great accession of numbers from every town in the vicinity, and aid from several members of the Legislature. I am &c.

William Plumer.

VI TO JOHN HALE.

Exeter, September 20^th, 1786

My dear Sir,

At 11 oClock A.M. we received information that a body of armed men were at Kingston Plains marching under the orders of the Rockingham Convention. At three this afternoon they encamped on the plains in this town. From thence they sent the following request to the Legislature:

To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire:

Inasmuch as we conceive the prayer of our former petition has not yet been granted, and as we are determined to do ourselves that justice which the laws of God and man dictate to us, therefore we pray your Honors to grant us the requests of our former petition and not drive us to a state of desperation.

We pray your honors to give us an immediate answer.

Joseph French, Moderator.

Richard Adams, Clerk.

Exeter Plain, Sept^r, 20^th 1786.

The House appointed a Committee of five,605 to be joined by such as the Senate should appoint, to take the subject into consideration. The Senate, with a spirit that did them honor, unanimously non-concurred the vote. The two houses met in Convention. While they were together, the Insurgents marched into town. Joseph French was their commander. He had heretofore supported the character of an honest, inoffensive, weak, ignorant man. There were several militia officers associated and present with him, Major James Cochran, Capt. James Cochran, and Lt. Asa Robinson of Pembroke; Capt. John M^cKean of Londonderry, Lt. Clough606 and Ensign Thomas Cotton of Sandown. The whole number assembled were about 200 — 80 of whom had fire and side arms, and the others had clubs and staves. Some of them were on horseback, but most of them on foot. They affected military parade. They marched thro’ the town with the drum beating and their arms clubbed. They then drew up before the meeting House, where the Legislature were sitting. This mob was a collection from Londonderry, Hampstead, Hawke, Sandown, Bedford, Goffstown, Raymond, and a few other towns. They made a miserable appearance — dirty, ragged fellows — many of them were young and most of them ignorant.

While this banditti were drawn up before the house and many of them in it, President Sullivan stated to the house the reason why the Senate refused to concur with them in the choice of a Committee. After stating the impropriety and injustice of the former petition, he observed that the present application was an outrageous insult upon the Legislature, and that if the request was in itself reasonable, yet coming from a body of men in arms, they ought not now to listen to it. That a compliance with a request from an armed mob would, in his opinion, be a sacrifice of their duty. That for his own part he was determined that no consideration of personal danger should ever compel him to betray his trust.

Immediately after this the Insurgents beat to arms, and surrounded the Meeting House in which the Legislature were sitting, and placed centinels at the doors and windows, with bayonets fixed to their muskets, and forbid any person going in or coming out. They uttered severe threats against the Court if they did not immediately grant their request, many of them declaring they would never consent to release the Court from their confinement untill after their petition should be granted. But the Court proceeded to business without regarding their menaces.

I went up to the mob. Some were clamouring against the Court for passing a law authorizing the return of the Refugees, declaring that those who voted for it ought to be punished with death. Some demanded paper money; others, an equal distribution of property. Some the annihilation of debts, freedom from taxes, the abolition of lawyers, the destruction of the Inferior Courts, the reduction of salaries, and all of them exclaimed against law and government. I reasoned with several of them upon the unreasonableness of their demands and the impropriety of their conduct; but the answer I received was the bayonet pointed to my breast.

At sunset the President and Senate made an attempt to leave the House, but the mob forcibly prevented them. He then assured them that the State would support their own government, and reasoned with them upon the fatal and dangerous tendency of their conduct. They insulted the President, the senate, house and spectators with the most insulting language, by threats and by presenting their arms to them.

The Inhabitants of the town were much alarmed at the idea of an armed mob traversing their streets in the night. Application was made to the President to permit the spectators to disarm the mob; but he prudently refused. Twenty men, of whom I was one, agreed to raise a party, walk up immediately to the mob, and without weapons disarm them. We formed in the street below, buzzard for government three times, ordered the drum to beat, and marched towards the mob with haste. The spectators separated from the mob, repeated the huzzahs and resorted to us. The mob were greatly frightened, and in their confusion some ran, and others leaped into the graveyard. At this instant the President assured the Insurgents that if they would suffer him to pass he would prevent the effusion of blood. They consented, and he went into his lodgings and sent two of his aids to inform them that they must disperse for the Court would not do any business for the night. Their commander, after a moment’s consultation, ordered them to retire to the plains, and assemble again at nine oClock to-morrow morning. They dispersed accordingly.

The Legislature unanimously authorized and directed the President to call out the militia to suppress this daring insurrection. He immediately issued his orders to the officers of the militia to repair to this town tomorrow morning with their arms. I am &c.

William Plumer.

VII TO JOHN HALE.

Epping, Sept^r 21^st, 1786

My dear Sir,

I have just retired here for the purpose of rest, for Exeter is thronged with company. After giving you a sketch of the proceedings of the day, I will surrender myself a prisoner to Morpheus.

At 4 oClock in the morning I was under arms. At six oClock a party of six, of whom I was one, was detached in quest of Capt. John M^cKeen. I arrested him and he was put under guard. The Insurgents very soon sent a party of six to demand his liberty. They were arrested and committed to the custody of the guards.

The Insurgents embodied and marched within a mile of the town. By 8 oClock a body of cavalry and light infantry arrived, accompanied by many gentlemen of the first rank and education, who appeared as volunteers. Major Gen [Joseph] Cilley was the commanding officer. I joined with the company of volunteers commanded by Nicholas Gilman, Esq.607 We marched to meet the mob, but they having received information of our movement, the unarmed part of them retired to the Great Hill. Those of them who were armed kept their ground till the Horse appeared in view, when they fled in great precipitation and disorder, several of whom were taken and secured. At the bridge at King’s falls they rallied, armed and unarmed, and exhibited the appearance of an intention to dispute the troops. But a few of our officers, and gentlemen of the horse, arrested their principal officers and most active men; the remainder fled in every direction for their respective homes. Major Cochran and Mr. Morse, of Londonderry, urged their men to discharge their arms at our troops, but they refused.

We returned to town in great order and regularity, without the loss of blood on either side. President Sullivan has acquired credit by his prudence, caution and firmness. There were about 2000 men under arms, and a number nearly equal unarmed, all of whom appeared anxious to give their aid to support the government.

The troops were drawn up on each side of the road; the President, accompanied by the general and field officers, rode through and bowed to them. The thirty nine prisoners we had taken, with their heads uncovered and their hats under their arms, marched twice through the columns, that in that humiliating condition they might behold a few of the many who were ready to defend the government. This was a mortifying situation to Cochran, M^cKeen and others. They were then remanded to prison, and the gaol is now guarded by a band of soldiers.

Thus happily has the most dangerous mob we have ever had been suppressed, and that without any untoward accident. I think the government will gain strength by this event. Its warmest friends are animated by seeing the promptness with which all orders and classes of men came forward in its support. The timid are encouraged and supported; and the vile race of time-servers no longer hesitate — they speak loud in support of law and order. If our rulers have wisdom and prudence to improve the present moment, this disturbance will terminate to our advantage. The militia may be arranged, officered and disciplined. And if the legislature will maintain their dignity within their own walls, they will receive ample support and revenue from without. The complaints against Courts and against taxes will cease, when men are persuaded that the government is permanent. The Legislature ought to give, and not receive, the tone to the people. The few, and not the many, are wise, and ought to bear rule.

I am glad that the mob thus early disclosed their views. Had the same spirit of jealousy, distrust and uneasiness increased for two years to come as it has done for eight months past, their numbers would have rendered them formidable. I think it is a favorable circumstance that they attacked the Legislature, the fountain head of law and order, and not the Inferior Courts, as did the insurgents of Massachusetts. Theirs struck at the streams, but ours aimed a bold stroke at the fountain head. This has brought the contest to a single point — whether we would yield up our government and all our dearest rights to an ignorant lawless band of unprincipled ruffians! I am &c.

William Plumer.

VIII TO JOHN HALE.

Exeter, Sept^r 26^:h 1786.

My dear Sir,

On the 22d the two houses met in Convention, and the prisoners were brought before them. The principals were examined separately and alone, but the rest of them were brought in together, questioned, admonished and remanded to prison.

Capt. French discovered great contrition. He gave satisfactory evidence that he was an honest man, but had been deceived and seduced by designing men. He frankly confessed that he had forfeited his life, and implored their mercy. He produced a letter signed by Jonathan Moulten, Esq. president of the Strafford Convention, directed to him as president of the Rockingham Convention. In this letter Genl. Moulten requested that the Rockingham Convention would pursue the measures they had began; that they should resolutely demand paper money; that should their first request be denied, that committees from the two Conventions should be appointed to meet with committees from the other counties to deliberate on and determine what means should be pursued for the redress of public grievances. The letter was dated, I think, the 10^th instant and was written in an artful manner. It did not advise to violent measures. Genl. Moulten was present, and blushed whilst it was read. French stated to the Court that last Monday Col. Benjamin Stone came to him and declared that Nathaniel Peabody Esq.608 informed him that the Legislature had passed a law authorizing the tories to return to the State; that their farms were to be re-purchased and restored to them, and that a heavy tax would be levied on the people for that purpose. That Stone advised him (French) to go immediately to Londonderry and see what could be done, and that in consequence of this he went there and collected men and marched to this town in arms.

Major Cochran said but little, but was much affected. He acknowledged he had forfeited his life and fortune to the State. He said that in the revolutionary war he had at the hazard of his life, cheerfully served his country; that since then he had been appointed a major in the militia; that he had been deceived by false representations; that he had taken a false and hasty step, but as it was his first offence, he now humbly entreated that Court whom he had so daringly insulted a few hours since, to save him from ruin.

French, Cochran, and ten others were released and pardoned, and the residue remained in gaol. They were reprimanded with merited severity. Cochran was informed that a Court martial would be called, and they would brake him.

The next day the Legislature appointed a committee of militia officers to re-examine several of the prisoners, and upon their report released and pardoned all of them except five. Many of those wretches are but mere machines operated on by others. I have been as anxious and as busy to have them discharged as I was on Wednesday to capture them. Those who were most forward in taking were most desirous of having the bulk of them released. But those who in the hour of danger were in the back ground were now the most vehement against the deluded prisoners.

Captains M^cKean and Cochran, Lt. David Batchelder, Ensign Cotton609 and John Gregg were detained. Some of the members of the Court were in favor of releasing them all; and it was with difficulty a majority was found to deliver over these five to the Superior Court to be indicted and tried for a riot, and a riot only. The fears of some were alarmed least they should be indicted for high treason, convicted and executed.

Last evening Major Cass610 with seven brave men took a warrant from a Justice of the Peace, rode to Sandown and Londonderry, and took Eaton and Morse611 from their beds, and bro’t them to this town, where they were examined and committed to prison.

Yesterday the Attorney General612 filed an Information against the five prisoners in the Superior Court. They plead not guilty. They were ordered to recognize with sureties in the sum of £100 each for their appearance &c at the next term. No testimony appearing to criminate Cotton, except his coming into town with the mob, he was discharged on finding sureties for his good behavior in the sum of £50.

Information was also filed against Morse and Eaton. When the Clerk read it and enquired of them whether they were guilty or not guilty? Morse immediately fell on his knees, and answered, “Guilty, very guilty.” Eaton fainted and fell, and it was some time before he was able to answer guilty. They all obtained sureties, and of course are discharged from prison.

I confess, I am surprised and disappointed in the Superior Court’s ordering these high handed offenders released from prison, on recognizing in such small sums. They could have found sureties for much larger sums. It has the appearance of estimating rebellion only as a petty offence. Too much lenity is as fatal to government as too much severity. I am &c.

William Plumer.

IX TO JOHN HALE.

Londonderry, Oct^r 6^th 1786

My dear Sir,

Peace and quietness prevail here. The insurgents who threatened me at Exeter are now humble and fawning as spaniels. James M^cMurphey is deranged. He goes armed, and several others dare not sleep in their houses, for fear they should be removed as Eaton and Morse were. John Gregg and his associates now boldly declare that they should never have carried their opposition to government so far had not the Representatives from this town given them encouragement. Col. Runnels and Archibald M^cMurphey Esq. are the representatives from this place. The Colonel’s friends and companions were at Exeter in arms against the government His apprentice and journeyman were of the number and his own son Daniel actually joined them, and marched part of the way to Exeter, and then left the mob for fear he should kill his father in the contest. The colonel is a man of little property, is intemperate, illiterate, and fond of low grovelling company.

A. M^cMurphey Esq. was not so much connected with the mob. He is an arbitrary, conceited man. He has read a few volumes of history, and can repeat the title pages of some others. Of this information he is very profuse in his speeches in Court. He will sacrifice every sentiment of honor and honesty to the applause of the rabble. His head is better than his heart. He has, however, more of cunning than wisdom. He is becoming intemperate in the use of inebriating liquors.

I have no doubt of General Peabody’s613 being the friend of the mob. His pecuniary circumstances led him to wish for paper money.

Moses Dow Esq. is a brigadier general, a lawyer, a member of the House of Representatives and a Councillor. He is a man of moderate abilities, more specious than solid; he scims the surface. As a lawyer he is not respected. Avarice is his God, and popularity the idol he worships. I heard him say that he “wished success to the mob, and that they were pursuing out of doors what he had ineffectually sought for in the House.” He is civil in his carnage, and always appears to have an entire command of his passions. I never saw him discover any passion. At the Barr, and in debate in the Legislature, he never discovers any animation, but his hearers are doomed to hear the same dull, monotonous sound. He has several times been elected as a Delegate to Congress, but never took his seat there.

Peter Green Esq. of Concord has been suspected of favoring the views of the mob and of giving them countenance; but I know of no evidence to support these suspicions. This man is a lawyer, the pupil of our present Chief Justice Livermore;614 but he is destitute of both his talents and information. He has drawn many writs and done much of what is called default business; but he is not a good or a safe councillor. He never attempts to act as an advocate. I never knew him to argue a single cause; and although often a member of the General Court, he spoke none in debate. He is one of the proprietors of the Allen claim, and is devoted to the interest of General Peabody. These two circumstances has injured his popularity. His thirst for office is great; to attain it he would sacrifice his interest and the little reputation he has acquired. He is now Lt. Col. of the Cavalry and justice of the peace. His attachment to the British interest in the time of the revolutionary war, brought him to Exeter prison, where he was some short time confined by order of the Committee of Safety. He has not the reputation of an honest man, and I am confident he is now contracting habits of intemperance, which will prove his ruin.

Runnels, Dow and Green are the intimate friends and companions of Gen! Peabody. I am &c.

William Plumer.

X TO JOHN HALE.

Londonderry, Oct^r 14^th 1786

My dear Sir,

In my last I gave you a brief sketch of the character of some of the most intimate friends of Gen^l Peabody. This man has been more than once a member of Congress from this State. He has several years been a representative from Atkinson in our state legislature, a senator, and two years a Councillor. In March, 1785, he was voted for as president of the State, an office he is very ambitious of obtaining. In June of that year he was elected member of Congress, and in the autumn session he was again re-elected. But at last June the General Court passed a resolve to recal him and directed him not to proceed to Congress.615 He was appointed General of the Cavalry and a Justice of the Peace throughout the State. At this session a resolve passed the House of Representatives to remove him from said offices, but the Senate did not concur therein. He is not only an infidel, but is according to our statute laws a Blasphemer. He does not hesitate in public mixed companies to call Jesus Christ Mary’s bastard, the Trinity, simple old women, and talks of committing fornication with thunder and lightning. His conversation is disgusting on this subject to all prudent, and much more so to all religious, men. If a man does not believe in the religion of his country he ought not to ridicule or scoff at it. No gentleman of good breeding will ever wittingly ridicule a religion to a people who sincerely believe and profess it. It is cruel unnecessarily to wound the feelings of others. His irreligion and prophanity have contributed to his present unpopularity.

He possesses an uncommon share of vanity. At a time when he was member of Congress, he was appointed one of the Committee who were to consult Genl. Washington upon some arrangements relative to prosecuting the war. On this occasion he hinted in very plain language to that great General of our armies, that had he been Commander he should have managed to more advantage.

With all his vanity he possesses, on some subjects, much caution and cunning. And in his view the end always justifies the means. His moral sense never restrains his actions, but his pride sometimes checks him. John T. Gilman, Esq, the present Treasurer, when at Philadelphia found that the better people held Peabody in contempt, and reproached the State for appointing such a man to that high office. On Mr. Gilman’s return to the State, he stated the fact to the Committee of Safety, and requested them to use their influence to procure Peabody’s recall from Congress. When Peabody heard of this application, he said, “When I return to New Hampshire, I will do for that young lad.” On his return, he found that Mr. Gilman and his friends and connections, were influential, and instead of opposing he flattered him in the most abject manner.

He is very attentive to his dress and equipage. He has a Clerk, whose time is principally employed in copying his letters. He boasts of unmeasured tracts of land, but has not a single deed recorded. He has notes and bonds to the amount of more than thirty thousand dollars, which his clerk has carefully numbered and recorded, but which I am confident were fabricated by himself. ’Tis now two years since he has not dared on account of debts to appear at Haverhill, which is not more than five miles from his house. A reward of ten guineas has been publickly offered to any person who would carry him there. Within this two years he has kept close within his own house. I have no doubt of his utter inability to pay his debts. His house has at all times been the resort for the vilest of men. There you might find Thaddeus Butler, Capt. Joseph Kelly, Dr. Silas Hedges, Dr. Moody Morse, William Duty, James Saunders, and their infamous associates. Men noted for perjury, forgery, counterfeiting the current coin, horse stealing, breaking gaols, and such high handed offences. When he was at the height of his power and popularity his house was then, as now, always open to those miscreants, and himself always attentive to their requests. He considered these men as firmly devoted to his interest, and more to be depended on than the populace. If this man is to be judged by his companions, he must be condemned.

He is as destitute of honor as of honesty. His promises are regarded only where his immediate interest requires it. He has often traduced, slandered and vilified men of much fairer characters than his own. When a member of the Legislature his object generally was to enquire what was popular, not what was just and right. He was always mysterious in debate and conversation. I never knew him explicit. He had no talents for business, was unable to originate and support a measure; but no man I ever saw was better qualified to perplex and embarrass. It was his forte.

As his popularity depended on the lowest classes of the people, he pursued measures to please them. His measures were calculated more to introduce anarchy than to support government. Sound policy, great and honorable views formed no part of his system. The man who was regardless of his own solemn engagements, was equally as much opposed to the support of public faith and honor. A bad citizen will be a bad ruler.

He has always advocated measures that had a tendency to relieve debtors from their engagements, and to perplex and embarrass creditors. He was zealous in support of the law making every kind of property so far a tender for the payment of debts, as to exempt the body of the debtor from imprisonment. This law has aided fraudulent debtors.

For two years this man was of the Council and the most influential at that board. The first year, 1784, Meshech Weare was then President, and he was quite superannuated. John M^cClary, Joseph Badger, Francis Blood and Moses Chase, Esq. were the other councillors. Peabody did everything in his power to attach them to him. He nominated them to office, and they were appointed. M^cClary was old, he was content with being Justice of the Peace throughout the State;616 but his son617 was made Colonel of a regiment and justice of the peace, and his son-in-law Captain of a company. Badger, though old, was made Judge of Probate and justice throughout the State. His eldest son618 was made colonel of a regiment and justice of the Peace. And his son in law, Thomas Cogswell, though he had lived but a short time in the State was appointed a Judge of the Inferior Court. Blood was also appointed a judge of the Inferior Court and a colonel of a regiment. Chase was unambitious, a justice’s commission satisfied him. Peabody might have been a judge, but as this would have excluded him from the legislature, and lessened his chance for the presidency, he refused it. He was only appointed General of the Cavalry and justice throughout the State. With such a president and council it is easy to see the course such a man would pursue. He had no children, his influence was in favor of his dependant tools, and such men as would be useful to him. By his means the infamous Moody Morse was made a justice of the peace. Benjamin Stone, a worthless wretch, was appointed Justice of the peace, special judge of the Inferior Court and colonel of a regiment. Jeremiah Gilman, a dishonest, vicious man, and a common blasphemer, was made a justice and special judge of the Superior Court. I could enumerate others equally as unworthy whom he raised to office, some of whom has since turned against him.

He possesses considerable wit and pleasantry, and can make himself agreeable to his company; and he certainly is very hospitable at his house.

The President has ordered Col. Stone and eight other militia officers to be arrested, and has ordered a court martial, of whom Gen^l Cilley is president, to meet the 22d of next month for their trial. I am &c.

William Plumer.

XI TO JOHN HALE.

Londonderry, Oct^r 22, 1786

Dear Sir,

In my last I ought to have added to the offices given to Councillor Badger and his family the following in addition to what I then stated, viz. to himself that of Brigadier General in the militia, and to Abiel Foster, Esq. another of his sons-in-law, judge of the Inferior Court in the County of Rockingham. The Constitution619 says “Government was not instituted for the private interest or emoluments of any one man, family or class of men,” but the Council thought otherwise.

In the commencement of the revolution your friend, Woodbury Langdon, Esq. was a tory. He was one of the five who signed the protest against the war. In 1775 he embarked for England, and was often closetted by the British Minister. On his return to New York he was well accommodated in a British frigate. At New York the British imprisoned him; but it is now understood that it was done to produce an opinion here that he was friendly to our revolution. His principles are formed by his interest, and his conduct has changed with the times. He has been both Whig and tory. When he became a Whig, he inveighed with bitterness against the tories. He is certainly a man of strong mental powers, of a clear discriminating mind. Is naturally arbitrary, and has strong prejudices. His sense of what is right and his pride form a greater security for his good behavior than his love of virtue.

John Sullivan, Esq^r now President of the State is

Of praise a mere glutton, he swallow’d what came,

And the puff of a dunce, he mistook it for fame.

Goldsmith

I never knew mortal so greedy of flattery; he swallows the grossest. Like his brother, James, of Boston, he wants what really renders man estimable, integrity. From my acquaintance with him I am confident his knowledge as a lawyer, and his talents as a man, are rated too high. His bold, unqualified declarations often supplies the want of knowledge.

The Superior Court have not yet tried the five Insurgents as rioters; they will probably fine them forty shillings each, and costs about as much more. This really will be trifling. It would better become the dignity of the Government to pardon them than to exact a paltry fine of men who had forfeited their lives by their traitorous offences. This is mere conjecture; but is occasioned by a late conversation with the Chief Justice. I am &c.

William Plumer.

XII TO JOHN SULLIVAN.

Epping, March 14, 1787.

My dear Sir,

In a late tour through a very considerable number of towns on Connecticut river, I was pleased to find, notwithstanding the many little and infamous tricks practised by the agents and tools of certain characters, that very many of the people, and many of the most respectable, were zealous advocates for your re-election. Aaron Hutchinson, Esq^r. was indefatigable in your interest. He assured me that the votes from the river towns would be numerous, and most of them for you. Capt. Cherry620 was my companion, and at all places and in all companies the name and interest of Sullivan engrossed his attention. I sincerely recommend him to your notice.

The towns of Epping and Londonderry having both of them taxed me in the capitation tax, I thought myself justified in voting, and publicly and privately using my influence in both towns in the choice of State officers. At Londonderry the votes were, for you, 70, Judge Livermore, 69, Mr. Langdon, 27. The Insurgents gave Livermore their votes. At Epping you had 105, and there were only 8 scattering votes. I presume your re-election is certain.

Your friends Prentice621 and Pinkerton622 are the representatives from Londonderry. Capt. John McKeen, one of the Insurgent chiefs, was set up against Mr. Prentice, and obtained 110 votes. Unable to elect a Representative, the insurgents exerted themselves to choose McKean one of the selectmen. They polled for it four times, and though respectable men were set up against him, he had nearly an equal number of votes with any one of them. To the honor of the town the friends of order and good government prevailed in every instance. Previous to the meeting the Insurgents were unwearied in their applications to the people. ’T is a misfortune that the disaffected usually take more pains to destroy a government, than its friends do to support it.

From an inviolable attachment to the government and prosperity of the State, I am, your Excellency’s most obedient, humble servant,

William Plumer.

Mr. William Endicott communicated the following paper, written by Mr. Alfred B. Page:

AN EARLY AMERICAN POEM.

The prevailing idea, in the last quarter of the seventeenth century, of the ominous significance of the phenomenon of comets is set forth in verse in a poem “Written by J. W. in New-England,” dated March 6, 1680–81, and printed at London by J. Darby in 1683, making a pamphlet of sixteen pages — the title on the recto of the first leaf and the text filling pp. 3–15.

The title reads as follows:623

Judicious Observation

of that

Dreadful Comet,

WHICH

Appeared on November 18. 1680, and continued until the 10th of February following.

Wherein is shewed the manifold Judgments that are like to attend upon most parts of the World.

Written by J. W. in New-England.

Nunquam futilibus excanduit ignibus Æther.

Heavens face such Comets ne’re did stain,

But mortal Men felt grievous pain.

Heavens face with Flames were never fill’d,

But sorrows great Mens hearts soon thrill’d.

Such Comets when Heav’ns face they cover,

Bespeak aloud that Changes hover.

LONDON, Printed by J. Darby, Anno 1683.

But it is as a hitherto unnoticed early American poem rather than as a theological prophecy that the production has value and interest now. Being a London publication of an American poem, the pamphlet is of quite as much interest as if it had been issued from the local press; and the circumstance perhaps gives an added distinction to the little book.

The following extracts show the style and tenor of the verses and the poetical fancy and practised hand of the author:

Silence all Flesh, your selves prepare

To read those Lines which written are

In Heavens large folio, with the hand

Of him that doth all things command.

My Genius moves me to declare,

And to relate what Changes are,

Like raging Waves of th’ Ocean great,

Routing themselves upon the seat

Of Vesta now, whereon we dwell,

And must go hence to Heaven or Hell.

I’le not besmear my Paper with

Volatile Megrim-Fancies, sith

The Eccho of approaching trouble

Upon us now doth daily double.

My Muse grows solid, and retires

From those chill-painted Fancy-Fires

Wherewith sometimes she lov’d to toy,

And therefore crys, Pardon à moy.624

You nimble Lads, who Neptune ride,

And dreadless through fierce Ocean slide,

Reef it awhile: All hands aloft!

Mind well your Helm; for you’l have oft

Salt breeming Waves, which will not burn,

Yet must become your dismal Urn.

Your Carcasses when you are dead

Will try the Depth, like Sounding-Lead;

Your briny Coats, and swollen Bulks,

Must roul on Shores like Shipwrack’d Hulks.625

A Central Line of darksome Shade

This sweeping Tail to our view made:

Which signifies the House of Mors

To those who still without remorse

Are glewed unto fond Tradition,

And to the Truth will not them fashion.626

The conclusion of the poem is as follows:

Must Heathen Nations still combine

To ruine what is prov’d divine?

Shall infidels boldly presume

God’s holy People to consume?

Shall Hereticks be bold to vent

Such Fallacies as Churches rent?

Shall Truth be trodden to the Ground

By Policy of Hell profound?

Shall Antichrist his Wound now heal,

By trampling down the Common-weal?

Shall Kings and Princes now fall down

Themselves and theirs to th’ Triple Crown;

Basely prostrate, and willingly

Adore him who in ’s Villany

Doth cheat the World fallaciously,

Imposing on them cuningly?

Shall they their Swords and Spears cast down

At’s Feet, and swear to guard his Crown,

Who is their Vassal, and no Prince,

As will appear when he goes hence?

Shall th’ Golden Cup of Mountebanks

Cheat all Men, yea, Men of all ranks?

Shall no Man see and shun the Cheat?

Sure when ’tis thus, God’s Wrath is great.

If any ask how this can be?

Let him anatomize these three:

I mean the Pope, the Turk, the Devil,

Grand Architects of all that’s evil.

My Heart is cold, my Quill grows dry,

And must awhile in silence lie.

Sic Cecinit. J. W.

March 6. 168⁰/₁.

As to the authorship of the poem and the identity of “J. W.,” it is striking that so many names with these initial letters can be easily picked out among the scholars and poets of New England at that time as the possible author. There was the famous minister and publicist, John Wise, of Ipswich, the Rev. John Woodbridge, the father (of Andover), or the son (of Wethersfield, Connecticut), any one of whom might have written the poem; then of the Winthrop family, a name which naturally suggests itself, there was [Fitz-]John, and strangely enough there is among the Winthrop family papers a carelessly made manuscript copy which plainly shows, after a careful comparison, evidence of having been taken from the printed poem.

Of the Rev. Ichabod Wiswall, of Duxbury, it has been stated by excellent authority, Alden Bradford, that “he wrote a poem which was occasioned by the appearance of a comet, and which was published in London.”627 Samuel Deane, in his History of Scituate, and Justin Winsor, in the History of Duxbury, also refer to the existence of such a poem by Wiswall. These several references to the poem and its author seem to leave no doubt as to its identity with the one under consideration; but this is the first time that the identification has been noted and established in print.

So far as is known this poem constitutes Mr. Wiswall’s only literary production, and it is worthy of notice and of reproduction on account of its excellence as verse and of its rarity.

The result of this investigation as to the authorship of this unrecognized American poem is confirmed by an entry in the Rev. Thomas Prince’s Manuscript Catalogue, which I have since seen, where the authorship is also attributed to Ichabod Wiswall. There is not now, however, a copy of the work in the Prince Collection at the Boston Public Library, although in the general collection of the library is the copy sold at the Aspinwall-Barlow sale a few years ago. In the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society is another copy which has been there many years.

It is not the purpose of this paper to furnish a biography of Mr. Wiswall, however deserving he may be of a place of rank among the early scholars of New England, but the following brief sketch may serve as an outline of his life.

Ichabod Wiswall was born in Dorchester in 1637, and was admitted to Harvard College, although he did not graduate, as will be seen further on. In 1655 he was teacher of the Dorchester school, and for many years in his later life was the noted teacher of Duxbury. The period of Mr. Wiswall’s life spent in the settlements on the Kennebec River was described in 1896 by the Rev. Henry O. Thayer.628 In Duxbury Mr. Wiswall was ordained as the minister of the church in 1676, and here for a quarter of a century he was the faithful minister and helpful citizen until his death in the year 1700. In 1689–1690 he was the chosen Agent of the Plymouth Colony, as Increase Mather was of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, at the English Court, which missioh kept him there many months. The expressions in his letter to Governor Thomas Hinckley at this time629 also show his interest in astronomy and his familiarity with that science.

The following account of the earliest “rebellion” among the students of Harvard College, about the year 1655, was written by the Rev. Thomas Prince in 1757, with reference to the Rev. Samuel Torrey, of Weymouth, Massachusetts; but it is equally applicable to the Rev. Ichabod Wiswall. The account appears in the Preface to Mr. William Torrey’s A Brief Discourse concerning Futurities [1687], and is as follows:

I suppose he was admitted into Harvard-College, about 1650 [1651 in the case of Wiswall], and should, according to the preceeding Custom, have taken his first Degree in three Years. But the Corporation making a Law that the Scholars should study at College four Years before they commenced Batchelors in Arts; several Scholars tho’ they were accounted as good as any before them, and I suppose of different Classes, went off, and never took any Degree at all. There were at least Five of them, who after made a very shining Figure in New-England: viz. Gov. Josiah Winslow; this Rev. Mr. Samuel Torrey; the Rev. Mr. Ichabod Wiswall of Duxbury, Agent for Plymouth-Colony at the Court of England upon the Revolution; the Rev. Mr. Samuel Wakeman of Fairfield; and the Rev. Mr. Brinsmead of Marlborough: who would all have been a great Honour to our Harvard-Catalogue: and 1 could wish their Names might be yet inserted, as educated there and qualified for their First Degree, tho’ diverted from it (pp. i, ii).630

It is well to credit Mr. Wiswall at this day with the estimate of his contemporaries, that he was “nearly a faultless man” and was highly regarded for his “talents, piety, and incorruptible integrity;” and it is a pleasure to recall to mind this distinguished man and his forgotten contribution to early American poetry.

On behalf of Mr. Albert Matthews, Mr. Endicott communicated the paper which follows.631

THE SNAKE DEVICES, 1754–1776, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURANT, 1765.

At three different times the famous snake devices, which presumably originally owed their existence to the Suggestion of Franklin,632 became prominent in the history of the American colonies, — first shortly before the meeting of the Albany Congress in 1754, again about when the Stamp Act went into force in 1765, and finally for a year or so before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. While the influence they exerted may not have been great, yet it was appreciable, and their popularity seems to warrant a somewhat detailed account of their history. Not that historians have neglected them — on the contrary, a good deal has been said about them. But unfortunately what has been said has been mainly inaccurate,633 and when writers have attempted to reproduce the original snake device they have, almost without exception, reproduced something else.634 Such being the case, there appears to be ample excuse for facsimile reproductions of some of the various devices and for a correct statement as to their history.

I

In his American Revolution, published in 1891, Fiske wrote:

In 1754, the prospect of immediate war with the French led several of the royal governors to call for a congress of all the colonies, to be held at Albany. . . . New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland — only seven of the thirteen colonies — sent commissioners to this congress. The people showed little interest in the movement. It does not appear that any public meetings were held in favour of it. Among the newspapers, the only one which warmly approved of it seems to have been the “Pennsylvania Gazette,” edited by Benjamin Franklin, which appeared with a union device and the motto “Unite or Die!” (i. 7).

This passage is so misleading, even when not actually inaccurate, as to require comment. First, the call for the Albany Congress was issued December 24, 1753, by the Governor of New York on the recommendation of the Lords of Trade dated September 18, 1753.635 Secondly, the absence of public meetings in favor of a union is noteworthy only in case public meetings were commonly held at that time. I apprehend that they were not. Thirdly, even admitting that “warm approval” is not too strong language to apply to a single appeal for union made nearly six weeks before the meeting of the Albany Congress, yet the Pennsylvania Gazette was not the only paper to make such an appeal. Fourthly, the statement that the Pennsylvania Gazette appeared “with a union device” gives the impression that such a device was adopted as the heading of the paper. Such was not the case. Fifthly, the motto used in Franklin’s device was not “Unite or Die!” but “JOIN, or DIE.”

The Albany Congress was called for June 14, but, owing to the failure of the Indians to arrive promptly,636 did not meet until June 19, and ended July 11. It should not be forgotten that at the time the important thing was the treaty with the Indians, a plan of union being looked upon as secondary. After a treaty had been concluded with the Indians and the red men had departed,’ then a plan of union was taken up in earnest.637 A careful examination of such newspapers638 as I can find published during the months of May, June, July, and August, 1754, yields the following result. In the Pennsylvania Gazette of May 9 was printed the article presently to be quoted.639 In the same paper of Thursday, June 6, appeared the following:

The Commissioners appointed by his Honour the Governor in behalf of this Province, for the ensuing Treaty at Albany, set out for that Place on Monday last, accompanied by sundry Gentlemen of this City: And the Commissioners from Maryland left Town the next Day for the same Place (p. 2/2).640

With the above exception, every item about the Albany Congress which appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette was copied directly from a New York paper; and while there are in the Pennsylvania Gazette various items about the Albany Congress, they all relate to the treaty with the Indians or to the commissioners, and there is not a single allusion to the plan of union.641 On the other hand, other newspapers contained interesting items, some of which were not copied into the Pennsylvania Gazette, about the Albany Congress and the plan of union. The following remarks were made by Governor Shirley of Massachusetts on April 2, as reported in the Boston Evening-Post of April 29:

Such an Union of Councils, besides the happy Effect it will probably have upon the Indians of the Six Nations, may lay a Foundation for a general One among all His Majesty’s Colonies, for the mutual Support and Defence against the present dangerous Enterprizes of the French on every Side of them (p. 1/2).

For forming this general Union, Gentlemen, there is no Time to be lost (p. 2/1).

His Majesty hath given the strongest Proof of His paternal Care of his Colonies, and constant Attention to their Safety, in directing his Governors to promote this Union within their respective Governments (p. 2/1).

On April 25 Governor Belcher of New Jersey — the only Northern colony which sent no commissioners to Albany — said, as reported in the Boston Gazette of July 16:

Yet, if, upon the Whole, there becomes a strict Union among all his Majesty’s Colonies, we may reasonably hope (with the help of God) the Designs of the French will soon be rendered vain and abortive (p. 1/1).

In the Boston Evening-Post of June 3 appeared the following:

Annapolis, in Maryland, May 16. Yesterday a Vote passed the lower House of Assembly, for granting 3000 l. towards the present Expedition; and 500 l. for a Present to be made the Indians, at the Treaty to be held at Albany next month (p. 4/1).

In the Boston Evening-Post of May 20 was printed “The Message of both Houses [of the Massachusetts Legislature] to his Excellency, in Answer to his two Speeches, of the 28th of March, and the 2d of April last,” from which the following is extracted:

Your Excellency must be sensible that an Union of the several Governments for their mutual Defence, and for the Annoyance of the Enemy, has long been desired by this Province, and Proposals made for this Purpose; we are still in the same Sentiments, and shall use our Endeavours to effect it (p. 1/2).

In the Boston Evening-Post of August 12 was printed the following:

Charlestown, South-Carolina, June 20. As the Motions of the French on the Ohio River, and the Measures they are pursuing there, threaten to disturb the Tranquility of the British Provinces; it is greatly to be wish’d that the British Provinces would unite in some System or Scheme for the publick Peace and Safety. Such an Union would render us respected by the French, for they are no Strangers to our Power, tho’ they may perhaps suspect our Prudence; let us give them this Proof of our Wisdom, and they will hardly make any Experiment of our Strength

(p. 2/1).

In the Boston Post-Boy of Monday, July 22, appeared the following:

On Tuesday Evening came to Town, the Hon. Thomas Hutchinson, Esq; Judge of Probate for this County, and one of the Commissioners at the late Convention in Albany.— We are informed, That the Indians had all left that City in a good Temper; but that a much smaller Number attended the Interview, than heretofore has been usual. — That the Commissioners from the several Governments were unanimously of Opinion, That an Union of the Colonies was absolutely necessary in order to defeat the Schemes of the French. — That a Representation of the State of the British Interest on this Continent, as it stands related to the French and Indians, has been drawn up and approved of: And that a Plan of Union has likewise been projected, and will, by the said Commissioners, be laid before their respective Constituents. — All the Commissioners left Albany the 12th Instant (p. 2/2).

This paragraph was also printed in the Boston Evening-Post of July 22 (p. 4/1), in the Boston Gazette of July 23 (p. 3/2), and in the New-York Mercury of July 29 (p. 2/3), but it was apparently not reprinted in the Pennsylvania Gazette. More than half of the Boston Gazette of October 1 is taken up with a reprint from the New-York Weekly Gazette of September 23 of “A Summary View of the present State of this Continent in general and of the Province of New-York in particular, with regard to our neighbouring Enemies the French,” which ends as follows:

To obtain this happy Establishment, without which I fear it never will be obtained, May the God of Heaven grant Success to the Plan of Union of the British Colonies on the Continent of America.Amen and Amen (p. 3/1).

Having thus shown that “warm approval” of a plan of union642 was by no means confined to the Pennsylvania Gazette, let us return to the article which appeared in that paper on May 9. It occupied the larger part of the first column of the second page of that issue, and is as follows:

PHILADELPHIA, May 9.

Friday last an Express arrived here from Major Washington, with Advice, that Mr. Ward,643 Ensign of Capt. Trent’s644 Company, was compelled to surrender his small Fort in the Forks of Monongahela to the French, on the 17th past; who fell down from Venango with a Fleet of 360 Battoes and Conoes, upwards of 1000 men, and 18 Pieces of Artillery, which they planted against the Fort; and Mr. Ward having but 44 Men, and no Cannon to make a proper Defence, was obliged to surrender on Summons, capitulating to march out with their Arms, &c. and they had accordingly joined Major Washington, who was advanced with three Companies of the Virginia Forces, as far as the New Store near the Allegheny Mountains, where the Men were employed in clearing a Road for the Cannon, which were every Day expected with Col. Frye,645 and the Remainder of the Regiment. — We hear farther, that some few of the English Traders on the Ohio escaped, but ’tis supposed the greatest Part are taken, with all their Goods, and Skins, to the Amount of near 20,000 £. The Indian Chiefs, however, have dispatch’d Messages to Pennsylvania, and Virginia, desiring that the English would not be discouraged, but send out their Warriors to join them, and drive the French out of the Country before they fortify; otherwise the Trade will be lost, and, to their great Grief, an eternal Separation made between the Indians and their Brethren the English. ’Tis farther said, that besides the French that came down from Venango, another Body of near 400, is coming up the Ohio; and that 600 French Indians, of the Chippaways and Ottaways, are coming down Siota River, from the Lake, to join them; and many more French are expected from Canada; the Design being to establish themselves, settle their Indians, and build Forts just on the Back of our Settlements in all our Colonies; from which Forts, as they did from Crown-Point, they may send out their Parties to kill and scalp the Inhabitants, and ruin the Frontier Counties. Accordingly we hear, that the Back Settlers in Virginia, are so terrify’d by the Murdering and Scalping of the Family last Winter,646 and the Taking of this Fort, that they begin already to abandon their Plantations, and remove to Places of more Safety. — The Confidence of the French in this Undertaking seems well grounded on the present disunited State of the British Colonies, and the extreme difficulty of bringing so many different Governments and Assemblies to agree in any speedy and effectual Measures for our common Defence and Security; while our Enemies have the very great Advantage of being under one Direction, with one Council, and one Purse. Hence, and from the great Distance of Britain, they presume that they may with Impunity violate the most solemn Treaties subsisting between the two Crowns, kill, seize and imprison our Traders, and confiscate their Effects at Pleasure (as they have done for several Years past) murder and scalp our Farmers, with their Wives and Children, and take an easy Possession of such Parts of the British Territory as they find most convenient for them; which if they are permitted to do, must end in the Destruction of the British Interest, Trade and Plantations in America.

Pennsylvania Gazette 9 May 1754 from the original in the Possesion of the America Antiquarian Society

Boston News-Letter 23 May 1754 from the original in the Possesion of the Massachusetts Historical Society

Boston News-Letter 21 May 1754 from the original in the Possesion of the Massachusetts Historical Society

Boston Evening Post 7 October 1765 from the original in the Possesion of the Boston Athenaeum

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts

This appeal for concerted action on, the part of the colonies was enforced by a pictorial design of which a facsimile reproduction is given facing page 416. It was a snake cut into eight parts, the head representing New England, and each of the other seven parts representing respectively New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina — each part being indicated by its appropriate initial letter or letters. It will be observed that Georgia is omitted. Underneath the snake is the motto “JOIN, or DIE.” The above paragraph was reprinted, in part or in whole, in most of the newspapers then published in the American colonies.647 The snake device appeared in the following papers:

Pennsylvania Gazette, May 9, 1754, p. 2/1.
New-York Gazette, May 13, p. 2/2.
New-York Mercury, May 13, p. 2/3.
Boston Gazette, May 21, p. 3/1.
Boston News-Letter, May 23, p. 1/1.

As is to be expected, the devices varied somewhat. Those in the New-York Gazette and in the New-York Mercury differed only in trifling particulars from the original, chiefly in having the initial letters differently placed. The device in the Boston News-Letter is very like the original, except that the legend “Unite & Conquer” is coming from the mouth of the snake. In the device found in the Boston Gazette, the snake is differently designed, and from its mouth, which is open in a very fierce way, comes the legend “Unite and Conquer.” In all devices the motto of the original is given beneath the snake, but with an occasional variation in the use of punctuation points. The Boston Evening-Post of May 20 reprinted the article, but did not reproduce the device. There is no known copy of the Boston Post-Boy of May 20. The Pennsylvania Journal of May 9 printed an article similar to the above but much shorter (filling seventeen lines, instead of forty-eight lines in the Pennsylvania Gazette), omitting the appeal for union and without a device. The device was apparently not reproduced in the Maryland Gazette.648 Not having seen the Virginia Gazette, I am unable to speak of it with certainty. But the following passage, taken from the Boston Gazette of August 13, was presumably copied from the Virginia Gazette of July 19:

Williamsburg, (in Virginia,) July 19.

On Wednesday last arrived in Town Colonel Washington, and Capt. Maccay,649 who gave the following Account to his Honour the Governor,650 of the late Action between them and the French, at the Great Meadows in the Western Parts of this Dominion (p. 2/2).651

Col. Washington and Capt. Maccay, left Captain Clarke652 at Winchester, on the 11th last, and his Men were not then arrived there. Thus have a few brave Men been exposed, to be butchered, by the Negligence of those, who in Obedience to their Sovereign’s Command, ought to have been with them many Months before; and it is evidently certain, that had the Companies from New York been as expeditious as Capt. Maccay’s from South-Carolina, our Camp would have been secure from the Insults of the French, and our brave Men still alive to serve their King and Country.653 Surely this will remove the Infatuation that seems to have prevailed too much among our Neighbours, and inforce a late ingenious Emblem worthy of their Attention & Consideration (p. 3/1).

That “a late ingenious Emblem” was the snake device is sufficiently obvious, but is capable of proof. I have been unable to find a copy of the South Carolina Gazette of the right date, but in the issue of that paper dated August 22 the above passage was printed, followed by this remark:

[The Emblem here mentioned, was a Figure of a Snake, (exhibited in the Pennsylvania Gazette and other Northern News Papers) divided into 8 Pieces, as represented by the Lines underneath,

With these Words under the Pieces, “Join or Die.”]654

From this it may be inferred that the device itself had not been reproduced in the South Carolina Gazette. But be that as it may, certainly the fame of the snake device had been spread throughout the colonies. It lay dormant, however, for over eleven years, when it suddenly renewed its life. Before taking up this second manifestation, let us, in proof of a statement made at the beginning of the present paper, consider some of the descriptions of the original device. I have met with none between 1754 and 1810, in which year Isaiah Thomas described — and correctly described — “the device of a snake, divided into parts, with the motto — ‘Join or die,’ . . . The snake was divided into eight parts, to represent, first, Newengland; second, Newyork; third, Newjersey; fourth, Pennsylvania; fifth, Maryland; sixth, Virginia; seventh, Northcarolina; and, eighth, Southcarolina.”655 In 1836 Jared Sparks wrote:

The Pennsylvania Gazette for May 9th, 1754, contains an account of the capture by the French of Captain Trent’s party, who were erecting a fort (afterwards Fort Duquesne) at the Fork of the Ohio. . . . At the end of the article is a wood-cut,656 in which is the figure of a snake, separated into parts, to each of which is affixed the initial of one of the colonies, and at the bottom in large capitals the motto, Join or Die.657

In 1864 James Parton remarked:

We must unite, or be overcome, said Franklin. In May, 1754, just before leaving home to attend the Congress at Albany, he published an article to this effect in the Gazette, and appended to it one of those allegorical wood-cuts of which he was so fond. It was the picture of a snake cut into as many pieces as there were colonies, each piece having upon it the first letter of the name of a colony, and under the whole, in capital letters, appeared the words Join or Die.

Referring to the Pennsylvania Gazette of 1754, William E. Foster declared in 1884:

It was in this paper that he had published only a month earlier, (May 9, 1754), the article in which he introduced the woodcut “Join or die,” (the figure of a snake, cut into thirteen pieces), which became a very effective device, ten years later.658

Alluding to the Albany Congress of 1754, Colonel Higginson asserted in 1886 that —

It was in this convention that Franklin began a course of national influence which was long continued, and brought forward his famous representation of the snake dismembered, with the motto “Unite or Die.”659

Writing of the Constitutional Courant of September 21, 1765 — a document presently to be discussed — John Austin Stevens in 1892, ingeniously fell into a double error in stating that —

It bore as a head-piece the device of a snake cut into parts to represent the colonies, with the motto “Unite or die,” the familiar symbol used by Dr. Franklin in his “Pennsylvania Gazette,” in 1754, to arouse the colonies to the danger of the French invasion.660

Neither Franklin’s device of 1754 nor the device of 1765 bore that motto. In 1900 Mr. Paul E. More declared that —

Franklin had already published in his “Gazette” an article on the subject [of union], to which he had added a wood-cut showing a snake cut in thirteen pieces with the device Join or Die.661

If these verbal descriptions of Franklin’s device are surprising, still more remarkable are some of the alleged reproductions of the device itself. In his Many-sided Franklin, published in 1899, Paul Leicester Ford reproduced — and, as one would naturally expect, correctly reproduced — the device on page 418 of his book. The device is also correctly reproduced in “Pennsylvania: Colonial and Federal,” edited by Howard M. Jenkins in 1903; but the description underneath the cut is hardly correct: “Franklin’s device and motto published in the Pennsylvania Gazette at the time of the Albany Congress, 1754” (I. 353). As we have already seen, the device appeared nearly six weeks before the Albany Congress met.

That Benson J. Lossing had never seen Franklin’s device of 1754 is evident from his statement, made in 1881, that “this snake device first appeared when the Stamp Act was at its height.”662 Lossing then proceeds to give a cut of what presumably he considered the original device, but what was really the device employed by William and Thomas Bradford in the heading of their Pennsylvania Journal from July 27, 1774, to October 18, 1775. The cut used by Lossing in 1881 had previously been used in 1851 in his Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution (I. 508), and was again used in 1902 in Harper’s Encyclopædia of United States History (IX. 154).

In 1892 John Austin Stevens reproduced in the Memorial History of the City of New-York (II. 353) what purports to be “Franklin’s ‘Unite or Die,’” but what in reality is the Bradford device in the Pennsylvania Journal of 1774–1775.

In the illustrated edition of his American Revolution, published in 1896, Fiske reproduced (I. 6) what purports to be “Unite or Die. From the Pennsylvania Gazette, 1754,” but what is once more the Bradford device in the Pennsylvania Journal of 1774–1775.

In J. W. Garner and H. C. Lodge’s History of the United States, published in 1906, there is given (I. 381) a cut which appears without any explanation either in text or note. Hence it is impossible to say what the authors considered it to be. It is the Bradford device in the Pennsylvania Journal of 1774–1775.663

II

The Stamp Act went into effect on November 1, 1765. On September 21 of that year there appeared what has sometimes been called a newspaper, but what was really a political skit, and is now a bibliographical curiosity, — the Constitutional Courant. A reprint of this follows:

JOIN or DIE,

[NUMB. 1.]

Saturday, September 21, 1765.

The Constitutional COURANT:

[Snake Device]

Containing Matters interesting to Liberty, and no wise repugnant to Loyalty.

To the PUBLIC.

WHEN a new public664 Paper makes its appearance, the reader will naturally be curious to know from whence it came, the publisher, and the design of it. To gratify that curiosity, know reader, that the publisher having formerly acquired a competent knowledge of the Printing-business, for his amusement furnished himself with a set of proper materials;— And the authors of the following pieces having acquainted him that they applied to the printers in York, who refused to publish them in their news-papers — not because they disapproved them, or were apprehensive of danger, but purely because several of their friends had been anxious on their account, and particularly desired them to be careful not to publish any thing that might give the enemies of liberty an advantage, which they would be glad to take, over them; and as these pieces are thought to be wrote with greater freedom than any thing that has yet appeared in the public prints, they thought proper to shew so much complaisance to the advice of their friends, as to desire to be excused, and to return the copies: But I, who am under no fear of disobliging either friends or enemies, was pleased with the opportunity of turning my private amusements to the public good; I not only undertook to publish them, but now inform my countrymen, that I shall occasionally publish any thing else that falls in my way, which appears to me to be calculated to promote the cause of liberty, of virtue, of religion and my country, of love and reverence to its laws and constitution, and unshaken loyalty to the King.— And so I bid you heartily farewell.

Andrew Marvel.665

From an Original in the possession of the Lenox Library

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts

AT a time when our dearest privileges are torn from us, and the foundation of all our liberty subverted, every one who has the least spark of love to his country, must feel the deepest anxiety about our approaching fate. The hearts of all who have a just value for freedom, must burn within them, when they see the chains of abject slavery just ready to be riveted about our necks. It has been undeniably demonstrated, by the various authors who have dared to assert the cause of these injured colonies, that no Englishman can be taxed, agreeable to the known principles of our constitution, but by his own consent, given either by himself or his representatives, — that these colonies are not in any sense at all represented in the British parliament, — that the first adventurers into these uncultivated desarts, were, in every colony, either by royal charters,666 or royal concessions, in the most express terms possible, assured, that all their rights and privileges667 as British subjects, should be preserved to them unimpaired, — that these original concessions have been repeatedly allowed by the crown, and have never been controverted till this memorable period. The arguments by which these points have been established beyond all dispute, I need not repeat; their evidence is such as must flash conviction into the minds of all but the vile minions of tyranny and arbitrary power. The tremendous conclusion, therefore, forces itself upon us, that the public faith of the nation, in which, till now, we thought we might securely confide, is violated, and we robbed of our dearest rights by the late law erecting a stamp-office among us.

What then is to be done? Shall we sit down quietly, while the yoke of slavery is wreathing about our necks?. He that is stupid enough to plead for this, deserves to be a slave. Shall we not hope still that some resource is left us in the royal care and benevolence? We have the happiness to be governed by one of the best of kings,668 who is our common father,669 and must be supposed to be under no temptations to sacrifice the rights of one part of his subjects to the caprice of another.

The power of executing the laws is, by the constitution, vested in the crown. We never can suppose that our sovereign, when our state is properly represented to him, will employ that power to execute a law so evidently iniquitous and unreasonable, [A 1/2]670 especially when a method of answering the same ends, (as far as they ought to be answered) perfectly agreeable to the con[- B 1/2] stitution, so readily offers itself. — Let us then besiege the throne with petitions and humble remonstrances, and not doubt of a favorable issue in the result.

It must certainly give the most sensible pleasure to every American that loves this his native country, to find a proposal set on foot for all the colonies to lay before his majesty a united representation of their grievances, and pray a redress. Such a representation as this, in the name of so large and respectable a body of his subjects, must have great weight and influence in the royal councils. That so excellent a scheme is likely to be so generally complied with, raises our hopes, and demonstrates that the sons of America are not afraid nor ashamed [C 1/2] to be her advocates against tyranny and oppression, tho’ obtruding themselves under the sanction of a law. But what are we to think of a set of mushroom patriots, who have refused to concur in so noble an attempt? In what light can we view this conduct? Shall they who by office and profession engage to assert the cause of public671 liberty, own themselves such dastards as to be afraid to speak, when their country is injured in her most sacred rights, yea, inslaved, lest they provoke her oppressors? ‘Tell it not in Gath!’ — Liberty and property are necessarily connected together: He that deprives of the latter without our consent, deprives of the former. What is a slave, but one who depends upon the will of another for the enjoyment of his life and property? This surely is a very precarious tenure. He that assumes to himself a right to deprive me of any part of my estate (however small that part may be) on certain occasions, of which he is to be the sole judge, may with equal reason deprive me of the whole, when he thinks proper: And he that thinks he has a right to strip me of all my property, when he sees fit, may with equal justice deprive me of my life, when he thinks his own interest requires it. If a king, tho’ invested with lawful authority, adopts these principles, none will hesitate to pronounce him a tyrant. But where is the difference between a prince who treats his subjects in this manner, and a number of fellow-subjects who usurp such a power over others? All that I can see, is, that in the former case we should groan under the oppression of one man; but in the latter, under that of a great body of men, which will generally be by far the most intolerable, as it is much better to have only one tyrant than several hundreds.

This, my countrymen, is our unhappy lot: The same principles on which the vile minions of tyranny vindicate the present tax, will vindicate the most oppressive laws conceivable. They need only boldly assert, that we are virtually represented in the British parliament, that they are the properest judges of the sums necessary to be raised, and of our ability to pay them, therefore such a tax is equitable, be it what it will, tho’ it reduces nine-tenths of us to instant beggary. If we throw in petitions against them, they need only say, ’tis against the known rules of this house to admit petitions against money bills, and so forever deny us the liberty of being heard. Was there ever a wider door opened for the entrance of arbitrary power, with all its horrors? Can the annals of Turkey produce its parallel? Even there, where tyranny has long established her gloomy throne, the subject is frequently indulged the liberty of complaining under grievances, and often uses that liberty with success. Poor America! the bootless privilege of complaining, always allowed the vilest criminals on the rack, is denied thee!

Let none censure these free thoughts as treasonable: I know they will be called so by those who would gladly transform these flourishing colonies into the howling seats of thraldom and wretchedness; but the sentiments of such miscreants are little to be regarded. We cherish the most unfeigned loyalty to our rightful sovereign; we have a high veneration for the British parliament; we consider them as the most august assembly on earth; but the wisest of kings [A 1/3] may be misled; some persons they must trust for the information they receive; those persons are generally such,672 whose interest it is to represent all things to them in false lights; so that it is rather to [B 1/3] be admired that they are not oftener misled than they are. Parliaments also are liable to mistakes, yea, sometimes fall into capital errors, and frame laws the most oppressive to the subject, yea, sometimes take such steps, which, if persisted in, would soon unhinge the whole constitution. Our histories bear innumerable attestations to the truth of this. It cannot be treason to point out such mistakes and the consequences of them, yea to set them in the most glaring light, to alarm the subject. By acting on this principle, our ancestors have transmitted to us our privileges inviolated; let us therefore prosecute the same glorious plan. Let the British parliament be treated with all possible respect, while they treat us as fellow-subjects: but if they transgress the bounds prescribed them by the constitution, if they usurp a jurisdiction, to which they have no right; if they infringe our liberties, and pursue such measures as will infallibly end in a Turkish despotism; if they violate public faith, and destroy confidence in the royal promises, let us boldly deny all such usurped jurisdiction; we owe them no more subjection, in this respect, than the Divan of Constantinople; to seem to acknowledge such a claim, would be to court our chains. Be assured, my countrymen, whatever spirit we manifest on this juncture, it cannot be offensive to our sovereign: He [C 1/3] glories in being King of freemen, and not of slaves. To shew that we are freemen, and resolve to continue so, cannot displease, but must endear us to him. It must endear us also to all the true sons of liberty in Great-Britain, to see that we have carried over the Atlantic the genuine spirit of our ancestors. We can offend none but a set of the blackest villains, and these we must always offend, unless we will tamely suffer them to tread down our rights at pleasure. With them, liberty is always treason, and an advocate for the people’s rights, a sower of sedition. Let it be our honor, let it be our boast, to be odious to these foes to human kind; let us shew them that we consider them only as beasts of prey, formed to devour; that tho’ full of loyalty to the best of kings, and ready to spill the last drop of our blood in his service, yet we dare bid defiance to all who are betraying the sovereign, and sacrificing his people.

While too many to the Westward are thinking of nothing but tamely yielding their necks to the yoke, it revives the courage of all who wish well to their country, to see such a noble spirit prevailing in the eastern colonies. There the gentlemen appointed to serve as tools to enslave their countrymen, have some of them gloriously disdained the dirty employment; they have scorned to raise their own fortunes by such detestable means; they have shewn that they esteem the public good, infinitely above all private emolument; in [B 2/1] short, they have proved themselves true lovers of their COUNTRY. Let their names be enrolled in the annals of fame; let them be embalmed to all posterity, and serve as examples to fire the breasts of patriots yet unborn. Others, we find, have been intimidated into a resignation, by those hardy sons of liberty, and have the mortification to see all their vile schemes of enriching themselves out of the plunder of their fellow-subjects, blasted in an instant. But what name shall we give those miscreants who still resolve to keep the detested office? How hard that heart must be, which is insensible of the dearest and tenderest of all obligations? which feels no sympathy for a native country, oppressed and ruined? but can please itself with the hellish prospect of increasing private wealth by her spoils? Ye blots and stains of America! Ye vipers of human kind! Your names shall be blasted with infamy, the public673 execration shall pursue you while living, and your memories shall rot, when death has disabled you from propagating vassalage and misery any further: Your crimes shall haunt you like spectres, and take vengeance for the crimes of distressed innocence.

[A 2/1] We cannot be enslaved without you reach out a helping hand: If you emulate the noble example of some of your fellow-officers, whose disinterestedness will endear them to generations yet unborn, the chains of thraldom cannot be put about our necks, at least the duration of our freedom will be prolonged. Dare you then bear a part in hastening its final extinction? Can you expect to escape the unseen hand of resentment, awakened by injuries like these? Assure yourselves the spirit of Brutus and Cassius is yet alive; there are who dare strike a blow to avenge their insulted country. Know ye vile miscreants, we love liberty, and we fear not to shew it. We abhor slavery, and detest the remotest aiders and abettors of our bondage: but native Americans, who are diabolical enough to help forward our ruin, we execrate as the worst of parricides. Parricides! ’tis too soft a term: Murder your fathers, rip up the bowels of your mothers, dash the infants you have begotten against the stones, and be blameless; — but enslave your country! entail vassalage, that worst of all human miseries, that sum of all wretchedness, on millions! This, this is guilt, this calls for heaven’s fiercest vengeance. But rouse, rouse my countrymen, let the villain that is hardy enough to persist, do it at his peril. Shew them we have resentment no less keen than our Eastern brethren; will you tamely suffer the execution of a law that reduces you to the vile condition of slaves, and is abhorred by all the genuine sons of liberty? Let the wretch that sleeps now, be branded as an enemy to his country.

PHILOLEUTHERUS.674

THE675 late violences committed in the Eastern colonies, in resentment and opposition to the Stamp Act, and all its contrivers and abettors;676 whether they proceeded from the misguided zeal of those who had a strong sensibility of the injury done their country by that act, or from the villainous cunning of those who took the opportunity of the public discontent, to promote and increase the tumult, in order to perpetrate the most atrocious crimes; in either case, the true lovers of liberty and their country, who detest and abhor the Stamp Act from principle, and a certain knowledge of their rights, violated by that act, are far from countenancing, or being pleased with these violences; on the contrary, they hear of them with concern and sorrow, not only as they must necessarily involve many innocent persons in distress, who had no share in the guilt that excited the public677 resentment; but also as they injure a good cause, and check the spirit of opposition to an act illegally obtruded upon us, to deprive us of our most sacred rights, and change our freedom to slavery, by a legislature who have no lawful authority over us. The terrible effects of those popular tumults, are likely to startle men who have been accustomed to venerate and obey lawful authority, and who delight in peace and order; and to make them doubt the justice of the cause attended with such direful consequences. But the guilt of all these violences is most justly chargeable upon the authors and abettors678 of the Stamp Act. They who endeavour to destroy the foundations of the English constitution, and break thro’ the fence of the laws, in order to let in a torrent of tyranny and oppression upon their fellow-subjects, ought not to be surprized if they are overwhelmed in it themselves. If they whom the people have invested with power, to be employed for the public good, pervert it to quite contrary purposes, to oppress and insult those by whom they are supported; is it not ridiculous for them to expect security from those laws which they themselves break thro’ to injure their country? If they become arbitrary, and use their power against the people who give it; can they suppose that the people, in their turn, will not exert their inherent power against their oppressors, and be as arbitrary as they? When such a power is raised, as it is not under the restraint of any regular government or direction, terrible effects may generally be expected from it. But those are answerable for them, who raised the tempest. — Let no man then suffer his rights to be torn from him, for fear of the consequences of defending them, — however dreadful they may be, the guilt of them does not lie at [B 2/2] his door. However, I would wish my countrymen to avoid such violent proceedings, if possible; but at the same time to oppose the execution of the Stamp Act, with a steady and perpetual exertion of their whole power, — and by all means, to endeavour, jointly and severally, to throw all possible obstructions in the way of its taking effect, and to treat with the utmost ignominy and detestation, all those enemies and betrayers of their country’s most sacred rights, who officiously endeavour to inforce it: I would [A 2/2] wish them never to pay one farthing of this tax, but leave the infamous officers, if they will have it, to take it by force, by way of robbery and plunder. — For the moment we submit to pay this tax, as to lawful authority, that moment we commence as errant slaves as any in Turkey, the fence of our liberty and property is broken down, and the foundation of the English constitution,679 with respect to us, is utterly destroyed. Let us not flatter ourselves, that we shall be happier, or treated with more lenity than our fellow slaves in Turkey: human nature is the same every where, and unlimited power is as much to be dreaded among us, as it is in the most barbarous nations upon earth: It is slavery that hath made them barbarous, and the same cause will have the same effect upon us. The inhabitants of Greece, Rome, and Constantinople, were once free and happy, and the liberal arts and sciences flourished among them; but slavery has spread ignorance, barbarism and misery over those once delightful regions, where the people are sunk into a stupid insensibility of their condition, and the spirit of liberty, after being depressed above a thousand years, seems now to be lost irrecoverably. It is better to die in defence of our rights, than to leave such a state as this to the generations that succeed us.

It cannot be possible that our sovereign, or any of our English fellow-subjects, who understand and value their own rights, can be displeased with us for asserting ours. Do we claim any but what are as clear as the noon day? Have we not by nature a right to liberty and property; as Englishmen, by laws and charters, in terms as plain as words can express? Is it not a fundamental principle of the English constitution, that no man shall be bound but by laws of his own making, nor taxed but by his own consent, given by representatives of his own choosing? And have we not a right to have all our causes tried by our peers, that is680 by juries, men of our own rank,681 indifferently chosen, and to whom we have no reasonable objection; — and does not the Stamp Act, in the most flagrant manner, violate all these rights, our liberty, our property, and682 trials by juries? Our liberty, in being subjected to laws that we had no share in making; our property, in being taxed without our own consent, in a parliament where we never had either the choice of a person to represent us, nor any that were qualified for the office, or interested in our welfare; and in our trials by juries, because an informer or prosecutor has it in his choice, whether to try the matter in a court of common law, or a court of admiralty: — and as these courts are immediately under the influence of the crown, and the act allows no appeal from them, except to a court of vice-admiralty, which is of the same kind, we have reason to think these courts will be as arbitrary and as oppressive as ever the high commission and star chamber courts were: And as this act gives them jurisdiction over matters that have no relation to navigation or sea affairs, they may, with equal propriety, have jurisdiction in cases of life and death. This is a real representation of the slavish state we are reduced to by the Stamp Act, if we ever suffer it to take place among us. It is easy to see that the ministry design to alter and overturn the English constitution, and have invented a number of expedients to break thro’ the restraints that the laws lay upon arbitrary dispositions, and are labouring to become despotic and uncontroulable.

If683 the English parliament can lay these burdens upon us, they can also, if they please, take our whole property from us, and order us to be sold for slaves, or put to death. But how came the.English parliament by such a right over us? They are chosen by the people of Great-Britain to represent them. They have no power but what is delegated to them by their constituents; and those constituents have no power over our liberty or property. Their power (over these things at least) is purely local, and confined to the places they are chosen to represent; and it is plain they cannot represent the people of America, for that would deprive them of their most valuable rights as Englishmen, and be a contradiction to common sense.

It684 is a rule that no man in England shall be capable of serving as a representative in parliament, without having a considerable property in England; the reason of this rule is plain; because he will be affected in his own fortune, by the laws he is concerned in making for the public, the good of which he will consult for his own sake: — But consider this rule with respect to America: Have all the Members of parliament property there? Will they each feel part of the burdens they lay upon us? — No. But their own burdens will be lightened by laying them upon our shoulders, and all they take from us will [A 2/3] be gains to themselves: Heaven defend us from such representatives!

Let none falsely insinuate, that this spirit of opposition to the Stamp Act, which prevails throughout the British dominions in America, has in it the least tincture of rebellion against lawful authority, or disloyalty to our king. Whoever brings such charges against us, is a slanderer and a villain. We have the highest degree of veneration for the laws and constitution of [B 2/3]685 England; they are our birth right686 and inheritance, and we would defend them with our lives. We have the most affectionate loyalty to our rightful sovereign George the third, and his royal house, and we are ready to risk our lives and fortunes in his and their defence. We have the highest respect and reverence for the British parliament, which we believe to be the most august and respectable body of men upon earth, and we desire that all their rights, privileges and honors may forever be preserved to them, and to every rank and order of men in the kingdom of Great-Britain, whose welfare, prosperity, and honor we sincerely wish, and should rejoice in. We consider ourselves as one people with them, and glory in the relation between us; and we desire our connection may forever continue, as it is our best security against foreign invaders, and as we may reciprocally promote the welfare and strength of each other. Such are our sentiments and affections towards our mother country. But, at the same time, we cannot yield up to her, or to any power on earth, our inherent and most valuable rights and privileges. If she would strip us of all the advantages derived to us from the English constitution, why should we desire to continue our connection? We might as well belong to France, or any other power; none could offer a greater injury to our rights and liberties than is offered by the Stamp Act.687 If we have delivered our sentiments of the parliament with greater freedom than they are usually mentioned with, let it be considered that it is only when they have taken upon them to deprive us of our rights, which are not under their jurisdiction: If any then take offence at the freedom with which they are treated, let them blush at the occasion given for it. Such an alarming attempt upon British liberty was never made before, nor I hope ever will again. — We have been told from England, that the Stamp Act passed without so much debate or consideration, as sometimes arose upon the most trifling bills that are brought before the house! If it had been well debated and considered, surely it never could have passed; it must astonish all concern’d in it, when they come to consider it, that ever it did pass at all, and it will doubtless be repealed as soon as ever the nature of it is fully understood. — Mean while let us never, for one moment, acknowledge that it is binding upon us, nor pay one farthing in obedience to it, for it was made by a power, that, by the fundamental laws that both they and we acknowledge, hath no jurisdiction over us.

As the ministry under whose influence this act was made, are, we have reason to hope, by this time discarded and out of place, no other I suppose will ever be found that will approve it: and it may be worth the serious consideration of those who would officiously endeavour to enslave their countrymen to enforce it, whether they will not be more likely to receive the frowns than the smiles of their superiors, for their activity in so odious an office. For if this act takes place and is established, it may be depended upon, that liberty in Great Britain will not long survive its extinction in America.

PHILO PATRIÆ.688

[Since the foregoing pieces came to the Printer’s hands, certain intelligence has been received from, England of an universal change in the Ministry,689 whereby all those great officers who had rendered themselves obnoxious to the people, by their impolitic and arbitrary proceedings, are excluded from any share in the administration; and their places filled up by some of the most distinguished patriots in the nation, who it is hoped and believed will give a happy proof to his Majesty’s subjects, in Europe and America, of their sincere love of liberty, for which they have been long contending with it’s enemies, by adhering to such measures, and such only, as are consistent with the principles of the constitution. His grace the duke of Grafton, is appointed secretary of state for the Northern department, and the Rt. Hon. Henry Seymour Conway, a great friend to America, and a strong opposer of the Stamp Act, secretary for the southern. The Public690 is referr’d for further particulars, to the weekly papers.]

Printed by ANDREW MARVEL, at the Sign of the Bribe refused, on Constitution Hill, North-America.

It will be observed that the Constitutional Courant consists of six features, as follows:

(1) Heading at the top of the first page, with its snake device.
(2) Andrew Marvel’s address “To the Public.”
(3) Article of Philoleutherus.
(4) Article of Philopatriæ.
(5) An item about changes in the Ministry in England.
(6) Imprint.

The skit became very popular, and copies in at least three different forms exist, as follows:

(A) A sheet printed on both sides, three columns to a page, the columns of equal width. At the top of the first page is the title with the device of a snake cut into eight parts, very similar in design to the Franklin device of 1754, the chief difference being that in 1765 the words “JOIN or DIE” are placed above the snake, while in 1754 the motto was below the snake. In the 1765 design each initial letter is followed by a period. This form has all of the six features specified above. The imprint occurs at the bottom of the third column on the second page, separated from the text above by a broken rule across the column, and lined thus:

Printed by ANDREW MARVEL, at the Sign of the Bribe refused, on Constitution Hill, North-America.

Copies are owned as follows: Historical Society of Pennsylvania,691 Library Company of Philadelphia (Ridgway Branch),692 Lenox Library, Public Record Office693 (London). The skit as here reprinted is from a photograph of form A in the Lenox Library.

(B) A sheet printed on both sides, three columns to a page, the first and second columns of each page of equal width, the third column narrower than the other two. At the top of the first page is the title with the device of a snake divided into eight parts. The design of the snake in B differs slightly from that in A. In A, the tail of the snake turns to the left; in B, it turns to the right. Another difference between A and B is that in B the initial letters are not followed by periods. There is also a difference between A and B in the placing of the initial letters. Form B has all of the six features specified above. The imprint is a single line printed across the bottom of the second page, separated from the text by sixteen horizontal braces, thus:

Printed by ANDREW MARVEL at the Sign of the Bribe refused, on Constitution Bill, North America.

Copies are owned as follows: Boston Athenæum,694 Harvard College Library,695 Massachusetts Historical Society, Yale University Library.696

(C) A broadside, printed in three columns of equal width. At the top of the page is the title, but there is no snake or other device. In this form the skit is incomplete, as, of the six features specified above, it has only those numbered (2), (3), and (6). The imprint, separated from the word “Philoleutherus” by a line of thirteen crowns of three different designs, occurs nearly at the bottom of the third column, and is lined as follows:

Printed by ANDREW MARVEL, at the Sign of the Bribe refused, on Constitution Hill, North-America.

Below the imprint is an ornamental cut, like a coat of arms, and below that are three ornamental cuts. Copies are owned as follows: Harvard College Library, Library Company of Philadelphia697 (Ridgway Branch).

It is not a little singular that, with a single exception, there is apparently not the slightest allusion to the skit in contemporary newspapers. In the Boston Evening-Post of October 7, 1765, was printed the following (p. 3/1):

A new political Paper has lately appeared under the Title of “The Constitutional COURANT, [Numb. I.] Containing Matters interesting to Liberty and no wise repugnant to Loyalty.”

A Device in the Front like the following.

JOIN or DIE.

[Snake Device.]

At the Bottom.

“Printed by ANDREW MARVEL at the Sign of the Bribe refused, on Constitution Hill, North-America.

The above-mentioned paper is introduced with the following Address to the PUBLIC.

[Here follows the Address.]

There is such a Demand for the above-mentioned Paper in these parts, that, we hear, it will soon be re-published.

The snake device as given in the above paper is apparently identical with the snake device in form B of the Constitutional Courant. Possibly this indicates that form B of the Constitutional Courant was printed by Thomas and John Fleet, the publishers of the Boston Evening-Post.698

From other sources, however, we get an occasional allusion to the skit. Writing to Franklin on October 1, 1765, Cadwallader Colden said:

My regard to you makes me give you the trouble of the inclosed Printed Paper, one or more bundles of which I am well informed were delivered to the Post Rider at Woodbridge by James Parker were distributed by the Post Riders in several parts of this Colony & I believe likewise in the neighbouring Colonies: the doing of which was kept secret from the Post Master in this Place. It is believed that this Paper was Printed by Parker after the Printers in this Place had refused to do it, perhaps you may be able to judge from the Types.

As he is Secretary to the General Post office in America, I am under a necessity of takeing notice of it to the Secretary of State by the return of the Packet which is daily expected, & I am unwilling to do this without giving you previous notice by a Merchant Ship which Sails Tomorrow.699

In a letter to Henry Seymour Conway dated October 12, 1765, Colden wrote:

Since the last which I had the honour to write to you of the 23^d of September, this Town has remained quiet tho’ inflamatory Papers continue to be publish’d, exciting the People to oppose the Execution of the Act of Parliament for laying a stamp Duty in the Colonies. The most remarkable of these Papers is inclosed. This was distributed along the Post Roads by the Post Riders. I examined the Post Master in this Place to know how this came to be done. He assured me that it was without his knowledge, That he had examined the Post Riders & found that one or more Bundles of them were deliver’d at Woodbridge in New Jersey to the Post Rider by James Parker Secretary to the General Post office in America. Parker was formerly a Printer in this Place, & has now a Printing Press & continues to print occasionally. It is believed that this Paper was Printed by him. The Gentlemen of the Council think it prudent at this time to delay the makeing more particular Enquiry least it should be the occasion of raising the Mob, which it is thought proper by all means to avoid.700

The account of the Constitutional Courant given by Isaiah Thomas in 1810 is as follows:

The Constitutional Gazette.

After the American stamp act was passed by the British parliament, and near the time it was to be put in operation, a political paper was privately printed at Burlington, which attracted much notice. It was entitled “The Constitutional Gazette, containing Matters interesting to Liberty — but no wise repugnant to Loyalty.” Imprint — “Printed by Andrew Marvel, at the Sign of the Bribe refused, on Constitution-Hill, North-America.” In the centre of the title was a device of a snake, cut into parts, to represent the colonies. Motto — “Join or Die.” After the title followed an address to the public from the fictitious printer and publisher Andrew Marvel. This paper was without date, but was printed in September, 1765. It contained several well written and spirited essays against the obnoxious stamp act, which were so highly colored, that the editors of newspapers in Newyork, even Holt, declined to publish them.

A large edition was printed, secretly forwarded to Newyork, and there sold by hawkers selected for the purpose. It had a rapid sale, and was, I believe, reprinted there, and at Boston. It excited some commotion in Newyork, and was taken notice of by government. A council was called, and holden at the fort in that city, but as no discovery was made of the author or printer, nothing was done. One of the council demanded of a hawker named Samuel Sweeney, “where that incendiary [323] paper was printed?” Sweeney, as he had been instructed, answered, “At Peter Hassenclever’s iron-works, please your honor.” Peter Hassenclever was a wealthy German, well known as the owner of extensive iron works in Newjersey. Afterward, other publications of a like kind frequently appeared with an imprint — “Printed at Peter Hassenclever’s iron-works.”701

Only one number of the Constitutional Gazette was published; a continuance of it was never intended. It was printed by William Goddard, at Parker’s printing house at Burlington — Goddard having previously obtained Parker’s permission occasionally to use his press.

This political paper was handsomely commended in some of the periodical works published in England, after the repeal of the stamp act.702

It is well known that Thomas began the preparation of a second edition of his work, which was published by the American Antiquarian Society in 1874. In the 1874 edition, the passage just quoted reads precisely as above, with the following exceptions: the word “Gazette” is thrice changed to “Courant;” the name of “Samuel Sweeney” is changed to “Lawrence Sweeney;” the words “at Burlington” are changed to “in Woodbridge.”703 It is to be regretted that Thomas did not give his reason for changing his opinion as to the place of publication.

In 1850 Buckingham wrote:

The snake, divided, with the motto, was first published in an anonymous paper, called the Constitutional Courant, said to have been printed at Burlington, New-Jersey, in 1768.. . .The Constitutional Courant is a half sheet of medium size. . . . A large number of copies of this paper were secretly transmitted to New-York, and there sold by hawkers and pedlers, employed for the purpose. Mr. Thomas says it was printed at Burlington, and the copy now before me, which belongs to the library of Harvard College, has “Burlington, N. J.” written under the words “Constitution Hill.” The same copy has, under the name “Andrew Marvel,” in the same hand, the words “pseudonyme Wm. Goddard.” This copy was presented to the College by the heirs of the late Rev. James Freeman, D.D.; but these explanations are not in his handwriting.704

In 1877 Mrs. Martha J. Lamb remarked:

The press of New York continued to deny the right of Parliament to tax the colonies, and a new paper, called “The Constitutional Courant,” with the device of a snake, cut into parts (to represent the colonies), with “Join or Die” as a motto, actually appeared. . . . This paper was privately printed at Woodbridge, New Jersey, and was reprinted both in New York and Boston.705

In 1851 Lossing said:

Boston, our present point of view, kept up the spirit of liberty, but avoided acts of violence. A newspaper appeared under the significant title of “The Constitutional Courant, . . . ” Its head-piece was a snake cut into eight pieces (see page 508), the head part having N. E., the initials of New England, inscribed upon it, and the other pieces the initials of the other colonies. Accompanying the device was the motto, Join or die.706

This description is sufficiently accurate, but elsewhere in the same work Lossing said that —

Some of the newspapers placed at their head the significant device used during the Stamp Act excitement, a serpent cut in ten pieces, with the inscription “Join or die!” or “Unite or die!”707

In 1881 Lossing again wrote:

When the quarrel between the British Parliament and the English-American colonies became warm, the patriotic newspapers in America, as well as handbills, bore devices emblematic of union. One was especially a favorite — namely, a snake, disjointed, each separate part representing one of the thirteen English-American colonies, with the words “Unite or die.” This snake device first appeared when the Stamp Act excitement was at its height.708

In 1884 Lossing once more wrote:

Already the idea of union had been suggested by a newspaper called the Constitutional Courant, bearing the device of a snake divided into several parts, each with the initial of a colony, and bearing the injunction, Join or Die! Only one issue of the Courant was made, but its suggestion was potent. The idea of the device was like an electric spark that kindled a flame which was never quenched.709

In 1892 John A. Stevens wrote:

In September the idea of union took definite shape. A broadside entitled the “Constitutional Courant,” secretly printed in New Jersey, was widely circulated in New-York, and later reprinted here and in Boston. It bore as a head-piece the device of a snake cut in parts to represent the colonies, with the motto “Unite or die,” the familiar symbol used by Dr. Franklin in his “Pennsylvania Gazette,” in 1754, to arouse the colonies to the danger of the French invasion. Copies of the “Courant” were handed about the streets of New-York by Lawrence Sweeney, an eccentric character, better known by his sobriquet of “Bloody News,” from his familiar cry announcing the army news during the sanguinary French war. When asked by Colden where he obtained the paper, he humorously answered, “From Peter Hasenkliver’s ironworks, please Your Honor.” The next day the “Courant” took up the joke, and gravely announced that it was there printed.710

The snake device of the Constitutional Courant has been reproduced several times, but each time incorrectly. In 1850 Buckingham, carefully specifying that “the copy before me . . . belongs to the library of Harvard College,” says that “in the centre of the title is the annexed device.”711 One would naturally suppose that “the annexed device” was that of the Harvard College Library copy of the Constitutional Courant.712 Now what Buckingham reproduced is not the design of the Harvard College Library copy of the Constitutional Courant, but is apparently a poorly executed copy of the device found in the Boston Gazette of May 21, 1754.713 In 1851 Lossing reproduced714 the Bradford device in the Pennsylvania Journal of 1774–1775, the implication being that it was the same as the device employed in the Constitutional Courant. This was not the case. Elsewhere what is apparently intended to be the device in the Constitutional Courant is reproduced, but what in reality is the Bradford device in the Pennsylvania Journal of 1774–1775.715

An attempt to ascertain by whom the Constitutional Courant was printed, and where it was printed, has not resulted in a satisfactory conclusion. Let us first consider by whom it was printed. In his address “To the Public,” Andrew Marvel states that “the authors of the following pieces having acquainted him that they had applied to the printers in York, who refused to publish them in their news-papers,” he “for his amusement furnished himself with a set of proper materials,” and that he will “occasionally publish any thing else that falls in” his way that seems suitable. Who was “Andrew Marvel”? There are. several reasons for thinking that it was William Goddard, one of the most noted American printers of the eighteenth century. First, there is Thomas’s assertion to that effect; and, while Thomas was often inaccurate, he had an unrivalled knowledge of the printers and printing of his time, and his statements about publishers and printers must always be received with respect and rejected with caution.716 Secondly, the Library Company of Philadelphia (Ridgway Branch) owns two documents, printed in 1773, signed “Andrew Marvell,” both of which are in the catalogue of that library attributed to Goddard.717 In 1765 he was the publisher of the Providence Gazette. According to Thomas this paper —

was discontinued from May 11, to August 24, 1765. On that day a paper was published, headed “Vox Populi, Vox Dei. A Providence Gazette Extraordinary. Printed by S. and W. Goddard.” After this, it was till January, 1767, “Printed by Sarah Goddard and Co.” It then appeared with this imprint — “Printed (in the Absence of William Goddard) by Sarah Goddard and Co.”718

Thomas also says that Goddard, “on leaving Providence, . . . was for a short time concerned with Holt, in Newyork, in publishing Parker’s Gazette and Post-Boy.”719 On December 1, 1766, Goddard entered into partnership in Philadelphia with Joseph Galloway and Thomas Wharton, and on January 26, 1767, began the publication of the Pennsylvania Chronicle.720 A bitter quarrel ensued, and in 1770 Goddard published a long pamphlet entitled “The Partnership: or the History of the Rise and Progress of the Pennsylvania Chronicle, &c.” After a brief introduction, Goddard begins the pamphlet as follows:

In June 1766, I came, a perfect stranger, on speculation, into this city, with a view to establish a press, if the prospect should be favourable, having observed by an advertisement in the Pennsylvania Gazette, that the partnership between Messrs. Franklin and Hall was expired, imagining as those gentlemen had made fortunes by the printing-business, that they were about retiring from the fatigues and cares incident to it. At this time I had a very complete office in Providence, in the colony of Rhode-Island, under the superintendence of Mrs. Sarah Goddard, my mother, and was in company with a gentleman of credit in the city of New-York. My inducement to leave Providence was the earnest invitation of Messrs. Parker and Holt, who wished to see me employed on a more extensive theatre, and offered to take me into partnership with them, without removing my materials from Providence, or advancing a shilling; but, unfortunately, after I had been a little time in New-York, a dispute arose between my two friends, which gave me great pain, and made my situation disagreeable, one insisting that I should join him, in opposition to the other, unless he would submit to particular terms proposed. I laboured incessantly to prevent an open rupture, and a newspaper controversy, and happily succeeded, preserving the good-will of both. I afterwards joined one of them, by the consent of the other, till I could find a more advantageous situation, which I soon after had a project of in Philadelphia.721

While this whole matter is obscure, there seems to be no good reason for rejecting Thomas’s conclusion that the Constitutional Courant “was printed by William Goddard, at Parker’s printing house . . . Goddard having previously obtained Parker’s permission to use his press.”

In regard to the place where the Constitutional Courant was printed, the facts are equally difficult to determine with certainty. Colden’s belief that it was printed at Woodbridge has been accepted by some writers, as Colden expressed the belief that it was printed at Woodbridge because copies of the skit were delivered to the post-rider at that place by Parker. But that may merely have been a blind on Parker’s part. If Thomas’s conclusion as to the printer of the piece is accepted, then the problem as to the place of publication resolves itself into the question as to where Parker’s press was on September 21, 1765 — whether at Woodbridge or at Burlington. Thomas says:

To accomodate the printing of Smith’s History of Newjersey in 1765, Parker removed his press to Burlington, and there began and completed the work, consisting of 570 pages, demy octavo, and then returned with his press to Woodbridge.722

That this statement is correct, is capable of proof. According to Mr. William Nelson,723 Parker published at Burlington only two works, both in the year 1765 — Smith’s History of New Jersey, and Votes of Assembly, November 26–30, 1765. The second work, as its title indicates, was published not earlier than November 26. The other work was also published late in the year. The following advertisement appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette of October 31 (p. 1/1):

NOW in the Press, to be speedily published, in one Volume Octavo, neatly bound and lettered, and sold by DAVID HALL, in Philadelphia, and JAMES PARKER, in Burlington;

The History of the Colony of NOVA CÆESARIA, or N E W-J E R S E Y.

Containing an Account of its first Settlement, progressive Improvements, the original and present Constitution, and other Events, to the Year MDCCXXI.

With some Particulars since, and a short View of its present State.

By SAMUEL SMITH.

Of the works published by Parker at Woodbridge in 1765, Mr. Nelson gives the following list, presumably arranged chronologically:

Acts, 20th Assembly, 11th Session. (May 21–June 20, 1765.)

The Constitutional Courant.

Pierson, Rev. John. Discourse on the Nature and Benefits of Christ’s Intercession.

[The Stamp Act.]

Votes, May 21–June 20, 1765.724

Of these five titles, two only are dated by Mr. Nelson. It is at once obvious that the Constitutional Courant is misplaced, for it was printed September 21, and so should come after the “Acts” and “Votes,” both of which must have been printed in May or June or possibly July. Editions of the Stamp Act were advertised for sale in the Boston Gazette of June 17 (p. 1/1), in the Pennsylvania Journal of June 20 (p. 1/3), and in Holt’s New-York Gazette of June 20 (p. 2/3). Hence it may safely be assumed that Parker’s edition was printed in June, certainly not later than July.725 Pierson’s Discourse was apparently not advertised in either the Pennsylvania Gazette or the Pennsylvania Journal, and so its exact date of publication cannot be determined. But at all events there is no proof that Parker published anything at Woodbridge later than June or July; while it is certain that on October 31 Smith’s History of New Jersey was in the press and “to be speedily published,” and was published that year at Burlington.726 Was the printing of that volume of 584 octavo pages begun before or after September 21? Obviously, the known facts do not warrant a positive answer; but they do point to the probability that the volume was begun before that date.727

These remarks in regard to the place of publication refer only to the edition of the Constitutional Courant corresponding to form A, as that, being identical with the copy sent Conway by Colden, is supposed to be the original edition.728 As to the editions alleged to have been reprinted in New York,729 Boston,730 and Philadelphia,731 all is conjecture. It is possible that a minute comparison of types would determine the places of publication, but until that is undertaken it will be well to observe caution.

III

After the Constitutional Courant ran its course in 1765, the snake device did not again appear in a newspaper, so far as I have been able to ascertain, until June, 1774. Between those dates, however, it turned up at least once in an unexpected place. In 1769 Governor Bernard, having just before been made a baronet, returned to England. The language applied to him on his departure by the good Bostonians has for virulence seldom been surpassed in political warfare; while that with which he was assailed in the newspapers would at the present day scarcely be admitted to our most “yellow” journals. Dr. Benjamin Church wrote a savage poem entitled, “An Address to A Provincial Bashaw. O Shame! where is thy Blush? By a Son of Liberty. Printed in (the Tyrannic Administration of St. Francisco) 1769.” Another poem containing forty-five four-line stanzas bore the following title:

An Elegy to the infamous Memory of S^r. F---B------- “Auri cæcus Amore, Vendidit hic Patriam.” Printed in the Year M,DCC,LXIX.

On the verso of the title appeared our now familiar snake device — the design identical with that in form B of the Constitutional Courant of 1765. Above the device are the words “JOIN OR DIE,” while below are these lines:

Not the harsh Threats of Tyrants bearing Rule,

Nor Guile-cloak’d-Meekness of each cringing Tool;

Shall shake our Firmness, or divide That Love

Which the strong Ties of social Friendship prove.

John Holt, the publisher of the New-York Journal, used the Royal Arms as a device for his paper; but on June 23, 1774, they were displaced by a snake device. In Holt’s device, the snake itself is of a somewhat different design from either that of 1754 or that of 1765; and was divided into nine parts, instead of eight — Georgia forming the tail. The motto was also different from the previous devices, being now the words “unite or die.” This device was used by Holt in the issues of the New-York Journal from June 23 to December 8, 1774, both included. On December 15, 1774, he changed the snake device to another, thus described by Thomas:

The snake was united, and coiled with the tail in its mouth, forming a double ring; within the coil was a pillar standing on Magna Charta, and surmounted with the cap of liberty; the pillar on each side was supported by six arms and hands, figurative of the colonies.732

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts from original in the Possession of the Lenox Library

On the body of the snake, beginning at the head, were these words:

UNITED NOW FREE AND ALIVE FIRM ON THIS BASIS LIBERTY SHALL STAND AND THUS SUPPORTED EVER BLESS OUR LAND TILL TIME BECOMES ETERNITY

This device was employed by Holt in the New-York Journal from December 15, 1774, to August 29, 1776, both included.

On July 7, 1774, Thomas introduced in the title of his paper the Massachusetts Spy, and retained until the last issue published in Boston on April 6, 1775, a design unlike anything that had thus far appeared. It is thus described by Thomas:

On the 7th of July, 1774, . . . a new political device appeared in the title of this paper — a snake and a dragon. The dragon represented Greatbritain, and the snake the colonies. The snake was divided into nine parts, the head was one part, and under it N.E. as representing Newengland; the second part N.Y. for Newyork; the third N. J. for Newjersey; the fourth P. for Pennsylvania; the fifth M. for Maryland; the sixth V. for Virginia; the seventh N.C. for Northcarolina; the eighth S.C. for Southcarolina; and the ninth part or tail, for Georgia. The head and tail of the snake were supplied with stings, for defence against the dragon, which appeared furious, and as bent on attacking the snake. Over the several parts of the snake, was this motto, in large capitals, “join or die!” This device, which was extended under the whole width of the title of the Spy, appeared in every succeeding paper whilst it was printed in Boston.733

In the issue of the Pennsylvania Journal of July 27, 1774, William and Thomas Bradford, having discarded the device previously used in the title, introduced a snake device. This was evidently copied from the snake device employed by Holt in the New-York Journal from June 23 to December 8, 1774. The chief difference between the two designs is that in the one used by the Bradfords the portion of the snake allotted to Georgia is apparently divided into two parts. I say “apparently,” because there is no conceivable reason why there should be a division, and I incline to the opinion that it was owing to a defect in the drawing or in the printing. The Bradfords retained their snake device for about fifteen months, it appearing for the last time in the Pennsylvania Journal in the issue of October 18, 1775.

These three papers — the New-York Journal, the Massachusetts Spy, and the Pennsylvania Journal — were, so far as I am aware, the only papers to adopt a snake device. It was not long before these devices attracted attention in the newspapers. In Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer of August 25, 1774, were printed these lines (p. 3/2):

For the New-York Gazetteer.

On the Snake, depicted at the Head of some American News Papers.

YE Sons of Sedition, how comes it to pass,

That America’s typ’d by a Snake — in the grass?

Don’t you think ’tis a scandalous, saucy reflection,

That merits the soundest, severest Correction,

New-England’s the Head too; — New England’s abused;

For the Head of the Serpent we know should be Bruised.

These lines, reprinted in the Boston News-Letter of September 8 (p. 2/3), drew from the patriots at least two replies. The first appeared in the Bradfords’ Pennsylvania Journal of August 31 (p. 3/2):

For the Pennsylvania Journal.

To the Author of the Lines, in Mr. Rivington’s Paper, on the Snake depicted in some of the American News-Papers.

THAT New-England’s abus’d, and by sons of sedition,

Is granted without either prayer or petition.

And that “’tis a scandalous, saucy reflection,

That merits the soundest, severest correction,”

Is as readily granted. “How comes it to pass?”

Because she is pester’d with snakes in the grass;

Who by lying and cringing, and such like pretensions,

Get places once honoured, disgraced with pensions.

And you, Mr. Pensioner, instead of repentance,

(If I don’t mistake you) have wrote your own sentence;

For by such Snakes as this, New-England’s abused,

And the head of these serpents, “you know, should be bruised.”

NEW-JERSEY.

Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts from Original in the Possesion of the American Antiquarian Society

The other reply was printed in the Massachusetts Spy of September 15 (p. 3/3):

On reading the piece, (inserted in Draper’s last paper) relative to the Snake at the head of some of the American Papers.

YE traitors! the Snake ye with wonder behold,

Is not the deceiver so famous of old;

Nor is it the Snake in the grass that ye view,

Which would be a striking resemblance of you,

Who aiming your stings at your own country’s heel,

Its Weight and resentment to crush you — should feel.

Violent as political controversies were in the stormy decade which preceded the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the printers of the newspapers at least showed a sense of humor and did not hesitate to print communications aimed at themselves. In his New-York Journal of September 15, 1774, Holt printed the following (p. 4/1):

A MIRROR for a Printer.

WITHOUT one grain of honest sense,

One virtuous view, or just pretence

To patriotic flame;

Without a patriot heart or mind,

(Your snake and stones have this defin’d)

Behold your type with shame!

In the same paper of September 29, 1774, appeared these lines (p. 4/1), which were reprinted in the Massachusetts Spy of October 27 (p. 4/1):

On the British Ministry, and New-England, the Head of the American Snake.

AN EPIGRAM. 1774.

BRitain’s sons line the coast of Atlantic all o’er,

Great of length, but in breadth they now wind on a shore

That’s divided by inlets, by creeks, and by bays, —

A snake*734 cut in parts, a pat emblem convey —

The fell junto at home — sure their heads are but froth —

Fain this snake would have caught to supply viper broth

For their worn constitution — and to it they go,

Hurry Tom, without his yes or his no,

On the boldest adventure their annals can show:

By their wisdom advised, he their courage displays,

For they seiz’d on the tongue ’mong their first of essays;

Nor once thought of the teeth, when our snake they assail —

Tho’ the prudent catch snakes by the back or the tail —

To direct to the head! — our GOOD KING must indite ’em —

They forgot that the head would most certainly bite ’em.

It has already been stated that on December 15, 1774, Holt changed the design in the title of his paper from a divided snake to a double coiled snake, with its tail in its mouth. As a result, the following lines appeared in Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer of January 19, 1775 (p. 2/2):

To Neighbour H O L T, On his Emblematical Twistification.

TIS true, Johnny Holt, you have caus’d us some pain, by changing your Head-piece again and again;

But then to your praise it may justly be said,

You have given us a Notable Tail piece in stead.

’Tis true, that the Arms of a good British King,

Have been forc’d to give way to a Snake — with a Sting;

Which some would interpret, as tho’ it imply’d,

That the King of a wound by that Serpent had died.

But now must their Malice all sink into Shade,

By the happy Device which you lately display’d;

And Tories themselves be convinc’d you are slander’d,

Who see you ’ve erected the RIGHT Royal Standard.

In a Boston town meeting held March 13, 1775, it was “Voted, that the Com̄ittee of Correspondence be directed to draw up an exact State of the Behavior of the Troops, under the Command of General Gage; & of the Navy, under the Command of Admiral Graves.”735 This vote was printed in the Massachusetts Spy, published by Isaiah Thomas, in its issue of March 30; and was reprinted, “From Thomas’s chronicle of sedition,” in Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer of April 6 (p. 3/2). It caught the eye of a Philadelphia Quaker and drew from him some satirical verses which, with the following introduction, were printed in Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer of April 13 (p. 2/3):

Friend James,736

When thy papers first appeared, thou used’st now and then to favour the public with some small specimens of poesy; but since the commencement of our political controversies, little of that kind of divertisement hath found its way into thy Gazetteer; albeit in other papers we have seen full many a speech, and full many a proclamation, right quaintly rhymed: in imitation of which worthy labours, I send thee the following versification of the proceedings of Boston great Teawn-ship,737 as they appeared in thy last, said to be taken from Thomas’s Snake of Sedition; by inserting of which in thy next, thou wilt at least oblige

A Friend and Customer.

Philadelphia, April 10, 1775.

So far as I have observed, the above is the last allusion to the snake device that appeared in the newspapers. This device was used for the last time by Thomas in his Massachusetts Spy on April 6, 1775; by the Bradfords in their Pennsylvania Journal on October 18, 1775; and by Holt in his New-York Journal on August 29, 1776.738 Thus disappeared from the press a design which had been before the public more or less for twenty-two years.

This paper may conveniently close with a list of the facsimile reproductions which accompany it:

I. Snake device, Pennsylvania Gazette, May 9, 1754, from an original in the possession of the American Antiquarian Society, facing page 416.
II. Snake device, Boston Gazette, May 21, 1754, from an original in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society, facing page 416.
III. Snake device, Boston News-Letter, May 23, 1754, from an original in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society, facing page 416.
IV. Snake device, Boston Evening-Post, October 7, 1765, from an original in the possession of the Boston Athenæum, facing page 416.
V. Title of the Constitutional Courant, September 21, 1765, form A, from an original in the possession of the Lenox Library, facing page 422.
VI. Title of the Constitutional Courant, September 21, 1765, form B, from an original in the possession of the Boston Athenæum, facing page 422.
VII. Title of the New-York Journal, June 23, 1774, from an original in the possession of the Lenox Library, facing page 446.
VIII. Title of the New-York Journal, December 15, 1774, from an original in the possession of the Lenox Library, facing page 446.
IX. Title of the Massachusetts Spy, July 7, 1774, from an original in the possession of the American Antiquarian Society, facing page 448.
X. Title of the Pennsylvania Journal, July 27, 1774, from an original in the possession of the American Antiquarian Society, facing page 448.

POSTSCRIPT.

Since the above paper was written I have been informed by Dr. I. Minis Hays that the American Philosophical Society owns a copy of form C of the Constitutional Courant, and that “in the third line from the end [p. 427, line 25, above] it reads ‘is abhorred by all the genuine sons of slavery’ without an interrogation mark. The word ‘slavery’ has been crossed out with a pen and the word ‘liberty’ inserted.” This interesting bit of information has caused me to collate the copy of form A printed in the text (pages 422–427, above) with the Harvard College copy of form C. It will be observed that while the American Philosophical Society’s copy of form C has, in the place indicated, “slavery” without an interrogation mark, the Harvard College copy of form C has “slavery” with an interrogation mark.

The collation follows.

Page 422, lines 2–3 of the address “To the Public,” instead of “the publisher, and the design of,” form C has “the publisher and design of.”

Page 422, line 6, instead of “authors of the following pieces,” form C has “author of the following piece.”

Page 422, line 8, instead of “them,” form C has “it.”

Page 422, line 12, instead of “these pieces are,” form C has “this piece is.”

Page 422, line 16, instead of “I,” form C has “I.”

Page 423, line 1, instead of “privileges,” form C has “priviledges.”

Page 423, line 14, form C has a comma after “terms.”

Page 423, lines 14–15, instead of “privileges,” form C has “priviledges” with a comma after it.

Page 423, line 25, instead of “Shall we,” form C has “shall we.”

Page 424, line 21, instead of “Gath!’” form C has “Gath!” — that is, without the single quotation mark.

Page 425, line 15, instead of “privilege,” form C has “privileges.”

Page 426, line 6, instead of “King,” form C has “a king.”

Page 426, line 9, instead of “Atlantic,” form C has “Atlantick.”

Page 426, line 11, instead of “villains,” form C has “villians.”

Page 426, line 20, instead of “Westward,” form C has “westward.”

Page 426, line 28, instead of “true lovers of their country,” form C has “true lovers of their country.”

Page 426, line 40, instead of “public,” form C has “publick.”

Page 427, line 13, instead of “and we fear,” form C has “and fear.”

Page 427, line 16, instead of “’tis too,” form C has “’its too.”

Page 427, line 21, instead of “villain,” form C has “villian.”

Page 427, line 23, instead of “Eastern,” form C has “eastern.”

Page 427, line 25, instead of “sons of liberty?” form C has “sons of slavery?”

It should also be added that in the title form C has “[NUM. 1.]” instead of “[NUMB. 1.]” as in form A; and that the word “COURANT” in the title is in form C followed by a period, instead of a semicolon as in form A.

1 Stiles, History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor (1892), ii. 194.

2 Ibid. ii. 212.

3 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 204, xxviii. 102.

4 Stiles, History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor (1891), i. 594, 602, ii. 625; Dexter, Yale Biographies and Annals, ii. 265.

5 Stiles, History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, ii. 227, 625. See also ii. 210–227.

6 Ibid. ii. 561.

7 Ibid. i. 576. See also Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 230–232.

8 Stiles, History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, i. 577.

9 Ibid. i. 722, ii. 561.

10 Ibid. i. 713, 714.

11 Ibid. i. 722. For further facts concerning Mr. Perry, see ibid. i. 574–577, 653, ii. 723; Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 231 note.

12 A few of the missing words have been supplied conjecturally between brackets.

13 Capt. William Nichols was a charter member of the Marine Society at Newburyport, incorporated 13 October, 1777 (Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 737, 823–825). He attended the St. Patrick’s Day dinner in Boston, 17 March, 1767 (Letters and Diary of John Rowe, 1903, p. 125). See ibid. pp. 318, 407.

14 The allusion is probably to Jonathan Mason, a prominent Boston merchant, an Overseer of the Poor (1760–1787), Treasurer of the Board (17871795), and one of the Selectmen, chosen in the preceding March in the room of John Rowe, who declined further service (Diary, p. 183). He was also of the first Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Bank, incorporated 25 February, 1784 (Memorial Ilistory of Boston, iv. 200, 201). On 20 March, 1775, James Hooker and Oliver Mather, a committee of the town of Windsor, Connecticut, appointed “to receive donations for the poor of Boston,” addressed a letter to Mr. Mason announcing the shipment to him of the provisions they had collected (Stiles, History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut, i. 310). See also Manual for the use of the Overseers of the Poor in the City of Boston (1866), pp. 160, 162.

15 Capt. Constant Freeman, a sea-captain, sailed between Boston and London and later settled at Quebec. He was the father of the Rev. Dr. James Freeman (Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 378; Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 375; Letters and Diary of John Rowe, pp. 88, 144, 234).

16 The assault on Mr. Otis occurred on Tuesday, 5 September, 1769, about seven o’clock in the evening. See the Boston Gazette of Monday, 11 September, 1769, p. 2/3.

17 The British Coffee House, later known as the American Coffee House, stood in State Street, on the northerly side, and had a frontage of thirty-eight or thirty-nine feet and a uniform depth of seventy feet, the westerly line of the estate being forty-four or forty-five feet east of Fitch’s, Flagg’s or Pierce’s Alley, now known as ’Change Avenue. The property was bought for £1450, 25 April, 1792, by the Massachusetts Bank (Suffolk Deeds, clxxiii. 28, 29), and, on the west, adjoined the estate on the easterly corner of ’Change Avenue long owned and occupied by the Suffolk Bank. At the time of the assault on Otis this last named lot was the site of the London Book Store, mentioned below (p. 6 note 4). These two properties are now (1906) covered by the Massachusetts Building, numbered 60 in State Street. The Massachusetts Bank erected and occupied a stone building on its purchase, and held the lot, with additions in the rear made in 1799, 1810, and 1810 at a cost of $8,138.34 (ibid, cxcii. 158, ccxxxi. 217, cccclix. 105), till 23 April, 1860, when it sold the estate, then measuring 38 feet 10 inches on State Street, 31 feet 4 inches in the rear on the Hancock Tavern lot, and having a uniform depth of 163 feet 8 inches, and containing 5732²⁶/₁₀₀ square feet, to Moses Williams, grandfather of our associate bearing the same name, for $160,000 (ibid, dcclxxviii. 225. See also ibid, clxxxvii. 184, 186, cccci. 17, cccclxx. 58, dxxvi. 165). In 1906 this land alone was taxed by the city of Boston on a valuation of eighty dollars a square foot. Corn Court, which originally ran only southerly from Faneuil Hall Square, but which has since been extended, at right angles, easterly on irregular lines to Merchants’ Row, makes a part of the northern boundary of the Coffee House lot, and was undoubtedly the “back passage” through which Robinson fled after his assault on Otis. See Tudor, Life of James Otis, p. 363.

18 The only John Gridley of whom any record is found in Boston who may have been the person mentioned in the text was John, son of Isaac and Sarah (Porter) Gridley, who was baptized 16 October, 1737. He had elder brothers, Benjamin, baptized 4 February, 1732–33, and Pollard, baptized 28 March; 1735 (Registers of the New South Church). See Frothinghatn, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, p. 167 note; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports xxiv. 207, 221, xxviii. 143; Suffolk Probate Files, no. 14,062. A letter by John Gridley relating to Robinson’s assault on Otis is printed in the Boston Gazette of 25 September, 1769, p. 2/3.

19 For an account of this assault and the occurrences which led up to it, see Tudor, Life of James Otis, pp. 354–366; Works of John Adams (1850), ii. 219 and note; Letters of James Murray (1901), p. 159; Letters and Diary of John Rowe, p. 192.

20 Murray gives a full account of this incident in a letter to a friend in New York dated Boston, 30 September, 1769 (Letters, pp. 159–162); and it is alluded to by John Rowe in his Diary (p. 192). Murray was handled so rougldy by the people that they were rebuked by Jonathan Mason, one of the Selectmen.

21 John Mein’s shop (1765–1769) was in King, now State, Street, “at the London Book Store, Second Door above the British Coffee House” (see above, p. 5 note 3); and in 1767, in partnership with John Fleeming, he started the Boston Chronicle, which was printed in Newbury Street, almost opposite the White Horse Tavern (Publications of this Society, ix. 483). See also ibid. v. 283 and note; Letters of James Murray, pp. 168–174; Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists in the American Revolution, ii. 78; Thomas, History of Printing (1810), i. 361–365; Buckingham, Specimens of Newspaper Literature, i. 212–216; Loring, Hundred Boston Orators (1853), pp. 23, 24.

The Boston Gazette of Monday, 29 July, 1771, p. 3/2, announces: “This day is opened, a new London Bookstore, by Henry Knox, opposite Williams’s Court in Cornhill, Boston.” This Washington Street site has sometimes been confounded with that in State Street, above mentioned.

22 John Robinson, one of the Commissioners of the Customs, against whom Otis brought an action and recovered damages in £2000 sterling, was married at Trinity Church exactly a month after this affair, 5 October, 1769, to Anne Boutiueau (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxx. 400), the daughter of James Boutineau, who defended his son-in-law in this suit. Robinson gave bonds to answer to it and sailed for England 16 March, 1770, — “goes home to represent all these things in their proper light” (Letters and Diary of John Rowe, pp. 179, 199; Publications of this Society, vii. 4 note 2; Letters of James Murray, p. 165). He returned to sign, in August, 1772, a written apology acknowledging his fault and begging Otis’s pardon, to pay the costs of court, and to receive a discharge, drawn by Otis, from the payment of the heavy damages awarded him. See Tudor, Life of James Otis, pp. 365, 503506; Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists in the American Revolution, i. 241, 242, ii. 229, 230.

23 Professor John Winthrop (H. C. 1732). For a notice of him, see Publications of this Society, vii. 321–329. Concerning the appearance of the comet, see Letters and Diary of John Rowe, pp. 191, 192.

24 See Publications of this Society, v. 265–268.

25 This facsimile is made from the signature appended to another letter of Dr. Young. Of the signature to the letter in the text only “Young” remains, but the identity of the handwriting is apparent. An address was added to the letter in the text, but only the letters “Po” (or “Pe”) can be deciphered.

26 My thanks are due to Messrs. Frederick L. Gay, Herbert Putnam, William P. Greenlaw, Julius H. Tuttle, Edmund M. Barton, John Woolf Jordan, I. Minis Hays, Robert H. Kelby, Wilberforce Eames, Charles K. Bolton, and Albert Matthews for aid received in the preparation of this communication. I have also had the advantage of access to the Notes on early American Physicians by the late Dr. J. M. Toner, now in the Library of Congress.

27 The original of Charles Clinton’s Journal is now in the New York State Library.

28 After this Memoir had been written and was about to be put to press, Miss Charlotte van Peyma of the New York State Library at Albany, in response to inquiries, called my attention to the fact that Mr. Edward M. Ruttenber, the author of the historical sketch of New Windsor which appeared in 1881 in the History of Orange County, was still living at Newburgh, New York. From him I learned that he had in his possession a copy, made by himself about thirty years since, of a manuscript account of the Young and Clinton families written a century ago by Dr. Joseph Young, a brother of Dr. Thomas Young, who was living at that time (11 April, 1807) at No. 53 Catharine Street, New York City. This he has been so kind as to allow me to copy for use in completing this Memoir. There is an account of the Clintons, based largely on this manuscript, in Dr. David Hosack’s Memoir of De Witt Clinton (1829), pp. 22–24, 137–141.

29 Dr. Joseph Young served as surgeon prior to his appointment as Hospital Physician and Surgeon, 20 September, 1781, and until the close of the war (Heitman, Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army, 1775–1783, Washington, 1893, p. 448). In the Knox Manuscripts (xvi. 115), in the cabinet of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, is a letter, dated at Albany, 30 December, 1783, written to Gen. Henry Knox by Dr. Joseph Young “Hospital Surgeon.” Dr. Joseph Young’s narrative, mentioned in the preceding note, bears the following title: “A Genealogical and Biographical Sketch, written by Joseph Young at the request of his niece, Barbara Amelia Hertell, who wished to gain some knowledge of her progenitors and collateral kindred, as recollected in memory. Written in June 1807.” See p. 50 and note, below.

30 John Crawford purchased lands in New Windsor in 1738. He is presumed to have been son of James Crawford, and brother of James, 2nd.

31 Jane, widow of Thomas Armstrong, died at Little Britain, 5 February, 1761, aged 84 years (gravestone in Clinton burial ground at Little Britain). Thomas Armstrong, who was her second husband, died, as already stated, on the voyage to America.

32 John Young died in 1784 aged 82 years. [Note by Dr. Joseph Young.]

33 These farms were on the Andrew Johnston Patent, the centre and seat of Little Britain and its immediate vicinity. The deeds to Clinton and Young were dated 22 August, 1730. In the log-house built on John Young’s farm, Dr. Thomas Young was born. About 1764, probably on his removal to Albany, John Young sold this estate to John Welling, who, in 1765, built on the site of the log-house, which was moved to one side but has long since disappeared, a stone house known as the Welling Homestead, which to-day shelters his descendants in the fourth and fifth generations.

All through the large district to which the name [Little Britain] was applied, the great majority of the settlers were Scotch-Irish or English-Irish and nearly all were Presbyterians. Agreeing very generally in their religious views, they were also remarkable for the uniformity of their political convictions. When it came down to the era of the Revolution, there were but few who were Tories or King’s men, and these were mainly members of the Church of England, of whom there was a sprinkling in the neighborhood. Charles Clinton, through his sons, Governor George and Gen. James, and his grandson Governor DeWitt, has, perhaps, the most extended historical reputation in the politics of the State. . . . The neighborhood was composed of men of strong natural abilities and marked character (E. M. Huttenber and L. H. Clark, History of Orange Comity, New York, pp. 211, 214, 215, 222).

34 This, probably, was the Rev. John Moffat, whose school was known as Moffat’s Academy (Ruttenber and Clark, History of Orange County, p. 212).

35 Concerning the Winegars, who were Palatines and who lived in Amenia, see James H. Smith, History of Duchess County, New York (1882), pp. 335, 336; Newton Reed, Early History of Amenia (1875), pp. 16–20; and below, p. 50 notes 1 and 4.

36 Collections of the New York Historical Society, Second Series, ii. pp. 125, 126. Benson was the first President of the Society. See also Newton Reed, Early History of Amenia, pp. 45, 46 and notes, 106 and note; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlvii. 215.

37 See p. 50 note 4, below.

38 Mrs. Wadhams was Ethan Allen’s sister-in-law. Abigail Beebe married, (1) Capt. Heman Allen of Salisbury, Litchfield County, Connecticut, and after his death in May, 1778, (2) Solomon Wadhams (Y. C. 1762) of Goshen, Connecticut, in 1780. She died in Goshen 3 June, 1844, in her 91st year (Dexter, Yale Biographies and Annals, ii. 773, 774). See also Stiles, History of Ancient Wethers field, Connecticut (1904), ii. 772; Cothren, History of Ancient Woodbury, Connecticut (1854), i. 414; Hemenway, Vermont Historical Gazetteer (1867), i. 561 and note, 562.

39 A note in Wells’s Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (ii. 238) refers to Dr. Young as “among the earliest and most uncompromising of the Boston patriots . . . and a valued friend of Samuel Adams,” — a fact of present interest considering the pronounced orthodox religious views which Mr. Adams always held.

40 Captain Aaron Davis, Jr., a merchant of Boston and Roxbury, was born 18 October, 1735, married Susannah Craft 20 November, 1760, and died 12 October, 1773. In June, 1771, he was appointed Captain of the train of Artillery of the First Suffolk Regiment. His early death was attributed to exposure while drilling his troops. The announcement of his death in the Boston News-Letter of Thursday, 14 October, 1773 (p. 3/2), describes him as “a worthy, honest, useful Man, — a great Public Loss.” He was son of Colonel Aaron Davis, born 26 April, 1709, who married Mary Perrin 25 January, 1732–33, and died 11 June, 1777. The father was an active Patriot and served on many committees to protest against the policy of the British Government toward the Colonies. In November, 1774, he was chosen Captain of the Company raised from the First Parish; and he represented Roxbury in the three Provincial Congresses, 1774–1776.

I am indebted to Mr. Horatio Davis for the facts contained in this note. See Roxbury Town and Church Records; F. S. Drake, The Town of Roxbury, in Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxxiv. 23–30, 36, 82, 89, 92, 103, 110, 142, 461.

41 The town meeting at which this action was taken was held 20 November, 1772 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 93–108).

42 Dr. Young was the author of an anonymous pamphlet entitled —

Some Reflections on the Disputes between New-York, New-Hampshire, and Col. John Henry Lydius of Albany. Vui ab altero fere tuleris, ne inferes ipse. To these Reflections are added, Some Rules of Law, fit to be observed in purchasing Land, &c. New-Haven: Printed and sold by Benjamin Mecom. 1764.

The copy of this rare octavo tract in the Lenox Library is more complete than any other of which I can learn. Mr. Wilberforce Eames writes concerning it:

Our copy ends on p. 21 thus:

Sic optat, Sic spirat, Philodicaios.

The reverse of this leaf is blank. Then follows one page in verse (reverse blank), headed: “From an Old Book. Rules of Law, fit to be observed in purchasing Land, &c.”

For a notice of Col. John Henry Lydius and his part in these disputes, see Hiland Hall, History of Vermont (1868), pp. 169, 495–497.

43 Dr. Young was one of the Sons of Liberty of Albany as early as 1 March, 1766, when he attended, as a delegate from New York, a conference of the Sons from several of the Colonies held at the Court House in Annapolis, Maryland (Isaac Q. Leake, Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb, 1857, pp. 3, 4).

44 Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, p. 399; Narrative and Critical History of America, viii. 160. See also 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xi. 142.

45 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xvi. 253–255. See also Letters and Diary of John Rowe, pp. 165, 166.

46 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xvi. 255.

47 Ibid, xxiii. 23.

48 Wells, Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, i. 366.

49 Ibid. i. 379. See Publications of this Society, vi. 390, 391 and note; 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, iv. 28.

50 This building stood where Hamilton Place now is. It was selected for this occasion, because the first opposition to the soldiers had been made here in October, 1768. Mr. John Brown, having possession of the building as a tenant under the Province, refused admission to the military. The Sheriff was sent by Gov. Bernard to take possession and was refused admittance. On a third attempt he found a window open, and entered by that; upon which, the people gathered about him, and made him prisoner (Snow, History of Boston, 1828, p. 285 and note).

“The Bells of the several Congregational Meeting-houses, were tolled from XII o’clock at Noon till 1. . . . An Oration was delivered in the Evening, by Dr. Young, at the Hall of the Manufactory, a Building originally designed for Encouraging Manufactories and Employing the Poor.— The Oration it is said, contained a brief Account of the Massacre; of the Imputations of Treason and Rebellion, with which the Tools of Power endeavoured to brand the Inhabitants, and a Discant upon the Nature of Treasons, with some Considerations on the Threats of the British Ministry to take away the Massachusets Charter, &c. &c.” (Boston Weekly News-Letter of Thursday, 7 and 14 March, 1771, pp. 3/3, 3/1.) See also J. S. Loring, Hundred Boston Orators, pp. 24, 25.

51 An Oration delivered March 15, 1775, at the Request of a Number of the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, by Dr. Thomas Bolton (1775), p. 3.

52 Ibid. pp. 6, 7.

53 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 47.

54 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 49–51.

55 Ibid, xviii. 53, 54.

56 Ibid, xxiii. 97. Patience (Lovell) Wright (1725–1785), wife of Joseph Wright of Bordentown, New Jersey, was “a lady of uncommon talent [who] made herself famous for likenesses in wax, in the cities of her native country . . . [and] was enabled to seek more extensive fame, and more splendid fortune in the metropolis of Great Britain . . . [where] her work was considered of an extraordinary kind” (Dunlap, History of the Rise and Progress of the Arts of Design in the United States, 1834, i. 132). Her only son Joseph, a pupil of West, was a successful portrait painter, modeller in clay, and die sinker in England, France and the United States, and in 1784 he painted a portrait of Washington for the Count de Solms (ibid. i. 313). Her elder daughter, who married an American by the name of Platt, inherited something of her mother’s talent and made herself known in New York, about 1787, by her modelling in wax (ibid. i. 134). “Her younger daughter married Hopner, the rival of Stuart and Lawrence as a portrait painter” (ibid. i. 135, 312). In the summer of 1781 Abigail Adams “went to see the celebrated Mrs. Wright” at her studio in London, and in a letter to her sister Mrs. Cranch, she gives an amusing description of her visit and of the artist’s personality (Letters of Mrs. Adams, 1810, ii. 32, 33).

Mrs. Wells, mentioned in the text, was a sister of Mrs. Wright. She practised her art in Philadelphia, where John Adams visited her in the spring of 1777. “There is genius as well as taste and art discovered in this exhibition [of wax-work]. But I must confess the whole scene was disagreeable to me” (Letters of John Adams, addressed to his Wife, 1841, i. 223, 224).

57 Suffolk Deeds, cxxii. 5.

58 For an interesting account of the site of this tavern, also known as the States Armas, by the late Mr. John T. Hassam, see New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1880, xxxiv. 41–48. Mr. Hassam also described the site of the Castle Tavern, later known as the George Tavern, which stood nearby, at the westerly corner of Dock Square and Elm Street, in ibid, xxxiii. 400–403.

59 Suffolk Deeds, cxxii. 6. In 1781 John White assigned his mortgage to David Bradlee of Boston for £140.8 (ibid, cxxxii. 169). Dr. Young died seized of this property, in 1777, after his removal from Massachusetts. In Suffolk Deeds (cxl. 87) is recorded an order of the Probate Court for the District of Sharon, County of Litchfield, Connecticut, to Lieut. David Doty of said Sharon, physician, administrator of the estate of Dr. Thomas Young, late of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, deceased, to make sale of the real estate of said Young for the benefit of creditors. In pursuance of it, on 11 November, 1783, Doty sold the property in Wing’s Lane for £230, lawful silver money, to David Bradlee before mentioned (ibid. cxl. 87). Bradlee sold to John Wyer, for £400, 7 November, 1792 (ibid, clxxiv. 106), and he in turn, for £3020, sold to Elizabeth Brewer, widow, 15 August, 1804 (ibid. ccix. 137), who, for $3,300, sold it to David Greenough of Boston, merchant, 26 January, 1818 (ibid, cclvii. 236). See below, p. 52.

60 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 93; Wells, Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, ii. 127; Frothingham, Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 267 and note.

61 Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, p. 30; E. G. Porter, Rambles in Old Boston, New England, pp. 97, 98, 272.

Police Station No. 8 stands on the easterly end of the Salutation Tavern lot, on the northeasterly corner of Salutation Street and what is now Commercial Street. As early as 27 October, 1692, the messuage then called the Salutation, later known as “the sign of the Two Palaverers,” was conveyed, for £544, by Elizabeth Green, wife of William Green of Malden, as executrix of her former husband, John Brooking, late of Boston, mariner, to Sir William Phips, the nearly rectangular lot then measuring 49 feet on the Street and 237 feet on the Alley (Suffolk Deeds, xv. 210). See also ibid. i. 57, iv. 58, xxiii. 38, xxxviii. 45, xlii. 241, xlix. 2, cix. 18, cxlv. 85, cccxxi. 267; John Brooking’s will, 1683, in Suffolk Probate Files, miscellaneous docket; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxv. 248.

62 Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, pp. 169, 170.

63 J. S. Loring, Hundred Boston Orators, p. 77; E. G. Porter, Rambles in Old Boston, New England, p. 272. See also E. H. Goss, Life of Colonel Paul Revere, i. 117, 120, 133, ii. 636–638, 644.

64 E. H. Goss, Life of Colonel Paul Revere, ii. 642.

65 Letters and Diary of John Rowe, pp. 252, 253.

66 Wells, Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, ii. Ill; Frothingham, Rise of the Republic of the United States, pp. 305, 307, 308, 334.

67 History of the United States (1854), vi. 478, 486.

68 Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, pp. 247, 264, 265.

69 F. S. Drake, Tea Leaves (1884), pp. 93, 171, 172. See ibid. pp. 23 note, 32, 44, 50, 59, 64, 90, 91; 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xii. 174–181, xiii. 171, xx. 15; Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, p. 279 note.

70 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 169; E. H. Goss, Life of Colonel Paul Revere, ii. 614.

71 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 178.

72 Letters and Diary of John Rowe, p. 276.

73 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 183.

74 Deacon John Barrett, a prominent Boston merchant, was born 21 June, 1708; married Sarah Gerrish, 3 June, 1731; chosen Deacon of the New North Church, 6 December, 1742; and died 9 September, 1786 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 54, xxviii. 170; Records of the New North Church, p. 242; Suffolk Probate Files, no. 18, 757; Letters and Diary of John Rowe, pp. 195, 216; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlii. 263).

75 Failing to identify “Wilder the Postman,” I addressed a note of inquiry to Mr. C. W. Ernst, whose knowledge of all matters concerning the postal service of this country, the legislation affecting it, and its history is recondite. An extract from his reply follows:

Your very interesting question refers, I think, to Silent Wilde, Shutesbury, who was the local express. as we now say, between Boston and Deerfield, from 1761 to 1775, that is, I have no earlier record of his service than Boston Post-Boy, 6 April, 1761, p. 3/3, nor any later than New-England Chronicle, 26 October, 1775, p. 2/ 2.

He must have been satisfactory, as he had a monopoly, and the postal legislation of Massachusetts did not interfere with him in 1775.

His chief business was to sell newspapers; in addition he carried letters, did a little money-order business, and executed all sorts of commissions. He was usually called “post-man,” but had nothing to do with the official postal service.

His route was important, being the connecting link between Boston and Canada. Infact, the route began in 1759, when Quebec fell, and Christopher Page established the service.

The United States took the postal service in 1775, but did not serve Deerfield and Brattleboro until 1792.

These early private posts, or expressmen, were responsible people. They carried money, and often traded for their customers. A young woman, going from Deerfield to Boston in 1765, would travel safely and pleasantly with Silent Wilde, who was known, respected, and familiar with the road, knowing best where to stop for meals or overnight.

The people of Massachusetts always took pleasure in defeating the postal monopoly of the King, and never recognised the right of Parliament to pass any postal acts affecting the local service of Massachusetts.

In many cases, therefore, our private posts were more important than the King’s, and Silent Wilde, of Shutesbury, was, perhaps, the most important of all. He advertised liberally. I have no evidence that he ever went as far as Brattleboro. But he took good care of matter going beyond his terminus.

76 Records of the Governor and Council of the State of Vermont iii 493

77 See three spirited letters on public affairs written in May, June and July, 1774, in I. Q. Leake’s Memoir of the Life and Times of Gen. John Lamb, pp. 84–92. There is another letter of Dr. Young, dated 25 March, 1771, written on behalf of the Boston Committee of Correspondence to their brethren in Salem, in the Pickering Papers (xxxix. 40). See 6 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 577.

78 J. S Loring, Hundred Boston Orators, p. 26; Works of John Adams, i. 64. In the Letters of John Adams addressed to his Wife (1841), however, we find the following passages:

Philadelphia, 29 May, 1775. I have had miserable health and blind eyes, almost ever since I left yon; but I found Dr. Young here, who, after scolding at me quantum sufficit, for not taking his advice, has pill’d and electuary’d me into pretty good order. My eyes are better, my head is better, so are my spirits (i. 40).

Philadelphia, 7 July, 1775. I have really had a very disagreeable time of it. My health, and especially my eyes, have been so very bad, that I have not been so fit for business as I ought, and if I had been in perfect health, I should have had, in the present condition of my country and my friends, no taste for pleasure. But Dr. Young has made a kind of cure of my health, and Dr. Church of my eyes (i. 52).

79 E. Warren, Life of John Warren, M.D., p. 28.

80 Wells, Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, ii. 237, 238. See also a letter from Adams to Young, dated 17 October, 1774, in ibid. ii. 242; Boston Gazette of Monday, 5 September, 1774, p. 2/2; Stiles, Literary Diary, i. 478; Paige, History of Cambridge, p. 154.

81 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, viii. 360. Andrews was in error in stating that Dr. Young was intending “to settle at Providence,” since he went directly to Newport, where he arrived on the following Thursday night, the fifteenth.

82 Boston Evening-Post of Monday, 19 September, 1774, p. 3/1.

83 Stiles, Literary Diary, i. 463 note.

84 The allusion is to the Hon. William Channing, father of the Rev. Dr. William Ellery Channing.

85 1774, November 5. The Rose, frigate, Capt. Wallace, was stationed at Newport for the winter, and repeated the annoyances of the Gaspee (S. G. Arnold, History of Rhode Island, 1894, ii. 342).

86 The extracts from Dr. Stiles’s Literary Diary in the text (pp. 37, 38, above), make it doubtful if Dr. Young went directly to Philadelphia, where, however, he appears to have been established in the following July (above, text, p. 39).

87 The allusion is probably to Dr. Jason Valentine O’Brien Lawrence (1791–1823). See J. Thacher, American Medical Biography (1828), i. 352–356.

88 Medical Inquiries and Observations (1818), iii. 140.

89 I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Charles Francis Adams for this interesting item from the only letter of Dr. Young preserved in his family papers.

90 W. Duane, Extracts from the Diary of Christopher Marshall, 1774–1781 (1877).

91 Thomas Clemens and Elizabeth Andrews Mitchell, both of Boston, were married at King’s Chapel 6 May, 1764. They had several children baptized at the Chapel, 1766–1774, and others at Trinity Church, after the Evacuation of Boston, 1776–1785 (Registers of King’s Chapel and Trinity Church). This is the only family of this name in Boston at that time “with several children” which appears of record. Thomas Clemens, or Clement as the name was later spelled, was a Vestryman of King’s Chapel, 1783–1801, and died 10, buried 12, September, 1823, at the age of 88 (Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 608; Boston Records of Deaths). He appears to have been among those members of the Chapel congregation who espoused the cause of the Colonies, hence the probability of his family having to seek refuge “for the present” in Albany during the Siege of Boston. See Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 162, 321–323, 325, 328, 329, 331, 381, 590, 592, 596.

92 Dr. Young appears to have been one of the gentlemen sent into the different counties with the resolves of the Philadelphia town meeting of 20 May. Yorktown or York is the County town of York County, Pennsylvania.

93 Minutes of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, x. 653. 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, iv. 33, 34.

94 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, iv. 33, 34.

95 Force, American Archives, Fourth Series, vi. 1325; Fifth Series, iii. 305, 605. See also ibid. Fourth Series, i. 764, 783, and v. 1145.

96 This was William Thorne’s School-room in Vidal’s Alley, Philadelphia, which was frequently used in the evening for political meetings. See W. Duane, Extracts from the Diary of Christopher Marshall, 1774–1781 (1877), pp. 66, 67.

97 Works of John Adams, ix. 622, 623.

98 Works of John Adams, ix. 617, 618.

99 Pennsylvania Magazine, xxii. 205–300.

100 Minutes of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, xi. 50. See also xi. 52.

101 Ibid. xi. 151. See also xi. 155.

102 Journals of the American Congress from 1774 to 1788 (1823), ii. 31.

103 John Brown Cutting, of Delaware, was an apothecary for the Middle Medical District and for some time at the Hospital at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

104 E. Warren, Life of John Warren, M.D., p. 147.

105 Records of the Governor and Council of the State of Vermont, i. 394–396. This Address is also printed in Documentary History of the State of New York (1851), iv. 934, 935. It is most imperfectly printed in Vermont State Papers (1823), p. 76.

106 Vermont State Papers, pp. 77, 78; Documentary History of the State of New York (1851), iv. 832, 941.

107 Journals of the American Congress from 1774 to 1788 (1823), ii. 176.

108 Ibid. ii. 178.

109 The Declaration and Petition of the Inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants, to Congress, announcing the District to be a Free and Independent State, and dated at Westminster, 15 January, 1777, is printed at length in Ira Allen’s Natural and Political History of the State of Vermont (London, 1798), pp. 80–85, followed by extracts from Dr. Young’s letter and from the Records of Congress.

110 Journals of the American Congress (1823), ii. 182, 183. See Hiland Hall, History of Vermont, pp. 243, 250, 251, 208, 497–500; Records of the Governor and Council of Vermont, i. 32, 42, 58, 59, 78, 83, 394–399, 403, 404; S. Williams, Natural and Civil History of Vermont (1809), ii. 167 et seq.; Vermont State Papers, pp. 65–79; Z. Thompson, History of Vermont, pp. 51–53, 106; B. H. Hall, History of Eastern Vermont, pp. 566, 567; Documentary History of the State of New York (1851), iv. 934–946; Collections of the New York Historical Society for the year 1870, pp. 30, 31; Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, i. 168 note.

111 Independent Chronicle (Boston) of Thursday, 17 July, 1777, p. 3/1.

112 Continental Journal (Boston) of Thursday, 24 July, 1777, p. 3/1

113 Historical Magazine, Second Series, iv. 224.

114 The Winegars were of Amenia, Dutchess County, New York. See p. 14 note 2, above; p. 52, below.

115 Probably during her widowhood, Mrs. Knies kept a private school for young women. The family of Knies was from “High Germany.” In time the name was spelled Nase (Newton Reed, Early History of Amenia, pp. 21, 22, 141). See the inscription on her gravestone, p. 51, below.

116 Mr. Ruttenber says that this son was named Thomas Y. Knies.

117 The towns of Sharon, Connecticut, and Amenia, New York, are contiguous; and there has always been a strong community of interest among the inhabitants of both towns. Salisbury adjoins Sharon on the north.

118 Dr. Strong may have been identical with Josiah Strong, who, with his wife, was admitted to the Amenia church 17 July, 1774. See text, above.

119 Dr. Joseph Young, later of Albany, Dr. Thomas Young’s younger brother. See p. 9 note 3, above.

120 Concerning this entry Miss Reed writes:

I find no Clark anywhere in the record but this. As Clerk was often pronounced Clark, and as this is the only Clerk in the whole record, I think he may have been the husband of Sarah Young.

121 The Rev. David Rose graduated at Yale College in the Class of 1760 (Dexter, Yale Biographies and Annals, ii. 676). He served the Amenia Church during the Revolutionary War when, for a time, Mr. Knibloe’s patriotism was suspected and his ministrations were not acceptable to his people, with whom, however, he finally died in peace.

122 This inscription is printed in Judge Van Alstyne’s Burying Grounds of Sharon, Connecticut, Amenia, and North East, New York (1903), 123.

123 Sharon Probate Records, v. 120.

124 E. A. Doty, The Doty-Doten Family in America (1897), nos. 9505, 9506, ii. 661. See also C. F. Sedgwick, General History of the Town of Sharon, Connecticut (1877), p. 127. In view of the family connection, through the Winegars, of Dr. Young and the Dotys, it is of interest to remark that the Suffolk Congress convened on Tuesday, 16 August, 1774, just before Dr. Young’s flight from Boston, at the Doty Tavern in Stoughton, Massachusetts, kept by Col. Thomas Doty (1703–1795); and that Dr. Joseph Warren was a leading spirit in the Congress, which at a subsequent meeting passed the Suffolk Resolves that were drafted by Warren (Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, pp. 341, 361; Huntoon, History of Canton, Massachusetts, pp. 196, 318, 335–337, 340).

125 See p. 31 note 2, above.

126 Sharon Probate Records, vi. 5.

127 State Papers, in the office of the Secretary of State, Montpelier, Vermont, xvii. 234. For a copy of this document I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr. Edward M. Goddard, Assistant Librarian of the State Library, who writes that “the filing on the petition indicates that no action was taken on the matter; and I am unable to find any reference to the petition in 1787 Council records.”

128 Ira Allen, Natural and Political History of the State of Vermont, p. 86 note. There are many references to Dr. Young and his activity in public affairs, during his residence in Boston, in Frothinghanrs Life and Times of Joseph Warren, pp. 24, 64 note, 157 note, 201, 258, 290, 305, 313, 316, 321, 325, 326, 355, 360, 388, 525. Frothingham frequently quotes from manuscript letters of Dr. Young, the ownership of which he omits to mention.

129 The following are the titles of the books: E. Doumergue’s Jean Calvin, Les Hommes et les Choses de son Temps, Lausanne, 1905; F. C. Ebrard’s Die Französisch-reformierte Gemeinde in Frankfurt am Main, 1554–1901, Frankfort, 1906; and a reprint, published at London in 1846, of the 1575 edition of A Brief Discourse of the Troubles Begun at Frankfurt in the year 1554, about the Book of Common Prayer and Ceremonies.

130 Boston Gazette, 2 July, 1764, p. 3/2.

131 Massachusetts Province Laws, iv. 869.

132 History of Harvard University, ii. 115. Cf. ibid. ii. 112–116, 496; Peirce, History of Harvard University, pp. 281–295.

133 It fills the entire first page of that issue. The notes here printed are in the original.

134 History of Massachusetts, iii. 105 note.

135 ^a Hollis Hall built by Massachusetts Province, A. D. 1763.

136 ^b The late Honorable Thomas Hancocks Esq: who founded a Professorship of Oriental Languages, and design’d to have given £500 Sterling towards furnishing a new Library; but he dying suddenly before he had subscrib’d, his Nephew, John Hancock, Esq: gave said sum.

137 ^c New-Hampshire Province, which gave £300 Sterling towards furnishing ft Library.

138 ^d The Name of Hollis.

139 ^e There is a new, and most elegant Apparatus, vastly excelling that which was destroy’d.

140 ^f Dr. Young on Original Composition, and Longinus on the Sublime.

141 ‡Sis bonus O felixque tuis! Virgil.

142 The following Yorkshire visitations have been printed: 1530, T. Tonge, edited by W. Hylton Dyer Longstaffe (Surtees Society, xli); 1563, 1564, W. Flower, edited by C. B. Norcliffe (Harleian Society, xvi); 1584, 1585, R. Glover, 1612, R. St. George, edited by J. Foster (1875); 1665, 1666, W. Dugdale, edited by R. Davies (Surtees Society, xxxvi); 1665, 1666, W. Dugdale, edited by J. W. Clay (Genealogist, New Series, ix et seq.).

“Most of the above, however,” remarks Walter Rye, “have been printed from transcripts, and in several cases from incorrect and incomplete transcripts” (Records and Record Searching, pp. 152, 153). But how much better are the visitation copies in the College of Arms?

143 J. Hunter, South Yorkshire, ii. 243–248.

144 The arms of the Wentworth-Woodhouse family as recorded by Tonge are: Sable, a chevron between three leopards’ heads or. (No crest given.) The arms of the American Baronets were: Arms— sable, on a chevron engrailed or, between three leopards’ faces argent, two antique keys, chevronwise azure, wards upwards. Crest — on a mount vert, a griffin passant, per pale or and sable, charged with two antique keys erect in fesse, counter charged.

Motto — En Dieu est tout. (Burke’s Peerage, 1842.)

The coat of Wentworth of Elmsall, from which came the American family, is given in Dugdale’s visitation (1660–66) exactly as Tonge gives that of the elder house quoted above. Besides the “honorable augmentation” of the keys, the herald engrailed the chevron and possibly changed the leopards’ heads from gold to silver; but as they were sometimes argent as early as the time of Elizabeth, this can hardly be considered a change. Cf. Surtees Society’s Publications, vol. xli. p. xx.

145 Wentworth Genealogy, by John Wentworth, 1878.

146 “His taking the title of Raby . . . added to his many enemies the notorious Sir Harry Vane who proved one of the most bitter of them; . . . Lord Clarendon mentions it as ‘an act of the most unnecessary provocation that I have known and I believe was the chief occasion of the loss of his head’” (G. E. C., Complete Peerage, vii. 263).

147 Matthew Wentworth’s youngest child, Beatrix, was married to Arthur Kaye and was the great-grandmother of Grace Kaye, the mother of Sir Richard Saltonstall, the Massachusetts colonist. See L. Saltonstall’s Ancestry and Descendants of Sir Richard Saltonstall.

148 Genealogist, New Series xvii. 182. This is an addition to the record of Dugdale. Mr. Clay’s edition is made with the express purpose of extending the pedigrees of the Dugdale visitation. The additions are distinguished by differences of type. See Genealogist, New Series, ix. 61.

149 Wentworth Genealogy, i. 45, 46.

150 Hunter, South Yorkshire, ii. 215. See also Testamenta Eboracensia (Surtees Society, xxx), pp. 118–124, 127, 128.

151 Wentworth Genealogy, i. 5.

152 Any one who may be disposed to accept the authority of all visitation pedigrees without question or who may be overpowered by the authority of the College of Arms as upheld in The Right to Bear Arms by “X” or by other fervent advocates, may find instruction and amusement in Mr. J. H. Round’s Peerage and Family History. Mr. Walter Rye, writing in 1897 in defence of the heralds, said: “One thing I can say, of my own knowledge, that the officers are far more conscientious and careful than they used to be, and nowadays very seldom pass fudged pedigrees as was formerly the case” (Records and Record Searching, p. 148).

153 South Yorkshire, ii. 453.

154 These pedigrees are taken from the following sources: I, Wentworth Genealogy, vol. i. p. xv; II, Flower’s Visitation, Publications of the Harleian Society, xvi. 344; III, Glover’s Visitation and St. George’s Visitation, edited by J. Foster (1875), pp. 374, 375; IV, An Old Pedigree in Hunter’s South Yorkshire, ii. 81; V, Foster’s Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire (1874), vol. ii; VI, Joseph Edmondson, Baronagium Genealogicum, vol. i. plate 80. In the last named work there is also a pedigree, vol. iii. plate 194, which is the same as I. Pedigrees I and V state that William, who married Dionisia de Rotherfield, also married for a second wife Lucy Newmarch.

155 The almanacs printed by the Cambridge Press in the early days of the Colony have attracted the attention of bibliographers, and their value in the eyes of collectors has been greatly enhanced by their rarity. One among them, in which the calculations were made by a future President of Harvard College, is thus alluded to by Cotton Mather, in his life of Urian Oakes in the Magnalia:

Being here a lad of small, as he never was of great stature, he published a little parcel of astronomical calculations with this apposite verse in the title page: Parvum parva decent, sed inest sua Gratia parvis.

The “parcel of astronomical calculations” was the Almanac for 1650.

156. In 1781 an annual allowance was made to each of these universities by the government, “in lieu of the Money heretofore paid to the said Universities by the Company of Stationers of the City of London, for the Privilege of printing Almanacks.” The tenth section of the Act in which this was accomplished recites that the privilege of printing and vending almanacs had been granted to the universities and by them demised to the Company of Stationers, for which they had received one thousand pounds and upwards annually. This privilege had by a late decision at law been found to be “a common right, over which the Crown had no Controul, and consequently the Universities no Power to demise the same to any Person or Body of Men” (21 George III, Ch. 56).

157 2 W. Blackstone, p. 1003 et seq.

158 Trinity Term of the Court of Common Pleas, 29 Car. II and reported 1 Mod. p. 256.

159 Dwight, Travels in New England and New York, i. 381–383. Cf. i. 376.

160 Struggle through Life, London, 1807, ii. 32–33. 6

161 This will apply equally as well to the earlier and later Connecticut legislation on the same subject which is quoted hereafter (pp. 89–91, 93).

162 Massachusetts Province Laws, 1754–55, Ch. 20, iii. 797, 798.

163 Massachusetts Province Laws, iii. 835.

164 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 10.

165 State Records of Connecticut, ii. 176.

166 Rhode Island Colonial Records, vi. 509.

167 Rhode Island Colonial Records, vii. 54.

168 Rhode Island Laws, August, 1772, p. 46.

169 Johann David Schöpf, Reise durch einige der mittlern und südlichen vereinigten nordamerikanischen Staaten nach Ost-Florida und den Bahama-Inseln unternommen in den Jahren 1783 und 1784. Erlangen, 1788.

170 The possibility that Arthur Young may have seen this naturally suggests itself. In that event the presumption that it was instrumental in leading up to the series of observations chronicled by Young and quoted by Mr. Kittredge (p. 96, below) makes this reference doubly interesting.

171 See Botanical Gazette, May. 1884, ix. 83.

172 London, 1805, 1806, 1808.

173 Annals of Agriculture, xliii. 322.

174 James Payne, Annals of Agriculture, xliii. 618.

175 Benjamin Cotton, Annals of Agriculture, xliv. 132. See also xliii. 325, 327, 328, 336, 625; xliv. 86, 132, 138, 141, 146, 149, 152, 154, 155, 159, 425; xlv. Ill, 115, 117.

176 Short Account, p. 10.

177 Part i. p. 47, of the undated Philadelphia reprint by “Ed. Barrington and Geo. D. Haswell.”

178 The authority is the Parish Register of Bury, published by the Lancashire Parish Register Society. Mr. Axon states that the will of Henry Dunster, the father of President Dunster, is preserved in the Chester Probate Register, and he gives some information derived from it. In his article in the Clavian, Mr. Hewitson also states that the Rev. Richard Mather (the father of President Increase Mather), a native of Lowton, in the parish of Winwick, was married to Katherine Holt at Bury on 29 September, 1624. 7

179 Though the letter is a copy, yet it was presumably written by Cabot himself.

180 Probably the Col. Thomas Savage who was born in 1688 and died in 1720.

181 Felt, Annals of Salem (1827), p. 423; Essex Institute Historical Collections, iv. 275.

182 Owing to torn paper, bad handwriting, and Cabot’s unfamiliarity with English, the letter, which has been deciphered by Miss Mary H. Rollins, is difficult to read. The first line of each couplet in our text reproduces the text of the letter, so far as this is possible; while the second line indicates what it is supposed the writer intended.

183 Writing in 1796, Capt. J. G. Stedman said:

During the succeeding war which happened in 1712, the French Commodore Jaques Cassard, met with the same reception from Governor De Gooyer, which Ducasse had experienced from Scherpenhayzon before Zelandia; but four mouths after he returned with better success, and laid the colony nuder contribution for a sum of about 56,618 l. sterling. It was on the 10th of October that he entered the river of Surinam, The 11th Cassard threatened to bombard the town of Paramaribo (Narrative, i. 49, 52).

For notices of Cassard (1672–1740), see Michaud, Biographie Universelle, vii. 126–128; La Grande Encyclopédie, ix:. 679.

184 The Peace of Utrecht was concluded in 1713.

185 In a letter to the Lords of Trade dated October 31, 1712, Governor Hunter of New York wrote:

Captⁿ Graves in the Dullidge, brought me Her Maj^tys orders and Proclamation for a Cessation of arms by sea and land, who [is] in haste to proceed to Boston with like dispatches (New York Colonial Documents, v. 347).

Capt. Thomas Graves, who attained the rank of Rear-Admiral, died in 1755. As to the name of his vessel, there is a curious discrepancy. In the above letter Gov. Hunter calls it the “Dullidge.” In letters dated December 16, 1712, and March 14, 1712–13, he speaks of it as the “Dunwich” (ibid. v. 350, 356). Writing in 1796, Charnock said that Graves was on January 1, 1712–13, “appointed either to the Dunwich or Dunkirk, a confusion arising, most probably from some mistake in the manuscript lists which have been preserved” (Biographia Navalis, iv. 43, 44). Capt. Graves was the father of Thomas Graves, Lord Graves, who was commander-in-chief of the British naval forces in America at the time of the siege of Yorktown.

186 These Directions are printed in my Writings of Washington, xii. 230–234, and in Sparks’s Writings of Washington, xii. 336–339, but are reprinted here as an introduction to the letters to Whiting.

187 George Steptoe, Lawrence, and Harriott Washington were children of General Washington’s brother, Samuel Washington.

188 The wife of Maj. George A. Washington.

189 The letter was mailed from Philadelphia.

190 Thomas Davis, who appears as mason and painter.

191 Son of General Washington’s half-brother, Augustine Washington.

192 Maj. George A. Washington.

193 William Bartram.

194 A letter to Whiting dated Philadelphia, November 11, 1792, is printed in Sparks’s Writings of Washington, xii. 354–358.

195 Word omitted in manuscript.

196 The allusion is doubtless to A Letter on the Construction and Use of the improved Foot Plough, By an Essex Farmer. London, 1784, of which there is a copy in the Washington Collection in the Boston Athenæum.

197 The allusion is probably to John Beale Bordley’s Summary View of the Courses of Crops, in the Husbandry of England and Maryland, Philadelphia, 1784, of which there is a copy in the Washington Collection in the Boston Athenæum.

198 Pierce Butler (1744–1822), Senator from South Carolina.

199 Robert T. Hooe of Alexandria, Virginia.

200 William Garner, overseer of the River Plantation.

201 See p. 139, above.

202 Arthur Young. Cf. pp. 95, 96, above.

203 Joseph Davenport, a miller.

204 Owen Crow, an overseer.

205 See p. 139 note, above.

206 Dr. David Stuart.

207 Benjamin Hawkins (1754–1816), Senator from North Carolina.

208 Richard Bassett.

209 The word “kerf “means the “place at which a tree or branch is or has been cut across; the cut end or surface either on a felled or pruned tree” (Oxford Dictionary).

210 William Augustine Washington, General Washington’s nephew, has already been mentioned (p. 110, above).

211 “I would not have you seek (at least apparently) Major Harrison; but if you should, or could conveniently fall in with him soon, and without forcing the conversation, talk with him again on the subject of his land adjoining me, and extract anything farther from him on the subject thereof that might be useful to me, I should be glad to know it. The enclosed letter to me from Mr. Chichester, the only person (except Thomas Mason, his son in law, who also has poor tenanted land adjoining Harrisons) that can in my opinion step forward as a competitor, shows his ideas of the value of it; — but altho’ this may be the intrinsic worth, yet, circumstances considered, I would give more for it, if it is unincumbered with leases, than the sum therein ment^d, or would give by way of Exchange lands in Kentucky for it” (Washington to Robert Lewis, March 7, 1793, quoted in Conway’s George Washington and Mount Vernon, p. lx).

212 Col. Thomas Colvil. 12

213 Robert Bakewell (1725–1795).

214 Butler remained on the plantation till October, 1794.

215 Whiting died soon after

216 John Christian Ehler, who had been secured for Washington in 1790 at Bremen, by Henry Willmans, Danish consul at that place.

217 In a paper read before this Society in February, 1906 (Publications, x. 253–258), Mr. Albert Matthews, after speaking of the celebration at Milton on February 11, 1782, remarked that this was perhaps “a belated date.” Mr. Dexter’s extract proves that such was the case. On March 3, 1779, Ezra Stiles wrote: “Gen. Washington’s Birthday celebrated 11^th ult. at Milton” (Literary Diary, ii. 324).

218 See Publications of this Society, vi. 110–114.

219 Massachusetts Gazette, October 10, 1765.

220 For a note on the British Coffee House, see p. 5 note 3, above.

I am indebted to Mr. Albert Matthews for the following information. Mein and Sandeman came in the same ship with the latter’s uncle, the Rev. Robert Sandeman. The following notice appeared in the Boston Gazette of October 22, 1764 (p. 3/2):

Thursday last [October 18] . . . arrived here . . . Capt. Montgomery in seven [weeks] from Scotland; . . . In Capt. Montgomery . . . came Passenger the Rev. Mr. Sandiman who performed Service Yesterday at Mason’s Hall in this Town.

In the Boston Gazette of November 19, 1764, was printed an advertisement of which the following is a part.

Mein & Sandeman

Have imported from Great-Britain, the following Articles, which are to be Sold very cheap for CASH, at their Shop nearly opposite to Bromfield’s Lane, Marlboro’-Street, Boston.

The name of Mein & Sandeman is last found in the Boston Gazette of February 18, 1765 (p. 2/3). On June 17, 1765, Mein alone was occupying the same shop, where he remained until late in September or early in October (Boston Gazette, June 17, 1765, p. 3/2; September 23, p. 4/1). In the Boston Gazette of October 7, 1765, Mein’s goods were advertised “to be Sold at the LONDON BOOK-STORE (lately improved by Messi’rs. Rivington and Miller) the second Door above the British Coffee-House, North Side of King-street” (p. 3/1). In October, 1764, Rivington and Miller occupied the London Bookstore, then on the “North Side of the Town House” (Boston Gazette, October 8, 1764, p. 1/2). In December, 1764, they moved to the shop later occupied by Mein (ibid., December 10, 1764, p. 2/2). See also p. 6 note 4, above.

221 A copy is in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society. It has the following title:

A / CATALOGUE / OF / MEIN’s / CIRCULATING LIBRARY;—/CONSISTING / Of above Twelve Hundred VOLUMES, in most / Branches of polite Literature, Arts and Sciences; / . . . / Which are LENT to Read, / At One Pound Eight Shillings, lawful Money, per Year; Eighteen / Shillings per Half Year; or, Ten and Eight Pence per Quarter; / By JOHN MEIN, Bookseller, / At the LONDON BOOK-STORE, / Second Door above the BRITISH COFFEE-HOUSE, / North-side of KING-STREET, BOSTON. / . . . / BOSTON: Printed in the Year MDCCLXV. / [PRICE, One Shilling lawful Money.] Pp. 57, 2, 1.

Mr. Matthews informs me that the Catalogue was advertised as “This Day Published” in the Boston Gazette of November 4, 1765 (p. 3/3), where also will be found a notice “To the PUBLIC.” It would be interesting to know in how many other American towns circulating libraries had at that time been established. That Mein’s was not the first in this country is proved by an advertisement of Garrat Noel, to which Mr. Matthews calls my attention, inserted in John Holt’s New-York Gazette of September 5, 1765 (p. 3/2), notifying “The Subscribers to NOEL’s circulating Library . . . that there is an Addition made of several new Books.” To Dr. Austin B. Keep of the New York Society Library I am indebted for the information that Noel’s Circulating Library was first advertised in William Weyman’s New-York Gazette on August 29, 1763, as follows:

To those who delight in Reading, And would spend their Leisure Hours, and Winter Evenings, with Profit and Entertainment, This is to give Notice, that this Day is opened by GARRAT NOEL, Bookseller, next Door to the Merchants Coffee-House, A CIRCULATING LIBRARY; Consisting of several Thousand Volumes of choice Books, in History, Divinity, Travels, Voyages, Novels, &c. A Catalogue of the Books, with the Conditions of subscribing, may be seen at said Noel’s Store (p. 3/2).

222 Thomas Longman to John Hancock, January 3, 1770:

Since which date [i. e. December 4], He is arrived in London, which from the Public Papers I find was owing to a fray He had got into at Boston, which made his Sudden departure absolutely necessary. (Manuscript owned by Mr. Charles Pelham Greenough.)

As November 5 fell on a Sunday in 1769, Pope Day was celebrated on the 6th. The following is taken from Mein’s paper, the Boston Chronicle, of November 9, 1769 (ii. 361/2):

Description of the POPE, 1769.

Toasts on the Front of the large Lanthorn. Love and Unity. — The American Whig. — Confusion to the Torries, and a total Banishment to Bribery and Corruption.

On the right side of the same. — An Acrostick.

J nsulting Wretch, we’ll him expose,

O ’er the whole world his deeds disclose,

H ell now gaups wide to take him in,

N ow he is ripe, Oh lump of Sin.

M ean is the man, M—n is his Name,

E nough he’s spread his hellish Fame,

I nfernal Furies hurl his Soul,

N ine Million Times from Pole to Pole

223 Fourteenth Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Appendix, part x. See also Publications of this Society, ix. 480–481 notes.

224 The seal of the city and necessary papers required an outlay of twenty guineas, and barred litigation except in important cases. For the writ, dated March 1, 1770, see Suffolk Court Files, no. 89428.

225 Longman’s letter to Hancock, January 3, 1770. I am indebted to Mr. Charles Pelham Greenough, for allowing me to examine a series of letters relating to this affair.

226 Dated “Friday, 2d March (1770) at Mrs. Gordon’s in Quaker lane” (Congress Street).

227 For an account of these financial troubles and the relations between Mein and Murray, see Letters of James Murray, pp. 168–174

228 Longman’s account showed purchases amounting to £2099 2s ½d [1 & ½]. of which Mein had paid £419 2s 10d, leaving a debt of £1679 19s 3½d (Suffolk Court Files, no. 89428).

229 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 16.

230 Records of the Superior Court of Judicature, 1771, [xxx.] 210.

231 He was in prison November 22, 1770

232 See also Thomas’s History of Printing (1874), i. 152, ii. 230; John Rowe’s Diary, October 28, 1769; Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists in the American Revolution, i. 427, ii. 78; Publications of this Society, ix. 480.

233 The name by which Summer Street was known before the Revolution

234 Newbury, later Washington, Street.

235 Independent Chronicle, May 25, 1786, p. 2/3.

236 Ibid., August 31, 1786, p. 3/4.

237 Independent Chronicle, March 15, 1787.

238 Benjamin Guild (H. C. 1769).

239 Independent Chronicle, March 10, 1785. Guild is said to have purchased the business of Ebenezer Battelle of Marlborough (now Washington) Street. Battelle gave Guild a note, dated April 21, 1780, for £204 18s 5d. In the settlement of Guild’s estate, in 1792, this is mentioned as “bad, Sundry sums endorsed” (Suffolk Probate Files, no. 20,030).

240 Ibid., May 10, 1787

241 Ibid., October 18, November 8, 1787.

242 Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists in the American Revolution, ii. 549; Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 913, 915.

243 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxvii. 4.

244 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, iv. 360.

245 Independent Chronicle, October 25, 1792; Suffolk Probate Files, no. 20,030

246 Independent Chronicle, May 16, 1793. The Boston Public Library has a copy with the title:

A / CATALOGUE / OF / BOOKS, / For Sale or Circulation, / By WILLIAM P. BLAKE, I AT THE / BOSTON BOOK-STORE, / No. 59. CORNHILL. /. . .BOSTON: / PRINTED FOR WILLIAM P. BLAKE, / AT THE BOSTON BOOKSTORE, No. 59 CORN / HILL, MDCCXCIII. Pp. 47.

The terms of subscription to the Circulating Library are announced on reverse of title, and the catalogue itself fills p. 3–42, followed by five pages of advertisements. Dodd, Mead & Co. offered a copy for sale in 1904 for $18.00.

247 This was the William Price estate, on the southerly corner of Washington Street and Court Avenue, which was the cause of long litigation between King’s Chapel and Trinity Church. It is now occupied by Thompson’s Spa. See the William Price Fund, Trinity Church in the City of Boston (1883); Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 417–142; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxvi. 400. I am indebted to Mr. Henry H. Edes for this and for part of the following note

248 William Pinson Blake, long associated with Boston as bookseller, publisher, and owner of a circulating library, was born in Boston, January 9, 1769, and baptized at the New South Church, January 23, following, the eldest child of William and Rachel (Glover) Blake (Registers of the New South Church; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxi. 230, xxx. 296); and died unmarried in New York City June 5, 1820 (Records of the New York Department of Health). His brother Lemuel Blake died in Boston, March 4, 1861, also unmarried, having been a bookseller, publisher, and proprietor of a paper warehouse. He was born in Dorchester August 9, and baptized at the First Church August 13, 1775 (Registers of the First Church in Dorchester; J. H. Dexter’s Manuscript Memoranda in the Cabinet of the New England Historic Genealogical Society).

In the New York City Directory for 1818, William P. Blake and Co. appear as booksellers at 249 Broadway.

249 Independent Chronicle, March 28, 1805.

250 Boston Directory for 1807.

251 Independent Chronicle, June 20, 1796.

252 The title-page of Pelham’s second catalogue reads:

CATALOGUE of / PELHAM’s / Circulating Library, 59, Cornhill, / BOSTON: / consisting of a chosen Assortment of / BOOKS / In the various Branches / of / LITERATURE / Boston: / Printed by Samuel Etheridge. [About 1798.]

Title, lp.; Conditions, pp. 3–4; Catalogue, pp. 5–22.

253 I am indebted to Mr. Charles P. Greenough for information relating to the Pelhams and Blagroves. Pelham’s cousin Helen or Helena Pelham, who married Thomas Curtis, was the ancestor of several well-known Boston families. Henry B. Blagrove, in a letter from Baltimore, dated May 4, 1848, to Charles Pelham Curtis and James Freeman Curtis, gives many details of family history. Pelham’s nephew, in a letter from Santa Fe in 1857, added some data. See Publications of this Society, v. 193–211; Heraldic Journal, iv. 175–182; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxvi. 399–401; Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 420–425; S. C. Clarke, Records of Some of the Descendants of William Curtis, pp. 18, 19.

254 Independent Chronicle, October 7, 1805. Mr. Parker opened a music store in connection with his Library in 1833, and soon gave up or sold the books

255 J. H. Dexter’s Manuscript Memoranda in the Cabinet of the New England Historic Genealogical Society.

256 I am indebted to Miss Mary Honoria Wall (now Mrs. John Henry Gill) for many references to contemporary newspapers, and also for frequent and helpful suggestions during the preparation of this paper.

257 Independent Chronicle, May 17, 1802.

258 Independent Chronicle, August 19, 1784.

259 Dr. Charles E. Clark and Mr. F. J. Libbie have several bookplates and labels of interest in this connection: the Union, Franklin, Columbian, Charlestown, Washington, and Ladies Libraries, about three inches wide and two and a half inches high, and some larger labels with conditions and rules.

260 The present thoroughfare known as Cornhill, laid out March 5, 1816, is here referred to. Old Cornhill, Marlborough, Newbury, and Orange Streets, were renamed Washington Street by votes of the Selectmen, July 4, 1788, and of the Board of Aldermen, July 6, 1824.

261 A copy is in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

262 An account of Herbert Pelham and his family is given in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxxiii. 285–295, and in the Heraldic Journal, ii. 84–89; and of Peter Pelham and his family in the same journal, iv. 175–182, and in the Publications of this Society, v. 193–211. There was apparently no connection between these families.

263 See Publications of this Society, vi. 122–123 note.

264 The original of this Autobiography, written in 1828, is owned by Mrs. Alexander Wadsworth, by whose courtesy it is printed in our Transactions. It is in manuscript, in a school-boy’s note-book, bearing on the inside cover the words, written in a school-boy’s hand, “Dummer R. Chapman’s Book, 2d quarter, October 18th, 1822.” Dummer R. Chapman was a son of the author. The paging of the original is indicated within square brackets.

265 Jonathan Chapman, son of Thomas and Ann (Kettell) Chapman, married Jemima Stone, widow of Jacob Stone and daughter of Richard and Mary (Kidder) Miller. Capt. Jonathan Chapman was the son of Jonathan and Jemima (Miller) Stone Chapman, and the father of Jonathan Chapman, Mayor of Boston during the years 1810–1842. Much information about the Chapman, Devens, Miller, and other families mentioned in the Autobiography will be found in Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown. See also Frothingham’s History of Charlestown, J. F. Hunnewell’s Centuryⁿ of Town Life (Charlestown), and T. T. Sawyer’s Old Charlestown.

266 Here Capt. Chapman’s memory played him false. In 1748 Thaddeus Mason was one of a committee to visit the school, and on August 20, 1764, the selectmen “gave Mr. William Harris the care of the writing-school.” William Harris was the father of the Rev. Thaddeus M. Harris. See Frothingham, History of Charlestown, pp. 259, 268; Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 475.

267 Môle St. Nicolas, Haiti.

268 Maine

269 Capt. Thomas Symonds, of the British Navy, died in 1793

270 Elk River, at the head of Chesapeake Bay.

271 Bancroft, History of the United States (1890), v. 175.

272 Cooper, History of the United States Navy (1856), p. 81.

273 The marginal date is probably incorrect, as the fort was not taken until November 15. See Bancroft, History of the United States, v. 192, 198, 199

274 A bunt is “the middle part of a sail, formed designedly into a bag or cavity, that the sail may gather more wind” (Oxford Dictionary).

275 A point is “one of the short pieces of flat braided cord attached to near the lower edge of a sail for tying up a reef” (ibid.).

276 A grummet- (or grommet-) hole is “a hole bound by a ring of rope” (ibid.).

277 A snow “is generally the largest of all two-masted vessels employed by Europeans, . . . The sails and rigging on the main-mast and fore-mast of a snow, are exactly similar to those on the same masts in a ship; only that there is a small mast behind the main-mast of the former, which carries a sail nearly resembling the mizen of a ship” (W. Falconer, Universal Dictionary of the Marine, 1789).

278 William Browne (H. C. 1755), Governor of Bermuda. See Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution, i. 265.

279 Charleston, South Carolina.

280 Portsmouth, Norfolk County, Virginia

281 Nansemond, Virginia.

282 Perhaps Col. Edward Hacker Moseley. See Virginia Magazine, v. 332–334.

283 See Publications of this Society, vi. 80.

284 Col. Henry Jackson. See Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War, viii. 667.

285 Now Castine.

286 Vice-Admiral Sir George Collier (1738–1795).

287 August 14, 1779. See Bancroft, History of the United States, v. 334, 335; Cooper, History of the United States Navy, pp. 119, 120.

288 James Henley was the son of Samuel and Elizabeth (Cheever) Henley of Charlestown. His sister Elizabeth was the first wife of Thomas Russell (died 1796)

289 George’s Island is near Chebuoto Head.

290 Dartmouth is opposite Halifax Harbor and about a mile or so from the town.

291 Sambro Head is at the entrance of Halifax Harbor

292 Liverpool, Nova Scotia, a port about seventy miles southwest of Halifax.

293 Prospect, Nova Scotia.

294 Malagash, Nova Scotia.

295 La Have is in Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia.

296 Matinicus Island, off Penobscot Bay.

297 Mr. Albert Matthews informs me that the term “shaving-Mill,” though not recognized in the Century Dictionary, was employed in the sense indicated in the text during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and sends me the following extracts:

A small boat, one of the noted Shaving-Mills, which continually infest our bay, was captured by two or three whale-boats, and sent in here last Saturday (Independent Chronicle, Boston, July 19, 1781, p. 3/3).

The Shaving-Mill, commanded by Captain Plympton, has taken a sloop and schooner, laden with fish, both of which are in a safe port (Boston Gazette, August 13, 1781, p. 3/1).

Our Shaving Mills have begun to give much interruption to our Eastern Coasters (Salem Gazette, July 10, 1812, p. 2/4).

The Fairhaven shaving mill (generally called the handsaw, in honor of one of the reputed owners) has sailed from Boston on a cruise (ibid. October 12, 1813, p. 4/1).

See also the Columbian Centinel, August 18, 1813, p. 2/5; and J. L. Locke’s Sketches of the History of the Town of Camden, Maine (1859), p. 32

298 Probably Capt. Consider Rowland. See Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War, viii. 403; Publications of this Society, vi. 76 note.

299 Bernardo Galvez (1756–1794).

300 Near Guadaloupe, April 12, 1782. See Bancroft, History of the United States, v. 540.

301 Savanna-la-Mar.

302 A word is here struck out.

303 Abigail Devens was the daughter of Richard and Mary (Townsend) Devens of Charlestown.

304 Several words are here struck out

305 St. Paul and New Amsterdam are islands in the Indian Ocean.

306 Cape Comorin, British India.

307 Manappadu, Madras.

308 Anjengo.

309 Tellicheri, about fifty miles north of Calicut.

310 Mauritius.

311 St. Paul de Loanda

312 An error for 1791.

313 Loango is a French settlement, between St. Paul de Loanda and Cape Lopez.

314 There appears to be some error here. John Roberts was appointed Governor on March 25, 1780, and died before May 26, 1781. William Fielde was Governor from June 20, 1789, to November 15, 1791. See G. Macdonald, The Gold Coast Past and Present, pp. 346, 347.

315 Alexander Moore left a widow, Ruth, who later married John Scott and removed to London. Moore’s estate was administered in Boston, and in his inventory was scheduled “the Snow Generous Friends, with the Masts, Yards, Cables, Anchors, Sails, Stand’g and Rung Rigging, Boats, Stores &c,” valued at £400. See Suffolk Probate Files, no. 20186.

316 Elmina.

317 Anamabo.

318 St. Eustatius.

319 Sombrero.

320 This was the Asia. See p. 233 note 2, below.

321 Cape Verde Islands.

322 Tranquebar.

323 Trineomali.

324 The arrival of “Ship Asia, Chapman,” was noted in the Columbian Centinel of May 7, 1796 (p. 3/1). In the same paper of May 11 was printed an advertisement in part as follows (p. 3/3):

On Wednesday, 1st of June,

Will be exposed for sale, at RUSSELL’s Wharf, the Ship ASIA, and Cargo, as she arrived from India — Cargo consisting of—. . .

The Asia, a fine new Ship, built for the India Trade, 327 tons burthen; made one voyage only — can be put to sea at small expense, and will be sold on liberal terms.

325 See Cooper, History of the United States Navy, pp. 153, 154.

326 The Pickering was with Commodore John Barry’s squadron in the West Indies, and was lost at sea in August, 1800. See ibid. pp. 167, 176, 182.

327 The Herald also served in West Indian Waters, and was sold when the Navy was reduced in 1801. See ibid. pp. 182, 193.

328 Sir Robert Liston (1742–1836).

329 Preble was later promoted to the rank of Commodore, and was in command of the Mediterranean squadron in the war with Tripoli in 1803–1804. See Cooper, History of the United States Navy, chaps, xx–xxiv.

330 The Boston took part in several actions against the French in West Indian waters in 1800. She carried Robert R. Livingston to France in 1801. See ibid. pp. 182, 205.

331 Java.

332 Three miles S. S. E. from Marblehead.

333 Near Calcutta.

334 Now Bowdoin Street. The land was at the corner of Cambridge Street. See Suffolk Deeds, ccix. 68. It is said that the garden covered a part of the land where the Revere House now stands.

335 This land was in Main Street, Charlestown. See Suffolk Probate Files, no. 30071. The entire estate, real and personal, was appraised at $69,865.53. Sawyer writes:

Another daughter of Commissary Devens married Captain Jonathan Chapman, who was also a large real-estate owner in the old town. Chapman Street was laid out by the family, through the old distillery-lot which fronted on Main Street and ran down to the river (Old Charlestown, p. 102).

336 Sawyer writes:

To make room for the church, the old Indian Chief Tavern building was moved to the corner of Main and Miller streets, where it still stands [1898]. It was used as a public house for many years afterwards, under the name of Eagle Hotel (Old Charlestown, pp. 119, 432, 433).

337 Now known as the Harvard Church. The Rev. James Walker was later President of Harvard College.

338 David Ellis was the father of the Rev. George E. Ellis and the Rev. Rufus Ellis.

339 Publications, v. 257–297.

340 In April, 1777, officers were sent out by the Committee of Safety of New Hampshire to apprehend Dr. Hedges, then a resident of Dunbarton, New Hampshire, there being evidence against him as one concerned in counterfeiting New Hampshire bills, and he was arrested and committed to the jail in Cambridge, Massachusetts; but he was soon released and employed by the State authorities in hunting counterfeiters and Tory suspects. In September, 1777, he petitioned the New Hampshire Legislature for the fee in certain lands at Goffstown, New Hampshire. (State Papers of New Hampshire, viii. 546, 554, 694, 703, 735, 807.)

341 Capt. Ephraim Jones kept the tavern and had the care of the jail at Concord, Massachusetts, during the Revolutionary period. He was born in Concord, May 1, 1730, and died there September 21, 1787, son of Ephraim and Mary (Hayward) Jones.

342 Hon. Oliver Prescott, A.M., M.D., was born in Groton, Massachusetts, April 27, 1731, son of Hon. Benjamin and Abigail (Oliver) Prescott, and was graduated at Harvard College in 1750. He was president of the Middlesex Medical Society, served as Brigadier-General and Major-General in the Revolution, and afterwards was Judge of Probate of Middlesex County until his death, November 17, 1804. (Prescott’s Prescott Memorial, pp. 59, 60.) In April, 1777, the Committee of Safety of New Hampshire addressed a letter to him concerning Dr. Silas Hedges. (State Papers of New Hampshire, viii. 546.)

343 Hon. James Prescott was born in Groton, Massachusetts, January 13, 1720–21, son of Hon. Benjamin and Abigail (Oliver) Prescott. He was a Colonel of Militia, and at the beginning of the Revolution was a member of the Provincial Congress and of the Board of War. Afterwards, he was a judge of the Court of Common Pleas. He died in Groton, February 15, 1800. (Prescott’s Prescott Memorial, p. 56.)

344 Col. Nathaniel Peabody was born in Topsfield, Massachusetts, February 18, 1740–41, son of Dr. Jacob and Susanna (Rogers) Peabody. He studied medicine with his father, and then removed to Atkinson, New Hampshire, where he was a physician and Colonel of Militia. In the Revolutionary period he represented Atkinson in the New Hampshire Legislature and was a member of the Committee of Safety, until 1779, when he was chosen a member of the Continental Congress. He was subsequently a Major-General; and died in Atkinson, June 27, 1823. (New Hampshire Historical Collections, iii. 1; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ii. 372.)

345 Ens. Stephen Ames was born in Boxford, Massachusetts, September 5, 1712, son of John and Priscilla (Kimball) Eames, or Ames, of Boxford and Groton, Massachusetts. In 1739 he moved from Groton to that part of West Dunstable which was incorporated as Hollis, New Hampshire; and represented Hollis in the New Hampshire Legislature, 1775–1778, and was one of the town’s Committee of Safety during the Revolution. He was an Ensign of Militia.

346 Col. Nicholas Gilman, son of Daniel and Mary (Lord) Gilman, was born in Exeter, New Hampshire, October 21, 1731, and died there April 7, 1783. He was a Colonel of Militia, Treasurer of New Hampshire, 1775–1782, and of the Committee of Safety in the period of the Revolution. (Gilman’s Gilman Family, pp. 73, 74.)

347 Hon. John Dudley, who was born in Exeter, New Hampshire, April 9, 1725, son of James and Mercy (Folsom) Dudley, was a member of the New Hampshire Legislature, 1775–1784, and served several terms as Speaker of the House. He was also a member of the Committee of Safety during that time. From 1776 to 1784 he was a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas; and from 1784 to 1797 a Judge of the Superior Court. He died at Raymond, New Hampshire, May 21, 1805. (Bell’s Bench and Bar of New Hampshire, pp. 38–41.)

348 Hon. Ebenezer Thompson, son of Robert and Abigail (Emerson) Thompson, was born in Durham, New Hampshire, March 5, 1737, and died there August 14, 1802. He studied medicine, and practised as a physician until he entered politics as a member of the New Hampshire Legislature. He was Secretary of New Hampshire, 1775–1786; a member of the Committee of Safety throughout the Revolution; Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, 1783–1787; Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, 1787–1795; and Judge of the Superior Court, 1795 until his death. (Bell’s Bench and Bar of New Hampshire, pp. 48–50.)

The documents in the text are taken from the New Hampshire State Papers, xvii. 286–288. Cf. ibid. viii. 807.

349 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 421.

350 6 Ibid. i. 32.

351 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xix. 104–106.

352 Boston Common in Colonial and Provincial Days, p. 40.

353 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, i. 249.

354 See Publications of this Society, vi. 124.

355 Concerning William Pelham, see New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxvi. 400, 401; Heraldic Journal, iv. 178–182.

356 See Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 431–434. Cf. Allen’s Reports, ix. 422–147; Massachusetts Reports, ix. 500–507.

357 The principal authorities relied upon are Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports; Suffolk Deeds; Suffolk Probate Files; Deblois’s The William Price Fund, Trinity Church, Boston; the works of William Loring Andrews. Thanks are due Mr. Robert H. Kelby of the New York Historical Society, Mr. Irwin C. Cromack of Boston, and Mr. Frederick L. Gay of Brookline, for their kind assistance.

358 See the December meeting, below, pp. 409–452.

359 Magnalia (1702), book iii. part i. chap, iv, § 4. Mather seems largely to have followed Fuller.

360 As Mather, following Fuller, says: “The design was generally approved, and multitudes of discreet and devout Men extreamly resented the Ruine of it.” And this resentment undoubtedly helped the Puritan interest and injured their opponents.

361 Historical Collections (1680), ii. 7 ff.

362 Just as it was here in New England.

363 Constitutional History of England (1874), i. 224–229.

364 Cutts, Dictionary of the Church of England, p. 338.

365 For example, in the fourth year of her reign she compelled the Bishop of London to give her eleven manors in exchange for a miscellaneous lot of these impropriated benefices (Kennett, Impropriations, pp. 155, 156). See also Statutes of the Realm, iv. 381, 382; Acts of the Privy Council, December 24, 1558. The Calendars of State Papers, Domestic, 1559–1560, show how these things were done.

366 The history of the Irish lay impropriations is important and throws light on the actions and motives of those engaged in the controversy over the English feoffment.

367 Kennett, Impropriations, pp. 169, 170.

368 The amiable but not very accurate Fuller says that there were at this time 3845 benefices either appropriated to bishops, cathedrals and colleges, or impropriated (as lay-fees) to private persons, but does not distinguish further. The distinction he makes between appropriation and impropriation was then in use, but the use was merely fanciful.

369 The following, under date of January 27, 1630–31, may have some direct relation to Heylyn’s sermon:

Petition of Richard Dave, son of Wm. Dave, sometime bishop of Winchester to the King. For a reference to a select number of the Council, and Council at Law, with Mr. Noy, to consider a scheme for buying up impropriations, principally by means of a collection throughout England. Underwritten, Reference to the Archbishop of York, the Lords Keeper, Treasurer, President, and Steward, the Earls of Dorset, and Holland, Sec. Dorchester, the Bishops of London and Winchester, Lord Newburgh, the Master of the Wards, the Vice Chamberlain, and Sec. Coke (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1629–1631, p. 174).

It does not appear whether the petition was for or agains the feoffment. The fa’ her of the petitioner was accounted strongly Puritan.

370 Bishop Laud had been at least suspicious of the feoffees for more than a year, for among many things in “considerations for the better settling of church government” suggested to the King in the spring of 1629, Laud had set down “A consideration also to be had, 1. As to the general Feoffees for Benefices and Preferments.”

371 “Rent or revenue derived from house-property (which is continually undergoing deterioration or waste).” This passage from Fuller’s Church History (book xi. p. 137) is the latest noted in the Oxford Dictionary.

372 History of the Puritans (1817), ii. 247, 248.

373 A somewhat blindly calendared paper may indicate that the feoffees held impropriations in Dunstable, Hertford, and Cirencester. See Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1633–1634, p. 344.

374 “At the south west angle of St Sythe’s lane, in Budge-row is [was] situated the church of St Anthony vulgarly termed St Antholin, or Antlin” (Noorthouck, History of London, 1773, p. 600). Fuller says they were charged with misuse of funds,—

. . .when [Being by their Feoffment to erect them where preaching was wanting.] erecting a Lecture every morning at St. Antholines in London. What was this but lighting candles to the Sun, London being already the Land of Goshen, and none of those dark and distant corners, where Soules were ready to famish for lack of the food of the word? What was this but a bold breach of their trust, even in the Eye of the Kingdome?” (Church History, book xi. p. 142).

Their answer to this will be found in the same place. In Thornbury and Walford’s Old and New London (i. 553, 554) is this account of St. Antholin’s:

A new morning prayer and lecture was established here by clergymen inclined to Puritanical principles in 1599. The bells began to ring at five in the morning, and were considered Pharisaical and intolerable by all High Churchmen in the neighbourhood. The extreme Geneva party made a point of attending these early prayers . . . “and curiosity, faction, and humour brought so great a conflux and resort, that from the first appearance of day in the morning on every Sunday, to the shutting in of the light, the church was never empty.” Dugdale also mentions the church. “Now for an essay,” he says, “of those whom, under colour of preaching the Gospel, in sundry parts of the realm, they set up a morning lecture at St. Antholine’s Church in London; where (as probationers for that purpose) they first made tryal of their abilities, which place was the prand nursery whence most of the seditious preachers were after sent abroad throughout all England to poyson the people with their anti-monarchical principles.”

The funds of the Welsh parish were an additional endowment, but as I suppose for additional lecturers.

Mar. 17, 1629. Orders for disposing of certain money given towards the maintenance of six morning lectures in the church of St Antholin, London, indorsed in Bishop Lauds hand. St Antholin’s the lecture 701 per annum; and by the present instrument monies were vested in trustees to pay to each of the lecturers an additional 301 per annum (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic).

375 “The Exchequer Chamber, court of Equity in which the Lord Treasurer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat as judges by the side of the barons” (Gardiner, History of England, vii. 258).

376 The Rev. William Gouge, D.D. (1578–1653), a popular and fashionable preacher for many years at Blackfriars. Mr. Gardiner says that his name and that of Richard Sibbes, “the first two names on the list of feoffees . . . offered sufficient guarantees that no destructive influences were at work” (History of England, vii. 259), and that “Gouge did his best to satisfy Laud. He received his admonitions on account of some irregularities in the administration of the Communion with meekness. He detested he declared those who despised authorities.” Gardiner speaks of him as a moderate Puritan. He was at any rate a very thorough Puritan, as might be judged from his having been recommended to the noted Puritan, Stephen Edgerton, by no less a person than Arthur Hildersham. Furthermore, he was one of the leading members of the Westminster Assembly, in which he was a member of the committee for examination of ministers, on the committee for drafting a confession of faith, and assessor and finally a prolocutor. See the sketch of Gouge in the Dictionary of National Biography.

377 The Rev. Richard Sibbes (Sibs, Sibbs), D.D. (1577–1635). Of him Gardiner says:

Sibbes was a still more notable personage in the ranks of the moderate Puritans . . . Ever since the days of Cartwright there had been a strong Puritan element at Cambridge. Perkins had handed on the torch of religious oratory to Bayne, and Bayne was the spiritual father of Sibbes. [Appointed lecturer at Trinity parish, the] lecture became a great power in Cambridge. Men like Cotton, afterwards the light of New England, and Goodwin, the noted Independent divine, traced their spiritual generation to Sibbes (History of England, vii. 260 ff).

He was chosen preacher to Grays Inn in 1617, and in 1626 Master of St. Catharine’s Hall, offices which he held together. He and Gouge were reprimanded by the Star Chamber for their circular asking alms for the Palatinate exiles. After the feoffment was broken up King Charles presented him to the Vicarage of Trinity. There is no doubt, however, of his Puritanism, for which the High Commission had in 1615 deprived him of his professorship and lectureship.

378 The Rev. Charles (not Giles) Ofspring or Offspringe (it is spelled both ways in his parish register), “s. Thomas of Kent, B. A. from Trinity Coll., Cambridge, 1605–6, M. A. 1609, incorporated 14 July, 1612, rector of St. Antholin, London, 1617” (Foster, Alumni Oxonienses). At St. Antholin’s the baptisms of children Martha, Charles, Charles, Samuel, and Mary are recorded from October, 1625, to October, 1634. His wife Martha was buried August 22, 1649. He was buried March 13, 1659. None of these children survived him. The second Charles died in his twenty-fourth year, and Samuel lived to be twenty-five. St. Antholin parish was a great centre of Puritanism — there is no doubt about the thoroughness of the Rector’s Puritanism. Neal calls him “Dr.”

379 Sir Thomas Crewe (1565–1634). He entered Parliament in 1603, was chosen Speaker in 1623 and again in the first Parliament of Charles I, and in 1633 was a member of the Ecclesiastical Commission.

380 Robert Eyrs. Fuller calls him Ralph Eyre of Lincoln’s Inn.

381 John White (1590–1645), of an old Pembrokeshire family. This is the John White so well and favorably known to us for his part in the management of the Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter and settlement. No one could call him a moderate Puritan. “With reference to Episcopacy White advocated a ‘root and branch policy of extirpation.’” “His hostility to the episcopal system was extreme,” and so, we may add, was his hostility to the Episcopal clergy. See the account of him in the Dictionary of National Biography, which is much better done than some other of the lives of the Puritans in that work.

382 Samuel Browne, of Lincoln’s Inn, October, 1616, was member of Parliament for Clifton, Dartmouth and Hardness, Devonshire; was one of the committee to which the impeachment of Laud was intrusted, and followed him to the death. He seems to have been an Independent and to have fought against the Presbyterian party. He died in 1668. See the sketch of him in the Dictionary of National Biography, where nothing is said of his connection with the feoffment.

Fuller says that besides the feoffees, “there were other inferior Factors, Mr. Foxley, &c. who were employed by appointment, or of officiousness employed themselves in this designe” (Church History, book xi. p. 137).

383 The Rev. Richard Stock (1569–1626) was a Yorkshireman of St. John’s College, Cambridge, “incorporated A. M. Oxford 1595,” after holding various ecclesiastical positions, in 1611 succeeded to the parish of All Hallows, Bread Street, London, where he had been curate. “He was active in promoting the observance of the Lord’s day.” It was doubtless to him that John Davenport succeeded in the feoffment.

384 The charge that the feoffment was a scheme for private gain does not appear in the trial and was doubtless false, although it must be evident that the integrity and prudence of the feoffees alone constrained them to abstain from such gainful breach of trust to which under the temptation of increased funds less worthy successors might have yielded. Mr. Davenport said that he had made nothing, but was the poorer from his connection with the feoffment.

385 One of the advowsons was that of All Saints Church, Worcester, as appears by the following order of August 27, 1633:

The King to [Richard] Sihhes. D.D., [John] Damport [Davenport] clerk, and their Co-grantees of the advowson of All Saints, Worcester. In a suit late depending in the Court of Exchequer, prosecuted against them by the Attorney General, it was decreed that they should confer that church among others, when it should fall void, upon such person as the King should appoint. It being now void it is his Majesty’s pleasure that Valentine Southerton B. D.and Fellow of Christ’s Church, Oxford, be forthwith presented by them. [Draft by Attorney General Noy. A blank was left in the draft for the name of the person to be presented, with reference to which Archbishop Laud has written: “My Lord elect of Hereford [Dr. William Juxon] will give you the name; he is one of Worcester Church” (Calendar of State papers, Domestic, 1633–34, pp. 192, 193).

386 Historical Collections, ii. 150–152, under the year 1632. Under date of January 17, 1633–34, occurs the following:

Minute by Sec. Windebank of his Majesty’s pleasure that Archbishop Laud, Lord Keeper Coventry, Archbishop Neile, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl Marshal, Lord Cottington, and Sec. Coke with Sec. Windebank, calling them Mr. Attorney General, should consider whether the feoffees of impropriations who have been questioned in the Exchequer should be proceeded against criminally, and if so, whether in the Exchequer or Star Chamber (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1633–34, p. 418).

387 The letter to Nicholson dated 16 November, 1797, was printed in the Historical Magazine for August, 1870, Second Series, viii. 112, 118. In connection with the letters printed in the text, see W. G. Sumner’s The Financier of the American Revolution, ii. 279–292.

388 Publications, viii. 90–104.

389 Journals of the House of Lords, ix. 250. The writer of the letter was Edward Montagu, second Baron Montagu of Boughton. For much information in regard to the seizure of the King, see C. H. Firth’s Clarke Papers (Camden Society), vol. i. pp. xxvi–xxxii, 118–120.

390 A True Impartiall Narration, concerning the Armies preservation of the King; by which it doth appear, that the Army doth intend the good, life, propertie, and libertie of all the Commons of England. It is reprinted in Rushworth’s Historical Collections (1701), vi. 513–517.

391 Compleat History of the Life and Raigne of King Charles, p. 1138.

392 Memorials of the English Affairs (1682), p. 370.

393 Monarchy or no Monarchy in England, pp. 50, 51. The title and collation of this pamphlet follow:

Monarchy / or no / Monarchy in England. / Grebner his Prophecy / concerning Charles Son / Of Charles, his Greatnesse, / Victories, Conquests. / The Northern Eyon, or Lyon of the North, and / Chicken of the Eagle discovered who / they are, of what Nation. / English, Latin, Saxon, Scotish and Welch Pro-/ phecies concerning England in / particular, and all Europe in generall. / Passages upon the Life and Death of the late / King Charles. / Ænigmaticall Types of the future State and Condition / of England for many years to come. / By William Lilly, Student in Astrology. / [Eight Latin verses.] / London, Printed for Humfrey Blunden, at the Sign of the Castle / in Corn-hill 1651.

Collation: Title, 1 leaf; To the Reader, pp. (6); The Prophecie of Paulus Grebnerus, concerning these Times, pp. 1–73; Several Observations upon the Life and Death of Charles late King of England, pp. 74–119; Note, p. (120); Illustrations, pp. 2–20.

The running headline of pp. 1–73 is, “Monarchy, or, no Monarchy hereafter in England;” that of pp. 74–119 is, “Observations on the Life and Death of King Charles.” These Observations end on p. 119, and the next page (unnumbered) contains these remarks:

HAD the curtesie of the present Times deserved it at my hands, had’st seene an Explanation of the sixteen Pages following, which in Ænigmatieall Types, Formes, Figures, Shapes, doth perfectly represent the future condition of the English Nation and Common-wealth for many hundreds of yeares yet to come. I have borrowed so much Time from my Morning sleepe, as hath brought forth these Conceptions. You that reade these Lines must know that I doe no new thing, 1 doe herein but imitate the Antients, who so often as they resolved to conceale their intentions from prophane hands, used Hierogliphicks, Images, &c. The Ægyptian Priests were herein excellent, and their judgement commendable; our Saviour also himselfe commandeth; Ne detur sacrum Canibus. If Proridence shall hereafter assigne me a quiet life, and prolong my yeares, I may then perhaps leave unto the Sonnes of Art the severall Changes of every Kingdome and Common-wealth in Europe, in such like Characters as these which now follow.

Then come twenty pages (not sixteen, as Lilly says), the first page blank, each succeeding page containing one or more illustrations. It was later claimed by Lilly that two of these portrayed the plague and the fire of London. There is a copy of this pamphlet in the Boston Athenæum.

It will be observed that the passage relating to the King’s executioner is found in the “Monarchy or no Monarchy” part, and not in the “Observations.” See also p. 288 note 3, below.

394 This pamphlet bears the imprint: “London, Printed for Dan. White, at the seven Stars in St Pauls Church-yard, 1660.” There is a copy in the Harvard College Library. The collation is as follows: Title, 1 leaf; To the Reader, 1 leaf; Text, pp. 1–7.

395 John Thurloe (1616–1668).

396 Journals of the House of Commons, viii. 53.

397 William Prynne (1600–1669).

398 Journals of the House of Commons, viii. 56.

399 Arthur Annesley, first Earl of Anglesey.

400 Journals of the House of Commons, viii. 57.

401 Historical Register and Chronicle of English Affairs (1744), p. 736.

402 Sir Richard Weston (1620–1681).

403 Anthony Pearson (1628–1670).

404 Henry Ireton (1611–1651).

405 John Rushworth (1612–1690).

406 James Norfolk.

407 The regicides Thomas Harrison, Thomas Scott (or Scot), Gregory Clement, Hugh Peters, Francis Hacker, Adrian Scrope (or Scroope), John Cook.

408 Sir Orlando Bridgeman (1606–1674).

409 Mr. William Lilly’s History of His Life and Times, From the Year 1602, to 1681. Written by himself in the 66th Year of his Age, to his worthy Friend Elias Ashmole, Esq; . . . The Second Edition. London: . . . 1715, pp. 88–91. In the year 1715 was also printed a book bearing in part the following title:

Mr. William Lilly’s / True History / of / King James the First, / and / King Charles the First. / With Sundry Observations, Remarkable / Passages, and many secret Transactions / not ‘till now divulged. / Faithfully Publish’d from his own Copy. / . . . London: / . . . M DCC XV.

Collation: Title, 1 leaf; To the Reader, pp. i–vii [1]; Several Observations upon the Life and Death of Charles late King of England, pp. 1–105; What Manner of Death the Archbishop of Canterbury should die, pp. 106–108.

The running headline of pp. 1–105 is, “Observations on the Life and Death of King Charles;” that of pp. 106–108 is, “Observations on the Death of Archbishop Laud.” In his sketch of Lilly in the Dictionary of National Biography, Mr. Sidney Lee says that Lilly’s True History of King James the First and King Charles the First was printed in 1651 as an appendix to his Monarchy or no Monarcy in England. This is a slight error. As we have already seen (p. 283 note, above), the second part of Monarchy or no Monarchy in England was given a different title. Moreover, there are certain differences between the Observations of 1651 and the True History of 1715, of which it is necessary to mention only one here. The passage quoted in our text (p. 283, above) as taken from p. 51 of the Monarchy or no Monarchy in England — beginning “After the execution,” and ending “one of a competent fortune” — does not occur at all in the Observations of 1651, but is transferred to pp. 75, 76 of the True History.

410 It was also reprinted in 1822.

411 Part vi. p. 29. In the same book, January 4 is assigned to “George Joyce, a most audacious Fanatick Rebel Saint;” but in the sketch of Joyce (part i. pp. 13–17) no mention is made of the Lilly story.

412 Capt.William Hulet or Hewlet.

413 See p. 291 note 1, below.

414 Arthur Capel, first Baron Capel of Hadham, beheaded in 1649.

415 Life of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of the Common-Wealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Third Edition with Additions, pp. Ill, 112. The first edition of Kimber’s book, published in 1724, did not contain the passage in the text; the second edition, published in 1725, I have not seen. Five or six editions appear to have been printed.

416 See Notes and Queries, May 8, 1869, Fourth Series, iii. 422.

417 Lilly and the Joyce tradition were again referred to in the Gentleman’s Magazine for July, 1784, liv. 505.

418 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1650, pp. 206, 293.

419 See Mr. Charles H. Firth’s sketch of Joyce in the Dictionary of National Biography, and Temple’s Works (1740), ii. 229, 231–234.

420 The Duty and Character of a National Soldier, Represented in a Sermon Preached, January 2, 1779, At the High Church in Hull, before the Nottinghamshire Militia, pp. 28, 29. In the copy in the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, the word “Joyce” is run through with a pen and “*Hacker or Axtel” written in the margin. The regicides Col. Francis Hacker and Col. Daniel Axtel are meant. By a curious coincidence, my attention was called to this passage by Mr. Julius H. Tuttle, to whose kindness I am indebted, only three days after I had received Mr. Lamberton’s letter.

421 In a letter dated at Venice, March 11, 1649, Joseph Kent wrote:

Gregory the ordinary hangman of London was commanded to assist to the Kings death, which he refused, but to invite him to it lie was proffered two hundred pounds, which he would not hear of; then they threatened to burn him, and at last imprisoned him, because he would not consent to so great a wickedness; but a Judas will never be wanting, a Collonel formerly a brazier (to the great dishonour of the noble military art) with his servant a minister, both masked, were those who cut the thread of His Majesty’s life, and, in it, his loyal subjects happiness. A rogue of a minister, after his head was severed from his sacred body, elevated it publicly to the people. (In Ellis’s Original Letters, Second Series, iii. 340–342.)

Sir Henry Ellis thought that Kent’s allusions were to Col. Joyce and Hugh Peters, but he overlooked the fact that Kent could not have spoken of Joyce as “Colonel” in 1649. Moreover, according to Anthony a Wood, Cornet Joyce was not a brazier but “had been a godly taylor in London” (Fasti Oxonienses, Bliss’s edition, ii. 141). Probably Kent meant Col. Francis Hacker and Peters.

Though Brandon’s name was Richard, he was commonly called “Gregory,” because he succeeded in the office his father, Gregory Brandon. For Richard Brandon, see Sidney Lee’s sketch in the Dictionary of National Biography; W. D. Fellowes, Historical Sketches of Charles the First, Cromwell, Charles the Second, and the Principal Personages of that Period, 1828, pp. 202–204; Gentleman’s Magazine, June, 1784, liv. 409, 410; H. Ellis, Original Letters, Second Series, iii. 340–343 notes; T. B. Howell, State Trials, 1816, iv. 1141, 1142, v. 1155, 1156, 1185–1194; Notes and Queries, June 8, 1861, Second Series, xi. 446.

422 Bridget Lisle, the daughter of the regicide John Lisle, married (1) the Rev. Leonard Hoar, President of Harvard College, and (2) Hezekiah Usher.

423 Publications, viii. 340 note, 341, 342.

424 Boston Gazette, January 7, 1766, p. 3/2. The allusions are of course to George Grenville and Charles Townshend. As to the alleged proclamation, I have not been able to obtain any information.

425 In April, 1769, Governor Bernard became “Sir Francis Bernard of Nettleham in the County of Lincolnshire, Baronet.”

426 Specimens of Newspaper Literature, i. 186–192.

427 See the December meeting, p. 422, below.

428 A brief passage is worth quoting:

And because the said Vaughan, whom his Maiestie graced with the title of Orpheus Junior, and one Democritus Junior, which published the Anatomie of Melancholie, and one Iohn Florio a learned Italian were the first messengers which blazed and reported their ioyfull tidings, Apollo admitted them all three into his Palace, as extraordinarie Waiters (Golden Fleece, part i. p. 23).

429 No place is given on the title-page, but the British Museum Catalogue assigns it, I think correctly, to London. The statement that the pamphlet was reprinted in Boston in 1772 is made on the authority of Sabin.

430 This long tract is not, as one might infer from the brief title given in our text, political, but is religious or theological. The title is in part as follows:

The Spirit of Liberty: or, Junius’s Loyal Address. Being a Key to the English Cabinet: or, an Humble Dissertation upon the Rights and Liberties of the ancient Britons. . . . Humbly addressed to his Majesty. . . . By Junius, Junior. To which is added, A Polemical Tale; or, The Christians Winter Piece: . . . The whole being An Enigmatical Key to the original Rise, History, Progress, Possession, and sacred Treasures of those aucient People who were first called Christians at Antioch. . . . Printed in the Year 1770.

The conclusion “To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty” is as follows:

That your Majesty may enjoy this happy Blessing, and the People their inestimable Privileges, the following Essay, upon the Rights of the People, and more particularly upon the perfect Law of Liberty of those ancient People called Christians, is laid,

With all due Reverence and Submission,

At your Majesty’s Royal Feet,

As your Majesty’s most humble Servant,

And devoted loyal Subject,

JUNIUS, Jun. a Briton born.

Private Village, Aug. 15, 1770.

The Boston Athenæum owns two copies of this tract, one bearing on the flyleaf the words “By J. Allen.” No doubt this was the Rev. John Allen who at one time was pastor of a Baptist Church in Petticoat Lane, Spitalsfields, London, who later went to New York, and of whom there is an account in the Dictionary of National Biography. His pseudonym of “Junius, Junior” was no doubt suggested by the famous Letters of Junius, the first of which was dated January 21, 1769; but possibly was derived from “Junius,” the Latinized form of the Dutch savant, Adriaen du Jon (1512–1575), or of the distinguished French Protestant theologian François du Jon (1545–1602), or of the latter’s son François du Jon (1589–1677). One of these is mentioned on p. 62 of the tract.

431 Not the least interesting feature of Mr. Lamberton’s suggestion is the fact that he himself is unable to account for it. In a second letter he writes me:

When I finished your paper on Joyce Junior, my exact thought was, “Why, Captain Joyce was an alias for Jack Ketch, and the reason was that Joyce was the executioner of Charles I.” But . . . I had no documentary evidence. So I looked up Joyce in the index to Carlyle’s “Cromwell,” and found two references. . . . I could not think of any other place to get documentary evidence of my vague recollection, and so I wrote nothing about it. But now . . . you supply what I lacked. However, my original notion did not come from Lilly’s book, for I never read it. Nor can I say how I ever got the notion. “Captain Joyce” seems to me like a once familiar nickname, which I had not heard since childhood. Yon observe I say “Captain Joyce,” which is the form lodged in my memory. But “Joyce Junior” I never heard of till I read your monograph.

It is in such unexpected and unexplainable ways that difficult problems are often solved.

432 See Frothingham, History of Charlestown, pp. 47 et seq.

433 Winthrop, History of New England (1825), i. 83.

434 Snow, History of Boston, p. 32. Felt in his Ecclesiastical History of New England agrees with Snow.

435 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 185. The congregation of Boston and Charlestown kept a fast on August 27.

436 Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts (1764), i. 16; 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vii. 189.

437 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xvii. 128.

438 For most of the above see Frothingham’s History of Charlestown, p. 47 et seq.

439 See the “Gleaner” Articles, in Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, v; Shurtleff, Topographical and Historical Description of Boston, p. 392; W. W. Wheildon, Sentry, or Beacon Hill (1877), p. 19.

440 Cotton Mather, Magnalia (1702), book iii. p. 7.

441 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 113.

442 Mr. Wheildon wrote that this was still in use in 1877 (Sentry, or Beacon Hill, pp. 19, 84).

443 See Publications of this Society, x. 257 note 2.

444 See Hill. History of the Old South Church, i. 136–138 notes.

445 See Publications of this Society, iii. 86–90.

446 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 38.

447 Suffolk Deeds, iii. 121, 128, 476.

448 See C. F. Adams’s Antinomianism in Massachusetts, p. 336; Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist opening the Secrets of Familism and Antinomianism by Samuel Rutherford, Professor of Divinity at St. Andrews, Scotland, Sold at the Green Dragon in St. Paul’s Churchyard, 1648, p. 176, chap, xxi.: Of the first sewers of Antinomianism in New England. It starts off thus, “Mrs Hutchinson, the American Jezebel.”

449 Adams’s Antinomianism in Massachusetts, p. 336; Publications of this Society, x. 26.

450 Lechford, Note-Book, p. 31; Suffolk Deeds, ii. 11, iii. 254, iv. 106, 116, vi. 340, x. 295, xi. 73. A portion was opposite the Globe Building (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xi. 119). See also an article by M. J. Canavan in the Boston Herald, June 4, 1901.

451 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vol. ii. part ii. p. 102.

452 Letters from New England, p. 85.

453 He settled in Dublin in 1658 (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, pp. 367, 466).

454 See notes in Lechford’s Note-Book.

455 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, ii. 57.

456 See Suffolk Deeds, viii. 360.

457 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vol. ii. part ii. p. 102; 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vii. 48.

458 Suffolk Deeds, i. 193.

459 Drake, History of Boston, p. 229. List of those who gave up arms.

460 Winthrop, History of New England, i. 212.

461 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vol. ii. part ii. p. 75.

462 Lechford, Note-Book, p. 102.

463 See Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England.

464 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 1.

465 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xviii. 68.

466 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 141; Suffolk Deeds, viii. 322, ix. 120.

467 Memorial History of Boston, i. 174.

468 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 38; Suffolk Deeds, i. 100.

469 Suffolk Deeds, ii. 200, 202, 315.

470 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 101.

471 See Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vol. ii. part ii. p. 100.

472 See E. Rogers, Life and Opinions of a Fifth Monarchy Man (1867); Masson’s Milton; Thurloe’s State Papers; Pepys’s Diary.

473 Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv. part i. p. 33.

474 Suffolk Deeds, ii. 177, 200, 202, 315.

475 Ibid. iii. 26.

476 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xx. 106, 142.

477 Shurtleff, Topographical and Historical Description of Boston, p. 395.

478 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vii. 20.

479 Ibid. vii. 66.

480 Francis Higginson in his New Englands Plantation.

481 Winthrop, History of New England; Memorial History of Boston, i. 741; Savage, Genealogical Dictionary.

482 Besse, Sufferings of the Quakers (1753), ii. 267.

483 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 83.

484 Suffolk Deeds, viii. 387, v. 35.

485 Suffolk Deeds, vi. 20.

486 Ibid. iv. 256.

487 Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv. part i. p. 99 (June 1, 1652).

488 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 108.

489 The original agreement is in the Boston Public Library.

490 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vii. 38, 44.

491 Ibid. vii. 92.

492 Supposed to have been set by Peter Lorphelin, a Frenchman, who worked at the Castle Tavern. He was tried for arson and found guilty of having coiner’s tools in his possession.

493 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxx. 432.

494 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 383.

495 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vii. 172.

496 Suffolk Deeds, i. 165, ii. 258, v. 104, vi. 9, viii. 417, ix. 442.

497 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vii. 172.

498 See Publications of this Society, i. 199–201.

499 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xi. 197.

500 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 358.

501 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, viii. 26.

502 Ibid. xxv. 134.

503 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 155.

504 Suffolk Deeds, iii. 144; ibid. iii. 26, showing that in 1655 Blackleech was living in Mr. Hudson’s house south of the Town House.

505 See Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 115; Publications of this Society, viii. 118.

506 Suffolk Deeds, i. 135.

507 See plan of this estate in Mr. Edes’s Memoir of Dr. Thomas Young, pp. 2–54, above.

508 Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, ii. 554.

509 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 94.

510 Suffolk Deeds, i. 102.

511 In the Dictionary of National Biography, under Thomas Rainborow, is a reference to his brother William. Thomas (died 1648) was the more celebrated of the two brothers. See also Firth, Life of Thomas Harrison, p. 8.

512 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vii. 280.

513 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vol. ii. part ii. p. 24.

514 Some say she was not a sister of Bellingham, but Winthrop, under date of 1639 (History of New England, i. 320), says that Hibbins was Bellingham’s brother-in-law. In 1641 Bellingham married for his second wife, Penelope Pelham.

515 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 610.

516 See Publications of this Society, x. 20, 21.

517 Snow’s History of Boston, pp. 140, 141.

518 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 574.

519 Suffolk Deeds, ii. 281.

520 Ibid. vii. 228.

521 See Josselyn’s Two Voyages to New England (1865), p. 25.

522 Winthrop, History of New England, ii. 263, 274; 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 527; 4 ibid. vi. 179.

523 See 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, iii. 441, vi. 179.

524 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, pp. 326, 327; Aspinwall’s Notarial Records, passim.

525 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 527.

526 3 Ibid. x. 19.

527 5 Ibid. viii. 214.

528 3 Ibid. x. 1.

529 Suffolk Deeds, iii. 487, xi. 226.

530 Ibid. iii. 257.

531 See Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies, 1661–1668, p. 54; Sibley, Harvard Graduates, i. 577.

532 Dictionary of National Biography, John Crowne.

533 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 382.

534 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 159.

535 Besse’s Sufferings of the Quakers, ii. 271. See also Mr. Noble’s paper on William Leddra, Publications of this Society, x. 335–345.

536 Besse’s Sufferings of the Quakers, ii. 218.

537 Suffolk Deeds, vi. 31, 126.

538 Besse’s Sufferings of the Quakers, ii. 271.

539 Ibid. ii. 270.

540 Suffolk Deeds, vii. 294

541 Ibid. vii. 301.

542 Ibid. viii. 288.

543 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vii. 88.

544 Ibid. xi. 26.

545 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xi. 182.

546 Ibid. xi. 181.

547 Ibid. xi. 209.

548 Suffolk Deeds, iii. 118.

549 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xi. 181.

550 Suffolk Deeds, xxxvii. 20.

551 Ibid, xxxvii. 204.

552 Ibid, xxxix. 203.

553 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xiii. 88.

554 Ibid. xxv. 326.

555 Ibid, xxiii. 192.

556 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxxiii. 232.

557 See Shurtleff, Topographical and Historical Description of Boston, pp. 390 et seq.

558 Wheildon, Sentry, or Beacon Hill, pp. 85, 86.

559 Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, iii. 57–63.

560 History of Boston, p. 33.

561 When it became known that the invested funds of the Society lacked only three hundred dollars of fifty thousand dollars, three members generously gave one hundred dollars each.

562 Publications, viii. 193–198.

563 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 16.

564 Hutchinson, Collection of Original Papers, p. 435.

565 History of Harvard University (1840), i. 29, 30.

566 Collection of Original Papers, p. 429.

567 Hutchinson gives the name as “Arth. Palmer” — doubtless an error in transcription for “Anth. Palmer,” as I can find no trace of an Arthur Palmer.

568 The allusion is to the second Harvard College, erected between 1672 and 1682, and burned in 1764.

569 In his Genealogical Dictionary of New England (iv. 8), Savage stated that Richard Saltonstall, the son of Sir Richard Saltonstall, was not in this country after 1664. In his paper alluded to in the text, Mr. Noble showed that Saltonstall was here in April and June, 1672, and that he had been here in May, 1671 (Publications, viii. 193 note 3). The present document proves that he was here in August, 1671.

570 The names in the first column are those of ministers, in the second column those of magistrates. The persons are too well known to need comment.

571 Massachusetts Archives, lviii. 72, 73.

572 As stated in the text, the letter is a copy. Hence we should expect certain discrepancies in the spelling of names. In the copy the name of “m^r Loather” occurs. I cannot find any trace of a dissenting minister of that name at the time, and I suppose that it was the copyist’s error for “Loder.” It is possible, too, that my identification of certain of the names is incorrect. Notices of all the dissenting ministers will be found in S. Palmer’s edition of Calamy’s Nonconformist’s Memorial, while sketches of all except Griffith and Loder are given in the Dictionary of National Biography.

573 Jahleel Brenton (1655–1732) was a son of Governor William Brenton of Rhode Island. The manuscript is obscure and may read “Taleel” Brenton.

574 For a notice of Sir Francis Wheler, see the Dictionary of National Biography.

575 The wife and daughter of Governor Shirley are commemorated by a beautiful monument in King’s Chapel, Boston, and in Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes’s poem, “King’s Chapel.” See Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 131, 626. Mrs. Bollan was buried 18 February, 1744–45; and her daughter (Mrs. Western) was baptized on the ninth of March following (King’s Chapel Registers).

576 Atkinson subsequently married his cousin Frances Wentworth, who, a fortnight after his death, married her early lover, another cousin, Sir John Wentworth, afterward Governor of New Hampshire and of Nova Scotia. Her portrait by Copley is in the Lenox Library. See Wentworth Genealogy (1878), vol. i. pp. xxviii, xxix, 299, 318, 548, 549. An engraving of Copley’s canvas faces p. 548.

577 The Hon. Chambers Russell (H. C. 1731), Judge of the Admiralty and of the Superiour Court of Judicature. A son of the Hon. Daniel Russell, long a member of the Executive Council, he was born in Charlestown, 4 July, 1713, and died in Guilford, Surrey, England, 24 November, 1766. See Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 831, 832; Publications of this Society, viii. 159.

In this connection, it is interesting to note that Judge Russell was succeeded on the Bench of the Superiour Court by Edmund Trowbridge (Whitmore, Massachusetts Civil List, p. 70).

578 The Hon. James Russell of Charlestown, where he was born 5 August, 1715. He held many offices of trust and honor in the Province, including a seat in the Executive Council (1761–1773). He was also appointed, in 1774, one of the Mandamus Councillors, but refused to qualify. He was a Judge of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas (1771–1774); and died in Charlestown 24 April, 1798 (Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 831, 832; Whitmore, Massachusetts Civil List, pp. 61–64, 88).

579 Bristol Deeds, lxvii. 312–314. The deed, dated 23 October, 1788, conveys this property to Rufus Whitmarsh, gentleman, and William Brown, merchant, both of Dighton, and Jedediah Briggs, gentleman, of Berkeley, all in the County of Bristol. With it is recorded Mrs. Western’s power of attorney to Francis Dana, dated in London, 14 March, 1787. It refers specifically to this and several other pieces of real estate belonging to her. Some of these parcels in the County of Bristol were subsequently. sold by Dana (1790–1795). See Bristol Deeds, lxix. 240, lxxiii. 377, 378. Cf. Publications of this Society, vii. 91 note, 92 note, For these facts I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Joshua Eddy Crane.

580 This demand was for money due Mrs. Western’s father, William Bollan, for services as agent of the Province in London. It was finally paid. See Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1784–85, chap. 23 of Resolves, May Session,1785, p. 637; ibid. 1790–91, chap. 142 of Resolves, January Session, 1790, p. 233.

581 In a subsequent letter, dated 22 March, 1793, Dana writes: “Judge Trowbridge, who is in the 84th year of his age, I think can now live but a few days.” He died 2 April, 1793. For a sketch of Judge Trowbridge, see Publications of this Society, v. 74–77.

582 This letter is wholly in Chief-Justice Dana’s handwriting. It is one of a series of copies of numbered letters written by him to Mrs. Western, some of which are signed and some, including this one, are not. The Chief-Justice had charge of all Mrs. Western’s property and business affairs in this country, and was her duly appointed attorney.

583 See Publications of this Society, iii. 354 and note.

584 They are owned by the Essex Institute, Mr. Zachary T. Hollingsworth, and Mr. Frederick L. Gay. The view was reproduced and described in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for December, 1903, xii. 338, 339.

585 At Worcester. In 1801 Coleman established the New York Evening Post.

586 New Hampshire.

587 Joseph Atherton.

588 Richard Cutts Shannon.

589 Probably Timothy Paine.

590 William Plumer (1759–1850) was the son of Samuel and Mary (Dole) Plumer. Sketches of most of the persons mentioned in these letters will be found in Bell’s Bench and Bar of New Hampshire.

591 John Prentice.

592 Probably “An Act for the recovery of small debts in an expeditious way and manner,” enacted by the House, November 9, 1785.

593 At Epping.

594 In 1691 Samuel Allen (1636–1705), a London merchant, bought of the heirs of Capt. John Mason their title to lands in New Hampshire. Thus began a controversy which, upon the death of Governor Allen, was continued by his son, Thomas Allen. The death of the latter in 1715 “put an end to the suit, which his heirs, being minors, did not renew.” See Belknap, History of New Hampshire (1784), ii. 239, 288–328. See also New Hampshire Provincial Papers, iv. 43, x. 276.

595 See New Hampshire State Papers, xx. 614.

596 Of Portsmouth.

597 James Bowdoin.

598 For a sketch of Jonathan Moulton (1726–1787), the son of Jacob and Sarah Moulton, see J. Dow, History of Hampton, i. 278, 279, ii. 866, 870.

599 Probably Capt. William Horne. See Quint, Historical Memoranda, p. 320.

600 See New Hampshire State Papers, xx. 697.

601 The vote was 44 to 34.

602 The Rev. Joseph Buckminster.

603 Daniel Runnels.

604 Archibald McMurphy.

605 Ephraim Robinson, John Waldron, John Duncan, Jeremiah Stiles, and Moses Dow.

606 Lt. Jonathan Clough.

607 See p. 242 note 2, above.

608 See p. 241 note 2, above.

609 Thomas Cotton.

610 Maj. Jonathan Cass.

611 Samuel Morse.

612 John Prentice.

613 Nathaniel Peabody.

614 Samuel Livermore.

615 State Papers, New Hampshire, xx. 627.

616 In December, 1784. See New Hampshire State Papers, xx. 255.

617 Michael M^cClary. See ibid. xx. 254, 255.

618 Joseph Badger, Jr.

619 The following extract is from the Constitution of New Hampshire, drawn up in 1783:

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are prevented, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new government (part i. art. i. § 10).

620 Probably Capt. Samuel Cherry. See New Hampshire State Papers, xx. 812, 826.

621 John Prentice.

622 John Pinkerton.

623 While November 18 is the date given in the title, the heading on p. 3 reads: “A Judicious Observation of that Dreadful Comet which appeared on the 20th of November, 1680.”

624 Page 3.

625 Pages 7, 8.

626 Page 13.

627 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, ii. 8.

628 Ministry on the Kennebec, 2 Maine Historical Collections, ix. 113–123.

629 See Morton’s New England’s Memorial (Davis’s edition, 1826), p. 475; 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 299–301. For this reference I am indebted to Mr. Frederick L. Gay.

630 Cf. Publications of this Society, viii. 200 note.

631 At the meeting in March last (p. 263, above), Mr. Matthews exhibited photographs of the Constitutional Courant and of several of the snake devices, but was unable to procure others in time to include the paper in the Transactions of that meeting.

632 Sparks says that the article quoted later in the text (pp. 415, 416, below) “was undoubtedly written by the editor” of the Pennsylvania Gazette — that is, by Franklin. McMaster asserts that “both the design and the cutting were the work of Franklin” (Benjamin Franklin, 1887, p. 162); but no proof of the statement is offered. It should not be forgotten that David Hall was Franklin’s partner in the publication of the Pennsylvania Gazette.

633 See pp. 419, 420, below.

634 See pp. 420, 421, below.

635 In a circular letter to the Governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the Lords of Trade wrote:

We desire you will lay this matter before the Council and General Assembly of the Province under your government and recommend to them forthwith to make a proper provision for appointing Commissioners, to be joined with those of the other Governments, for renewing the Covenant Chain with the Six Nations and for making such presents to them as has been usual upon the like occasions. . . . As to the time and place of meeting it is left to the Governor of New York to fix it (New York Colonial Documents, vi. 802).

The reason why no commissioners were sent from Virginia to the Albany Congress is thus stated in a letter written (presumably January 29, 1754) by Governor Dinwiddie to the Governor of New York:

Since writing the above I rec’d Y’r Letter of the 4th Dec’r covering that from the L’d’s Comiss’rs for T[rade] and P[lantations]. I observe Y’r Intent’on of an Interview with the Ind’s at Albany in June next, w’ch am very sorry interferes with the Meeting I have propos’d with the Six Nat’ns and the So’thern Ind’s on the 20th of May next, add thereto the Broils we are like to have with the French, w’ch will enhance all my Time, and I am convinc’d the Assembly of this Province will be very backward in sending Com’rs to Albany, as the Charge of the intended meeting at Winchester, and the raising of Men to defeat the Designs of the French will be very considerable (Dinwiddie Papers, i. 66).

636 The alleged reason for the delay is sufficiently curious to be given. The following paragraph, copied from a New York paper of June 24, is taken from the Pennsylvania Gazette of June 27, 1754:

The Indians of the several different Tribes design’d to form the Congress the 14th Instant, were not come down to Albany the Day appointed, owing, ’tis said, to one of their Sachems having died on or about that Day 12 Months, and their then being busy with the Ceremonies customary among them, so long a Time after the Death of such Personages: They however were to be in Albany the Monday after, being the 17th Instant (p. 2/2).

637 In the proceedings of the Congress (printed in New York Colonial Documents, vi. 853–892) there is little about the plan of union until the completion of the treaty with the Indians. In the Boston Gazette of July 18 appeared the following, dated New York, July 8:

From Albany we are told, That the Treaty ended there, in Favour of the British Interest, the latter End of the Week before last, and that several of the Gentlemen who assisted therein, designed to visit the Mohawks Country, being thereunto invited by sundry of the Mohawks Chiefs (p. 2/2).

The plan of union engrossed the attention of the Congress on July 9, 10, and 11.

The idea of a union of the colonies was “in the air” at that time, but a discussion of the subject does not come within the scope of this paper. An excellent account of the attempts at forming a union between 1690 and 1760 is given by Frothingham in his Rise of the Republic (pp. 101–157). See also Winsor’s Intercolonial Congresses and Plans of Union, in the Narrative and Critical History of America, v. 611–614. Archibald Kennedy’s Importance of Gaining and Preserving the Friendship of the Indians to the British Interest is sometimes assigned to 1752. The London edition was printed in that year, but the New York edition was published in 1751. At the end is printed a letter not signed, but dated “Philadelphia, March 20, 1750, 1.” This was first included in an edition of Franklin’s works by Bigelow in 1887, the editor’s attention having been called to the letter by Edward Eggleston. As early as 1852, however, Bancroft had stated his belief that the “voice from Philadelphia” was “in tones which I believe were Franklin’s” (History of the United States, iv. 91). This attribution was repeated in 1876 (ibid. iii. 59), but in 1883 (ibid. ii. 370) was withdrawn. In 1754 Kennedy wrote another pamphlet on the subject — Serious Considerations on the Present State of the Affairs of the Northern Colonies. The pamphlet was advertised in the Boston Evening-Post of August 19 (p. 2/1) and August 26 (p. 2/2) as “Just published at New-York, And sold by Thomas Fleet, at the Heart and Crown in Cornhill, Boston.” Yet internal evidence seems to indicate that it was written before the meeting of the Albany Congress. One sentence reads:

Will not the Commissioners from the several Colonies, and it is to be hoped a Majority will attend, in the first Place consider the Danger we are in at this Point of Time? (p. 23. Cf. pp. 6, 14, 15).

It is not uninteresting to inquire exactly when Franklin worked out his plan of union. The account given in his Autobiography, written not earlier than 1788, is as follows:

In 1754, war with France being again apprehended, a congress of commissioners from the different colonies was, by order of the Lords of Trade, to be assembled at Albany, there to confer with the chiefs of the Six Nations concerning the means of defending both their country and ours. Governor Hamilton . . . naming the speaker (Mr. Norris) and myself to join Mr. Thomas Penn and Mr. Secretary Peters as commissioners to act for Pennsylvania, . . . we met the other commissioners at Albany about the Middle of June.

In my way thither, I projected and drew a plan for the union of all the colonies under one government, so far as might be necessary for defense, and other unimportant general purposes. As we passed through York, I had there shown my project to Mr. James Alexander and Mr. Kennedy (Writings, Smyth’s edition, i. 386, 387).

Franklin left Philadelphia June 3 (Pennsylvania Gazette, June 6, p. 2/2), reached New York June 5 (New-York Gazette, June 10, p. 2/3), embarked for Albany June 9 (ibid. June 10, p. 2/3), and arrived at Albany June 15 (Pennsylvania Gazette, June 27, p. 2/2). On June 8 Franklin wrote James Alexander as follows:

Mr. Alexander is requested to peruse these Hints, and make remarks in correcting or improving the scheme, and send the paper with such remarks to Dr. Colden for his sentiments, who is desired to forward the whole to Albany, to their very humble servant (ibid. iii. 199 note).

And on June 9 Alexander wrote to Colden:

I had some conversation with Mr. Franklin and Mr. Peters as to the uniting the colonies, . . . Whereupon Mr. Franklin promised to set down some hints of a scheme that he thought might do, which accordingly he sent to me to be transmitted to you, and it is enclosed (ibid. iii. 199).

Apparently, therefore, the plan was drawn up after Franklin reached New York, and not on his way thither from Philadelphia.

638 These include the following, which I think were the only papers published north of Maryland: Pennsylvania Gazette, Pennsylvania Journal, New-York Gazette, New-York Mercury, Boston Evening-Post, Boston Gazette, Boston News-Letter, Boston Post-Boy. The files I examined of the New-York Gazette, Boston News-Letter, and Boston Post-Boy, were incomplete.

639 See pp. 415, 416, below.

640 A notice similar, but not precisely the same, appeared in the Pennsylvania Journal, June 9, p. 2/3. The Pennsylvania commissioners were John Penn, the Rev. Richard Peters, Isaac Norris, and Benjamin Franklin.

641 It should be borne in mind that my purpose in limiting the examination of the newspapers to the months of May–August was to see what they contained before and during the meeting of the Congress. Later, when the plan of union adopted at the Congress came before the different Assemblies for discussion, there was doubtless much about it in the papers.

642 That the specific plan of union unanimously adopted at the Albany Congress was rejected alike in England and in this country does not militate against the view that a union was generally desired.

643 Ensign Edward Ward. See Dinwiddie Papers, i. 147.

644 Capt. William Trent. See ibid. i. 22.

645 Col. Joshua Fry. See ibid. i. 7.

646 In a letter dated February 14, Governor Dinwiddie describes “the cruel and barbarous Murder in cool Blood of a whole Family in this Dom’n, Man, Wife, and five children, no longer ago than last Month; and very lately a poor Man on the So. Branch of Potomack [was] robbed of his son.” He then goes on to draw a lurid picture of what happened:

Think, You see the Infant torn from the unavailing Struggles of the distracted Mother, the Daughters ravish’d before the Eyes of their wretched Parents, and then, with Cruelty and Insult, butcher’d and scalp’d. Suppose the horrid Scene compleated and the whole Family, Man, Wife and Children (as they were,) murder’d and Scalp’d by these relentless Savages, and then torn in Pieces, and in Part devour’d by wild Beasts, for whom they were left a Prey by their more brutal Enemies (Dinwiddie Papers, i. 74. Cf. i. 119).

647 It is believed that every newspaper published in the colonies at the time is enumerated in the text.

648 For this information I am indebted to Mr. George W. McCreary, assistant secretary and librarian of the Maryland Historical Society.

649 Capt. James McKay. See Dinwiddie Papers, i. 146.

650 Robert Dinwiddie.

651 Washington capitulated at Fort Necessity on July 3.

652 Capt. Thomas Clarke commanded an Independent Company from New York.

653 Dinwiddle’s letters are filled with denunciations of the other colonies for their dilatoriness in responding to his appeals for aid.

654 For this extract I am indebted to Miss Mabel L. Webber, librarian of the South Carolina Historical Society.

655 History of Printing in America, ii. 329.

656 It is usually described as a wood-cut, but McMaster speaks of it as “a cut in type-metal” (Benjamin Franklin, p. 162).

657 Works of Franklin, iii. 25.

658 Stephen Hopkins, i. 172 note.

659 Larger History of the United States of America, pp. 224, 225. The statement is repeated in Higginson and MacDonald’s History of the United States from 986 to 1905 (1905), p. 217.

660 Memorial History of the City of New-York, ii. 353.

661 Benjamin Franklin, p. 79.

662 Harpers’ Cyclopædia of United States History, i. 1431.

663 The frequency with which the Bradford device of 1774–1775 is made to do duty for the Franklin device of 1754, is doubtless explained by the fact that it is easier to copy the device given by Lossing in 1851 than it is to hunt up the original.

664 In form B, “publick.” The copy of form A printed in the text has been carefully collated with the Boston Athenæum copy of form B, and all variations are noted in footnotes.

665 Marvel’s address “To the Public” was printed by Thomas in his History of Printing in America (1810), ii. 504. It is the only portion of the Constitutional Courant that, so far as I am aware, has been reprinted. Andrew Marvel is supposed to be a pseudonym for William Goddard. See p. 441, below.

666 In form B there is no comma after “charters.”

667 In form B there is a comma after “privileges.”

668 In form B there is no comma after “kings.”

669 In form B there is no comma after “father.” As late as 1768 George III was alluded to as “our best Protector and common Father.” See Publications of this Society, viii. 281.

670 The letters within brackets refer to the forms A, B, and C, of which explanations are given on pp. 433–435, below; while the figures indicate the beginning of each column.

671 In form B, “publick.”

672 In form B there is no comma after “such.”

673 In form B, “publick.”

674 In form C, the text ends here, after which comes the imprint. A long letter on the Stamp Act dated December 19, 1765, occupied more than half of John Holt’s New-York Gazette Extraordinary of December 27. It was signed “Philolutherus.”

In the Boston Post-Boy of October 7, 1765, appeared the following:

☞ The Piece signed Phileleutheros, is receiv’d, and will be inserted in our next (p. 3/3).

To our associate Dr. Franklin B. Dexter I am indebted for the information that this piece is a mere didactic disquisition on liberty.

The Boston Gazette of October 28, 1765 (p. 3/1) printed a communication signed “Phileleutherus,” taken from the Rhode Island Mercury of October 14. In the Boston Evening-Post of February 21, 1774, there is a letter signed “Phileeutheros” (p. 1/3).

675 In form B this paragraph is set in smaller type.

676 In form B, “abbettors.”

677 In form B, “publick.”

678 In form B, “abbettors.”

679 In form B there is no comma after “constitution.”

680 In form B, “i. e.”

681 In form B there is no comma after “rank.”

682 In form B, “&”.

683 In form B, this paragraph is set in smaller type.

684 In form B, this paragraph is set in smaller type.

685 In form B the entire third column of the second page is set in smaller type.

686 In form B, “birth right.”

687 In form B, apparently “Stamp-Act.”

688 In form B, “Philopatriæ.” In form A, there is apparently a slight space between “Philo” and “Patriæ.”

689 In form B, there is no comma after “Ministry.”

690 In form B, “Publick.”

691 This copy, somewhat mutilated, is bound in a file of Holt’s New-York Gazette for 1765, between the issues of September 19 and 26.

692 Underneath the imprint in this copy is written in ink, “This is the Original, Published in New York.”

693 In the Harvard College Library, bound with its two copies of the Constitutional Courant, is a letter written January 9, 1897, by William Nelson to Justin Winsor. Mr. Nelson states that his information about the copy in the Public Record Office came from Benjamin F. Stevens, who wrote him that “there are four other copies of the Courant in different Offices in London, which he [Mr. Stevens] has been unable to examine so far.” There is a copy in the British Museum, presumably of form A or form B, but of which the Catalogue does not enable me to say with certainty. The information derived from Mr. Stevens caused Mr. Nelson to write: “This convinces me that that [form A] is a copy of the first edition, and I am inclined to think that the paper was printed by Parker, at Woodbridge, and not by Goddard at Burlington.”

694 This copy is bound in a file of the Boston Evening-Post for 1765, between the issues of September 16 and 23.

695 In this copy under the name of Andrew Marvel in the imprint, is written in ink, “pseudonym. Wm. Goddard;” and under Constitution Hill in the imprint is written in ink, “Burlington, N. J.”

696 Letter of Mr. Nelson to Mr. Winsor, January 9, 1897. Dr. Dexter has been kind enough to confirm the statement.

697 Underneath the imprint in this copy is written in ink, “This was republished in Philadelphia.”

698 In 1872 Frothingham wrote:

The “Constitutional Courant” . . . appeared with this motto [Join or Die] on the 21st of September [1765]; and the figure [of a snake], with the address [of Andrew Marvel], appears in the “Boston Post Boy” of Oct. 7 (Rise of the Republic, p. 182 note).

This is a mistake, as there is no mention of the Constitutional Courant in the Boston Post-Boy; and Frothingham, no doubt through inadvertence, wrote Boston Post-Boy when he meant Boston Evening-Post.

699 Colden Papers, ii. 38, 39.

700 Ibid. ii. 45.

701 I have not myself met with documents bearing such an imprint. For a notice of Peter Hasenclever, who came to this country in 1764, see New Jersey Archives, ix. 583 note.

702 History of Printing in America, ii. 322, 323. What the English “periodical works” were, to which Thomas alludes, I do not know.

703 Mr. Edmund M. Barton kindly informs me that Thomas used for his intended second edition a copy of the first; that the changes specified in our text as made in the 1874 edition occur in the margin in Thomas’s own handwriting; and that “the only date attached to the additions and corrections in the handwriting of our Founder is March, 1815, showing that he began his intended second edition early.”

704 Specimens of Newspaper Literature, i. 236 note, 246.

705 History of the City of New York, i. 722.

706 Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution, i. 468, 469. The reference in the text is to p. 508 of Lossing’s book.

707 Ibid. i. 507.

708 Harpers’ Cyclopædia of United States History, ii. 1431, 1432. The statement is repeated in Harper’s Encyclopædia of United States History, 1902, ix. 153, 154.

709 History of New York City, i. 27.

710 Memorial History of the City of New-York, ii. 353.

711 Specimens of Newspaper Literature, i. 246.

712 See pp. 434 note 2, 438, above.

713 In the illustrations which accompany this paper, the Harvard College Library copy of the Constitutional Courant is No. VI, while the Boston Gazette device of 1754 is No. II.

714 Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution, i. 508.

715 See Memorial History of the City of New-York, ii. 353; Gamer and Lodge’s History of the United States, i. 381.

716 See Publications of this Society, ix. 412. W. Cushing identifies Andrew Marvel with William Goddard in his Initials and Pseudonyms (1885, pp. 184, 439), as does also Evans in his American Bibliography (i. 7).

717 One of these, a broadside, is headed, “Philadelphia, June 10th, 1773. To my Fellow Citizens, Friends to Liberty, and Enemies to Despotism.” The title of the other, a small pamphlet of sixteen pages, is in part, “Andrew Marvell’s Second Address to the Inhabitants of Ppiladelphia [sic].” Both, which were due to a proposal to build a market or range of shambles, are attributed to Goddard by Evans (American Bibliography, iv. 57); and are noted, but without attribution, by Sabin (Dictionary of Books relating to America, xi. 253) and Hildeburn (Issues of the Press in Philadelphia, ii. 168).

718 History of Printing in America, ii. 272.

719 History of Printing in America, i. 428.

720 The articles of agreement are given by Goddard in his Partnership, p. 7 note.

721 Ibid. p. 5.

722 History of Printing in America, ii. 121. Thomas underrates the number of pages, as there are really 584. The collation of the volume is as follows: Title, 1 leaf; Contents, pp. ii–vi; Preface, pp. vii–x; The History of New-Jersey, pp. 1–573; Errata, (p. 574).

723 Check-list of the Issues of the Press of New Jersey (1899), p. 9.

724 Check-list of the Issues of the Press of New Jersey (1899), pp. 41, 42.

725 As late as June 27, Parker was still at Woodbridge, as appears from the following advertisement inserted in the Pennsylvania Gazette of that date (P. 3/2):

FORASMUCH as several of the Subscribers to the New American Magazine, printed, a few Years ago at Woodbridge, in New-Jersey, have never paid off their Arrears due for the same; . . . therefore he applies in this Manner to such as are honest Men of those Subscribers, who are conscious that they are still indebted for any of those Magazines, earnestly desiring they would be so good as either to remit the Pay to the said Printer at Woodbridge, or to Franklin and Hall in Philadelphia, which would be gratefully accepted by their humble Servant,

JAMES PARKER.

726 The imprint is: “Burlington, in New-Jersey: Printed and Sold by James Parker: Sold also by David Hall, in Philadelphia. m,dcc,lxv.”

727 A letter of inquiry addressed to the University Press brought such an interesting reply that I subjoin it:

In reply to yours of 14th inst., asking our opinion as to how long it probably took to print Smith’s History of New Jersey, a book of 584 pages, would state that this book, to-day, would ordinarily take say 6 weeks; and, if special haste were arranged for, it could be done in perhaps a month if there was no delay in returning proofs. This is, however, the age of machinery, and cannot very well be contrasted, on the question at issue, with the year 1765. In these days, this whole book could, if necessary, be put in type at once, and as fast as the proofs could be read and approved the forms could be printed (or electrotyped), so that when the last forms were approved the book could speedily be finished. In 1765 the printing offices employed but few hands, and had very small fonts of type, so that (as we are told), a form of 8 pages would be set up, read, approved, printed, and the type distributed, before they could go on with the work, and this operation would then be repeated throughout the whole work. Of course it is possible that they had a font of type which would take care of more than 8 pages; but, as printing offices are reported to have run in those days, there was a constant distributing of the type to enable the work to go on, — the sheets being run off and stored until all were printed. We would not be surprised to learn that it took six months, or more, to set up and print a book of nearly 600 pages. It should be borne in mind, also, that the presswork in those days was done on hand-presses, so that the time lost in waiting for type would be considerable.

Our opinion, therefore, would be that the setting up of the book was begun before Sept. 21 (rather than after) if the book was published on Dec. 31 of the same year.

728 See p. 433 note 3, above.

729 See pp. 433 note 2, 437, above.

730 See p. 437, above.

731 See p. 435 note 1. Hildebum assigns this edition, but without giving any reason, to Andrew Steuart (Issues of the Press in Pennsylvania, ii. 34), and is followed by Evans (American Bibliography, iv. 7). Thomas says:

About the year 1764, Steuart went to Wilmington, Northcarolina, with a press, and part of his types; and he left the other part, and his book shop, in the care of Thomas Macgee and his apprentice James Crukshank. He never returned (History of Printing in America, ii. 58).

Whether this statement is correct, there is apparently no means of knowing. In the Pennsylvania Gazette of July 11 (p. 3/2), July 18 (p. 1/1), and August 29 (p. 4/2), was printed this advertisement:

Just published, and sold, Wholesale and Retail, by ANDREW STEUART, at the Bible-in-Heart, in Second-street, between Market and Chestnut-street, Philadelphia,

THE Universal American Almanack, or yearly Magazine, for the Year 1766.

This advertisement apparently did not again appear in the year 1765 after August 29.

732 History of Printing in America, ii. 307. Thomas erroneously states that the change took place in January, 1775.

733 Ibid. ii. 252.

734 * Some fifty years hence, when the body fills up, an elephant supporting Great Britain on his back, will be a more proper emblem.

735 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 221.

736 James Rivington.

737 The New England pronunciation was often a subject of ridicule. For an instance, see Publications of this Society, vii. 107.

738 The issue of August 29, 1776, is numbered 1756. The next issue, numbered 1757, appeared at Kingston (Esopus) on July 7, 1777. For this information I am indebted to the officials of the Lenox Library and of the Library of Congress.