TRANSACTIONS

1910–1911

TRANSACTIONS of THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS

JANUARY MEETING, 1910

A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Thursday, 27 January, 1910, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, Henry Lefavour, LL.D., in the chair.

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

The Corresponding Secretary reported that a letter had been received from the Rev. Dr. Edward Caldwell Moore accepting Resident Membership.

Mr. Archibald Cary Coolidge of Cambridge, and Mr. Ezra Henry Baker of Boston, were elected Resident Members.

The President announced the death of George Park Fisher, a Corresponding Member, and of James Barr Ames, a Resident Member, and paid a tribute to their memory. The death of Dr. Fisher occurred at Litchfield, Connecticut, on 20 December, 1909; that of Mr. Ames at Wilton, New Hampshire, on 8 January, 1910.

Mr. Andrew McFarland Davis read the following paper:

A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL PUZZLE

Any person who examines critically the question of prosecutions for libellous publications during the days of the province will soon discover that the provincial government in the time of Governor Shute was especially active in its attempts to suppress publications of this sort, provided they were directed against the administration, and will readily see that the government, in its endeavors to carry out this policy, established, and so far as lay in its power temporarily enforced, a severe censorship of the press. This subject has been developed by Mr. Clyde A. Duniway in his Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts,1 to which publication one may turn for details concerning the proceedings of this kind which then took place. Certain of them are closely connected with the bibliographical puzzle to which I wish to call your attention.

Hutchinson2 refers to the events with which we have to deal in this connection, and his abstract of an answer made by the representatives to a speech of the governor brings the subject fairly before us. The governor had specifically recommended in his speech addressed to the general court March 15, 1721, that measures should be taken to prevent the publication of “factious and seditious” papers. To this the representatives replied — to quote from Hutchinson’s account of the affair — that “the best way to suppress or prevent them is, for the executive part of the government to bring the authors to condign punishment; and if proper measures had been taken to discover and punish the authors of a libel, called News from Robinson Crusoe’s Island, wherein the members of the house are grossly reflected upon, few or none would have dared afterwards to publish anything of that nature or tendency.”

The title of the pamphlet which aroused the indignation of the representatives evidently pleased the publishers of the day, for several tracts were immediately thereafter issued which were dated at “Cruso’s Island” or purported to have been printed at that place. Among these was Reflections upon Reflections or more News from Robinson Cruso’s Island. Still another was entitled “New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island in a Letter to a Gentleman at Portsmouth. Cruso’s island, Printed in the Year 1720.” “The Saddle set on the right horse. Cruso’s island, 1721” was advertised at this time.

Some of these pamphlets dealt more or less with the currency question and the titles of most of them will be found in the Brinley Catalogue topically grouped by Mr. Trumbull under his collection of volumes devoted to the currency. News from the Moon, the specific tract that has caused the confusion and perplexity which we are considering to-day, did not bear the imprint, “Cruso’s island,” but its title will be found in the topical list just mentioned and it has been supposed to have had some connection with the legislative controversies of that time.3 Number 1440 in Mr. Trumbull’s list is “New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island, in a Letter to a Gentleman at Portsmouth, (n. t. p.) pp. 8.” Following this entry Mr. Trumbull quotes from Hutchinson the reference in the reply of the representatives to News from Robinson Cruso’s Island which has already been given and concludes: “To that libel, the ‘New News’ etc., was perhaps a rejoinder.”

The next entry in the Brinley Catalogue, Number 1441, was: “News from the Moon. A Review of the State of the British Nation, Vol. 7. Numb. 14. Page 53. — Tuesday, May 2, 1710. pp. 8.… 16° n. p., n. d. [Boston, J. Franklin, 1721?] A satire aimed, apparently, at the House of Representatives, for their proceedings against the publisher and printer of ‘New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island.’” It is to the various points which suggest themselves in connection with this latter entry that our investigation leads.

Sabin follows Trumbull in his mention of this tract,4 and in his characterization of its contents. He refers, also, to an edition of 1772, but does not mention where a copy of it can be found.

Evans, in his American Bibliography, describes News from the Moon as from the press of J. Franklin in 1721, and characterizes the contents of the pamphlet as “A burlesque on the prosecution of Benjamin Gray for ordering the printing of ‘A Letter to an eminent clergy-man.’”5

Volume XII of the Bulletin of the New York Public Library contains a “List of Works relating to Money and Banking.” This work is included in No. 6, which appeared in June, 1908, where it is to be found on page 394, being there attributed to the Boston press of 1721.6

The foregoing entries compel the consideration of the source of News from the Moon; the determination whether it could have been possible that one of these ephemeral pamphlets could have been republished in 1772; the settlement, if possible, of the question whether it was from the Boston press; and the arrival at a conclusion whether Trumbull or Evans, or either of them, was right in his description of the character of the pamphlet.

First, as to the source of News from the Moon. As a preliminary to this investigation it was necessary to examine the nature of the pamphlet itself. The copy which was in the Brinley Library — perhaps the only one in existence — is now in the Lenox Library and it was easy to procure from that source a copy of its contents. The pamphlet opens with a reference to previous papers of the author describing his experiences in the lunar world and then goes on to narrate an incident purporting to have occurred there which was omitted from his former account. This dealt with the sufferings of a poor tailor who had made a coat that apparently fitted everybody so well that every person to whom it was shown claimed that it was made for him.

The title of the pamphlet refers to the Review of the State of the British Nation, by volume, number, page, and date, and it bears no other date than that given in this reference. The Review referred to was conducted by Daniel Defoe, and was started by him while in prison. In the year 1710 it appeared three times a week, and every copy is said to have been written by Defoe. It bore three names during its existence, the first indicating that it was devoted to a review of the state of affairs in France, the second to a similar inquest of the state of affairs of the English nation, and the third as given in the title of News from the Moon. It is stated in the Encyclopædia Britannica that there is but one perfect set of the Review in existence. Possibly what follows may raise doubts as to whether it can be said that there is a perfect set to be found anywhere.

An examination of the text of News from the Moon showed that it might well be what it purported to be. It refers to The Consolidator, a work published by Defoe in 1705, as being by the same author, and it deals with Lord Dukes, Lord Bishops, and Lord Mayors. There is, however, nothing in it which connects it with our local affairs.

While the subject was under consideration, I was informed that there was a copy of Volume VII of the Review in the library of the American Antiquarian Society. An examination of this volume failed to furnish answers to any of the questions raised, the set of the serial therein contained being very defective, Number 14 as well as many others in the series about that time having been removed. There was but one thing to do if the question was to be settled whether News from the Moon was actually a transcript from the Review, and that was to send to England and obtain a copy of Number 14, of date of May 2, 1710.

In response to an order to this effect came the reply from London that Number 14 of Volume VII in the British Museum was not dated May 2, but April 27, while the actual issue of May 2, 1710, was numbered 16. Fortunately the copyist to whom the order was given sent a copy of Number 16, the opening sentence of which is: “In my last I gave you an Account of the Misfortunes of a poor Taylor, who I had found dragg’d before the Courts of Justice, in a certain City I happen’d to pass through in my late Travels in the Lunar Regions; and indeed it was a hard Case, for as I was inform’d they did their Endeavour to ruin the poor Man, tho’ at the same time all his Crime was, that having made a Coat for one Knave, it fitted Fourty.” Here then was a practical announcement that Number 15 contained what we were in search of.

A copy of Number 15 which bore date April 29, 1710, was then procured and was found to correspond substantially with News from the Moon, with the exception that it had no other title than that of the Review. The reprint in the pamphlet was fairly faithful, most of the variations being of a minor character, and being evidently the result of the caprice or negligence of the compositor. One change was, however, obviously intentional. Defoe four or five times uses the epithet “Dog!” Wherever the word “dog” is used in the original it is stricken out in News from the Moon. The following is the copy obtained from the British Museum.7

Vol. VII. [57.] Numb. 15

A REVIEW of the STATE of the BRITISH NATION

Saturday, April 29. 1710.

I Suppose, every Body, that knows any Thing of the Author of this Paper, knows, that when he having some Years ago travell’d a long Journey, and was carry’d up into the Lunar World in a well known Engine, contriv’d for Elevations by our Famous High Church Men, and which was call’d a Consolidator; at his Return he gave the World some Account of his curious Observations — But one Story he never yet told, and which seems reserv’d to the present Occasion.

Be it known to you all then, That the last time I happen’d to be travelling to the World in the Moon, as I was passing thro’ a great City about my lawful Occasions — What my Business was there, is nothing to any Body: But I found the People in a great Hurry, dragging a poor Taylor away to one of their Courts of Justice — Lord have Mercy upon the poor Man thought I, what will become of him? For he look’d to me just as an English Presbyterian would do, if he were got into the Hands of the High-Church Rabble; (viz.) Like a Man that expected to be murther’d by them.

Being mightily concern’d, you may be sure, to see the poor Man us’d thus, I enquir’d who he was, and what was the Crime for which he was thus treated — I met with many Relations differing from one another about him, for the People there tell the same Story a great many ways, just as they do here, as the Humour takes them; but not [58] to trouble you with the several Relations of the Thing, the Substance of the Man’s Case, it seems, was thus.

The Man, as I told you, was a Taylor by his Trade — Now you are to understand, that tho’ I did not find there was any of that foolish useless Sort of People call’d Poets there, yet they have their Way of satyrizing and ridiculing the Follies and Vices of the Place, as well as in other Countries; and it seems the Taylors are the Satyrs — For when any Man, or Body of Men have play’d the Fool, or the Knave, or the Coward, or a Drunkard, or any vicious Prank — He that has a Mind to lampoon him, goes to a Taylor, and gets such a Coat made, as such People are generally condemn’d to wear upon public Days, who upon Trial are found Guilty of such or such respective Crimes: This Coat is carry’d about the Street, and hang’d up, or shew’d particularly at or near the House of the Person, and is easily known by the Dimensions and Figures made upon it, who it belongs to — And it is call’d in their Language a Thocacterraca, in English, a Representer, or a Character-Coat.

But you must remember too, that there are strict Laws any Taylor making these Coats for Persons innocent of the Follies describ’d; and when any trangress that way, they are severely punish’d, especially when they make a Coat for a Man, and upon trying it on, it does not fit him.

On the other hand, often times it happens, that when a Man makes a Character-Coat for one Man, it fits another, and sometimes a great many.

This is owing partly to the Ignorance of the Taylor, who does not take his Measure right — And partly by Fools and Knaves, being in that Country very often much like one another; but more especially by the Ridiculous Folly of some Men, who when they see a Coat made, tho’ it be the most ridiculing and most exposing thing in the World, they cannot forbear, but they will be always trying it on, and endeavouring to make it fit themselves, whether it will or no — Nay they will stretch the Coat out of all manner of Shape, to see if they can make it fit them, quite contrary to the Taylor’s Design; as if knowing themselves to be Fools, they were desirous all the World, should know it too.

This is a great piece of Injustice to the Taylor, tho’ perhaps it may be none to themselves; for I cannot believe, but every Man IS just AS much a Knave as he would have the World believe him to be.

Just thus it fared some Years ago, with the Author of the Paper called the Review, in the World on this side the Moon — When he happened in a Paper to be Painting out the Character of a State Mountebank, a City Hero, a Coward to his Cause, a Fool, a Knave, and a Ceserter of his Friends.

One said, d …. m the Dog, that’s at me; another, that’s at me; and the like; nay, that would not serve them — But they must bring in their Friends too, who does he mean by that? And who does he mean by this? — That such a Lord that blue List Man, is my L — and his Garter; That Deserter of his Friend, or that empty Headed Magistrate, is the L — d M — r; That Litigious Impertinent is Mr. Hill — d; That High-Church Buffoon, is Par — n Hig — s; and the like; when far was it from the Thoughts of tht poor Author, to do any of these Gentlemen so much Honour.

In like manner exactly it happened in the Moon; the Story is this.

There had been some very scandalous Fellow had done some ridiculous Thing, for which he deserv’d to be expos’d, and some People bespoke this Taylor to make a Coat for him — The Coat was wonderfully made indeed, every Side of it was singular; as you turn’d it this way, it look’d one thing, that way another; to one Eye-sight it represented one thing, to another quite contrary; and all agreed, that never such a Coat was made before: If you turn’d it this way it was a Fool’s Coat, that way ’twas a Knave’s Coat; on one side it represented a Lord Bishop, on the other side a Lord Duke; on another a Lord-M — r, on another a Clergy-man, on another a Thief; worn this way, it made a Man a [59] Statesman; that way a Mountebank; this way a General, that way a Coward; a strange Coat it was indeed, as ever I saw in my Life.

The Man that bespoke it, no sooner carry’d it about Streets, as was usual in such cases, but it rais’d a terrible Combustion in the Town; the People began to stare at one another, ar if they were frighted — The First that broke Silence was a huge tall Man, by his Appearance a Man of Grandeur, for he had a blue List upon his Coat, which in that Country none but a Few of the prime Nobillity are permitted to wear — What Dog’s that? Says he — A Villain — A Rogue — Why that Coat’s made for me; and up he runs to the poor Man, and began to bluster. Pray, my Lord, Good, my Lord, says the Man, it is not made for your Highness, it was made for my Neighbour Such-a-one — You lie you Villain, says my Lord, it was made for me, and I’ll have you hang’d, if there were no more Taylors in all the Moon — Indeed my Lord, says the Man again, it could not be made for you, for it will not fit your Lordship — I’ll try that, says his Lordship, you Dog, and if it does, I’ll have you hang’d immediately upon which my Lord put the Coat on — But the poor Man was confounded, when he saw, that with but the least Stretching it fitted his Lordship to a Hair — and he expected Nothing but Death — My Lord went away raging, in order to send the Criminal Officers to take up the Man — But he might have sav’d himself the Labour, for the Coat was not carry’d much farther, but one cry’d, that Dog has made this Coat for me; another said, no ’tis for me, and almost every Body that saw it, challeng’d the Coat: At last, the Chief Magistrate of the Town happen’d to come along, and he fell in a Rage, and cry’d out with an Oath, the Coat was for him: Whereupon he immediately seiz’d it, and carry’d it into a great Assembly of that City, which was then sitting, to complain of the Affront. This Assembly is call’d in their Language the Momonciculoc: I will not pretend to Knowledge enough in the Lunar Language to translate it — Some think, it may resemble a Common-Council — Here he began to complain of the Affront, when of a suddain a great Combustion rose among them in the Hall of the Assembly; One said the Coat is made for me, another said it is for me, and to be short with my Story, no less than 114 of them chaleng’d the poor Man for bringing this Coat out to expose them in particular.

The Man was in great Distress, and had no Way at last to bring himself out of this Broil, but by telling them the Name of the Taylor, who made the Coat — Which having done, he made his Escape, and the poor Taylor was sent for.

The Taylor was a bold Fellow, and fear’d no Colours — and immediately went to them upon the first Summons — And being brought before them, they examin’d him very strictly — And as near as I can remember, the Examination was as follows; he is brought into a large Closet, where they usually examine Witnesses, and the Coat being shew’d him, the Clerk appointed to examine him began the following Dialogue.

Clark. Did you make this Coat, Sir?

Taylor, Yes, I did.

C. Did you make it for a Representer, or Character-Coat?

T. Yes, Sir.

C. Who was it to Represent?

T. It was made to represent him that it represents, Sir.

C. But who is that, Sir?

T. Why I tell you, Sir, Says the Taylor Briskly, him that it represents.

C. Well, but here are a great many Gentlemen who say it represents them.

T. What all of them?

C. Yes, all of them.

T. It’s strange, Men should be all K — s of like Dimensions.

C. But how say you, was it made to represent them?

T. If it represents them, it must be made to represent them.

C. But did you design to represent them?

T. What do you tell me of Designs, my Design was to make the Coat.

C. But here is my Lord A —, he says the Coat represents him —

T. Has he try’d it on, and does it fit him?

C. Exactly.

[60] T. ’Tis impossible — Pray look on the Coat; the Coat is a Fools Coat, and his Lordship is too much something else to be a F — I.

C. But then it fits my L — B —

F. That can’t be neither; for turn it, and you’ll see ’tis a Knaves Coat, and every Body knows my L — cannot be a Knave, it is not in his Head.

C. But it may fit my Lord C —

T. No it can’t neither; for turn it again, and then ’tis a States-man’s Coat, and it is well known, my Lord is no more a States-man than he is a Conjurer.

C. Well, but they may think it fits them.

T. Their own Guilt may do much, but ’tis not good Manners in me to think so.

C. Well, but what say you to the rest of the Gentlemen that challenge it? Pray, give them Satisfaction.

T. Why truly, as to 114 Gentlemen belonging to the Great Hall, if it fits them all I cannot help it, they may take it among them, and then every one will have his Share — ’Tis a strange thing, a Man cannot dress up a Monkey, but every man calls him Cousin.

And with this he threw the Coat down in the Middle of the Hall.

The identification of Number 15 of Volume VII of the Review in the British Museum with News from the Moon seemed to relieve us from further consideration of this perplexing question. If the pamphlet was published in Boston in 1721, during the period when the feelings of the governor and council on the one hand, and the representatives on the other, were respectively aroused by the attacks made upon them for their actions upon matters pending before them, it might well have been true that this reprint was made for the purpose of satirizing the authorities, and the confusion which might arise from a reference to a number antedating the true number of the Review from which the copy was made, and to a date posterior to the actual date of the original, might have been a part of the scheme of the publishers of the pamphlet. At this point, therefore, the search for knowledge of details concerning the original might and would have been abandoned, except for the fact that when the order for a copy of Number 15 was sent over to London, Mr. Albert Matthews asked me at the same time to procure for him a tabulated statement showing the dates and pagination of the several numbers in Volume VII of the Review. On reception of this tabulated statement he ventured the suggestion that there was an Edinburgh edition as well as a London edition of Volume VII. This would be a continuation of the Edinburgh edition of Volume VI, of which there is a copy in the Boston Athenaeum. The British Museum edition was published in London in 1711. The edition in the American Antiquarian Society appears by its title-page to have been also published in London, the year of publication being 1711, but there is internal evidence that some of the numbers were printed in Edinburgh.

An examination of the copy of Volume VII at Worcester revealed the fact that the contents thereof were not identical with those of the London edition. We have already seen that the edition in the British Museum, Number 14, was issued April 27. In the Antiquarian Society’s copy the series is complete up to Number 12, then there is a gap extending to Number 23. If, however, we examine the numbers, dates, and pages of certain of the copies that have been preserved, we find that Number 11 contains pages 41–44, while 12 has pages 45–48, showing that the series did not, so far as this volume was concerned, up to this point, violate the rule that each number should have four pages.8 Number 11 is dated April 25; Number 12, April 27; Number 13 would, therefore, have been issued April 29, covering pages 49–52; and Number 14, containing pages 53–56, must have appeared on Tuesday, May 2. It would seem, therefore, that the reference to the Review on the first page of News from the Moon must have been given in perfectly good faith.

This information solves the last doubt of those who are seeking to disclose the details concerning the origin of News from the Moon, but there remain several questions for future settlement by the bibliographers engaged in the study of Defoe’s publications. A comparison of the two editions may disclose a motive for the changes to to found in their contents, and in any event are of sufficient importance to compel students of Defoe’s publications to follow the matter to its end.

If we turn back to the entries made by the bibliographers in connection with News from the Moon, it will be observed that two different events are assigned, each of which is mentioned as furnishing a link which would connect this pamphlet with our local affairs. If there were anything in the pamphlet itself which referred to provincial politics, it would not be difficult to draw a conclusion as to whether both of these entries might be right, or if compelled to make choice between them, which would be the most probable. In the absence of any allusions in the pamphlet to the currency, to provincial politics, or to local social affairs, we must turn to the history of the time to determine, through such information as we have outside the pamphlet itself, whether either of the entries is entitled to stand.

Sabin probably merely copied Trumbull. We must, therefore, throw upon the latter exclusively the responsibility for the entry that the pamphlet was “a satire aimed, apparently, at the House of Representatives, for their proceedings against the publisher and printer of ‘New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island.’” If there were any proceedings taken against the publisher and printer of this pamphlet, of sufficient notoriety to call for the publication of a satire in consequence thereof, surely we ought to find some trace of them. Yet Mr. Duniway, who, in seeking for material for his Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, thoroughly overhauled the newspapers and the records of this period, makes no mention of any arrest or of any complaint against the publisher of New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island. This relieves us from further consideration of the validity of this particular entry, but the suggestion arises, Can we trace the source of Trumbull’s error? Mr. Matthews has called my attention to the fact that Dr. Haven in his Catalogue of Ante-Revolutionary Publications, which is to be found in Volume II of the edition of Thomas’s History of Printing in America, published by the American Antiquarian Society, mentioned News from the Moon, although he placed it under the year 1720.9 He simply attributed it to the Boston press without specifying the printer. Dr. Haven also included in his list New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island, and made the following comment: “No place or printer; but probably printed at Boston. The above is referred to in Felt’s Mass. Currency, p. 77.” Mr. Matthews suggests that this reference to Felt may lay bare the source of Mr. Trumbull’s error, since the words of Felt, referred to by Dr. Haven, are: “They” — that is, the House of Representatives, whose reply to a speech of the governor he is then considering — “speak of a pamphlet against their proceeding of last session, called ‘News from Robinson Cruso’s Island.’” While this does not connect Mr. Trumbull with this confusion of the two pamphlets, it at any rate shows that Dr. Haven mixed the two titles, and made a reference under New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island, which should have been under News from Robinson Cruso’s Island. The similarity of the titles explains the error, and it is quite likely that Mr. Trumbull was misled by it. It is a curious fact indeed that the entries New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island and News from the Moon in the Brinley Catalogue are close together upon the same page. Under the former there is a reference to what Hutchinson (II. 223) said concerning the proceedings alluded to by Felt, while under the latter the statement is made which has been quoted. It seems clear that Trumbull must have relied upon a secondary source for his authority.

Now, as to Mr. Evans’s entry. There were proceedings instituted against Benjamin Gray for publishing the Letter to an eminent Clergyman, and the order of council of February 28, 1721, instructing the attorney-general to prosecute him for the publication of this pamphlet was published in the Boston Gazette, March 6, 1721. It is evident from the records of the superior court of judicature cited by Mr. Duniway, in his Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, that the attorney-general followed his instructions and sought to procure an indictment against Gray for this publication. In his proceedings before the grand jury he coupled with this alleged ground of complaint the additional plea “for causing an advertisement to be printed in contempt of a vote of the Council.”10 This advertisement was apparently the one which appeared in the Boston Gazette, March 13, 1721, and which read as follows:

Just Published, The Mount Hope Packet. And News from the Moon, both to be sold by Benjamin Gray, Bookseller, at his Shop Opposite to the Brick Church, where all Gentlemen, Trades-men and others may be supply’d by Wholesail or Retail at reasonable rates, with all the Letters, Postscripts, News, Dialogues and other Pamphlets, which come out from Time to Time.

The return of the grand jury in which they found “no bill” is entered in the records of the court, May, 2, 1721, and is given by Mr. Duniway in this connection in his Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, together with Gray’s apology to the council and his expression of “sorrow for what he had done amiss.”

Attention has been called to the fact that on the pamphlet itself there was but one date, that purporting to be the date of De Foe’s original article, and no explanation has been offered for the action of the bibliographers in attributing the publication to the Boston press, or more specifically to J. Franklin, nor to the assignment of its publication to the years 1720 or 1721. This advertisement clearly justifies the attribution to the Boston press, and fixes the year of publication as 1721. The confusion between 1720 and 1721 is of course attributable to the use of Old Style or New Style, a confusion which requires constant watchfulness when dealing with events which occurred before March 25 in any year of this period. The specific attribution to the press of J. Franklin may have been the result of a careful examination of the font of type and the various ornaments used in the pamphlet.

There is one more question to be considered, and that is, Was there an edition of this pamphlet published in 1772? I was informed that this 1772 edition could be found in the library of the American Antiquarian Society. Mr. Clarence S. Brigham, however, assures me that the supposed second edition is a 12mo of sixteen pages which was apparently written to satirize “the Knavery, Deceit, Prodigality, Envy, and Tattling of the day.” Its title was “News / from the / Moon / containing / a brief account of the manners and customs / of the Inhabitants / Very suitable to the Present times. / Boston / Printed and sold at the Printing Office near the Mill- / Bridge. 1772.” With this information the 1772 edition probably disappears, and we are compelled to rely upon what has gone before to determine which conclusion we shall adopt as to the credibility of the references of the bibliographers.

It is plain that Mr. Evans’s conjecture had some foundation to stand upon, while it is clear that Mr. Trumbull, ordinarily so accurate, was misled in some way, probably by the error which crept into Dr. Haven’s list. The question, How could a reprint of an article by Defoe be of value in the polemics of that day? remains still a mystery. If we run our eyes back upon the pamphlets printed during this discussion and note the allusions to the “sulled sheet,” to the “Rabshikahs,” and to the “Don Dago, etc.,” we can see that subtlety was not the characteristic feature of this controversy. How then could it be possible that the general public could appreciate the application of Defoe’s satire to a new situation sufficiently to justify its republication? These questions we may not be able satisfactorily to solve, but the fact remains that the article was reprinted, and that it evidently was in some way made use of in the polemical discussions of the day.

Mr. Albert Matthews stated that his interest in Defoe’s Review had been aroused by Mr. Davis; that he had sought in vain in the biographies of Defoe, in bibliographies and in catalogues, for information in regard to the Edinburgh edition of Volumes VI and VII of the Review; and described some of the differences between the Edinburgh and the London editions of those volumes.

Mr. George L. Kittredge read the following paper:

GEORGE STIRK, MINISTER

Mr. George Stirk, minister of the Church of England in Bermuda, is of interest to us because he was the father of George Stirk (otherwise called Starkey), who graduated at Harvard College in 1646, practised medicine in Boston from 1647 to 1650, and went to England in 1651, where he became distinguished as a physician and alchemist and died of the plague in 1665. Apart from this consideration, the career of the Bermuda minister exhibits many curious details of clerical life in a struggling American colony. An investigation of New England alchemy and alchemists has led me to study the career of the elder Stirk with some care, and I find that it has never been treated with either fulness or accuracy. This must serve as my excuse for setting forth the facts as I understand them. In so doing, however, I wish to acknowledge, in the amplest way, my obligations to the records printed in the standard work of Sir J. H. Lefroy, for without them I could have accomplished nothing whatever.11

The Rev. George Stirk was born in Scotland. For this we have the direct testimony of Captain Roger Wood, who was Governor of the Bermudas for six years following December, 1629. In a letter written in 1633 or 1634 to Dr. William Ames, the famous Calvinist theologian,12 Wood says expressly that the two ministers then residing in the Bermudas, “Georg. Stirke” and “Patricke Coapland,” were “both Scotish men.”13 Mr. Stirk must have been born about 1595, for he was forty years old in 1635.14

Mr. Stirk, as he informs us himself, was one of four ministers sent to the islands by the Bermuda Company along with Governor John Bernard.15 Governor Bernard arrived in November, 1622, with two ships and about a hundred and forty settlers.16 The other three ministers were Nathaniel Bernard (doubtless a kinsman of the new Governor’s), Joseph Wright, and Robert Staples.17 Mr. Wright died before the first of January, 1623.18 Mr. Nathaniel Bernard, Mr. Staples, and Mr. Stirk are on record as present at the General Assembly in May, 1623.19

At about this time — pretty certainly in 1623 — laws were passed for the election of churchwardens and sidesmen, whose duties are carefully defined.20 Among other necessities for public worship, they were to provide “a Booke of com̄on prayer of the last edition.”21 This is only one of several indications that the appointment of Governor Bernard and the four ministers who accompanied him was meant to put an end to previous irregularities. In 1617, Mr. Lewes Hughes, then sole minister, had written to England as follows: “The ceremonies are in no request, nor the Book of Common Prayer, I use it not at all.” He had likewise, he says, “begun a Church Government by Minister and Elders.” He had also sent to England, in manuscript, “the manner of the public service of God that I do use here.”22 In the next year (1618) Hughes sent to England a complete liturgy for use in the Bermudas, of his own composition,23 and again, also in 1618, he wrote a letter explaining his reasons for abandoning the prayer-book.24 These innovations were allowed by Captain Daniel Tucker, the Governor, because (so Tucker writes) the minister was “of so peevish a disposition” that, if thwarted, he would leave the colonists without any religious services at all.25

This curious state of things under Tucker’s administration explains the fact that his successor, Governor Nathaniel Butler, thought it necessary, in 1620, to take measures in the interest of uniformity. We have a full account of his proceedings in his own History of the Bermudas. “Neither of his two ministers,” Hughes and Lang, “would by any meanes subscribe nor vse the booke of common prayer, or liturgie of England.” Besides, they disagreed with each other “in the formes of administration of the sacrements and marriage.” “He at last bethought himselfe of the liturgie vsed in the Hands of Garnesey and Jarsye, the which being of his maiesties dominions, and by him tollorated, he conceiued would not be ill-taken if (for the time) he putt it in practice there.” He therefore proposed “the punctuall vse and practise of that forme in the vse of the sacraments and marriage which was vsed within His Maiesties dominions in Jarsye and Garnsye, beinge one and the uery same with that of the French Protestants, thoes of the vnited prouinces, and even Geneua itselfe.” This proposition was “gladsomely receiued by both the ministers, who instantly promised the Gouernour all conformitie in the acceptance and vnitie in the practice. Wherevpon he himselfe translateinge it verbatim into English, out of a French Bible which he brought oucr with him, he caused the elder minister26 to begin the vse therof at the administration of the Lords Supper, at St. Georges,27 vpon Easter Day next followeinge28 .… And this forme was generally obserued throughout the whole Hands (the Gouernour endureinge noe variation) in thes perticulers of the sacraments and marriage all the time of his gouerment ther.”29

Two letters preserved among the Duke of Manchester’s papers illustrate this queer bit of ecclesiastical history. The first, from the Governor to Sir Nathaniel Rich, was written January 12, 1620, before he had brought about uniformity in this ingenious way. It tells us that the ministers did not agree well, but that Hughes was more reasonable than Lang, since Lang, being “more young” was “more wilful.”30 The second, from Hughes to Rich, March 16, 1620, remarks that the Governor has introduced a translation of the Genevan “forme of ministring the sacraments and of manages.”31

Mr. Stirk, of course, had nothing to do with the ceremonial innovations which we have been considering. Yet it is proper to mention them, for the practice of Genevan forms during Butler’s administration, and the general nonconformity of Hughes and Lang, go far to explain their being superseded, on the appointment of Governor John Bernard, in 1622, by an entirely new corps of ministers, — Nathaniel Bernard, Joseph Wright, Robert Staples, and George Stirk.32 We can now understand why, in 1623, it was necessary to pass a law for the election of churchwardens and sidesmen and to prescribe, among other duties, that they shall “take care and p[ro]uide that the churches be … furnished w^th … a Booke of com̄on prayer of the last edition.”33 The intention was to bring Bermuda once more into conformity with the Church of England. Mr. Stirk, then, though a high Calvinist,34 was under no suspicion of nonconformity. In fact, there is no reason whatever to believe that, throughout his life, he ever came into collision with the episcopal authorities at home.35

In 1623, as we have seen, Mr. Stirk was a settled minister in the Bermudas. His parish was Southampton Tribe,36 in the western part of the main island,37 and he continued to hold this charge, with one or two brief interruptions, until his death.

Under the tyrannical administration of Captain Henry Woodhouse (who was Governor from October, 1623,38 until the beginning of 1627)39 Mr. Stirk was banished from the Bermudas. His offence consisted in opposing the Governor with regard to an “oath for the division of tobacco.” The records of the affair are very defective, but I will give the course of events as I make it out. A few details are rather conjectural. In the main, however, I think my account will be found well enough supported by the evidence, even if some of this is indirect or circumstantial.

The tobacco crop of the Bermudas was regularly “divided” between the colonists and the Company once a year. This division took place in the islands,40 usually in November or December.41 The tobacco was viewed by Overseers, appointed for the purpose, whose duty it was to determine, in each man’s case, how much belonged to him and how much to the adventurers. The powers of the Overseers are carefully defined in an Act of July 13, 1621,42 and in the Orders and Constitutions of the Company, February 6, 1622.43 There was of course some temptation for the tenants to conceal a part of the crop; but the procedure in the detection and punishment of such frauds was also carefully prescribed by law. The Grand Jury were “to enquire by all lawfull meanes of such defaults” and to present the offenders for trial in the ordinary way.44 Governor Woodhouse was not content with the prescribed process. He devised a form of oath, which each producer was to take, to the effect that he had brought before the Overseers all the tobacco that he had raised and made, “except what [he] and [his] frends and servants [had] drunke.”45

By proclamation, as I conjecture, without the advice of his Council,46 Woodhouse instructed the Overseers to exact this oath47 at the annual division in December, 1624.48 Of course the colonists protested. They regarded the Governor’s act as illegal, since nothing of the kind was provided for in the Orders and Constitutions.49 The oath itself they stigmatized as “prodigious,”50 — that is, as abnormal, monstrous. The majority refused to take it, and those who consented were “dispized of the rest.”51 Many of the recusants were fined.52

Among the opponents of the oath were two members of the Council, Stephen Painter and Mr. Stirk. Painter was a leading citizen (he appears as foreman of a jury as early as 161653) and was the Councillor for Southampton Tribe.54 He was an active, energetic, and determined man (as his conduct on later occasions shows),55 and he doubtless expressed his views with a good deal of freedom. Mr. Stirk, who was the minister of Painter’s parish, was of a mild and amiable temper,56 but he never lacked courage. He was (or was soon to become) Painter’s son-in-law.57 He, too, probably spoke out in criticism of the Governor’s course. Woodhouse called a meeting of the Council, about January, 1625, at which he presented for signature a document declaring the Governor’s action in propounding the oath to be warrantable by the law of England58 and the law of God.59 This acknowledgment he asked, or ordered, the Councillors to sign. Three of them refused, — Painter and Stirk and Mr. Nathaniel Bernard, one of Stirk’s two colleagues in the ministry. All three maintained that the oath was illegal, though Stirk and Bernard admitted that it was not derogatory to the law of God.60 The other Councillors signed the acknowledgment,61 including the third minister, Mr. Robert Staples.62

Woodhouse then accused63 Painter and Stirk of seditious opposition and, to support his charge, brought evidence, or made allegation, of things that they had said outside the Council chamber.64 They doubtless admitted making some of these remarks. Thereupon the Governor called upon the members of the Council in turn to express an opinion as to the punishment to be inflicted on the two.65 All complied save Mr. Bernard, who refused to pass judgment.66 Woodhouse then sentenced Painter and Stirk to banishment.67 As for Bernard, he expelled him from the Council, fined him a thousand pounds of tobacco (almost two years’ salary68), and, in default of payment (or very likely as an additional penalty), put him in prison “during the Governor’s pleasure.”69

These arbitrary proceedings probably fall in January, 1625. Mr. Stirk went to England70 and presented his case to the Company, to whom Woodhouse also reported. The Governor’s report was sent by the ship Thomas, of Bristol, on February 4, 1625, and beyond a doubt Mr. Stirk sailed on the same ship. The Company despatched a reply by the ship Lark, in September of the same year.71 They approve the imposition of the oath, and think that Mr. Stirk and Mr. Bernard would have done better not to oppose the Governor in exacting it but to rely upon an appeal to the Company “after wrong done.” But they express regret at Woodhouse’s harsh way of dealing with the ministers, remit Mr. Bernard’s fine, and hope that he has already been restored to the Council.72 As to Mr. Stirk, they request Woodhouse to send to England his unpaid salary for 1625, since “he is now here in greate want.”73 This request was in effect a disavowal of Woodhouse’s decree of banishment. It shows also that Mr. Stirk did not mean to return to the Bermudas at present. On the receipt of the Company’s letter, about December, 1625, Woodhouse released Bernard, and he took up his long-interrupted ministerial duties.74

Before these instructions of September, 1625, reached him, Woodhouse had sent another letter to the Company,75 justifying his former proceedings, enclosing a list of those “who haue refused to take the oath for the division of Tobacco w^th theire vndertakers,”76 and urging that their fines shall not be remitted.77 To this missive the Company replied on March 21, 1626.78 They “desire that all fynes for the oath that are past should be remitted, and that such as haue bene receaued should be restored back,”79 — a plain indication that they have come to disapprove of Woodhouse’s policy. Mr. Stirk is not mentioned, but two new ministers are sent over, Mr. Patrick Copeland80 and Mr. Bellingham Morgan, and the fact that Mr. Copeland was to be settled in Southampton Tribe, Mr. Stirk’s former parish, suggests that there was some doubt of his returning to Bermuda at all.81

By the 20th of the following September, however, in this same year (1626), a new Governor had been appointed, Captain Philip Bell,82 and Mr. Stirk accompanied him to the islands in the ship Exchange.83 On Bell’s arrival there was a conflict of authority between him and Woodhouse,84 but the latter was soon brought to book. In the General Assembly, held in the following March (1627), the record of the banishment of Stirk and Painter was expunged, as well as that of Mr. Bernard’s sentence “for not censuring” them;85 Captain Thomas Stokes and Captain Robert Felgate, Woodhouse’s right-hand men, were sentenced to suspension from all their offices and to imprisonment,86 and Woodhouse himself was severely disciplined.87

By drawing of lots before the session, Mr. Stirk recovered his old parish of Southampton Tribe, Warwick’s Tribe falling to Mr. Copeland.88 Mr. Stirk’s salary was raised from 533 lbs. of tobacco to 700 lbs. by act of the Assembly, with a proviso that if this did not amount to 100 marks (£ 66 ̄⅔) the difference should be made up.89 It was also voted that “all ministers who shall either be sent from hence or deteyned in prison vpon the gou^rnors displeasure shall notwithstanding their vnwilling absence or constreyned silence loose noe pte of that stipend w^ch is due vnto them for their worke in the ministrie except it may appeare that they haue been Justlie p.ceeded against for some publique offence comitted by them, and they thereby vnworthy of that charge comended to them.”90 Mr. Stirk received his stipend for the whole term of his banishment.91

In March, 1627, then, we find Mr. Stirk reinstated in his parish of Southampton Tribe. His parishioners were glad to have him back. The colonists, in replying, at this same time, to the Company’s letter of September, 1626, brought over by Governor Bell,92 render “many and humble thanks vnto [the Company] for refreshing and recomforting our drooping and deiected harts as well in sending vs this Gouernor, as in restoring our banished minister.”93

In the next year, 1628, Mr. Stirk is on record as present at a Council Table held October 11.94 The business was a conflict of ecclesiastical and civil authority. The Assembly of March, 1627, had passed an act providing for the institution of vestries in the several parishes.95 Shortly after, the act had been suspended by the Governor and Council because, in Governor Bell’s words, the vestries had erred “by desyring and goeing about to advance them [i. e., themselves] aboue all authoritie or governm^t.”96 In defiance of such suspension, Mr. Alexander Graham (or Graimes), a minister who had lately been sent to Bermuda by the Company, had called a vestry in Hamilton Tribe in September, 1628,97 and had informed his congregation in a sermon in the church at St. George’s that he “requyred and expected a Vestrie there also.”98 For these offences Mr. Graham was brought before the Council on October 11, and he signed an acknowledgment of his fault.99 At this Council both Mr. Stirk and Mr. Copeland appear to have supported the Governor’s authority. Yet there are indications in the record that Mr. Graham was not alone in disliking the prohibition of vestries.100

Bell’s troubles with Mr. Graham were closely connected with the opposition which the Governor was experiencing from Stephen Painter. A long letter from Bell to Sir Nathaniel Rich of the Bermuda Company, written about the beginning of 1629, is preserved among the Duke of Manchester’s papers.101 Bell had received from the Company a reprimand of some kind102 which he warmly resented. He declares that he has always done his duty to the utmost of his power.

My vnpartiall course of iustice hath pulled vpon me not only taxatione at home, but malitious oppositione & devisione here in the countrye likewise, & w^th such men especially one w^ch is M^r Stirck as I tought the whole world could neuer haue drawne into such a waye. but the fault lyes cheifly in the head & ringleader of all the rest w^ch is Stephen Painter, who at my comeinge hither I thought (though somethinge violent & rude) an honest & religious minded man. but since vpon better experience I find him of such a Luciferiane pride, & such a headstrong pervers nature & dispositione y^t w^thout pleasinge or submittinge to him, no man cann liue in peace or quiettness where he is or hath to doe. neyther is it possible for any Gouer^r to hold correspondencye w^th him any longer then he will permit him to beare half the swaye at least in his Gouernement. the whole buisiness & caus of contentione between him & me is in the booke of records & at large related in one of my Generall letters,103 vnto w^ch for brevityes sake I must referre you & as in substance & effect no other then becaus I would not suffer the conclusiones of the Generall Assemblye & the Generall equitye of the whole lande to giue place & waye to his proude & licentious humore. y^t M^r Stircke did side likewise w^th him is not strange, for in sayeing y^t he maryed his dawghter & is become his sonn in lawe there is reasone sufficient deliuered. but by this meanes & occatione Painters fiery & factious spiiitt is enkindled so y^t he hath vnder hand wrought a faction & partye to himself against me, who doe intend all yt malice cann invent & more then truth cann warrant (as I heare) against me. soe no man must longer Gouerne then he pleases or is pleased, but there is an all seeinge God y^t lookes vpon them, & w^ch lawghs all theirs & all other mens plotts & pollicyes to scorne w^ch are not honest & direct, for M^r Stircke himselfe he both is & hath since showne himself a learned & truly religious Genl & wer he free from his father in lawes pervers & froward nature & conversatione I am perswaded he would be as worthy & conformable in euery respect as a man of his coate owght to be. but yett this is not all for one of your last ministers M^r Graimes by name is proued of a dispositione & nature every whitt as bad if not worse then Painter himselfe & if it be possible more proude more violent & more turbulent then he is. so y^t they are ioned & combined together in the most firme league & bonde of brotherhoode y^t cann be possible, he at his first comeinge did speake very distastfully to my self both of M^r Stircke & him, sayeinge the one was proude & the other a Brownist meaneing Painter yett not longe after when he had but once spoken to them, there was such a sympathiseinge between Painter & him, y^t he presently would needs take his caus in hande & mantaine both it & him against my self & the whole authoritye of the lande. w^ch he slighted refused to obey or submitt unto in any fitt measure, for the w^ch he was iustly though favorablye censured in respect of his coate (all w^ch buisiness is likewise vpon recorde & more largely related in my Generall letter formerly specifyed. all thes things were likewise done by the whole Counsell as well as my self & in such a discreet & moderate manner, as I when they shall come to be opened & considered by your self & such iudicious hearers & judges I doubt not but we shall all be iustifyed therein & y^t they shall all be made to submitt & acknowledg their faults by & from you, though they haue refused heere before vs otherwise then vnwillingly or by constraint … And for the better iustificatione of thes & all other my actiones & proceedings heere, the whole counsell have vndertaken & written a letter from themselues vnto the Companye, wherein they have freely opened theirs & the Countryes greivancess, & as boldly mantained all my actions (w^ch are indeed their own actions) to be iust & honest in spight of all malitious informers & detractours. the copye whereof I now likewise send vnto your self.

It is idle to conjecture, in the absence of records, what first brought Bell and Painter at variance.104 Painter was the leader of the popular party. He was a member of the Council in the first year of Bell’s administration (1627).105 But in the spring of 1628 (apparently) and of 1629 (certainly), when, if the regular order was followed, the Governor and Council chose two inhabitants of Southampton Tribe as Overseers,106 Painter was not selected as First Overseer, but was superseded by Richard Leycroft.107 Thus Painter lost his place in the Council, a position which he had held as early as 1623. That this change was due to Bell’s influence is clear enough, for, in the next year, 1630, under the administration of Captain Roger Wood, Leycroft disappears from the Council and Painter resumes his dignity.108

Manifestly, then, Painter’s opposition had begun before the trouble with Mr. Graham about the vestries, — doubtless, indeed, before the arrival of Mr. Graham in the islands. It is probable, however, that the abolition of vestries (which took place before Mr. Graham’s coming) was in some way connected with Painter’s quarrel with Bell. The Governor’s reason for abolishing them was, as he expressed it, their “desyring and goeing about to advance them [i.e., themselves] aboue all authoritie or governm^t”109 Obviously he feared their democratic character. It is quite possible that Painter had utilized the vestry of Southampton Tribe in ways which, though proper enough from the point of view of local autonomy, were abhorrent to Bell’s notions of duly centralized power. This would explain also Mr. Stirk’s association with Painter in opposing Bell.

At all events, when Graham insisted on holding a vestry and clashed with the Governor about it, Painter espoused Graham’s cause. So much is clear from a passage in Bell’s letter. Graham and Painter are, he says, “combined together in the most firme leauge & bonde of brotherhoode y^t can be possible.” And he adds that “he [Painter] would needs take his [Graham’s] caus in hande & maintaine both it & him against my self & the whole authoritye of the lande. w^ch he [Graham] slighted refused to obey or submitt unto in any fitt measure.” Whereupon, he goes on to state, Graham was censured by the Council. The reference is manifestly to the Council meeting of October 11, 1628, already described. Mr. Stirk’s conduct at this meeting accounts for the Governor’s remark (in the letter) that Mr. Stirk “both is and hath since [that is, at this meeting, which took place after the time of Painter’s first opposition] showne himself a learned & truly religious Gent.”110 At the meeting in question Mr. Stirk had joined Mr. Copeland in requesting “that a forme of acknowledgem^t might bee drawen to w^ch Mr. Graimes might subscribe.”111

The general letter in Bell’s favor, which he says was signed by every member of the Council except Captain Thomas Chaddock, is likewise extant, in a contemporary copy, among the Duke of Manchester’s papers.112 It was delivered on the same day as Bell’s letter, April 28, 1629, and of course had crossed the sea in the same ship. Its main purpose is to exonerate the Governor with reference to the admission of a certain Barnstaple ship to trade in the Bermudas,113 and to ask for his continuance in office for a second term.

This recommendation was of course quite contrary to the wishes of Painter and Mr. Graham, who, according to Bell, were endeavoring to secure the governorship for Captain Thomas Chaddock.114 I must make another extract from Bell’s unpublished letter to Rich, — the same from which I have already quoted at some length.

I must ad one thinge more concerninge the Counsells Generall letter wh is y^t it is subscribed by the whole Counsell except Cap̄: Chadocke. who notw^thstandinge his owne promise & ingagement for subscriptione was as free & large as any mans at the first propositione & resolutione of them all; yett at the upshott he only made refusall the reason is becaus he hopes & expects to be forthw^th mad Gouer^r in my roome & to y^t purpose he hath vnder hand joined himself in confederacye w^th Painter & M^r Graimes who haue likewise promised & undertaken to write so farre in his behalf as y^t he shall not possibly faile of it. besides he is full of subtility, & wise in his owne conceipt, & do [so?] doth no doubt perswade himself y^t the forbearance of this subscriptione will aboue all other things most insinuate w^th the Company & conduce to his ends, but to be free & plaine vnto your self in the expressings of my opinion & knowledg concerninge him, he is the most craftye hollowe hearted man I euer mett w^thall.

It will be noted that Bell does not accuse Mr. Stirk of being concerned with Painter and Graham in Chaddock’s schemes.

In a second unpublished letter, written as a supplement to the former and doubtless sent with it,115 Bell speaks very favorably of an other minister, Mr. Ward, “the last minister was116 sent.” “He hath proued a very honest man a firme frend vnto me in no small time of need, for at his arrivall through the secrett & cunninge trecherye and undermineing of Chadocke, & the knavish workeinge of Painter many of the Counsell were faltringe & groweinge luke warme towards me. w^ch since by his meanes & good example are reduced to honestye & their former good estate again.”117

Before the ship sailed with Bell’s letters and that of the Council, strange rumors were rife about the way in which the signatures of the Councillors had been secured, and these involved Mr. Ward. The document which sets forth the facts is too amusing to be abridged. It is a deposition by Mr. Ward himself, and runs as follows:

M^r Greames tould mee that it was a generall report in everie man’s mouth that I Nathaniell Ward got the counsellors by a wyle into my chamber, and took out my bottles and caused them to drinke while [i.e., until] they were merrie and then persuaded them to subscribe to a letter framed to the Compa which otherwise they would not haue done And that hee the said M^r Graems, had written it in two letters to be sent for England, but vpon a former letter sent to him from mee he had blotted it out of one of his letters and would doe the like in the other. Also hee tould me that M^r Painter had written it as hee had done but hee had sent to M^r Painter to put it out.

Nathaniell Ward Presbiter118

The effect of Mr. Ward’s deposition, and of other testimony of a similar nature, was immediate. The Council unanimously decided that “M^r Grames” should “bee sent to the court [i.e., the Company’s court] of England by the first shipp … As a man vnworthie to exercise the ministerie in the Sumer Islands.” Mr. Ward was the only clerical Councillor present when this vote was taken.119 Bell indited a long postscript to his second letter,120 and both letters, along with the Council’s missive in Bell’s favor, were posted to England by the ship that carried Mr. Graham.121

Mr. Graham’s character and fortunes would be no concern of ours, were it not for his association with Painter and for Painter’s relations with Mr. Stirk. Our belief that Bell’s abolition of vestries was unpopular, and that Painter and Mr. Stirk were both in favor of them, is confirmed — if confirmation be needed — by the fact that these bodies were reestablished soon after the end of Bell’s administration. The vestry of Southampton Tribe (Mr. Stirk’s parish, to which Painter belonged) is mentioned in a Council record of February 17, 1631.122

We need not try to adjudicate the differences between Bell and Painter. Much more evidence than we possess would be needed for any balancing of rights and wrongs. Painter was an active and energetic man and probably rather obstinate. His experiences under Woodhouse’s government123 and his later history prove that he lacked neither courage nor determination. When, in 1644, Mr. Nathaniel White renounced his episcopal orders and organized an independent church, Painter was one of his allies. In 1647, both White and Painter were indicted for high treason in connection with this matter, and they went to England in 1648 to present their case to the Company. They were promptly acquitted, and, in the latter year, they returned to the islands in triumph.124 Painter’s further career is interesting, but does not here concern us. Everything considered, we need not wonder that Bell found him troublesome in 1629. No one, however, who is at all acquainted with the strong language which men of the seventeenth century used in describing their opponents, will feel compelled to take the Governor’s phrase “Luciferian pride and a headstrong perverse nature” without a grain or two of salt. Whether Mr. Stirk was right or wrong in making common cause with Painter against Bell may remain undecided,125 though we have seen that under a previous administration their joint opposition to Woodhouse was fully justified. One thing is certain: Bell’s testimony that Mr. Stirk was “a learned and truly religious gentleman” is trebly valuable on account of the hostile context in which it stands.

Furthermore, Bell’s first letter affords us a welcome piece of genealogical information. It tells us the surname of Mr. Stirk’s wife, the mother of George Stirk of the Harvard Class of 1646. She was the daughter of Stephen Painter. The younger George Stirk was a born fighter and had no small share of self-assertion. His father, the minister, was “meek”126 — a word which had no disagreeable connotation in those days. Perhaps the younger Stirk inherited some of his grandfather Painter’s contentious disposition, — some portion of the quality which Bell’s exasperated hyperbole characterizes as “Luciferian pride.”

The succession of Captain Roger Wood as Governor at the end of 1629127 and the restoration of Painter to the Council in 1630128 mark the end of Mr. Stirk’s opposition, whatever that may have consisted in. But he still had difficulty about his stipend. On November 2, 1630, he presented to the Council his account for the past four years (1627–1630), showing that there was about £150 due him. The Council “acknowledged sincerely” that the claim was just and petitioned the Company to raise the money by adding a halfpenny in the pound to the impost on the crop of tobacco “now shipped into England.”129 At the same meeting, the Council raised the salary of the ministers from 700 to 1000 pounds of tobacco, on account of the low price of that staple commodity.130

We shall hear of the salary question again. Meantime, in 1631, we find in the records a curious and picturesque item of information, which affords us a fleeting glimpse of Mr. Stirk’s wife and her mother.

Men and women did not sit together in the Bermuda churches. It was the duty of the churchwardens and sidesmen to “place the p[ar]ishioners in convenient seates accordinge to the degree of the p[er]son”131 This was a delicate matter. On June 18, 1627, Governor Bell, then just established in office, found it advisable to issue a proclamation deprecating the “general heart burning and contention” that existed “betwixt certain inhabitants of several Tribes … by reason of discontents for there seating in there churches, and other such like pettie controversies.”132 His exhortations did not avail. The women of Southampton Tribe continued to jangle. Stephen Painter, Mr. Stirk’s father-in-law, could not pacify them, and Mr. Stirk himself was also unequal to the task. Therefore, on February 17, 1631, Painter applied to the Governor (Roger Wood) and Council “to be assistant vnto him for settinge of peace amongst the woemen” in this regard. Accordingly, a new plan of seating was drawn up, with the proviso that it should be submitted to the minister and vestry, who, if they found “any difficulty therein,” were to report to the Council. Under this new arrangement, “the upper seat” was reserved for marriages, christenings, and churchings, and to the other seats — designated as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth — the women of the congregation were assigned in a fixed order. Mrs. Painter, the Councillor’s wife, had the first place “in the first seate,” and the second place fell to her daughter, “M^rs Stirke.”133 The next four places were occupied by Mrs. Elfrith, Mrs. Bell, Mrs. Leycroft, and Mrs. Woodhouse. This list suggests that there was cause for heartburnings in the parish. Mrs. Elfrith was the wife of Captain Daniel Elfrith, who had been a close friend of Governor Bell’s; Mrs. Bell was Elfrith’s daughter and the ex-Governor’s wife; Mrs. Leycroft was the wife of the man who had formerly superseded Painter in the Council — and who was Mrs. Woodhouse? If she was not the wife of the Governor who had once banished Mr. Stirk and Painter from the Bermudas, she must have belonged to the same family.134 One would like to know how these six ladies got along together in the first seat on the women’s side in the Southampton Church.

Not long after the settlement of the seating controversy, Mr. Stirk sailed for England. This was in 1632, and probably in February. In a letter, manifestly addressed at that time to the Bermuda Company or to some leading member of it, Governor Wood writes as follows:

O^r ministers seeing our comoditie decay in value, they declyne in affection and leaue vs two of them now togeather, and the third hath written to the noble gouernor [i.e., the Governor of the Company in London] to speake with the compa about his salary of 100 marks pr annum, if w^ch bee not payd hee will fly to the king and counsell, and my honnored friend take this from mee that I haue observed from my youth and since I was a souldier that I neuer knew a Skotsman to this day to loose the least pretence hee had to a Title of or thing due vnto him, and I am of opinion that you shall finde Mr Stirke meeke as he hath beene reputed, more vyolent in his courses than M^r Ward who is professedly oppositious.135

The two ministers whom Wood mentions as leaving the islands (doubtless on the same ship which carried the letter) were, beyond question, Mr. Stirk and Mr. Nathaniel Ward,136 and the third, who was forwarding a petition about his hundred marks, was, we may be equally certain, Mr. Patrick Copeland.137 Obviously the Governor expected Mr. Stirk and Mr. Ward to push their claims for arrears, and he feared that the “meek” Mr. Stirk would be quite as troublesome as his “professedly oppositious” colleague, —for Mr.’Stirk was a Scotsman.138

Governor Wood was a good man and a person of considerable ability and much sturdy common sense. On the present occasion, however, he certainly wrote in an ill humor. The colony was in a bad way, and he felt as if he were being abandoned. Still, he was habitually just and moderate, and, after his irritation passed, he spoke of Mr. Stirk in quite a different strain, as we shall see in a moment. His testimony, even in this letter, that Mr. Stirk was reputed to be “meek” is valuable. In still another letter (January 12, 1633), Wood says, speaking of the ministers, that “these men will loose nothing that may bee gotten,” but adds, with significant frankness, “nor ought they to doe it beeing their due.”139 And in general it is quite clear that, in all the troubles over this salary question, Mr. Stirk and his friend Mr. Copeland were simply trying to get what belonged to them.

Mr. Stirk himself tells us what his purpose was in visiting England in 1632. We have two documents from his hand relating to this journey, — one is a letter to Sir Nathaniel Rich, dated, “ffrom Soffier Islandes the 27^th of January 1633” (i. e., 1633–34); the other a petition to Lord Say and other members of the Company, undated, but written at the same time as the letter. These tell their own pathetic story. I subjoin them, since they have never been printed.

I140

Right wor^pfull S^r

I haue laboured heere in the worke of the Gospell twelue yeares, & for these sixe yeares haue come short of my wages. Two yeares agoe I was in England, whether I came for my healths sake, to goe to the Bath, as Physicyans aduised mee. But by the opposition of the Court, who were sett against me by M^r Caswell,141 they denyed my debt, & soe delayed me, that I was forced to returne w^thout any help, hither, where I haue continued in great weaknesse, not able to trauell. The Gouerno^r heere will bee no debtor, nor the people, soe that I am in a straight betweene three. Now I am in great need of helpe for my disease, w^ch I dare not come to seeke for, without Money. Wherefore I haue appealed to yo^rwor^p, and the two noble Lordes, who lately entred vnto the Court, & M^r Barber, hopeing that by yo^r Mediation, something may be obtained. Whatsoeuer you shall doe, I will stand to it, because I am perswaded that you will doe nothing but that w^ch is both iust before God, & honourable for the Court. In hope of w^ch I rest, com̄ending you to God

ffrom Som̄er Islandes the 27^th of January 1633

Yo^r wor^ps to serue you

George Stirk

[Addressed142]

To the right wor^pfull S^r Nathaniell Rich these deliuer

[Endorsed]

M^r Stirke May. 1634

II143

To the right hono^ble The Lord Saye, & The Lord Brookes The right wor^pfuff S^r Nathaiell Rich, And wor^pfull M^r Gabriell Barber.

The humble petition of George Stirke Minister in the Som̄er Islandes.

Humbly sheweth. That twelue yeares I haue laboured in the worke of the Gospell in these Islandes, & for diuers yeares, haue come short of my wages, & w^ch is worse, none will be my debtors. Two yeares agoe when I came to England to goe to the Bath, & hoped that the Company would allow me a part of Two hundreth poundes, then due to me, to beare my charges thither, & backe againe to these Islandes. They disclaymed the debt, & delayed me soe long, that the season was past, & at last (when I obtained some money) they bound me to returne w^th the first Ship, soe that I lost my health, & returned worse then I came. When I was come hither, I deliuered my account to the Gouerno^r, & his Counsell, who receiued it, & caused it to be recorded in the Register. But they will not be debtors. And the people neuer payed me any thing, soe that they may say, they are not debtors. Thus betweene three, I am a loser. There is a debt due to me, w^ch none denyes, but I can find no debtor. If I were able to beare it, I would be silent, & hold my peace. But my weaknesse is such, as I haue great need of releefe, & if I could, would gladly returne to England, to try whether by the blessing of God I may recouer my strength, ffor now I am not able to trauell one myle, except I be borne vp by the ames. But I am afraid to come, least I be forced (as I was before) to returne w^thout helpe, for want of meanes. Wherefore I humbly sue to yo^r hono^rs, & wor^ps to be Mediato^rs for me to the hono^ble Court, that they would pay the remainder of my account, w^ch I haue sent to you. If either Iustice, or Mercy will prevaile w^th them, I sue for this debt in both respects. It is a worke of Mercy to releeue the distressed, & not to suffer a poore Minister to perish (as I am likely) for want of helpe. It is a worke of Iustice to pay, that w^ch yo^r Court is bound to pay. The booke of Orders sayeth. Article 154. That the Ministers shall haue soe much yearly, as the Company, & they shall agree vpon. And in the Court twelue yeares agoe, they agreed vpon 100 markes, & w^th this condition sent ffower Ministers w^th Capt Bernard of w^ch I was one. And to fullfill this condition the Gouerno^r hath taken all the Glebelandes, & servantes vnto his handes, soe that these twelue yeares, I neuer had a foote of Land, but sixe acres about my house, & that w^thin these fiue yeares. As for the people I neuer was suffered to receiue any thing from them, but the Gouerno^r receiued all, & payed all. Wherefore I demand my wages of the Company, according to their Law, agreem^t, & promise. Moreouer, The Company, & Country are, & haue beene allwaies esteemed as one body. And heere also they pay ioyntlie in their Leauies to the Ministers. And therefore when our wages fall short, they cannot be seuered, but the debt falleth equally vpon both. They euer payed the Gouerno^rs & Ministers, when the couenants made w^th them, were not otherwise fulfilled, as Capt Butler, Capt Woodhouse, M^r Lewis,144 M^r Ward, And why should I be exempted? The imposition on the tobacco, w^ch the Country pay aswell, or rather more then they, will defray all charges of the Ministers, if it be well husbanded. And why should officers theere be payed? And Officers heere (who are as needfull, & of whom they ought to haue as great a care) be neglected. Yo^r hono^rs, & wor^ps doe see my demandes, to obtaine w^ch I humbly craue yo^r fauourable assistance. But if the Company will not yeild to this, I doe intreate that I may haue a warrant from the Courte, to recouer my right heere, either from the Gouerno^r, & Counsell, or from the people, for without some power from thence I shall neuer speed heere. Or if the Company will come to composition w^th me, & giue me something in Lieu of the whole, I am contented, & doe freely submitt my selfe to yo^r hono^rs, & wor^ps soe as whatsoeuer you shall agree vpon, I will be contented w^th it, & shall euer rest thankfull

Yo^r humble petitioner

George Stirk.

[Addressed145]

To S^r Nathaneel Rich.

M^r Stirke …146 Barmudas

May. 1634

[Endorsed]

M^r Stirke from Barmuda

May. 1634

From these documents we learn not only that Mr. Stirk went to England in search of health in 1632, but that he was so thwarted in his attempts to collect his overdue salary that he was unable to visit Bath, as he had intended. He seems to have returned to the Bermudas in the same year. In January, 1633, Governor Wood writes that “the Compa very honnourably supply our ministers stipend in Tobaco with money to a good value, as of late they haue done to M^r Stirke M^r Coapland and M^r Ward.”147 In the same year (or possibly in 1634) we find the-salary settled at £40. Here again our authority is Governor Wood. In a letter of 1633 or 1634, intended for the famous divine and theologian William Ames, whom Wood hoped to divert from Massachusetts to Bermuda,148 the Governor writes:149 “We haue but 2 ministers, both Scotish men Th’ one is called Georg. Stirke who is very learned but I fear not long lyved, hee hath all your works that are extant, and admires yo^r Coronis,150 and greatly applauds all the rest. Th’ other M^r Patricke Coapland who hath travelled long, twice to the East Indies, and now settled himselfe here, having purchased 5 shares of land on which hee hath builded and disbursed £1000 sterling.… Their meanes is now settled at £40 sterling p. annum.”151

This passage is agreeable reading, after the Governor’s previous outburst. Still more agreeable is his tribute to Mr. Stirk in another letter, written probably in 1634: “I sincerely acknowledge M^r Stirke is the most contented man w^th his stipend of £40 p^r annum that may be.”152

Governor Wood’s remark that the Company makes up to the ministers the deficiency in their stipends occasioned by the low price of tobacco seems to have been based rather upon promises and part payments than upon full performance. For on January 27, 1634, as we have seen, Mr. Stirk was obliged to petition for his arrears of salary. He was then in the islands, and so weak (perhaps from rheumatism) that he could not walk any distance without the support of two men. He feared for his life unless he could visit Bath and take the waters. His petition and letter reached Sir Nathaniel Rich in May, 1634.

Meantime, shortly after his return to the islands, Mr. Stirk had been concerned in a curious and highly interesting affair, about which the “iniquity of oblivion” has spared us but scanty details. Under date of June 1, 1634, Winthrop’s Journal has the following entry:

The Thunder, which went to Bermuda the 17th October, now returned, bringing corn and goats from Virginia, (for the weavils had taken the corn at Bermuda before they came there). Ensign Jenyson went in her for pilot, and related, at his return, that there was a very great change in Bermuda since he dwelt there, divers lewd persons being become good Christians. They have three ministers, (one a Scotchman) who take great pains among them, and had lately (by prayer and fasting) dispossessed one possessed with a devil. They obtained his recovery while the congregation were assembled.153

The visit of the Thunder is mentioned by Governor Roger Wood in two of his letters,154 both clearly dating from the same time, — the end of 1633 or the early part of 1634. But only in Winthrop is there any record of the excellent instance of psychotherapy which our ancestors — differing from their self-sufficient descendants of the present day in terminology alone — called “dispossession of one possessed with a devil.” Collation of dates establishes the fact that Mr. Stirk bore his part in this remarkable cure, which must have occurred late in 1633 or early in 1634.

Mr. Stirk’s dignified and touching appeal of January, 1634, seems to have stirred the Company to action. At all events, he found means to go to England once more, probably in that year.155 We have no record of his sailing, but we know that he returned to the islands again in 1635, for the name “Minister Geo: Turk 40” (i.e., aged 40) is recorded on September 30, 1035, among the passengers “aboard the Dors^t John Flower M^r bound for y^e Bormodos.”156 On the strength of this entry, General Lefroy enters “Turk, Rev. George” in his list of Bermuda ministers, with the remark: “This minister was a passenger for the Somers Islands, by the Dorset, Sept. 30, 1635 (see Hotten’s Lists), beyond which nothing is known of him.”157 But we need not have a moment’s hesitation in reading “George Stirk” instead of the “Geo: Turk” of the Dorset’s passenger list. We have merely an example of a well-known kind of error by the ear.

In the course of this his last visit to England, Mr. Stirk must have arranged for the publication of his little volume of Latin verse, — the Musæ Somerenses, — which appeared in London in 1635.158 Very probably it was printed while he was in the mother country, for the license is dated July 30, 1635, and, as we have seen, the Dorset did not sail before the last day of September.

Mr. Stirk cannot have reached his home in Bermuda before December, 1635. The hardships of the voyage doubtless broke down still further his already delicate health. He died in 1637,159 leaving a widow and at least two young children, — a son, George, and a daughter whose name we do not know. In a letter of August 11, in that year, the Bermuda Company signified the grant to his widow of the use of five acres of land for life for the education of her children.160

After the elder Mr. Stirk’s death, in 1637, his widow very likely took her two children to her father’s house. On December, 1639, Mr. Patrick Copeland wrote to Governor Winthrop as follows:

I have sent you a small poesie of one of our preachers, whom the Lord hath taken to himselfe: hee hath left behinde him a hopefull sonne of his owne name, who is reasonable well entred in the Latine tongue. If there be any good schole and schole maister with you, I could wish with all my heart that hee might have his education rather with you, then in old England, where our company there have … promised after a yeere or two to take charge of his education with them. Hee is a fatherlesse childe and of good expectation, if God sanctifie his spirit.161

The boy here mentioned, the younger George Stirk, went to New England, and he was graduated at Harvard College in 1646. In 1647 he was practising medicine, doubtless in Boston, where we know he was settled in that profession in 1648 and 1650.

The fortunes of George Stirk the younger, whose career was very remarkable, must form the subject of a separate paper. Of the daughter we have only a single record, but for which we should not know of her existence. In a MS volume of Henry Dunster’s is a copy of a letter from Mr. Nathaniel White’s Independent Church at Eleuthera to the brethren in Boston. At the end of the copy is a note, in the hand of Increase Mather, to the effect that the messengers who brought the letter, as well as the ship’s crew, “came all in health to Boston y^e 6^t of 6^mo or August. & w^th y^m M^r Painter M^r Whites son Nat. wh: M^r Stirks sister &c. 1650.”162 The presence of Stephen Painter and his granddaughter, the younger Mr. Stirk’s sister, on board this ship from Eleuthera is fully explained by a consideration of what had been happening in the Bermudas.

There had been troublous times in the islands. In 1644 Mr. Nathaniel White formed his independent church there, which both Mr. Copeland and Stephen Painter joined. In 1647 both White and Painter were indicted for high treason. In 1648 they were allowed to go to England to defend themselves before the Company. We find them there on June 27 and September 5 of that year. On the 6th of December, 1648, they were back in the Bermudas, with a full acquittal.163 But in the next year (1649) there was a Royalist uprising, John Trimingham was declared Governor, and the members of the Independent Church had to conform or leave the colony. Mr. White and a considerable number of his flock preferred banishment to conformity, and went with Captain Sayle to his new settlement in Eleuthera in the autumn of 1649.164 Painter and his granddaughter were manifestly among them — and very likely also Mrs. Painter and Mrs. Stirk, who — if they were still living — can hardly have been left behind. When, in the next summer (1650), a ship set sail from Eleuthera for Boston, Painter and his granddaughter took passage, arriving, as we have seen, on August 6.165 Since we hear nothing of either Mrs. Painter or Mrs. Stirk, it is possible that they had succumbed to the hardships of the winter; but, as the Dunster MS does not profess to give anything like a complete list of the passengers, it is not impossible that they too were on board.166 At all events, George Stirk, the young Boston physician, had the pleasure of a visit from his sister and his maternal grandfather.

Meantime, in May, 1650, a ship from London had brought a Governor’s commission to Captain Forster and an order of the Company reappointing Painter to the Council. This body disliked the order in favor of Painter, “but he beinge not in these Islands that obstacle was remoued.”167 On October 3, 1650, the Long Parliament prohibited trade with the Bermudas, as being in rebellion against the Commonwealth and government of England.168 On the first day of January, 1652, the Governor and Council wrote to the Company, complaining that they had not received instructions for a long time. They had seen the printed Act of Parliament, and protested earnestly against being called rebels and traitors.169 On February 25, 1652, however, there is a record which acknowledges the receipt of a General Letter from the Company and submits to the “Comon wealth of England as yt is now established.” In this record “M^r Stephen Painter” reappears in the list of Councillors present and acting.170

We left Painter in Boston in August, 1650, when he and his granddaughter (Miss Stirk) bad just arrived from Eleuthera. In 1651, his grandson, George Stirk, went to England,171 where he remained for the rest of his life, becoming a well-known physician in London. In this same year (1651) we find Painter in England, presenting, with several others, a petition which recites that they have been “inforced from their relations … in the Sommer Islands” and are “in a state of penury,” and praying “that their peace may be made and themselves transported thither before they perish of want.”172 We cannot doubt, therefore, that all three — Painter and George Stirk the younger and Miss Stirk — went from Boston to England together, and that Painter’s triumphant return to the Bermudas was by the same ship which brought the instructions mentioned in the Council record of February 25, 1652, — the instructions which led that body to submit to the Commonwealth. What became of Miss Stirk we do not know. She may have stayed in England with her brother, who, as we have good reason to believe, was a family man; but it is equally possible that she went back to the islands with her grandfather.

From Painter’s return in 1652 until his death he continued to be an important man in the islands. He was continuously a member of the Council,173 and on September 13, 1658, the Company made him Councillor for life.174 In his Councillor’s capacity he had a share in the witchcraft prosecutions of 1653 and 1655.175 In 1655 he became Captain of Paget’s Fort,176 and soon after Sheriff, an office of high dignity in the islands. In June, 1658, however, he was too “infirm of body” to perform the sheriff’s duties177 and his successor was appointed in the same year.178 His will was proved in May, 1661.179 In Richard Norwood’s Survey of the islands, made in 1662 and 1663, “M^r Stephen Painter of Southampton tribe his heires or assignes” are recorded as owning a “Mansion house and two shares of land,” estimated at 49 acres, “Abutting at y^e west end vppon y^e westerne sea, and at y^e east end vppon y^e Great sound. Lying betweene y^e lands of Cap^t Thomas Richards to y^e southwards & M^rs Jane Leacroft to y^e northwards.”180 John Painter, who with fifty-three others signed a petition to the King in 1679, praying that the affairs of the Bermudas be taken out of the Company’s hands, and that a royal governor be appointed,181 was, I suppose, Stephen Painter’s son.

We have followed the career of the Rev. George Stirk from 1622 to his death in 1637 with some particularity, not because of its importance in itself, but for the light which it throws upon the times and their manners. Yet he is a figure not without interest for his own sake, — a meek, but firm and courageous minister of the Church of England, learned and truly religious, fallen upon troublous times in a rough and struggling colony. Of his learning and culture we have but a single piece of ocular evidence, — the “small poesie” which his friend and colleague, Mr. Patrick Copeland, sent to Governor Winthrop in 1639.

The “small poesie” was a little volume of Latin elegiacs, published in London in 1635, and entitled Musse Somerenses.182 It is excessively rare, but there is a copy in the Library of Yale University,183 — doubtless the very copy which Mr. Patrick Copeland presented to Governor Winthrop in 1639.184 The poem itself, which occupies twelve out of the twenty pages of the volume,185 was written in the islands in “spare hours.”186 It is headed “Historian Sacrse.” Mr. Stirk, after a brief invocation, sets forth succinctly some of the fundamental doctrines of orthodox Christianity, — monotheism, the Trinity, the nature of the Holy Ghost, the equality of the Father and the Son, and the creation of the world by all Three Persons. He then begins his Old Testament history, which he brings down to the Confusion of Tongues and the consequent dispersal of mankind throughout the earth. The work was intended for use in a school which the Bermuda Company had decided to establish.187 It was the author’s purpose, if his efforts were favorably received, to treat the whole course of biblical narrative in the same way, in order that the young might learn sacred history along with the elements of Latin. One thinks involuntarily of the days of Julian the Apostate, when the two Apollinarii, to elude the tyrant’s edict, composed their Sacred History (in imitation of Homer) and their Christian Pindar, Euripides, and Menander.

Mr. Stirk’s Latin verses are fluent enough, and he shows some skill in condensing his material. Valueless as the work may seem to a modern reader, it at least proves that the author’s reputation for scholarship and piety was not undeserved. The following passages will afford some idea of the style. The first is the exordium, the second gives an account of the Fall of the Angels, and the third (which concludes the poem) describes the Confusion of Tongues.

Sacra salutiferi resero mysteria verbi,

Et rectam ad cœli limina, monstro viam.

Exordium.

Te cano, summe Pater, teq; ô dulcissime Fili,

Teq; simul numeris, Spiritus alme, piis.

Vos (precor) audacem salebras per, & invia musam

Ducite, quà, rarum semita pandit iter.

. . . . . . . . . .

Hie etiam Angelicis dederat primordia turmis, Quorum ingens numerus, gloria magna fuit.	Angeli creantur.
In quibus unus erat, nulli splendore secundus, Nullo, fœlici conditione minor:	Lapsus Angclorum, qui nunc diaboli.
Quem dedit è summo ventosa superbia cœlo Precipitem, tristes ad Phlegetontis aquas.
Millia multa trahens secum delapsus ab alto est, Crimine qui similes supplicioq; pates.
Circumeunt totum multis legionibus orbem, Ut quoscunq; queunt, in sua fata trahant.
At Pater omnipotens vinclis & carcere fre̜nat Dæmonas, & servos servat ubiq; suos.
Cætera spirituum mansit sine crimine turba, Atq; immota ipsis gloria prima manet.	Angelorum qui perstiterunt, gloria.
Ante thronum stantes, sacro modulamine semper, Tres una sanctos in Deitate canunt.
Illius à. nutu pendent, & jussa capessunt, Circa credentes & sua castra locant.

. . . . . . . . . .

Insanum mundus conspirat tollere molem, Ut suus æterno tempore duret honos.	Turrim Babel condere moliuntur.
Ac si fata sinant, rerum que̜ fre̜na gubernet, Olim totius que̜ caput orbis erit.
At Pater omnipotens he̜c impia facta perosus, Incœptum ambigua voce diremit opus.	Lingua eonfunduntur.
Vnus erat sermo cunctis, vox una per orbem, Ac nulli alterius vox peregrina fuit.
At nunc insanis dum condunt molibus arcem, Omnes consuetos dedidicere sonos.
Proque suis alios, cunctis mirantibus edunt, Notaque que̜ nuper, barbara verba vocant.	Ab opere incapti188 desistunt.
Cessat ab officio structor, pro robere saxum Porrigit, ac calcem, dum petit alter aquam.
Pro serra, funem, pro resti aut fune securim, Pro clavo terebram, proque ligone rotam.
Omnia condendi contraria legibus ibant, Nee dominus servum, nee capit alter herum.
Quid faciant? turrim fato cogente relinquunt, Et quo quemque vocat fors animusque, migrant.	In varias regiones abeunt.
Et quibus una fuit tune cognita lingua, coibant, Et statuunt uno jura tenenda loco.
Hinc fit ut externis sileat regionibus ille, Cui fuit in patria Lingua diserta sua.	Variasque gentes. & regna constituunt.
Prima hinc regnorum, & populorum venit origo, In gentes terram dissona Lingua secat.
Hinc odia & bellum, dum quos confinia jungunt, Hostes inter se vox peregrina facit.189

Mr. Kittredge also made the following communication:

A NOTE ON DR. WILLIAM AMES

Captain Roger Wood, a sturdy and sensible old soldier190 of Puritanic tendencies in religion,191 was Governor of the Bermudas for two terms of three years each.192 His administration began in December, 1629.193 For his second term the records are almost wholly lacking, but a tattered Letter-book of his is preserved, from which Major-General Lefroy has published a number of draughts of missives which Wood sent to England from 1632 to 1634.194 One of these letters deserves more study than it has yet received, for, when rightly interpreted, it affords us a curious fact, hitherto unregistered, about a man who was once very eminent in theological circles and whose name is still celebrated in the annals of moral philosophy.

I give the letter exactly as it is printed by Lefroy, who does not reproduce quite the whole of it.

… As there is a supposition that you intend to come for New England, and M^r Peeters, as many reverent Divines are gone from England before you, as I heare by the reporte of some men that are come now vnto vs in a shippe from thence, to commerce with vs for victualls and provisions from vs Then let me desire you to leaue that resolution and come to the Burmoodaes where you are most entirely beloved and reverenced, and where although wee are poore by reason of the lowe esteeme of our Tobaco which is the chiefest comoditie wee haue to subsist withall, yet here is plenty of poultrie and fish and delicate fruits as the world yields We haue but 2 ministers, both Scotish men Th’ one is called Georg. Stirke who is very learned but I fear not long lyved, hee hath all your works that are extant, and admires yo^r …,195 and greatly applauds all the rest Th’ other M^r Patricke Coapland196 who hath travelled long, twice to the East Indies, and now settled himselfe here, having purchased 5 shares of land on which he hath builded and disbursed £1000 sterling, and wee expect 2 more this next yeare.197 Theire means is now settled at £40 sterling p. annum, w^ch is as good as 100 markes in England for their disbursements are here very little, and for my p.ticular if there come a single man ever, I will thinke myselfe happie to enjoy his company, if hee will accept my house and his dyett with me without any disbursement Althoughe there is 2 parsonage houses readie built and very conveniently seated to entertayne such as shall come ouer to possesse them; Wee are alsoe farre more secure from the Hiararchicall Jurisdiction then New England is, for noe great prelate will leave his Pontificall pallace to take his journey to liue vpon a barren rock. And all our Islands are not worth a Bishopricke and there are many men of great wealth and estates and almost whole congregations gone w^th their Pastors, where they build townes and call them according to those from whence they come as Boston Yarmoth198 &c Ours is a most holsome air, that suiteth every199 creature in these Islands Theires is a cold clymate full of severitie … thinke that when they haue well settled themselves they must be brought under the Archbishop of Canterburie and haue a suffragan sent to reduce them into the fould of their old shepheards for the king will not be quit of his subjects wheresouer they hue vnder his lawes and obedience. All this discourse I relate to divert you from any thoughts to seek liberty that way.…200 The letter concludes with an offering of a small piece of Tobaco for the correspondents owne drinking and a parcel of Potatoes for M^rs Ames.

This letter is not dated nor is it accompanied by the name of the person to whom it was addressed. In Lefroy’s opinion, it was intended for the Rev. Nathaniel Bernard. But this is a manifest error. The information which Wood gives his correspondent about the Bermudas and about the two ministers, Mr. Stirk and Mr. Copeland, is sufficient proof of Lefroy’s mistake. Bernard had resided in the islands as a settled minister from 1622 until 1627.201 He knew what their products were; he was well aware that tobacco was “the chiefest comoditie” the islanders “had to subsist withall,” — for his salary had been payable in that commodity,202 — and he was acquainted with Mr. Stirk, who was his colleague as early as 1622,203 and probably also with Mr. Copeland, whose residence dated from 1626.204 Obviously we must look about us for another addressee.

Certain well-defined conditions are imposed upon us in our search. The man is question must be a Puritan minister of distinction who had never been in the Bermudas. He must be the author of several well-known works, including one entitled, as Lefroy reads the manuscript, “Towins” or “Towius.” He must be an intending emigrant to New England. And finally, we may infer that his name was Ames, since it is clear that the “M^rs Ames” to whom the Governor sends a present of potatoes is the wife of the person to whom the letter was despatched.

All these conditions are fulfilled by one man, and by only one — the eminent Calvinist theologian Dr. William Ames, who died at Rotterdam in 1633 in his fifty-seventh year. It is needless to rehearse the particulars of Dr. Ames’s life. They may be read, in sufficient detail, in the Praefatio Introductoria to the five-volume edition of his Latin Works edited by Matthias Nethenus,205 in Benjamin Brook’s Lives of the Puritans,206 in Mr. John Browne’s History of Congregationalism in Norfolk and Suffolk,207 and in the Dictionary of National Biography.208

That Dr. Ames intended to come to New England is well known. In a letter to Governor Winthrop, written from Franeker, in Friesland, December 29, [1629,] he says, “I longe to bee with yow.” His purpose, he adds, is to go to England in the summer [of 1630], and, on being assured of the safe arrival of Winthrop in America, “to take the first convenient occasion of following after yow.”209 Why Ames did not carry out his plan as thus indicated, we do not know. Clearly, however, there was some interruption in his correspondence with Winthrop. On December 18, 1630, John Humfrey writes to the Governor from London: “Dr. Ames holds his first affection to you & the worke, notwithstanding the late neglect of him, in not giving a word eyther to him or of him. I wrote to him excusing all as well as I could, & the good man takes nothing amisse for ought I understand.”210 And again, December 23, 1630: “Dr. Ames, as great a blessing & blessing bringer (if his remove bee clearly warrantable) as wee could desire, continues his hartie affection to us.”211 By 1632, one might suppose, Dr. Ames’s project of emigration was abandoned, for in that year he became an associate with Hugh Peters in the English Congregational Church at Rotterdam,212 but we shall see presently that he was expected in New England as late as 1633.

Dr. Ames fulfils another of our conditions by having been a prolific writer of works of high Calvinistic theology which were much esteemed in his own day, and, indeed, long afterwards. Here we are confronted with a little puzzle. What is that book which Mr. Stirk admired? “The name,” says General Lefroy, “is unintelligible.” All he can make of it is Towins or Towius. The problem is easily solved, even without a sight of Wood’s manuscript. The word must be Coronis.

The Coronis is one of Dr. Ames’s best-known works. A coronis (κορωνίς) was a stroke or pen-flourish made by a Greek or Roman scribe at the end of a book or chapter or scene. Dr. Ames called his book Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, qua Argumenta Pastorum Hollandiæ adversus Remonstrantium Quinque Articulos de Divina Prædestinatione, & capitibus ei adnexis, producta, ab horum exceptionibus vindicantur, — that is, in effect, “A Finishing Touch to the Hague Conference, by which the Arguments advanced by the Ministers of Holland against the Five Articles of the Remonstrants concerning the Divine Predestination and concerning the Chapters annexed to it are vindicated from the Objections of the Remonstrants.”

The title is a good index to the contents. Several disciples of Arminius,213 as is well known, had, in 1610, drawn up a so-called Remonstrance,214 addressed to the States of Holland and West Friesland, against the insistence on certain high Calvinistic tenets in the Dutch Reformed Church. The opinions of the Remonstrants were summarized in five articles — the famous Five Points, as the theologians call them. In 1611, by order of the States, there was held the celebrated Hague Conference, which the government hoped might put an end to strife and prevent a schism. Six of the Arminian Remonstrants and six of the orthodox Calvinist divines appeared before the States and argued the Five Points— Election, Redemption, the Cause of Faith, Conversion, and the Perseverance of the Saints. There was no decision. The States dissolved the Conference with an exhortation to the contending parties to tolerate each other’s doctrines and to live like brothers in Christian charity.215 The advice was well-meant, but fruitless. The struggle went on, until the Calvinists, who outnumbered the Arminians, procured the condemnation of their heresies in the National Synod of Dort, held in 1618 and 1619.216

Ames’s Coronis, published in 1618,217 was meant to put the “finishing touch,” as its title indicates, to the arguments of the Calvinist representatives in the Hague Conference and thus to serve as a decisive refutation of Arminianism. It was long regarded as a well-stocked arsenal of orthodoxy. “Ames stood in the van,” writes Nethenus. “He encountered the whole camp of the Remonstrants, and bravely withstood and repulsed their attack, publishing his Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, a work by which he has merited an unfading garland of praise and glory among all who devoutly honor and preach the grace of God.”218 It is a melancholy reflection that this immarcescibilis corona had so far withered by 1877 that General Lefroy could not decipher the word coronis in Governor Wood’s manuscript, but made it towins or towius, mistaking a c for a t and feeling some doubt whether the three strokes and a dot that make up the letters ni should be read in or iu.

Enough has probably been said to convince anybody that Wood’s letter was really addressed to Dr. William Ames. But it may be worth while to add that we can also identify the lady who was to receive the gift of Bermuda potatoes. She was Dr. Ames’s second wife, Joan (Fletcher219), who, as all students of the early settlement of this country are aware, left Rotterdam, with her three children, at some time undetermined, after the Doctor’s death in 1633, and in 1637 sailed from Yarmouth to New England,220 where the fathers of the colony, in the same year, granted “40^ł to M^rs. Ames, the widow of Doctor Ames, of famos memory, who is deceased.”221 Her son William graduated at Harvard College in 1645.222 Finally, we shall not forget that Mr. [Hugh] Peters, whom Governor Wood mentions in connection with our Calvinist champion, was actually his friend and colleague, and came to New England himself in 1635.

When Wood’s letter was written is a matter of some uncertainty, for, as we have seen, it bears no date in the manuscript. Lefroy puts it in 1634, but I think he is wrong. It was clearly written at the same time as another letter, somewhat earlier in the manuscript, which Lefroy dates 1633. Both letters mention the arrival of a ship from New England, to trade for provisions, and both remark that this ship has brought word that there is a resort of able ministers from England to New England.223 Beyond question this ship was the Thunder, which sailed from our shores to Bermuda on October 17, 1633, and arrived in Boston on her return, as Winthrop informs us, on June 1, 1634, having touched at Virginia on the voyage back.224 Ames died suddenly at Rotterdam in November, 1633, from shock (or perhaps pneumonia) caused by jumping out of bed into the water which had invaded his chamber in an inundation.225 “Learned

Amesius,” writes Peters in a familiar passage, “breathed his last Bareath into my Bosom.”226 Wood’s letter may never have reached him, but it at all events proves that the New Englanders, as late as the autumn of 1633, were still expecting him to come over sometime, and that Captain Roger Wood made a gallant attempt to divert him to the older colony in the Bermudas.

Mr. Albert Matthews made the following communication:

NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINES OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Having in preparation a bibliography of New England magazines of the eighteenth century, it occurs to me that tentative lists of such magazines may prove useful. These lists are based on the collections owned by the following libraries and societies: American Antiquarian Society, Boston Athenæum, Boston Public Library, Library of Congress, Essex Institute, Harvard College Library, Lenox (New York Public) Library, Massachusetts Historical Society, Massachusetts State Library, New England Historic Genealogical Society, New York Historical Society, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Library Company of Philadelphia, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Yale University Library. My thanks are due to the officials of these institutions for many courtesies.

Other libraries or societies, however, may have earlier or later numbers of a particular magazine than those indicated in the present lists, or may have a magazine not listed here. Again, questions not easily answered are: Exactly what is a magazine? Wherein does a magazine differ from a newspaper? Is the proper criterion size or contents? In September, 1908, the writer issued a leaflet containing a prefatory note and a chronological list of New England magazines of the eighteenth century.227 That list contained, in addition to the magazines given in the present lists, the following three titles:

The New-Haven Gazette, and the Connecticut Magazine, New Haven: 1786, February 16 — 1789, June 18
Courier de Boston, Affiches, Annonces, et Avis, Boston: 1789, Avril 23 — Octobre 15
The New Star, Concord, New Hampshire: 1797, April 11 — October 3

In the prefatory note to the leaflet, I remarked that “the propriety of regarding all the publications in the present list as magazines will probably not be questioned except in four cases, — namely: New-Haven Gazette, and the Connecticut Magazine (1786–1789); Worcester Magazine (1786–1788); Courier de Boston (1789); New Star (1797).” A careful examination of the above three periodical publications convinces me that they should be regarded as newspapers rather than as magazines, and hence they do not appear in the lists given below. The case of the Worcester Magazine is peculiar, but I think it may properly be included in a list of magazines. A full discussion of this matter, however, is reserved for the completed bibliography.

The three following titles, printed in italics, have been found in advertisements or catalogues, but no copies are known:

The American Monitor, or the Republican Magazine, Boston: 1785, October
The Religious Monitor and Theological Scales, Danbury, Connecticut: 1797 —
The Christian’s Monitor; or Theological Magazine, Concord, New Hampshire: 1798, June

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINES, 1743–1800

1 The Boston Weekly Magazine, Boston: 1743, March 2, 9, 16
2 The Christian History, Boston: 1743, March 5 — 1745, February 23
3 The American Magazine and Historical Chronicle, Boston: 1743, September — 1746, December
4 The New England Magazine, Boston: 1758, August228 —
5 The Censor, Boston: 1771, November 23 — 1772, May 2
6 The Royal American Magazine, or Universal Repository of Instruction and Amusement, Boston: 1774, January — 1775, March
7 The Boston Magazine, Boston: 1783, October— 1786, December
8 The Gentleman and Lady’s Town and Country Magazine, Boston: 1784, May — December
9 The Worcester Magazine, Worcester: 1786, April —1788, March
10 The American Musical Magazine, New Haven: 1786–1787229
11 The Massachusetts Magazine: or, Monthly Museum of Knowledge and rational Entertainment, Boston: 1789, January—1796, December
12 The Gentlemen and Ladies Town and Country Magazine, Boston: 1789, February — 1790, August
13 The American Apollo, Boston: 1792, January 6 — September 28230
14 The New-Hampshire Magazine: or, the. Monthly Repository of Useful Information, Concord: 1793, June — November
15 The Monthly Miscellany, or Vermont Magazine, Bennington: 1794, April — September
16 The Rural Magazine: or, Vermont Repository, Rutland: 1795, January — 1796, December
17 The Tablet, Boston: 1795, May 19 —August 11
18 The Nightingale, or, Melange de Litterature, Boston: 1796, May 10 — July 30
19 Wisdom in Miniature: or the Young Gentleman and Lady’s Magazine, Hartford, Connecticut: 1796, No. 1
20 The Newhampshire & Vermont Magazine and General Repository, Haverhill, New Hampshire: 1797, July — October
21 A Republican Magazine: or, Repository of Political Truths, Fairhaven, Vermont: 1798, October 1 — December 15
22 The Columbian Phenix and Boston Review, Boston: 1800, January — July
23 The Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, Hartford: 1800, July — December231

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINES, 1743–1800

13 American Apollo: 1792
3 American Magazine: 1743–1746
10 American Musical Magazine: 1786–1787
7 Boston Magazine: 1783–1786
1 Boston Weekly Magazine: 1743
5 Censor: 1771–1772
2 Christian History: 1743–1745
22 Columbian Phenix: 1800
23 Connecticut Evangelical Magazine: 1800
8 Gentleman and Lady’s Town and Country Magazine: 1784
12 Gentlemen and Ladies Town and Country Magazine: 1789–1790
11 Massachusetts Magazine: 1789–1796
15 Monthly Miscellany: 1794
4 New England Magazine: 1758
20 Newhampshire & Vermont Magazine: 1797
14 New-Hampshire Magazine: 1793
18 Nightingale: 1796
21 Republican Magazine: 1798
6 Royal American Magazine: 1774–1775
16 Rural Magazine: 1795–1796
17 Tablet: 1795
19 Wisdom in Miniature: 1796
9 Worcester Magazine: 1786–1788

LIST OF NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINES BY YEARS, 1743–1800

1743		American Magazine
		Boston Weekly Magazine
		Christian History
1744–1745		American Magazine
1744–1745		Christian History
1746		American Magazine
1758		New England Magazine
1771–1772		Censor
1774–1775		Royal American Magazine
1783		Boston Magazine
1784		Boston Magazine
1784		Gentleman and Lady’s Town and Country Magazine
1785		Boston Magazine
1786		American Musical Magazine
		Boston Magazine
		Worcester Magazine
1787		American Musical Magazine
1787		Magazine Worcester
1788		Worcester Magazine
1789–1790		Gentlemen and Ladies Town and Country Magazine
1789–1790		Massachusetts Magazine
1791		Massachusetts Magazine
1792		American Apollo
1792		Massachusetts Magazine
1793		Massachusetts Magazine
1793		Magazine New-Hampshire
1794		Massachusetts Magazine
1794		Monthly Miscellany
1795		Massachusetts Magazine
		Rural Magazine
		Tablet
1796		Massachusetts Magazine
		Nightingale
		Wisdom in Miniature
1797		Newhampshire & Vermont Magazine
1798		Republican Magazine
1800		Columbian Phenix
1800		Connecticut Evangelical Magazine

Mr. William C. Lane described the latest discoveries in the trench now being dug for the Cambridge subway in front of Wadsworth House, and exhibited photographs of the foundation walls of early buildings which had been exposed to view.

Mr. Charles S. Rackemann communicated a Memoir of James Barr Ames, which had been prepared for publication in the Transactions.

MEMOIR of JAMES BARR AMES, LL.D.

by CHARLES SEDGWICK RACKEMANN

James Barr Ames was born in Boston on June 22, 1846, and died at Wilton, New Hampshire, on January 8, 1910.

He was educated in the Boston schools and at Harvard College, where he graduated with the degree of A.B. in 1868. Immediately afterwards he began teaching in Boston, and kept this up for two seasons. He then became a tutor at Harvard College in the French and German languages, serving during the academic year 1871–1872; and there, in 1871, he attained his A.M. At the end of the year 1872 he took his law degree at the same place.

Afterwards he was a teacher of history at Harvard for one academic year, and in 1873 he was made an assistant professor of law. At this time President Eliot, in his Annual Report for 1872–1873, referring to the appointment of so young a teacher in the Law School, said:

The gentleman who is to bear the brunt of this new experiment in the constitution of a Law Faculty has some unusual qualifications for the place, for he is not only distinguished as a student, both in College and in the Law School, but he has had more than two years’ experience as a teacher in the College; the experiment will therefore be tried under favorable conditions.232

In those days the appointment of a man to an assistant professorship in a Law School, when he was only five years graduated from College, was a very pronounced distinction. In 1877 Mr. Ames resigned his assistant professorship; but the Corporation “felt that his services were too valuable to the Law School to be thus lost,” and on May 14, 1877, voted “to establish an additional Professorship in the Law School;” and Mr. Ames was appointed the new professor. In 1879 Mr. Ames was appointed Bussey Professor in the School.

In 1895 Mr. Langdell, who had been Dean of the School since September, 1870, resigned on account of his age and state of health, and Mr. Ames was chosen as his successor, and retained this position until the time of his death, filling it with the highest credit to himself, and to the entire satisfaction of the Faculty and the students. It was Dean Langdell who originated and established what is called the “case system” of teaching law. This consists of making the students familiar with the actual decisions of various courts in England and America, and was thus explained by Professor William A. Keener in 1888:

Under this system the student must look upon law as a science consisting of a body of principles to be found in the adjudged cases, the cases being to him what the specimen is to the geologist.… This method of teaching does not consist in lectures by the instructor with references to the cases in support of the propositions stated by him. The exercises in the lecture-room consist in a statement and discussion by the students of the cases studied by them in advance. This discussion is under the direction of the instructor, who makes such suggestions and expresses such opinions as are necessary.

The student is required to analyze each case, discriminate between the relevant and irrelevant, between the actual and possible grounds of decision. And after having thus discussed a case, he is prepared and required to deal with it in its relation to other cases.

It is unnecessary at this moment to say anything more of this system of Dean Langdell’s than that, in spite of much adverse criticism on various sides, it has stood the test for about forty years, and has convinced so many of the leading teachers of its usefulness and soundness in principle, that it is to-day the prevailing system of teaching law in this country. Professor Edward H. Warren, who is now on the staff of the Law School, in a recent appreciation of Dean Ames, spoke as follows concerning this system:

The introduction of this method was due to Professor Langdell, who preceded Professor Ames as Dean of the School. Dean Ames was the disciple of Langdell. Langdell originated, Ames spread the idea.

He spread it in two ways. Each year scores (and lately hundreds) of young men were leaving the School who had been stimulated and strengthened intellectually by him. They prized the training and they found that it told in actual practice. In the second place, as other law schools wished to adopt the method, he gladly helped to make its introduction easy. Harvard has never made any attempt to guard the case system as a trade secret; it has, on the contrary, with both hands, done its utmost to help other institutions to adopt it. Dean Ames was foremost in this. He put himself at the service of every law teacher in the country who wanted light and leading.

It is not too much to say that to-day, considering the country as a whole, the case system is the dominant method used in teaching law. No one — not excepting Langdell himself — has contributed more to this result than Ames. His influence has been national.

He analyzed the cases with his students by the Socratic method. He questioned much; he answered little. Those who came to hear the law laid down went away to ponder what it ought to be. He loved the battle of wits; but he never argued simply for the sake of victory. He helped men in many ways, but most of all because he made them help themselves.

Mr. Ames was never a practising lawyer. As already shown, from the moment that he had acquired his education, in the ordinary acceptance of that term, he became a teacher; but no man would have more readily admitted than he would himself that he never ceased being a student. He was a most indefatigable worker. Besides writing innumerable articles or short treatises, he produced a collection of cases designed to be used under the system above alluded to, upon the subjects of torts, pleading (at common law), bills and notes, partnership, trusts, suretyships, admiralty and equity jurisdiction.

The method of making a book of cases, to be used under the case system, is for the professor to read such cases as he thinks the students ought to know, and then to make a republication of those cases, grouped according to subjects, with all superfluous matter eliminated, and omitting also the head-note or syllabus, so that the student may either make his own head-note or syllabus after studying the facts and opinions, or take the same down from the dictation of the professor in the class-room.

When one considers the amount of intellectual labor which goes into the making of a book under such circumstances, it is a matter of absolute wonderment that one man could produce so many works on such a variety of subjects, while carrying, on his work in the classroom at the same time.

While Mr. Ames was teaching in the Law School, two very important steps were taken in connection with it, the influences of which are likely to last as long as the School itself. These were, first, the establishment of the Harvard Law School Association, which was organized in the autumn of 1886, while the College was celebrating its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, and of which our late associate, the Hon. James Coolidge Carter, was the first President; and, second, the founding of the Harvard Law Review in the spring of 1887. Of the former, Dean Langdell said: “The gentlemen who conceived and started this enterprise, and who have spared neither time nor labor in carrying it out, are entitled to the lasting gratitude of every one who has the welfare of the School at heart.”

Professor Ames was always extremely interested in the Law School Association, and gave much time and careful thought to its purposes. He also believed heartily in the Law Review and was a frequent contributor to it; in fact, most of its volumes contain articles written by him.

When Dean Langdell resigned, the Association held its ninth annual meeting at Cambridge and turned it into a special celebration in his honor. It was at this time that Professor Ames succeeded him. In 1904 the Association had another particular celebration at its eighteenth annual meeting, at which President Taft, then Governor of the Philippine Islands, was the orator of the day. The then President of the Association, Chief-Justice Fuller, also an honorary associate of ours, in presenting the after-dinner speakers, led up to the introduction of Dean Ames as follows:

Sidney Smith said that the difference between Scotch deans and English deans was that “English deans had no faculties.” That doesn’t apply in any sense to my friend on the left, the Dean of the Law School, whose years of teaching and of administration, and whose books have placed the Law School under an indebtedness that all recognize and all most cordially acknowledge.

And Professor Ames, in replying, paid another tribute to the wonderful work of Dean Langdell, saying:

When, in 1895, Professor Langdell, after twenty-five years of distinguished service, resigned the deanship, I thought, having been associated with him from the beginning as a disciple and as a colleague, that I had a realizing sense of his great genius; but I did not appreciate then as I do now, after nine years of experience as his successor, how solidly the new foundations of the Law School were laid during his administration. He is emeritus; but the policy which his originality and his far-sighted sagacity inaugurated still dominates the conduct of the School.

Then, after speaking of the necessity for preparing the case books which had been created by the introduction of the Langdellian system, and prophesying that Harvard Law students would write books on many subjects, he closed his remarks with some expressions which most perfectly exhibit his own feeling about the proper functions of the Law School:

We shall not forget, however, in the delights of legal authorship, that our first object is to train young men for the effective practice of their profession. To us the real distinction of the Law School is to be found in the true significance of its degree.’ It is our purpose that the degree shall represent even more in the future than in the past that its holder is a man of capacity, of sound legal training, and above all a man of generous ambition and high character.

The high moral tone of his nature, and the hopefulness and sanity of his views with reference to the future, are finely illustrated in a paragraph in his article on “Law and Morals,” published in the Review in December, 1908:

It is obvious that the spirit of reform which during the last six hundred years has been bringing our system of law more and more into harmony with moral principles has not yet achieved its perfect work. It is worth while to realize the great ethical advance of the English law in the past, if only as an encouragement to effort for future improvement. In this work of the future there is an admirable field for the law professor. The professor has, while the judge and the practicing lawyer have not, the time for systematic and comprehensive study and for becoming familiar with the decisions and legislation of other countries. This systematic study and the knowledge of what is going on in other countries are indispensable if we would make our system of law the best possible instrument of justice. The training of students must always be the chief object of the law school, but this work should be supplemented by solid contributions of their professors to the improvement of the law.233

Professor Ames had an extremely attractive personality, an unusual sympathy, and extraordinary patience in listening to the questions of students and in discussing matters with them. His voice was soft and well modulated, his smile was winning, and his manners were so modest as to be almost shy, and yet they were dignified without being in the least constrained.

I venture to say that, in 1879, when I was at the Law School and first made his acquaintance, there was not a student in the School who was not personally known to him, and I know that he was consulted by the students upon questions arising in courses given by other professors than himself.234 There seemed to be a general desire amongst the students to get the views of Professor Ames upon all involved or troublesome questions. In those days he never sat down, except in the lecture-room, but preferred to work while standing at a high desk. He said that he thought this was much more comfortable in the long run, and that it was also more healthful. When the Hemenway Gymnasium was opened he became a constant attendant and was to be seen there almost daily in the last hour of the afternoon before dinner.

He was one of the members of the famous Lowell Baseball Club (named for the illustrious family and not for the city), which had a lively career, and the memory of which has been rendered immortal by the book of Mr. James D’Wolf Lovett called Old Boston Boys and the Games they Played.235

It is one of the inevitable features of after-life that one becomes almost wholly separated from such a man, and it is a source of keen regret that one cannot longer discuss with him the problems which come up in the daily practice of the profession. It is a strange and not an agreeable fact that one of the dominating influences of a man’s life for a short term should thus become absolutely deprived of its daily application, and have its later effect only in retrospect.

Mr. Ames joined this Society in February, 1893, and, although not often seen at its meetings, was interested in the promotion of its work. He was one of the subscribers to the Gould Memorial Fund. In 1902 he paid an affectionate and discriminating tribute to the memory of Professor Thayer, our late associate, and it seems fitting to end this notice of Mr. Ames by quoting some of the well-chosen words in which he expressed his estimation of his colleague. Mr. Ames might not feel that they were applicable to himself, but we surely find them quite appropriate.

No one can measure his great influence upon the thousands of his pupils. While at the School, they had a profound respect for his character and ability, and they realized that they were sitting at the feet of a master of his subjects. In their after life, his precept and example have been, and will continue to be, a constant stimulus to genuine, thorough, and finished work, and a constant safeguard against hasty generalization or dogmatic assertion.236

Mr. Ames married Sarah, daughter of the late George R. Russell, and granddaughter of Jonathan Russell, of Milton, and lived most of his life in Cambridge. He was in his religious belief a Unitarian.

He received the degree of Doctor of Laws from six universities.

1 See pp. 94–95.

2 History of Massachusetts (1795), ii. 222–223.

3 It will be seen later that News from the Moon does not deal with the currency. Still another pamphlet classified as a currency pamphlet, viz. “English advice to the freeholders, etc. of the Massachusetts-Bay,” may be cast out from this assignment. This latter pamphlet is to be found in the Library of Congress.

4 Dictionary of Books relating to America, xiii. 322.

5 Evans gives the date of the Review, Tuesday, May 2, 1810. As the pamphlet is classified under date of 1721, this typographical error is of no importance.

6 This list also includes, on page 393, “A brief account of the state of the province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England, civil and ecclesiastical. By a lover of his country [Cotton Mather?] Boston: T. Crump, 1717. 8 p. 8°.” The assignment of this pamphlet to a place among the currency pamphlets is an error, and the query whether it might have come from the pen of Cotton Mather may be answered in the negative. It is to be found among the works of the Rev. Ebenezer Pemberton (1672–1717), and seems to be merely a brief review of the form of government instituted under the province charter.

7 A reprint of News from the Moon will be found in Colonial Currency Reprints (Prince Society), ii. 266–270.

8 The bibliographers of the Review state that at first it was a weekly, then two copies were issued each week, and finally three.

9 The identity of the name of the compiler of this list with that of his father, the famous Librarian of the American Antiquarian Society, will explain the confusion which exists as to the authorship of the Catalogue.

10 See Duniway’s Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, p. 94.

11 Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement of the Bermudas or Somers Islands, 1515–1685, compiled from the Colonial Records and other Original Sources by Major-General J. H. Lefroy, sometime Governor of the Bermudas. London, 2 vols., 1877–1879. All references in my footnotes are to this work unless the contrary is indicated.

12 Lefroy thinks this letter was written to the Rev. Nathaniel Bernard (i. 535), but see pp. 60–69, below, where also the date of the letter is discussed. On Stirk’s Scottish nationality cf. also another letter of Wood’s, probably of 1632 (i. 532), which alone might not be decisive. Our associate, Mr. Charles K. Bolton, has called my attention to a mention of Mr. Stirk in C. A. Hanna’s Scotch Irish, ii. 6. Hanna adds nothing to Wood’s testimony.

13 i. 536.

14 See p. 52, below.

15 Stirk’s MS. petition, Manchester Papers, No. 422 (Public Record Office, London), printed below (p. 49) for the first time: “The booke of Orders sayeth. Article 154. That the Ministers shall haue soe much yearly, as the Company, & they shall agree vpon. And in the Court twelue yeares agoe, they agreed vpon 100 markes, & w^th this condition sent ffower Ministers w^th Capt Bernard of w^ch I was one.”

Lefroy formerly dentified Mr. Stirk with an unnamed minister sent to the Bermudas in 1619 in the Sea-flower. Captain John Smith writes that, shortly after the election of Captain Nathaniel Butler to the governorship, the Company “tooke the opportunitie of a ship, called the Sea-flower, bound for Virginia, and by her sent [to Bermuda] a Preacher and his Family, with diuers Passengers, and newes of a new Governor” (Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles, 1624, book v. p. 190). Smith is following Butler’s History: “The Company of Adventurers in England, presently vpon Captaine Butlers election, tooke the opportunitie of a shyp that was to goe for Virginia, and vpon her shypped diuers passengers for the Sommer Hands, and among the rest, a preacher and his family,” etc. (Historye of the Bermudaes, edited by Lefroy, Hakluyt Society, 1882, pp. 141–142). In his edition of Butler’s work Lefroy corrected his own previous identification of the Sea-flower man with Mr. Stirk, finding Lang’s name (“Mr. Lang”) in two documents in Butler’s History,—a letter from the Company to Butler, 1620, and Butler’s reply, in the same year (pp. 212, 221). Lefroy remarks that “there is no record of such a minister in Bermuda” (p. 142 note). The Sea-flower arrived in July, 1619 (Butler, p. 142). There are various documents (unknown to Lefroy) about Lang among the Duke of Manchester’s papers in the Public Record Office, — a letter of August 12, 1619, from Mr. Lewes Hughes to Sir Nathaniel Rich (“Mr. Lang and his wife are in good health; God send us more such.” MS. No. 252 in the catalogue printed in the Eighth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, 1881, Appendix, part ii. p. 34); two letters from the same to the same, [January, 1620] and February 12, 1620 (MSS. Nos. 262, 265, p. 34); a letter from Lang to Rich, October 16, 1620 (MS. No. 277, p. 35); a letter from Butler to Rich, January 12, 1620 (not 1621, see p. 21 note 1, below) (MS. No. 289, p. 37). Lang’s Christian name (Samuel) appears only in his own letter of October 16, 1620 (MS. No. 277, p. 35). Cf. Neill, Virginia Vetusta, p. 192.

The above-cited Historye of the Bermudaes, which is anonymous (Sloane MS. 750, British Museum), was ascribed by its editor, General Lefroy, to Captain John Smith. In 1884 Arber said that Smith was “clearly not the Author of that manuscript, which was written apparently by a Governor previous to Governor Butler;? by Governor Tucker” (Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 624). It was, however, certainly the work of Governor Nathaniel Butler (E. J. L. Scott, Index to the Sloane Manuscripts, p. 69; E. Delmar Morgan, Athenæum, December 24, 1892, p. 891, Academy, December 31, 1892, p. 609).

16 Captain John Smith says that Governor Bernard “arrived within eight days after Butlers departure, with two ships, and about one hundred and forty passengers” (Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles, 1624, p. 200). Butler’s departure, according to a contemporary record (Lefroy, i. 253) took place “about the 25^th of October,” 1622. Bernard’s commission is dated September 1, 1622 (i. 261, 264).

17 Nathaniel Bernard and Joseph Wright are mentioned as “chosen to be ministers and preachers in the said [sc. “the Som^r”] Islands” in a commission of September 5, 1622 (i. 258), which also mentions Captain John Bernard as Governor elect. We do not know positively when Staples sailed, but it was later than May, 1622 (Records of the Virginia Company, edited by Susan Myrick Kingsbury, i. 535, 544, 635; cf. E. D. Neill, English Colonization of America, pp. 323–324; Neill, History of the Virginia Company, pp. 259, 378–379; Lefroy, i. 707). In a list of “all such as were present” at the General Assembly of the Bermudas in May, 1623, we find, under the head of “The Ministers,” three names “M^r Nathaniell Bernard,” “M^r Robert Staples,” and “M^r George Stirke” (i. 316–317).

18 Lefroy says nothing of Mr. Wright’s death, remarking simply (i. 713) that “his name has only been found in the commission” of September 5, 1622 (see note 1, above). But some minister certainly died in the islands soon after Governor Bernard’s arrival and before Governor Bernard’s own decease, which occurred only six weeks after the latter reached his post (Smith, p. 200) and (consequently) in December, 1622 (note also that Governor Bernard was alive, though weak, on December 18, 1622, and that his successor, Captain John Harrison, issued a proclamation on January 1, 1623: i. 278–280). This death of a minister is mentioned by Harrison in a proclamation for a general fast, January 29, 1623: “God … beginninge to take from us the Angell of our Churches sent to breake unto us the bread of life, and last of all strikinge at the verye head our late worthye Governor and his wyfe, both buried in one day” (i. 282). Wright must be the person meant, for it is quite evident that Harrison’s words cannot apply to any of the three preachers who had been in the Bermuda Company’s service before Bernard’s administration, —George Keith (Keath, Keth), Lewes Hughes (Hewes), and Samuel Lang. Keith had left the islands in 1617 and settled in Virginia. (Neill, Virginia Vetusta, p. 172; Burk, History of Virginia, 1804, i. 337; Brown, Genesis of the United States, ii. 934; Brown, First Republic in America, pp. 624, 631; Virginia Magazine, iii. 279–280, xvi. 14.) Hughes left the Bermudas before the end of Harrison’s administration, i. e., before October, 1623 (i. 335), as is clear from a letter of Woodhouse’s (i. 349), and that this withdrawal took place before April, 1623, is extremely probable (cf. what Woodhouse says about Hughes’s salt-pans with Harrison’s order of April 8, 1623: i. 349–350, 289). He was alive in England years after (i. 349–350, ii. 586–587; Neill, Virginia Vetusta, pp. 191–192; cf. Butler, p. 112). Lang had either died or left the islands before the end of 1622. This is inferential, but certain. In the autumn of that year the colonists drew up a statement of grievances which they put into Governor Butler’s hands and which he delivered to the Company in England in 1623 (Manchester MS. No. 295, p. 37; cf. No. 294; Lefroy, i. 275–276; Butler, p. 294; Smith, p. 199). They complain that there have never been more than two ministers in the Bermudas at once, and sometimes (as at present) only one. Their complaint is borne out by the Company’s instructions to Governor Daniel Tucker, February 15, 1616 (i. 107), and by various passages in Butler (pp. 24, 49 ff, 55 ff, 72–73, 149, 152) and Smith (pp. 178, 181, 191, 192), as well as by the Manchester MSS. (Nos. 209, 229, 233, 252, 262, 265, 289). Mr. Hughes signs this memorial (MS. No. 295). Therefore, since Hughes was the only minister in the service at the time, Lang had either died or (more probably) had left the islands.

19 i. 317. It is not surprising that the ministers are not named in the records (which are imperfect anyway) between the arrival of Governor Bernard and this time. The public business had been sadly interrupted by the death of the Governor and the “great sicknesse” of his successor, Harrison (i. 296), so that the Assembly called for December 10, 1622 (i. 267), was not held until the following May.

20 i. 317–321.

21 i. 318.

22 MS. No. 209, May 19, 1617, Eighth Report, pp. 31–32; cf. Lefroy, i. 469.

23 It is in the Public Record Office, among the Duke of Manchester’s papers (MS. No. 234, March, 1618, cf. MS. No. 233, Report, p. 33), and is printed, in part, by Neill, Virginia Vetusta, 1885, pp. 205–207. Hughes’s covering letter of March, 1618 (MS. No. 233), is also printed by Neill, Virginia Vetusta, pp. 187–190.

24 MS. No. 239 December 15, 1618, Report, p. 33; printed by Neill, Virginia Vetusta, pp. 190–191.

25 MS. No. 229, March 10, 1618, Report, p. 33.

26 Mr. Lewes Hughes was the older of the two ministers.

27 Where the colonial Governor resided.

28 Easter, 1620.

29 Butler, pp. 171–173. Captain John Smith (p. 192) has a condensed account of these transactions, obviously adapted from Butler’s MS. It is not so clear as Butler’s narrative, and naturally misled Lefroy (i. 151 note, 678–686), who afterwards corrected his own mistake (ii. 588–591).

30 MS. No. 289, Eighth Report, p. 37. This letter bears the date “Jan. 12, 1620.” The cataloguer remarks “i. e., 1620–1, but endorsed 1619, perhaps correctly.” There can be no doubt that the letter was written in January, 1619–20, for Butler uses the “historical” rather than the “legal” style elsewhere. See his History, p. 162, where “the 23rd of January, an. 1620,” means not 1620–21 but 1619–20. The contemporary who endorsed the letter “1619” was of course using the “legal” style, and meant 1619–20. Thus there is no real conflict between the date of the letter and the date of the endorsement. Beyond question the letter went to England by the ship Garland, which sailed about January 23, 1620 (Butler, p. 162, cf. p. 209).

31 In a postscript. The body of the letter was written February 12, 1620, and includes complaints of Mr. Lang’s conduct (MS. No. 265, Report, p. 34).

32 That the new administration was meant to settle church affairs on a more satisfactory basis is shown by the Orders and Constitutions adopted by the Company on February 6, 1622, where it is stated that there are to be four ministers (§ 154, i. 212). As we have seen, there had never been more than two (p. 18 note 2, above). Mr. Stirk’s petition shows that the full complement crossed the sea with Governor Bernard near the end of the year (p. 49, below). See also the Governor’s proclamation of December 7, 1622 (i. 277). It appears from a passage in Smith (p. 199) that Mr. Lewes Hughes did not leave the islands with Butler in October, 1622 (cf. p. 18 note 2, above). If, as seems likely, he remained there (as sole minister) until Governor Bernard’s arrival, he was of course superseded by the newcomers. On February 12, 1620, Hughes wrote to Sir Nathaniel Rich: “I lik so well of Captaine Butler … as I am more than halfe minded to stay out his time” (Manchester Papers, MS. No. 265).

33 i. 318–319.

34 See p. 50, below.

35 Of his colleagues, Mr. Copeland renounced his orders in 1644 and became an elder of Mr. Nathaniel White’s independent church (i. 585, 610, 617, 624, 626, 627, 697); and Mr. Nathaniel Bernard, after returning to England, and becoming a lecturer at St. Sepulchre’s, London, got into trouble with Laud on account of a prayer that he offered at St. Antholin’s Church on May 3, 1629, and a sermon that he preached at St. Mary’s, Cambridge, on May 6, 1632. For the second offence he was suspended, fined £1000, and imprisoned. This case was one of the principal specific charges brought against Laud by the Commons in 1644 (Prynne, Canterburies Doome, 1646, pp. 362–367, 535–536; Rushworth, Collections, ii. 32, 140–142; Laud, Troubles and Tryal, 1694, p. 371; Prince, Annals, May 6, 1632; Brook, Puritans, ii. 400–404; Gardiner, History of England 1603–1642, ed. 1899, vii. 250–251). On March 7, 1642–43, shortly before Laud’s trial, Parliament ordered a writ of habeas corpus for the removal of “Nath. Barnard “and others from Newcastle prison (Commons’ Journals, ii. 992; Lefroy, i. 692). I do not remember that the Nathaniel Bernard prosecuted by Laud in 1632 has ever been identified with the Bermuda clergyman. My identification, however, is made practically certain by a letter from Governor Roger Wood, 1634, to an unnamed minister then in England but formerly settled at St. George’s in the Bermudas (i. 540–542). Wood writes: “It pleased God in his providence to guide your tongue vnto such a strayne at Cambridge that swept you out of all your former imaginations and dreames of lyving at ease in Syon and for to make you more sensible off it the Highe Priest hath banished you forth of his jurisdiction.” He also speaks of the “sylencing” of his correspondent (i. 541). Lefroy, without being aware of Bernard’s sermon at Cambridge and his prosecution in 1632, rightly supposed that this letter was intended for the former Bermuda minister (i. 542), though he was in error in holding the same opinion about another letter of Wood’s (i. 535; see pp. 60–69, below).

What Mr. Stirk, who died in 1637, might have done if he had lived until 1644 it is idle to conjecture. We may note, however, that his father-in-law, Stephen Painter, became a member of Mr. White’s independent congregation at that time (i. 610, 617, 631–632, 634, 642, 643).

36 According to the terms of the charter granted by James I to the Bermuda Company in 1615, the islands, after the reservation of a portion as public land, were divided into eight parts, called “Tribes.” The division was made in 1618 by the distinguished surveyor Richard Norwood (i. 90, 140–143, 200). That Stirk’a parish was Southampton Tribe appears from a record of July 6, 1626 (i. 392). It is also a certain inference from the record of a settlement of differences as to the ownership of six acres of glebe between Stirk and the Rev. Patrick Copeland in 1627 (i. 431). The land was part of the so-called Overplus and appertained to Southampton Tribe (i. 228; cf. i. 451, § 42; i. 474–475). It was adjudged to belong “not to M^r Copeland but to M^r Stirke, as well for that it was M^r Stirkes ministrye before As also by casting of lotts before this assembly it fell to M^r Stirke” (i. 431). This shows that, on returning to Bermuda in 1626 (see p. 29, below, with note 9), Stirk received the same parish (by lot, in, 1627) that he had held before his banishment, — and that what he received was Southampton Tribe is perfectly clear from a later record (see pp. 44–45, below). The association of Stirk with Stephen Painter in two other votes passed by the Assembly of 1627 (i. 430) is confirmatory evidence, for Painter appears as Councillor for Southampton Tribe in the record of 1623 (i. 316). On the situation of the church of this tribe, see i. 212, 392, 414–415, 451, 561.

37 See the facsimile of the Map of 1626 at the end of Lefroy’s first volume.

38 Lefroy, i. 335.

39 Woodhouse’s latest extant record as Governor is dated “13th January 162 ⁶/₇ “(i. 403, 405). His successor, Captain Philip Bell, is mentioned as recently appointed in a letter of the Company dated “20 Septem 1626” (i. 398). The first extant record of Bell’s administration is dated “16 February 162 ⁶/₇” (i. 406).

40 In 1616 the Company ordered that this division should be made in England, not in the islands (i. 112). The order was repeated in the instructions to Butler in 1619. He evaded it in that year, and, in a letter of January, 1620, begged them to rescind it. In their reply, received by the Governor in the same year, they reiterated it instead. Butler was “disgusted,” and the inhabitants met the oppressive action with general and outspoken resentment (Butler, pp. 162, 207, 208, 209, 212, 220; MSS. No. 269, 284, 289, Report, pp. 35, 36, 37). The “non-divident” was one of the abuses of which the colonists complained in their memorial of 1622 (MS. No. 295, Report, p. 38; Butler, p. 295). These discontents led to the new order of 1622 (see p. 24, below).

41 See i. 267, 277–278 (1622), 363 (1624), 394 (1626), 474 (1628), 510 (1630). Sometimes it began in December and ran into January, as in the division for 1628 (i. 474).

42 i. 180.

43 i. 215–218 (see particularly §§ 167–169).

44 Orders and Constitutions, February 6, 1622, § 169 (i. 217).

45 For the form, see i. 401.

46 There is no direct evidence, but this procedure would be in harmony with Woodhouse’s arbitrary conduct in general, and it is consistent with the language of his letter to the Company in 1625 (i. 341–342) and with that of the Company’s letter of the same year (i. 359–360). The latter mentions “the consent of the counsell” (i. 359), but such consent, as I interpret the course of events, came at a later stage.

47 See his proceedings on a later occasion, in 1626 (i. 400–401).

48 The date is fixed by the deposition of John Middleton (i. 363), and less exactly (as before February 4, 1625) by Woodhouse’s letter (i. 340–342).

49 See the Company’s letter to Woodhouse, September, 1625 (i. 359–360), and the charges presented against Captain Thomas Stoaks (Stokes) in the General Assembly of March, 1627 (i. 425).

50 It is so described in the proceedings against Stokes (i. 425).

51 Woodhouse’s letter of 1625 (i. 341).

52 The same (i. 341–342, 344); Company’s reply, March, 1626 (i. 377); Woodhouse’s proclamation, [December (?),] 1626 (i. 400). Woodhouse held his first assizes in December, 1623 (i. 314).

53 i. 124.

54 He appears in this capacity as early as 1623 (i. 316).

55 See pp. 32 ff, 53 ff, below.

56 See pp. 43, 46, 50, below.

57 See p. 53, below.

58 This appears from the proceedings against Captain Thomas Stoaks (or Stokes) in the anti-Woodhouse Assembly of 1627: “The said Captⁿ Stoaks … hath bene the occasion of much trouble and vexation to the Inhabitants of these Islands, in subscribing at the councell table that the proceedings of the late Governor Captⁿ Wodehouso in propounding the prodigious Oathe were warrantable by the lawe of England And amongst the Inhabitants hath declared himself to be p.swaded that 500 the chiefest lawyers about London, not three of them would be of opinion that this oath was lawfull” (i. 425). Here we doubtless have a phrase from the form of acknowledgment required of the Councillors by Woodhouse, — “warrantable by the law of England.” It is of course possible that the Council Table in question was held before Woodhouse propounded the oath, but the order of events that I have adopted fits all the circumstances better. The record of this meeting is not extant. The time must at all events have been before February 4, 1625 (see Woodhouse’s letter, i. 340–342).

59 In their letter of September, 1625, to Woodhouse, the Company write: “Wee are very gladd to vnderstand both from M^r Stirke his own mouth here, as also by the peticon exhibited to you by M^r Bernard that they did acknowledge the oath not to be derogatarye to Gods lawe” (i. 359).

60 See p. 25 note 9, above.

61 This is an unavoidable inference from the fact that only Painter, Stirk, and Bernard were punished and that they were removed from the Council.

62 In his letter to the Company, 1625, Woodhouse complains of the conduct of Staples in other matters (i. 342–343), but his silence about any opposition to the oath on his part, as well as the fact that Staples remained on the Council throughout Woodhouse’s administration, is decisive.

63 This may have been at the same or at a later meeting, but, even if it was later, cannot have been after February 4, 1625 (see p. 25 note 8, above).

64 I venture to reconstruct the proceedings on the basis of what happened on other occasions, in the Council, at the Assizes, or in the Assembly. See, for example, the prosecution of Captain Thomas Elfroy (or Elfrith) in 1625 (i. 352–356), and cf. i. 404–405, 410, 426–428, 458, 464–470, 485–486, 512–513, etc.

65 See this practice in other cases, i. 355–356, 364–365, 371–372, 405, etc. The regular meaning of “censure” was “judgment,” “opinion.” There is a curious Council record of March 16, 1627, when a certain lieutenant was before that body, charged with disorderly conduct. The censures of the Councillors vary extremely. “M^r Staples censured him to bestride a piece of ordinance being fully laden and soe discharged” (i. 410).

66 That Mr. Bernard refused to give judgment is certain. In the anti-Woodhouse General Assembly under the next administration (Bell’s) in March, 1627, “Vpon the petition of M^r George Stirke and Hugh Wentworth of the long and false imprisonment of M^r Nathaniell Bernard minister, who suffered for his not censuring of M^r Stirke & M^r Painter as aforesaid It was agreed by the whole court that the record concerning him should be raised and annighilated, and sattisfaction allowed him for his long imprisonment” (i. 430). This entry follows a similar expunging resolution with regard to Woodhouse’s “vniust pr.ceedings” against Stirk and Painter “in banishing them from these Islands” (ibid.). Exactly what Bernard did may be inferred from the words used by Captain Roger Wood (Secretary to the Council, afterwards Governor) when called upon to give his “censure” in the case of Christopher Parker at the Assizes of 1626 (also under Woodhouse’s administration): “I becing (or desyring to bee) a free holder of the Sommer Islands, believing here to liue and dye, doe desire to enjoy the benifits and priviledges of the country graunted by the Honor^ble Compa and will neither for feare nor favour of any man bee transported to speake any thing against my conscience Therefore in this matter now in question my censure shall bee no censure, submitting myselfe with all due respect vnto the more able Judgements of the Gouernment and the Bench “(i. 371). That Woodhouse regarded this refusal as objectionable is shown by the fact that, under the next administration, Wood took pains to get the General Assembly to approve his action: “14 March 1026 The Assembly being moved by the Secretary to giue their opinions, whether they thought the Secretary had erred in giuing this opinion, they generally [i.e., universally] concluded he erred not” (i. 371–372). It is instructive to note that the case in which Wood refused to give his “censure” was reviewed by this Assembly of 1627. The’ defendant, Captain Christopher Parker, had been forced to sign an apology or acknowledgment, and had been otherwise punished. Both the judgment and the acknowledgment were “in open veiwe of the Assemblie by generall consent raised out of the Record” (i. 427).

That Bernard’s punishment was (at least, in part) for refusing to sign an acknowledgment that Woodhouse’s propounding of the oath was legal, appears from the Company’s letter of September, 1625 (i. 360).

67 The record of banishment was expunged by the General Assembly in March, 1627 (i. 430), and is no longer extant. Probably it was actually destroyed at that time.

68 His annual stipend was 533 pounds of tobacco (i. 361, 516).

69 The expulsion and fine are mentioned in the Company’s letter of September, 1625 (i. 360). Imprisonment during the Governor’s pleasure was very common, and was often annexed to some other penalty or penalties (i. 356, 364, 372, 403, 405, 410, 425, 426, etc.). That Bernard’s imprisonment was for this indeterminate period, or else that it was to continue until he signed an acknowledgment, is shown by Woodhouse’s letter of 1625 (i. 342).

70 Doubtless Painter also went to England, but we do not know.

71 Woodhouse’s letter of February 4, 1625, is not preserved, but his (extant) letter of 1625 mentions it and gives the date and ship (i. 340–341; cf. i. 342, line 4). The Company’s letter of September, 1625, was in reply to Woodhouse’s (lost) letter of February 4, not (as Lefroy thinks) to his extant letter of 1625. To the latter the Company’s next letter, that of March 21, 1626 (i. 372), is the reply. Comparison of the contents of Woodhouse’s extant letter with those of the Company’s letter of March 21, 1626, establishes this relation. Take for instance the following points: remission of fines (i. 341, 344, 377); the sending of 1000 lbs. of tobacco under peculiar circumstances and its receipt (i. 343, 374); whale ropes (i. 345, 374); [John] Delbridge’s ship and passengers (i. 345, 375); the stone house (i. 345–346, 375); ordnance from wrecks (i. 346, 372); offer to go to England (i. 347, 373). In all or nearly all of these points, the Company’s letter of 1626 fits Woodhouse’s extant letter of 1625. That the Company sent no letter of instructions between the letter of September, 1625, and that of March 21, 1626, is clear from the opening words of the latter (i. 372). That the letter of September, 1625, was a reply to Woodhouse’s (lost) letter of February 4, 1625, is, then, an inevitable inference, which is supported by the mention, in the September letter, of “this late shipp of Bristol” (i. 357), doubtless the “Thomas of Bristol,” by which, as we know, Woodhouse sent his letter of February, 1625 (i. 340).

The contents of the Company’s letter of September, 1625, may therefore be safely used in reconstructing the tenor of the report which Woodhouse sent to the Company in his letter of February 4, 1625.

72 i. 359–361.

73 “ffurthermore whereas there is a levye for euerye minister of 540 lb weight of tobacco yearly or thereabouts, whereof M^r Stirke alleageth he hath had no pte of this last yere past, and he is now here in greate want we pray you that that w^ch is or shalbe levyed for him for his last yeres service 1625 may be sent over to the Compa. here by this or the next shipp” (i. 361).

74 Mr. Bernard “continued in prison,” according to Woodhouse’s extant letter of 1625, until March 11, 1625 (cf. i. 342 with i. 341), after which he was “confined to his chamber and house.” There is no record of his release, but this must have taken place as soon as Woodhouse received the Company’s letter of September, 1625, which contained what was tantamount to an order to this effect. There is indirect evidence, besides, that Bernard was released and reinstated in his parish about December, 1625. For (1) his ministry seems to have come to an end in December, 1626 (see below); and (2) in March, 1627, after Bernard had left the islands (as the language of the document itself shows), the General Assembly recorded the fact that, since his release, he had “serued here one whole year … in the country” (i. 415, cf. i. 477). From December, 1625, to December, 1626, would make this “whole year.”

As to proposition 1 (above), we note that in December, 1626, Woodhouse sentenced Mr. Bernard (on altogether frivolous grounds) to apologize to one of his flock and “for performance thereof [to] lie in prison during his pleasure” (i. 402–403). This doubtless ended his ministry in Bermuda. He certainly left the islands before the Assembly of the following March (i. 415).

75 This is the document often referred to in these notes as Woodhouse’s letter of 1625. It is extant, in an incomplete draught, which may be found in Lefroy, i. 340–351. It was written later than April 7, 1625 (i. 341), and before the summer (“now Somer approachinge,” i. 347). Lefroy dates it “probably June.” Perhaps there was some delay in despatching it. Certainly it seems odd that the Company’s reply should not have been written until March, 1626, but there can be no doubt about the fact (see p. 27 note 5, above).

76 i. 341.

77 i. 341–342, 344.

78 i. 372–378.

79 i. 377.

80 On Copland or Copeland, see Neill, English Colonization of America, chaps, vii–x.

81 i. 376–377.

82 Letter of the Company, September 20, 1626 (i. 398).

83 This is a safe inference from the reply of the inhabitants to the Company’s letter of September 20, 1626 (see p. 31 note 4, below).

84 Council record of April 12, 1627 (i. 440–441) J Bell’s letter of 1627 (MS. No. 411, Report, p. 48).

85 i. 430. The expunging resolution in Stirk and Painter’s case is quoted above, p. 26 note 7. Governor Bell was in full sympathy with this and the other expunging resolutions, as is shown by his letter of 1627, in which he says that the persons who petitioned the Assembly in that behalf “had all been used and proceeded against not only illegally but very cruelly and unjustly” and that “those former proceedings” were reversed (MS. No. 411, Report, p. 48).

86 i. 425.

87 i. 428; cf. Bell’s letter of 1627 (MS. No. 411, Report, p. 48).

88 i. 431. Paget’s Tribe was attached to Warwick’s as part of Mr. Copeland’s parish (i. 441). A “disputacon” (i.e., discussion, not dispute) between Mr. Stirk and Mr. Copeland as to glebe land was amicably adjusted. In this matter, Mr. Stirk showed his modest and amiable temper, as the record proves (i. 431; cf. i. 474–475).

89 i. 415–416 (cf. i. 515–516). The act speaks of “the 4 ministers now residing in the Somer Islands” and mentions Staples and Copeland by name. Lefroy thinks that the other two were Nathaniel Bernard and Bellingham Morgan (i. 416 note 1). They were, in fact, Morgan and Stirk. Bernard had left the islands, for this same act provides that “all such stipends and meanes w^ch are got behind and vnpaid vnto M^r Nathaniell Bernard … shall be allowed and paid either to himselfe if he shall return againe (wh. wee much desire) or to his assignes nominated in his stead and to his vse to receaue the same” (i. 415). Stirk was present at this Assembly (i. 430, 431).

90 i. 415.

91 Apparently some order concerning Mr. Stirk’s salary had been sent to Woodhouse (supplementary to that previously mentioned, p. 28, above), for Bell writes to England, in 1627, that certain glebe lands which should have gone “towards the raising of Mr. Stirk’s salary, due and yet unsatisfied” had been given by Woodhouse to Mr. Morgan, and the orders of the Company wholly disregarded (MS. No. 411, Report, p. 48). This in part explains an entry in the Council record of March 1, 1627: “M^r Morgan applauding Captⁿ Woodhouse for the many favours hee had receeued from him, and that he was his seruant vsgue ad aras” (i. 407). It took some time to get the matter of Mr. Stirk’s salary fully adjusted, as we shall see, but it is clear that he finally received his dues.

92 i. 397.

93 i. 433. The letter must date from March, 1627, for its authors are “wee whose names are here subscribed, presenting the body of this Plantacon in this our gen^rall Assemblie” (i. 432—433). Lefroy erroneously identifies “our banished minister” with Mr. Robert Staples (i. 433 note), and he makes the same slip with regard to “the banish4 of one minister”. mentioned in the record of this Assembly (i. 425). That Staples was not banished by Woodhouse is as certain as that Stirk was. The records show, on the contrary, that he continued a member of the Council throughout Woodhouse’s administration (see i. 342–343, 356, 365, 371, 378, 388, 396, 405). Lefroy’s error was perhaps induced by a record of February 10, 1629: “M^r Staples having been formerly dismissed from [his employment in] the compa and countreys service, Was now againe … re-appointed to his charge at Hambleton and S^t Georges” (i. 484). But this has nothing to do with banishment. The dismissal, doubtless at his own request (and very likely as a result of differences with an exasperating colleague, the Rev. Abraham Graham: see i. 464–470), apparently occurred in 1628 (i. 475). Staples went to England (i. 480), but soon returned, and he was reinstated in his charge in 1629 (i. 484, 504–505). In the same year Graham was dismissed for seditious and turbulent conduct (i. 486). In 1630, however, Staples’s relations with the colony came to a sudden and violent end. On November 2d of that year, Captain Thomas Chaddock (the Sheriff, afterwards Governor) deposed that he had waited upon Mr. Staples, “according to the Governors comand,” in order “to demand a cowe calfe belonging to the company.” The minister got very angry, and said to Chaddock, “If you take the Calfe away I would I might hang on Hell if euer I preach in the Islands more,” and, “stamping with his foote,” added, “If euer I preach in the Islands againe I would I might smoke where I stand.” Mr. Staples, being questioned at the Council Table, declared that he would stand to his words, whereupon “It was consented vnto by the Gouern^r and Counsell by the irrection of hands that hee should bee discharged from the Honor^ble Compa^s service and should take his course as may seem best for himself for tyme to come” (i 512–513).

94 i. 469.

95 i. 419.

96 i. 466. The record of the Council suspending the act has not been found, apparently.

97 i. 463, 466–470.

98 i. 468, 470.

99 i. 464–470.

100 At the Council of October 11, 1628, the Governor told Mr. Graham “hee wonndered that hee w^ch was the youngest minister, and but newly arryved in the land should thus offer first to meddle and stirre in that w^ch all the rest were contented withal, or at least obeyed” (i. 468). Compare the remarks of Mr. Copeland (ibid.).

101 MS. No. 416 (Public Record Office). My attention was called by our associate Mr. Worthington C. Ford to a summary of this letter in the Eighth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Appendix, part ii. pp. 48–49. I have procured a copy of the whole document, as well as of Bell’s supplementary letter to Rich (MS. No. 417). Both are important in the present investigation. I am indebted to Mr. Salisbury, of the Record Office, for his kindness in this matter, and also for obtaining permission for me to have two of Mr. Stirk’s letters photographed (Manchester Papers, Nos. 419, 422).

102 It seems not to be extant.

103 The records and letter do not seem to be preserved.

104 It will be noted that the cause which Bell (in his first letter to Rich) assigns for Painter’s initial opposition is extremely vague: “becaus I would not suffer the conclusiones of the Generall Assemblye & the Generall equitye of the whole lande to giue place & waye to his proude & licentious humore” (p. 33, above). Perhaps Painter did not like the decision of the Assembly of 1627 that no church should be built at the Overplus (i. 414–415; cf. i. 212, 392–393, 451). This was at all events a matter of some interest to both him and Mr. Stirk.

105 i. 432, 452.

106 The Council, according to the Orders and Constitutions of 1622, was to consist “ordinarily” of the Sheriff, the minister of the St. George’s church, the minister of Hamilton’s and Smith’s Tribes, the Secretary, two Captains of the chief forts, and the first of the Overseers of the Public Land. At the General Sessions “and upon other especiall and extraordinary occasion,” it was to include also the other two ministers, “and the first of the two Overseers of every Tribe” (§ 172, i. 218; cf. § 154, i. 212). These two Overseers were to be chosen by the Governor and Council “out of the sixe persons sent yeerely from every Tribe to serve for that Tribe at the Generall Sessions to be held in the Spring or former part of the yeere” (§ 166, i. 215). The records are too incomplete to enable us to make a good list of the Councillors from year to year.

107 Leycroft (Leicroft, Lucroft) signs the Council record of March 10, 1629 (the Council which dismissed Graham), and he was present at the meeting of December 3, 1629 (i. 486, 487). He was of Southampton Tribe (i. 380, 487, 524) and his land lay next to Painter’s (ii. 704–705). That he owed his membership in the Council to his position as first Overseer of the Tribe is not only obvious from the organization of that body (see note 1, above), but is plainly indicated by “South.” after his name in the Council record of December 3, 1629 (i. 487). Leycroft (“Levicroft”) is one of the signers of the Council’s letter in favor of Bell (MS. No. 415, Report, p. 48), and Painter is not. This letter was delivered April 28, 1629. When it was written we do not know, but obviously not earlier than December 2, 1628 (since it mentions the action of the Council that was taken on that day: see i. 473–474). It is almost certain, then, that Leycroft was Councillor for 1628. If he had not been, it is hard to see how he could have assumed responsibility for an act’of the Council which took place in that year. Leycroft was in England at some time in 1628 (i. 480), but he had returned before December 2 (indeed, before November 6: see i. 470) Staples, who was in England at the same time, had returned before December 18, 1628 (i. 475), or at all events before February 10, 1629 (i. 484).

108 i. 502.

109 i. 466.

110 See p. 33, above.

111 i. 469.

112 MS. No. 415, Eighth Report, p. 48.

113 The Company laid oppressive restrictions, ruinous to the colony, on trade with the islands, desiring to confine it to their own ships, sailing from London. John Delbridge, of Barnstaple (he himself spells it Barnstable), a member of the Company, made insistent efforts to break through these restrictions. He sent various ships to the islands from Barnstaple, and the colonists were eager to trade with him (see Manchester Papers, MSS. Nos. 243, 415, 417, Report, pp. 33, 48, 49; Butler, pp. 189, 216, 225, 272; Lefroy, i. 99, 345, 375, 443–447, 448–449, 470–474, 714). The ship referred to in the letter of the Council arrived at the Bermudas about November 6, 1628 (i. 470); the inhabitants petitioned the Governor and Council for leave to trade (i. 471); the permission of the Council, “the Gouernor only excepted,” is dated December 2, 1628 (i. 473–474). Benjamin Delbridge, a relative of John (see Butler, p. 272), commanded this ship (i. 473). In a letter of Butler’s meant as a supplement to that under discussion, the Governor says that the responsibility was with the whole Council, but that he did not share it (MS. No. 417, Report, p. 49).

114 Thomas Chaddock (Chaddocke, Chadwicke) was Sheriff. He was afterwards Governor (1637–1640), succeeding Roger Wood (i. 548), Bell’s successor, and it is extremely probable that he hoped at this time to succeed Bell, whose term was about to expire.

115 Manchester MS. No. 417. It begins, “I must needs inlarge my self a litle further in one buisines or two w^ch I had allmost forgotten.”

116 I.e., “that was “(by a very common ellipsis of the relative).

117 Mr. Nathaniel Ward reached the Bermudas in the autumn of 1628. The evidence is as follows: (1) Mr. Abraham Graham is shown to have arrived about July, 1628, by the fact that, before he came, Mr. Staples, whom he was to succeed, was “seated and [had] served halfe the yeare or thereabouts” in Pembroke Tribe (i. 465; cf. i. 388, 473), and also by the fact that on July 17, 1628, Mr. Graham’s motion “to knowe the certeine place of his charge and residence” came before the Council (i. 461). Now Graham was in the islands before Ward, for Governor Bell (early in 1629) speaks of Ward as the latest comer among the ministers. (2) Mr. Ward was on the Council in December, 1628 (i. 475, 514–515, 710; Manchester MS. No. 415, Report, p. 48. November 18 [i. 514] seems to be an error of the recorder for December 18 [see i. 475]). (3) In December, 1628, an appropriation of 200 lbs. of tobacco (two-sevenths of a year’s salary) was made for Mr. Ward’s stipend “since his entertainment,” i.e., since his engagement as minister (i. 477, 485).

That the Bermuda Nathaniel Ward was not the Nathaniel who wrote The Simple Cobbler (as Lefroy thought, i. 710, cf. i. 545) has been proved by our associate the Rev. Henry A. Parker (Publications of this Society, xii. 166–167). I have no doubt that he was that Nathaniel’s nephew. We know that Samuel Ward, Town Preacher of Ipswich in Suffolk, had a son (his second child) named Nathaniel, who was a clergyman (Candler’s pedigree in J. W. Dean, Memoir of Nathaniel Ward, p. 125; Samuel Ward’s will, Dean, p. 154, Waters, Genealogical Gleanings, p: 19). Since Samuel Ward married on January 2, 1604–05 (C. H. and T. Cooper, 2 Notes and Queries, xii. 426; Dean, in Waters, p. 19), his son Nathaniel may well have been old enough for the Bermuda ministry in 1628. My identification derives some support from the fact that in 1634 (two years after the Bermuda Nathaniel returned to England) we find Governor Roger Wood applying to Samuel Ward to procure a minister for the islands (i. 541). It is quite possible that Governor Wood was related to the Wards, either by blood or marriage. John Ward, father of Samuel and of Nathaniel (the Simple Cobbler), was of Haverhill, which is partly in Suffolk and partly in Essex (Dean, p. 12, and note 5). Roger Wood was Nathaniel Bernard’s uncle (Lefroy, i. 542; cf. p. 22 note 2, above), and Bernard’s family lived in Essex (i. 361). A certain John Wood of Stratford (Suffolk), in his will, proved February 2, 1615–16 (Waters, p. 583), speaks of “my cousin Samuel Ward, now preacher at Ipswich,” and “my cousin Nathaniel Ward, his brother.”

Since the Bermuda Nathaniel returned to England in 1632 (p. 46, below, and note 2), I venture, further, to identify him with the Nathaniel Ward, A.M., who became Rector of Hadleigh (Hadley ad Castrum), Essex, June 7, 1639, on the resignation of John Ward, A.M. (Newcourt, Repertorium, ii. 291). This John was son of the elder Nathaniel (the Simple Cobbler) and came to Massachusetts in 1639 (Mather, Magnalia, book iii. part ii. chap. 31, ed. 1702, p. 167; Dean, pp. 32 note 4, 187). Thus it would appear that our Nathaniel succeeded his own cousin in the Hadleigh rectorship. The patron of the living was Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, who was Governor of the Bermuda Company in 1628 (i. 473), when our Nathaniel was sent to the islands. Doubtless he owed his Bermuda appointment to the Earl, as well as the Hadleigh living. (Note that another Bermuda minister, Mr. Nathaniel Bernard, an Essex man, was certainly a protégé; of Warwick’s: see i. 360–361.) Nathaniel Ward retired from his Hadleigh rectorship almost immediately, his successor being instituted on June 30, 1639 (Newcourt, ii. 291). On the 8th of the following January, Nathaniel Ward, A.M., — unquestionably the same man — was instituted as Rector of another Essex church of which the Earl of Warwick was likewise patron, — that of Hawkwell (Hack-well). He resigned this living, and his successor, Thomas Oresby, was instituted on December 7, 1643 (Newcourt, ii. 320; cf. Davids, Nonconformity in Essex, pp. 269, 401; Shaw, Church under the Commonwealth, ii. 379). Mr. Dean was rather inclined to identify the Rector of Hadleigh and Hawkwell with Samuel Ward’s son (p. 32 note 4). Probably he would have expressed himself more positively if he had known of the career of Nathaniel Ward in Bermuda.

Nathaniel Ward’s next living, as I read the records, was Walkern, Herts. Urwick, to be sure, positively identifies the Walkern minister with the elder Nathaniel, the author of the Simple Cobbler (Nonconformity in Herts, p. 613). But this is certainly a mistake. The elder Nathaniel was in New England as late as December, 1646 (Dean, p. 88), and perhaps later, whereas the Walkern Nathaniel signed a petition of sixty-three beneficed Hertfordshire ministers which was presented to the House of Lords on July 24th of that year (Lords’ Journals, viii. 445; Urwick, pp. 124, 612). John Gorsuch, D.D., Rector of Walkern, was sequestered not later than 1643 (First Century of Scandalous Priests, 1643, p. 5; Urwick, p. 612). Since the minutes of the Committee “for Plundered Ministers, October 26, 1647, speak of the rectory as sequestered to Ward (Urwick, p. 612), and since there is no trace of an intervening incumbent, we may infer that Ward received the Walkern charge immediately after the resignation of his Hawkwell rectory, which took effect, as we have seen, December 7, 1643 (Newcourt, ii. 320). On August 20, 1647, Nathaniel Ward, as minister “settled” at Walkern “by Order of Parliament,” petitioned the Lords for relief against Dr. Gorsuch, who was attempting to make reentry, and relief was promptly granted (Lords’ Journals, ix. 389, 390; cf. Shaw, Church under the Commonwealth, ii. 260 note 3). The next year Ward lost the living, which was declared “void by the death of Jo. Gorsuch” and bestowed on Simon Smeath, July 3, 1648 (Lords’ Journals, x. 358; cf. Urwick, p. 614 and note 2).

The identity of Nathaniel of Walkern with Nathaniel son of the Ipswich Town Preacher, Samuel Ward, is practically settled by the will of George Marvin, March 24, 1648–49. Marvin leaves £10 to “Mrs Ward, widow of Mr Samuel Ward,” and £5 to “Mr Nath; Ward late of Walke-horne,” making Nathaniel and Joseph Ward (whom he calls ministers) his executors (Waters, p. 1103). Here we manifestly have to do with Samuel, Town Preacher of Ipswich, and his sons Nathaniel and Joseph (see Candler’s pedigree, Dean, p. 125). “Walk-horne” is of course Walkern. The description “late of Walke-horne” suggests that Mr. Nathaniel Ward had not received another benefice by March 24, 1649, and this fits perfectly with what we can ascertain from other sources. Thus, on June 2, 1648, “Nath. Warde” petitioned the Lords “to have the Parsonage of Althorpe, in the County of Lyncolne.” Obviously this is the Walkern man. The dates fit to a nicety. His petition was granted, but almost immediately (June 22–26, 1648) the Althorpe living was given to Thomas Spademan instead (Lords’ Journals, x. 297, 342, 347).

Matthias Candler’s pedigree of the Wards calls Nathaniel (son of Samuel of Ipswich, Suffolk) “D^r of Divinity, Rector of Stapleford in Essex” (Dean, p. 125; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xii. 283). This fits our successive identifications admirably. Richard (or Thomas) Nicholson had the rectory of Stapleford Tawney (Tany) from March 11, 1596–97, until April 29, 1643, when he was sequestered (Newcourt, ii. 556; Commons’ Journals, iii. 50, 53, 58; Lords’ Journals, vi, 20, 21, vii. 142, 174, 272, ix. 389, 390; First Century, 1643, pp. 25–26; Davids, Nonconformity in Essex, pp. 422–123). Nicholson was succeeded by Daniel Jennour, Jennour by Edward Benthall, and Benthall by Thomas Horrocks, who, in 1650 or immediately after, removed to Maiden, Essex (Davids, pp. 423–424; cf. Lords’ Journals, ix. 389, 390). Thus it is clear that Candler’s designation of Nathaniel Ward as Rector of Stapleford applies to a time not earlier than 1650. In fact, we find Ward there in 1657, for, on February 9, 1656–57, “Samuel Warde, son and heir of Nathaniel W., Stapleford Toney, Essex, clerk,” was admitted to Gray’s Inn (Foster, Register of Admissions, p. 281; cf. Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, p. 1570). Palmer registers “Mr. Ward” as ejected from Stapleford Tawney in 1662 under the Act of Uniformity (Nonconformist’s Memorial, i. 522; Dean, p. 125 note 2). This is of course our man, and, indeed, Newcourt records that Henry Carpenter was inducted as rector on July 17, 1661 (ii. 556). Newcourt (more suo) ignores all the incumbents between Nicholson and Carpenter as intruders thrust in by “the wicked Rebellion.”

After his ejection from Stapleford, Mr. Ward is heard of no more until his death. This appears to have occurred in 1667, for the will of Nathaniel Warde of Old Winsor, Berks, D.D., was proved February 11, 1667–68 (Waters, p. 20). We do not know the source of this degree of D.D., but its possession (see Candler’s pedigree) is good reason for identifying this Nathaniel with Samuel’s son (as J. J. Muskett does, Register, xii. 283).

Thus, by highly probable and sometimes certain identifications, we have followed the career of Nathaniel Ward, son of Samuel and nephew of the Simple Cobbler, from 1628, when he went to the Bermudas, to his death in 1667. There is a strong temptation to identify him also with the “Nathaniel Ward, B.A.,” who was appointed Perpetual Curate of St. James, Duke’s Place, London, on June 8, 1626, and was succeeded on February 14, 1627–28, by Ezekiel Clarke (Hennessy, Novum Repertorium, p, 118; Newcourt, i. 917). This would accord admirably with the date of our Nathaniel’s arrival in the Bermudas (autumn of 1628). But, since Samuel Ward was not married until January, 1605, his son Nathaniel (who was his second child) would have been very young for this curacy. It remains possible, then, — though I can hardly think it probable, — that the Perpetual Curate was the elder Nathaniel (the Simple Cobbler), and that the recorder carelessly wrote him down a Bachelor of Arts, though he had received his Master’s degree many years before, in 1603 (Dean, pp. 32–33; Savage, 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 248; C. H. and T. Cooper, 2 Notes and Queries, xii. 426; Dictionary of National Biography, lix. 328). Mr. Waters, in the Ipswich Historical Society’s edition of The Simple Cobbler, does not commit himself on this point.

118 i. 485.

119 i. 485–486.

120 I extract that part of the postscript which concerns this affair, since it has never been printed:

“Since the drawght and wrighteinge both of yours [i.e., Rich’s] & the Generall letters M^r Graimes y^e vnrulye minister hath broke out further into such highe acts & words of disorder scorne & contempt against all authority as is no longer to be indured & so whereas I purposed not to have him sent home vntill the rest retourne I am forced to doe it now. but w^th such a pasporte as by the Book of records will at large appeare as I thinke no man of his Coate & callinge ever had or did deserve before, for besides those formerly mentioned of him. vpon the Counsells wrighteinge & subscribeinge a Generall letter from themselves to the Companye M^r Graimes reported & saide he had writt it out in two of his owne letters y^t M^r Warde our new & worthy minister had gotten the Counsell together into his chamber made them drinke till they were drunke or merry & so had then procured their subscriptione w^ch otherwise would not have bine done, beinge likewise questioned for it & desired to know whither this came merely from himself or y^t he had any other author for it. he answered he had but would not reveale him. therevpon it was told him y^t if he would reveale no author himself then must be made the author of it, & further I charged & required him in his Ma^ties name to declare the author of it if there ever [wer?] any but himself, he still replyed peremptorily he would not vntill he had heard from the companye vnto whome he did appeale & vnto whome he is likewise accordingly sent. Another time when my self & the Counsell had mett & determined vpon some buisinesses because they wer not to his minde he saide openly before one of them w^ch was retourned & allmost his whole family y^t we wer a companye of Idle fellowes & did what we list whither iust or vniust much more of this nature vnfitt any man in his right witts much less a devine & preacher of Gods word, for brevityes sake therefore I referr you in all the rest to the booke of records.”

121 Neither of Bell’s letters to Rich is dated. The first, however (MS. No. 416), is endorsed “Captaine Bells letter from y^e S Ilands Delivered 28 Ap. 1629.” The Council’s letter (MS. No. 415) is also endorsed as delivered on the same date. Bell’s second letter (MS. No. 417) has no endorsement, but it was manifestly written to go with his first, to which it is a supplement. In his first letter Bell says “two of your ships the Earle Warwicke & Somer Ilands are now retourninge home againe & in the Earle Warwicke is Daniell Ellfrith himself comeinge” (MS. No. 416). Now on February 10, 1629, the Council put Lieut. James Warley in charge of the King’s Castle “in the absence of Capt Elfrey now bound for England” (i. 483). About this time, then, the ships must have sailed, and whichever of them sailed first must have taken Graham and the letters. We are certain that both Bell’s two letters to Rich and that of the Council (MSS. 416, 417, 415) were written after December 2, 1628, since that was the date on which the Council gave Delbridge leave to trade (i. 473–474), — an act which is dwelt on in all three letters.

Mr. Nathaniel Ward’s deposition about Mr. Graham’s slanders is undated, and so is the record of the Council which dismissed Mr. Graham, but it is clear that the meeting was held before Bell’s letters were despatched.

122 i. 524 (cf. p. 45, below).

123 See pp. 25–30, above.

124 i. 585, 610, 617, 631–634, 642–643.

125 Of three motions made in Mr. Stirk’s behalf at a Council of December 18, 1628, one was passed, one was refused, and one was referred to the Company. All three concern stipend (i. 474–475).

126 See p. 46, below.

127 Wood succeeded to the office between December 3 and December 29, 1629 (i. 487, 492).

128 i. 502.

129 i. 515–516. There is a copy of Mr. Stirk’s revised account for 1627–1631 among the Duke of Manchester’s papers (MS. No. 418, Report, p. 49). This shows a credit of £90 in 1630, and a balance due of £103 2s 3d.

130 i. 516.

131 Act of 1623 (i. 319).

132 i. 448.

133 Record in Lefroy, i. 524.

134 In April, 1630, Bell was still in Bermuda, but he was about to go to Santa Catalina (i. 502). He was commissioned Governor of that island on February 7, 1631 (i. 502 note 1). Apparently his wife had not yet left the Bermudas when the seating arrangements were perfected. Captain Elfrith (or Elfrey) belonged in Southampton Tribe (i. 380). He was interested in the Catalina settlement (MS. No. 416, Report, p. 40). Mrs. Bell was Captain Elfrith’s daughter (MS. No. 416, Report, p. 49; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial; 1574–1660, p. 125). Nobody knows where Captain Woodhouse was in 1631, but he had not lost his interest in the islands in 1634 (i. 405).

135 i. 532, 710. Lefroy prints the major part of the letter twice, from the draught in Wood’s Letter-book. There are variants. Thus, near the end, Lefroy’s second copy reads “to loose the least pretence he had to any Title or anything due vnto him.” I suspect Wood wrote: “the least pretence he had to any Title [i. e., tittle] of anything.” Another variant is more important. The second printing omits “meeke,” clearly by error. The letter seems to be undated, but it was certainly written in 1632, and doubtless in February.

136 On October 20, 1631, Mr. Ward had presented to the Council a claim for 1115 ½ lbs. of tobacco, which was allowed, and he had then and there announced his intention “by Gods leaue to depart from this place by the next shipp” (i. 527). In another letter (February, 1632) Wood says that there is now only one minister in the islands (i. 531), —meaning, of course, that there will be only one left when his correspondent gets the letter (which clearly went by the ship that carried away Mr. Stirk and Mr. Ward).

137 Mr. Copeland had a special arrangement with the Company (dating from his first employment in the islands in 1626) that fixed his stipend at this sum (see i. 376, 416, 483–84).

138 Wood did not like Scots (i. 534, 538).

139 i. 534.

140 Manchester Papers, No. 419, Public Record Office, London.

141 Richard Caswell (Casewell), a man of influence in the Bermuda Company, and at one time Treasurer.

142 The address (in Mr. Stirk’s hand) is on the outside. There is also a seal, but the impression is indistinct.

143 Manchester Papers, No. 422, Public Record Office, London.

144 I. e., Mr. Lewes Hughes, who is frequently called “Mr. Lewes” (as by Butler, pp. 72, 81, 91, etc.).

145 The address, which is on the outside, is not in Stirk’s hand.

146 Perhaps “m[^r],” i. e., Minister.

147 i. 534. In this letter Wood speaks of having “received a commission from the company for continuacoen of my Gouernm^t for three yeares more” (i. 534). His first term expired in December, 1632. No doubt Mr. Stirk arrived by the same ship that brought the new commission. We have learned from his petition of January, 1634, that in 1632, after considerable delay in England, the Company paid him some money and required him to return to the Bermudas by the next ship (p. 48, above).

148 See p. 61, below.

149 General Lefroy thinks this letter was addressed to the Rev. Nathaniel Bernard, but that is out of the question. See pp. 60–69, below.

150 I have restored this word Coronis according to a conjecture suggested in my Note on Dr. William Ames (p. 65, below).

151 i. 536. See also the next letter given by Lefroy (i. 536–537).

152 i. 537.

153 Winthrop’s Journal (Savage’s edition), i. 133 (159).

154 See Lefroy, i. 535, 536. Neither letter appears to be dated in Wood’s Letter-book. Lefroy dates one of them 1633, the other 1634. Close resemblance in phraseology suggests that they were written at the same time. Wood does not call the Thunder by name, but speaks of the recent arrival and the presence of a ship from New England: “Here is a shippe come from New England for trade w^th vs for victualls” (first letter); “some men that are come now vnto vs in a shippe from thence, to commerce with vs for victualls and provisions from vs” (second letter).

155 It must have been later than May, 1634, the date on which Sir Nathaniel Rich received the letter and petition of January, 1634 (see pp. 48–49, above).

156 Hotten, Original Lists, p. 133.

157 i. 708.

158 See pp. 56 ff, below.

159 The year is inferred from the grant to his widow.

160 i. 708. I cannot tell whether the word “education” stands in the original letter or not. If so, it may mean “bringing up” rather than “education” in our sense. In any case, the children were young. Mr. Stirk married one of his parishioners, and he did not come to the island himself until 1622. The younger George Stirk did not take his degree at Harvard until 1646.

161 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 279. The letter is dated “Pagets-Tribe, this 4^th of Decemb. 1639.” Winthrop dates its receipt “(5) 7. –40.”

162 Cf. Sibley, Harvard Graduates, i. 140; Neill, Virginia Vetusta, pp. 196–197; Publications of this Society, iii. 421. The manuscript is in the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

163 i. 631–634, 640–643.

164 i. 653–655; ii. 8–11, 13, 20, 118.

165 See p. 53, above.

166 The exiles to Eleuthera were recalled in 1650 (ii. 8–11, 13, 20). That Mrs. Stirk, at least, was dead, seems to be a safe inference from the fact that Dunster specifies “Mr. Stirks sister” and not “Mr. Stirks mother.”

167 i. 659; ii. 13.

168 i. 660.

169 i. 671–673.

170 i. 673–674.

171 It is not absolutely certain that Stirk was in England in 1651, but we have to choose between that year and 1652 and the probability is strongly in favor of the earlier date. The evidence comes from an undated tract of Stirk’s in the British Museum, printed between October 19, 1663, and September 30, 1664, entitled George Starkeys Pill Vindicated. That Stirk was practising medicine in Boston as late as 1650 is proved by an entry in William Aspinwall’s MS. Notarial Records, p. 372 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxxii. 304). The same entry proves that he was practising there in 1648.

172 Lefroy, ii. 24 (from a pamphlet entitled Petition from the Governor and Company of the Sommer Islands, &c, to the Council of State, July 19, 1651).

173 ii. 607, 609, 627, 94.

174 ii. 120.

175 ii. 607, 609, 627.

176 ii. 53.

177 ii. 111.

178 ii. 120.

179 ii. 134 note.

180 ii. 704–705.

181 ii. 473–475.

182 Musæ Somerenses: Id est, Sacræ Historiæ series, à Mundi Creatione, ad Linguarum confusionem Poeticè deducta; Authore Georgio Stirk, sacri Evangelii in Somerensibus Insulis Ministro. Ad usum Scholæ, quam illic, ante annos duos instituere cœpit illustrissima Societas. Londini, Excusum per E. P. 1635. The licenser’s date is “Iulii 30. 1635.”

183 Yale College Pamphlets, Vol. 52. I am greatly indebted to our associate Dr. Franklin B. Dexter, of the Yale library, for enabling me to examine this rare tract under exceptionally favorable circumstances, and to my friend Professor Hanns Oertel for a careful collation of my extracts (in proof) with the original.

184 A number of books once belonging to the Winthrop family are in the Yale library.

185 Of the eight pages remaining the first has the title, the second is blank, then follow four pages prefatory (in Latin prose), then (after the separately paged poem of twelve pages) two more pages “Ad Lectorem” in Latin prose.

186 “In insulis vestris horis succisivis,” says Mr. Stirk in his dedicatory address to the Bermuda Company.

187 This school had not been opened when Mr. Stirk wrote, as appears from his address to the Reader and from his dedication to the Company (“Illustrissimæ & Nobilissimæ Societati Somerensi”), but from the latter it is clear that the Company had voted to establish it and had set aside certain lands for the support of a schoolmaster (“de schola in vestris insulis legem tulistis, & ad ludimagistrum alendum agri aliquot jugera consecrâstis”). The title-page shows that this vote was passed two years before the Musæ Somerenses was published. We have no other record of this vote of 1633, but a letter of Governor Wood’s (dated 1634 by Lefroy) tells us that Mr. Copeland was hoping for such an order: “Mr. Copeland thinks the Company will give all their com̄on land to build a free School, as some of vs here have done with ours” (i. 395 note 1). I suspect Wood’s letter was really written in 1633, — the year in which, as Mr. Stirk’s words prove, some action of the kind was really taken by the Company.

188 The final i and half of the t are pared off by the binder.

189 The Address to the Reader and that to the Bermuda Company are interesting enough to reprint, in view of the exceeding rarity of Mr. Stirk’s volume. In the Address to the Company, the original has a marginal reference, “Psal. 2. 8”, opposite the sentence “Promisit ohm Deus” in line 8.

Ad Lectorem.

Quæris forsan amice Lector, cur pœsin hanc non tam concludam, quàm abrumpam. In promptu responsio est: hæc Scholæ nondum apertæ satis esse videntur. Si earn aperuerit nobilis nostra Societas, ut ex orienti bene ominor, sic florenti gratulabor, si vitam prorogaverit Deus. Hæc etiam tentandis doctorum judiciis sufficiunt. Si hæc genium habere videbuntur, quo possint vivere, plura, & forsan meliora dabimus, ut sunt δευτέραι ϕροντίδεs ἀμεινόνες.

Si verò tam sacrum opus ingenii culpa deterere videbor, cedo, & cursu trado lampada. Hac spe tamen, fore ut hoc exemplo alii, quibus opportunitas melior, & vena ditior, per totam Scripturam carmen, deducant: ut puen simul cum Lingua Latina sacra Historiæ seriem à teneris imbibant.

G. S.

ILLUSTRISSIMÆ & Nobilissimæ Societati Somerensi, dominia suis summa observantia colendis.

Svperioribus sæculis (illustrissimi & amplissimi viri) occidentals India adeò erat incognita, ut Ptolomæus ultra Herculis columnas (quæ in Gadibus erant) nullam esse terram putaverit. Nunc verò postremo hoc mundi senescentis ævo, novum orbem, vetere non minorem deus aperuit. Non ut preciosas merces negotiatores hinc aveherent, avectis ditescerent: nec ut novis colonis sit habitandi locus. Nam neque tanti sunt merces illæ, ut ad eas effundendas terra tamdiu ignota patefieret; neq; Europæis, in suis regionibus deest habitatio satis ampla. Sed majus quid divina spectat dementia. Promisit olim Deus filio suo se mundi fines daturum. Nunc præstat, quod olim dixit. Quare piè faciunt qui magnum hoe opus maximè curant, ut ipsorum opera Scripturæ impleantur; barbari convertantur, & Regni Christi pomæria latiùs dilatentur. Et vos (honoranda societas) opus Deo gratum, & vestra dignum pietate fecistis, cum de schola in vestris insulis instituenda legem tulistis, & ad ludimagistrum alendum agri aliquot jugera consecrâstis. Hæc via est ad barbaros convertendos rectissima. Nam in schola Somerensi non solùm liberi nostri (quorum illic numerus est, pro insulæ amplitudine non parvus) sed etiam Americani institui possunt, idque tutò: ubi nullus est hostium metus, qui à studiis absterreat: sed pax tranquilla quæ musis semper amica est. Nullum erit cum suis popularibus commercium, qui à discendo dissuadeant, aut patriis superstitionibus corrumpant, aut ad transfugiendum alliciant. Quanti autem momenti sit Americanorum uti opera ad suos convertendos non opus est dicere. Cum ergo tantum hinc ad evangelium propagandum emolumenti pro veniat, vos (spero) qui operis tam pii, ante annos duos fundamenta fæliciter jecistis, idem ad dei gloriam ad exitum perducetis. Qua spe inductus, poesin hanc, quam in insulis vestris horis succisivis scripsit, scholæ vestræ, quae vestris jam surgit, & brevi (spero) florebit auspiciis, sub vestri nominis umbra, & tutela, dicat consecratque

Vester humillimus in Domino servus, Georgius Stirk.

190 In a letter, probably of 1632, Wood speaks of something “that I haue observed from my youth and since i was a souldier” (J. H. Lefroy, Memorials of the Bermudas, i. 532).

191 See Lefroy, i. 535, 536, 540–542, 543.

192 See his letter of January 12, 1632–33 (Lefroy, i. 534).

193 Lefroy, i. 492.

194 i. 527, 531–543, 710. Lefroy’s publication of these letters is usually (or often) in extracts. There are dated letters of 1631–32 (i. 527, 531, 532), 1632 (i. 533), 1632–33 (i. 534), and (as Lefroy says, i. 531) 1634.

195 Lefroy remarks: “The name of the work quoted is quite unintelligible, Towins or Towius” (i. 536 note 1).

196 For Patrick Copland or Copeland, see Lefroy, index; 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 98; 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 277, 350; Neill, The English Colonization of America during the Seventeenth Century, 1871, chaps, vii-x; Virginia’s God be Thanked, or A Sermon of Thanksgiving for the Happie successe of the affayres in Virginia this last yeare. Preached by Patrick Copland at Bow-Church in Cheapside, before the Honorable Virginia Company, on Thursday, the 18. of Aprill 1622 … London, 1622 (Harvard College Library).

197 If the intended recipient of this letter were to accept Governor Wood’s invitation, the total number of ministers contemplated would be five. This corresponds to an item in the “generall Leuy” for 1630 (at a Council of November 2, 1630, as it seems): “Inp^rmis fo^r 5 ministers stipends albeit but 4 resident in the Islands “(Lefroy, i. 517). Of the four who were in the service in 1630, Mr. Richard Staples was discharged on November 2 of that year and Mr. Nathaniel Ward resigned on October 20, 1631 (i. 527). This left only Mr. Stirk and Mr. Copeland in the islands. Mr. Stirk went to England soon after — apparently in February, 1632 (see i. 531, 532), but I feel sure that he returned in the ship that brought over Governor Wood’s commission for a second term, not later than January, 1633 (i. 534), and the letter which we are considering was certainly written after his return. See pp. 45–50, above.

198 Yarmouth, Massachusetts, was not settled until 1639. Captain Wood is speaking in rather general terms, and the English Yarmouth was a natural place for him to think of.

199 The italics are Lefroy’s. Here and elsewhere they indicate his conjectural restoration of the torn or obliterated manuscript.

200 What follows is here given as Lefroy prints it. He is obviously summarizing.

201 See Lefroy, i. 317, 342, 347, 359–361, 401–403. The Rev. Nathaniel Bernard was still in the Bermudas on December 12, 1626 (i. 402–03); but he left the islands before the General Assembly of March, 1626–27, for that Assembly voted that the arrears of his salary “shall be allowed and paid either to himselfe if he shall return againe (wh. wee much desire) or to his assignes nominated in his stead and to his vse to receaue the same” (i. 415). The same vote mentions “the 4 ministers now residing in the Somer Islands.” Lefroy (i. 415 note 1) thinks these were Patrick Copeland, Nathaniel Bernard, Bellingham Morgan, and Robert Staples. For “Nathaniel Bernard,” however, we should substitute “George Stirk.” Stirk was in England in September, 1625 (i. 359, 361), but it is clear that he returned with Captain Philip Bell, the new Governor, in 1626; for, in the reply of the inhabitants to the Bermuda Company’s letter (i. 397) of September 20, 1626, the colonists thank the Company for “restoring our banished minister” (i. 433). This was Stirk, not (as Lefroy says) Staples. Staples had never been banished; whereas Stirk had been, by the tyrannical Governor Henry Woodhouse. The record of his banishment was expunged by the General Assembly of March, 1626–27 (i. 430), and Stirk was present at this Assembly (i. 430, 431). See pp. 29–31, above.

202 See Lefroy, i. 415, etc.

203 Lefroy, i. 317; Stirk’s letter and petition (Manchester Papers, Nos. 419, 422, Public Record Office). See pp. 17–19, 47–48, above.

204 Lefroy, i. 376.

205 Guilielmi Amesii SS. Theologiæ Doctoria & in Academia Franequerana Professoris Opera Quae Latinè scripsit, omnia, in quinque volumina distributa. Cum Præfatione introductoria Matthiæ Netheni. [Tom. I.] Amsterdam, 1658. The Harvard College copy of this volume has on the first flyleaf the autographs of three clerical Simon Bradstreets of three successive generations. The third has written “Avus,” “Pater,” and “Filius & nepos” after the three signatures respectively. The first Simon adds the date 1670; the third, the date 1742. On the second flyleaf the third Simon has written “Simon Bradstreet March 25. 1742” and “Simon Bradstreet Ejus Liber 1742 a Patre honorando hæreditat —.” The first of these three Simons (son of Governor Simon Bradstreet and of Anne Bradstreet, the poetess) graduated at Harvard College in 1660, the second in 1693, the third in 1728 (Sibley, Harvard Graduates, ii. 54, 57).

206 ii. 405–408 (London, 1813).

207 History of Congregationalism and Memorials of the Churches in Norfolk and Suffolk, London, 1877, pp. 66–71, 422.

208 i. 355–357. This article, by J. Bass Mullinger, is based, for the biographical part, on Nethenus. The author has overlooked Browne’s book. There is a short account of “Amesius” in Hauck’s Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, i. 447–449. Cf. also A. J. van der Aa, Biographisch Woordenboek der Nederlanden, i. 254–256 (Haarlem, 1852); John T. Hassam, New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxxiii. 196, note (1879). Dr. Hugo Visscher’s Guilielmus Amesius zijn Leven en Werken (Haarlem, 1894) is partly theological, but treats Ames’s life with fulness and gives a number of unprinted documents.

209 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 576–577.

210 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 11.

211 vi. 16.

212 John Browne, History of Congregationalism, p. 69 (cf. p. 422). It appears that Ames did not actually get “settled” at Rotterdam until July, 1633 (Peters’s letter, in Browne, p. 422). For the original city records relating to his call to this position and that of Instructor in Rhetoric and Practical Ethics, see Hugo Visscher, Guilielmus Amesius, pp. 74–76.

213 There is a clear account of these transactions, from the Arminian point of view, in Philipp van Limborch’s Historia Vitæ Simonis Episcopii, Amsterdam, 1701, pp. 31 ff, and in the same author’s posthumous Relatio Historica de Origine & Progressu Controversiarum in Fœderato Belgio de Prædestinatione, et Capitibus Annexis, attached to the 1715 Amsterdam edition of his Theologia Christiana. A Calvinistic account (strongly partisan) may be found in the Præfatio to the Acta Synodi Nationalis … Dordrechti habitæ, Leyden, 1620. On the services of Ames, see the highly laudatory account in the Praefatio Introductoria of Nethenus. For an excellent summary history of the Remonstrants, one may consult H. C. Rogge’s article “Remonstranten” in Hauck’s Realencyklopadie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3d edition, xvi. 635–639 (1905).

214 For the full text of the Remonstrance, see Henrik Brant’s Latin version of the official report of the proceedings of the Hague Conference (Collatio Scripto Habita Hagae Comitis anno ab Incarnatione Domini 1611. Ex sermone vernaculo Latina facta, 1615, pp. 1–13) or van Limborch’s Præstantium ac Eruditorum Virorum Epistolae, Amsterdam, 1704, pp. 251–256.

215 See van Limborch, Historia Vitæ Simonis Episcopii, p. 39.

216 A good account of the synod, written from the Arminian point of view, but without passion or declamation, may be found in van Limborch’s biography of Episcopius (see page 65 note 4, above). The Acts of the Synod were officially published in 1620 (Acta Synodi Nationalis … Dordrechti habitse, Leyden, printed by Isaac Elzevir), and the Remonstrants, then in exile, issued their Acts in the same year with the proud motto “Destructo Fato. Adserta Pietate” (Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena Ministrorum Remonstrantium in Fœderato Belgio, Herder-wiici, [Harderwijk,] 1620). The Harvard College copy of the Remonstrants’ Acts has the autographs of Increase Mather (“Crescentius Matherus his Booke, 1668:”) and his grandson Samuel (“S. Matheri, 1734.”). Ames replied to this book in bis Anti-Synodalia Scripta, vel Animadversiones in dogmatica ilia, quæ Remonstrantes in Synodo Dordracena exhibuerunt & postea divulgarunt (I have used the Amsterdam edition of 1661). In his dedication to Henry, Count of Nassau, he adverts to the motto as an “inscriptio magnifica.”

217 The British Museum has a copy of that date, published at Leyden. I have used the Amsterdam edition of 1664 (Harvard College Library).

218 “Ingruentibus totis Remonstrantium castris primus in acie occurrit & illorum impetum fortiter excepit ac retudit, editâ … Coronide ad Collationem Hagiensem, qua immarcessibilem [sic] laudis & gloriæ coronam apud omnes pios Gratiæ Dei æstimatores & deprædicatores meruit” (Nethenus, sig. (a) 3 v° — (a) 4 r°). Nethenus’s Latin is sometimes amusing. He speaks of “Amesius” as defending God’s cause “contra Pelagianizantes Remonstrantium phalanges.” The Arminians are “inimici divinae Gratias & cultores Liberi Arbitrii humani.”

219 Nethenus, in his Præfatio Introductoria, misprints “Sletcher,” and this error is followed by the Dictionary of National Biography.

220 See the record of May 11, 1637, printed by Savage (4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 100) and by Hotten (Original Lists, p. 294). Oddly enough Lefroy quotes this record (from Hotten) apropos of the Mrs. Ames mentioned in Wood’s letter (i. 536), though it does not occur to him that it throws any light on the identity of the person to whom the letter was addressed.

221 Massachusetts Colony Records, November 15, 1637 (i. 208).

222 Sibley, Harvard Graduates, i. 107–110. See John Browne, History of Congregationalism, pp. 426–128; Waters, Genealogical Gleanings in England, pp. 278–280.

223 Compare with the language of the letter to Ames the following passage from this other letter:

“Here is a shippe come from New England for trade w^th vs for victualls who reports that there comes over to them the most able ministers in England & their congregations, when their [read “and their”?] they build Townes and call them by the names of those from whence they come As Boston Lymne Plimouth Yarmouth.…

“I wish some of those that fly so fast into that could clymate would come more southerly to vs. We pay 2 ministers £40 per ann for each vntill wee are enabled to raise it higher” (i. 535).

Lefroy thinks this letter was addressed to the Rev. Nathaniel Ward, but I see no evidence for such an opinion.

224 See p. 51, above.

225 Nethenus, Præfatio Introductoria; John Quick, Icones Sacræ Anglicanæ, MS, in Browne, History of Congregationalism, p. 69 note §.

226 Last Report of the English Wars, 1646, p. 14. I have not seen this tract, but take the quotation (which has more than once been repeated without a reference) from [William Harris’s] Historical and Critical Account of Hugh Peters, 1751, p. 68.

227 One title in the lists now given — Wisdom in Miniature (1796)—was not in the leaflet, as its existence was then unknown to me; and since the leaflet was printed, several numbers then unknown of other magazines have come to my notice.

In his Check-List of American Magazines Printed in the Eighteenth Century, printed in 1889, Mr. Paul Leicester Ford listed fifteen New England magazines — namely, those in the above lists numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18. The magazines in the above lists numbered 10, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, are now listed for the first time.

228 Number 1 is entitled The New England Magazine for August 1758. Numbers 2 and 3 are entitled The New England Magazine Of Knowledge and Pleasure, but are not dated.

229 Twelve undated numbers were published.

230 Continued as a newspaper.

231 Continued into the nineteenth century.

232 This statement is repeated in Warren’s History of the Harvard Law School, ii. 388.

233 Harvard Law Review, xxii. 113.

234 In 1879–1880 the total enrolment of students in the Law School was 177; in 1909–1910 it is 763.

235 This book was published privately by the generosity of the late Samuel Cabot at the Riverside Press in 1907.

236 Publications of this Society, vii. 316.

237 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 5.

238 Hotton’s Original Lists, p. 149.

239 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxxii. 304.

240 Publications, x. 253.

241 xi. 195.

242 Literary Diary, ii. 324.

243 An editorial in the Boston Journal of February 22, 1910, stated that Washington’s birthday was celebrated at New York on February 22, 1783. As New York was then in possession of the British and was not evacuated by them until November 25th following, it may well be doubted whether such a celebration took place.

244 These three extracts were communicated by the late William Kelby to the Historical Magazine for February, 1869, Second Series, v. 134–135.

245 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xix. 147.

246 The treaty between France and the United States had recently been concluded.

247 Conrad Alexandre Gérard, the French Minister.

248 Continental Journal, Boston, February 18, 1779, p. 3/2.

249 In 1782 “a large company of Gentlemen met at Mr. Robinson’s Tavern on Milton Hill.” In 1906 (Publications, x. 253) I was unable to identify “Mr. Robinson” or his tavern, but I can now do so. On August 14, 1769, was “celebrated the anniversary of the 14th of August 1765, the day of the Union and firmly combined association of the True Sons of Liberty in this Province” (Boston Gazette, August 21, 1769, p. 1/1). The Sons assembled at eleven o’clock in the morning at Liberty Tree, Boston, where certain toasts were given out; after which “the Sons repaired to Liberty-Tree-Tavern, Mr. Robinson’s, Dorchester” (ibid.). Under date of August 14, 1769, John Rowe wrote that “the Sons of Liberty met at Liberty Tree, and dined at Robinson’s at Dorchester” (2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, x. 72). On the same day Col. Samuel Pierce made this entry in his Diary: “Was a very grand entertainment at Mr. Lemuel Robinson’s. All the Sons of Liberty met” (in Orcutt, Good Old Dorchester, p. 159). Col. Lemuel Robinson was born March 4, 1736. On July 23, 1775, he had a son born who was christened July 30. “Last Sabbath a Child of Col. Robinson of Dorchester, was baptized, by the Rev. Mr. Dunbar of Stoughton, by the Name of GEORGE WASHINGTON” (New England Chronicle, August 3, 1775, p. 3/2). Col. Robinson died July 29, 1776. “Last Monday departed this Life, (at Boston, of the Small Pox), greatly lamented, Colonel Lemuel Robinson, of Dorchester” (Boston Gazette, August 5, 1776, p. 3/2). On July 30, 1776, Ezekiel Price wrote in his Diary: “Colonel Lemuel Robinson, who died of the small-pox, buried this evening” (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vii. 261). See also Drake, History and Antiquities of Boston, p. 768; E. D. Harris, William and Anne Robinson of Dorchester, Mass., pp. 16, 17; New England Historic and Genealogical Register, xxvii. 85, xxxix. 82–83, xlix. 341.

250 Continental Journal, February 17, 1780, p. 2/3. John Gill was the publisher of the paper.

251 Publications, viii. 275–287.

252 New Jersey Archives, Second Series, ii. 143. In a former communication I stated that in 1768 the members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives spoke of George III as “our best Protector and common Father” (Publications, viii. 281). It may not be uninteresting to point out that when William Franklin was made Governor of New Jersey he was presented on March 3, 1763, with “The humble Address of the President and Tutors of the College of New-Jersey,” signed by President Samuel Finley, in which Franklin is spoken of as “being entrusted with so honourable and important a Commission, by the Father of his Country, the Royal Patron of Religion, Virtue, Learning, and whatever is good” (New Jersey Archives, xxiv. 150).

253 Magazine of American History, xiii. 200. When he published his Political Americanisms in book form in 1890, Norton stated that the editorial in the Nation appeared about 1866, and added that the term “occurs in the Nation as early as July, 1868” (p. 42). See the Nation, vii. 21.

254 American Commonwealth, London, i. 552.

255 Garland, Life of Randolph, ii. 240. For this extract I am indebted to Mr. Richard H. Thornton of London.

256 Andrew Jackson.

257 Niles’ Register, lviii. 250.

258 William Cabell Rives (1793–1868).

259 “Hugh Swinton Legare” (1797–1843).

260 Niles’ Register, lix. 98.

261 Niles’ Register, lix. 156, 157, 158.

262 lxv. 57.

263 Richard Mentor Johnson, Vice-President of the United States from 1837 to 1841.

264 The battle of the Thames, in which the famous Tecumseh met his death — perhaps at the hand of Col. Johnson himself — was fought October 5, 1813. The battle near Tippecanoe River, Indiana, which gave Harrison his celebrated sobriquet, took place November 7, 1811.

265 Niles’ Register, lxv. 371.

266 Niles’ Register, lxxiii. 393.

267 In the Independent Ledger of June 11, 1781 (p. 1/3), it is stated that “A Sketch of General Washington’s Life and Character,” by the author of the poem, is dated “Maryland, May 3, 1779.”

268 Independent Ledger, Boston, June 4, 1781, p. 1/2.

269 The story that Cornwallis hid himself in a cave ran the rounds of the contemporary American newspapers.

270 Miscellaneous Works (1790), p. 17. The poem was also printed in the American Museum, 1787, i. 231.

271 New York Daily Gazette, May 1, 1789, p. 426/1.

272 Massachusetts Centinel, July 8, 1789, p. 132/1.

273 Ibid. October 28, 1789, p. 50/2.

274 Massachusetts Centinel, October 28, 1789, p. 52/1.

275 Ibid. November 11, 1789.

276 New York Journal, July 9, 1794, p. 3/3. In the New York Daily Advertiser of July 5, 1790, p. 2, was printed a poem in eight stanzas in which the term is used in a figurative sense. The first and fourth stanzas follow:

The River Delaware to the River Hudson.

TOO long your boisterous waves confine

Some favorite sons that once were mine;

That long have rov’d from plain to plain,

But soon shall be my own again.

Within your bosom, wild and deep,

Huge Porpoises their lodgings keep;

Here, swoln with what their betters leave,

My lovely Cat-Fish throng the wave.

277 Columbian Centinel, February 19, 1800, p. 4/1.

278 This is taken from a copy in the Washington Collection in the Boston Athenæum. The inscription was noted in the Massachusetts Centinel of April 23, 1788, p. 42/1.

279 When Washington visited Boston in 1789 (see p. 107, above), he was “attended only by Mr. Lear, and Major Jackson, (his Secretaries) and six servants” (Massachusetts Centinel, October 24, 1789, p. 3/2).

280 See pp. 134–139, below.

281 The address to the Rev. “Sam.” Willard was of course an inadvertence.

282 Publications, x. 323.

283 For notices of Capt. John Walton and Josiah Moore, see Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 219, 231, 305, 466, 611, 612.

284 College Book, No. 8, p. 134.

This diploma, with its seal and silver box, is now deposited with the Massachusetts Historical Society, and was on exhibition in the College Library at the time of President Lowell’s inauguration. The diploma contains the following characterization of its recipient:

Vir ille admodum honorabilis, JOHANNES ADAMS armiger, omnibus scientiis ornatus; in legibus vero tam Naturae et Gentium, quam Civili et Municipali versatissimus; Patriae suae et generis humani patronus fervidus, constans, immotus: His rebus patriae natali commendatus ad summos honores ab ea fuit evectus: inter quos Delegatio ad primum ilium Congressum Americanum haud fuit minimus In rebus Americanis gerendis ita se Congressui probavit, ut ad Europam, pacis conciliandae causa, mitteretur Plenipotentiarius: Ea autem re frustratus, Legatus postea apud Provincias Batavorum federatas est constitutus.

The drafts of all three diplomas still exist in the College Archives.

285 College Book, No. 8, p. 182.

286 J. Quincy, Memoir of the Life of John Quincy Adams, p. 4

287 William Sacheverell (1638–1691).

288 Grey’s Debates of the House of Commons (1769), ii. 74.

289 Journals of the House of Commons, ix. 260.

290 Journals of the House of Lords, xii. 554, 555.

291 Sir John Vaughan (1603–1674); Sir Hugh Wyndham (1603–1684).

292 Journals of the House of Commons, ix. 271.

293 The matter can be followed in the Manuscripts of the House of Lords, Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, part ii. pp. 29–31.

294 Sir Edward Seymour (1633–1708).

295 Grey’s Debates of the House of Commons, ii. 177.

296 Journals of the House of Lords, xii. 584. Nine titles of public Acts are given, after which follow the titles of private bills. “To these Bills the Royal Assent was pronounced in these Words, ‘Soil fait come il est desiré’” (xii. 585)

297 Edward Conway, first Viscount Conway.

298 Richard Jones, third Viscount and first Earl of Ranelagh.

299 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1673, p. 100. Cf. pp. 397, 398, 482, 593.

300 Anthony Sparrow, later Bishop of Norwich.

301 Diary (Wheatley’s edition), ii. 290. In 1885 the Rev. John H. Overton said that “This Test Act … originated in the panic which arose from the marriage of the Duke of York with a Romanist, and his Romish tendencies generally” (Life in the English Church, p. 170). James’s first wife, Anne Hyde, died March 31, 1671; and his marriage by proxy to Mary of Modena did not take place until October 30, 1673 — and hence had nothing to do with the Test Act.

302 Statutes of the Realm (1819), v. 782–785. The Act is printed in full in Gee and Hardy’s Documents Illustrative of English Church History, pp. 632–640. The Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill received the Royal assent on May 9, 1828 (Journals of the House of Commons, lxxxiii, 333).

303 Thomas Lamplugh, Bishop of Exeter, 1676–1688; Archbishop of York, 1688–1691.

304 Diary, ii. 291.

305 I am also indebted to Mr. Merritt for permission to reproduce the certificate in facsimile.

306 William Smith, New & Compendious History of the County of Warwick, 1830, p. 90.

307 Dugdale, Antiquities of Warwickshire (1730), i. 573, 574.

308 Publications, iii. 194–195.

309 John Adams.

310 Publications, xii. 254.

311 John Hancock.

312 Columbian Centinel, Wednesday, March 19, 1794, p. 3/1.

313 Columbian Centinel, March 7, 1795, p. 3/2.

314 This was Mr. Welde’s first wife, Margaret.

315 Winthrop in his Journal notes the arrival of Welde on June 5, 1632, and the thanksgiving on June 13.

316 The allusion is to Sanballat the Horonite: see Nehemiah, iv. 1.

317 Probably Ralph Mousall: see Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 688.

318 The manuscript is thus described by Mr. Scott: “Weld al. Wells (Thomas), Vicar of Terling, co. Essex. Letter from New England to his people at Terling, 1633. Copy. 922, ff. 90–93 b” (Index to the Sloane Manuscripts in the British Museum, p. 563).

319 Dr. Nichols’s paper will be printed in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for July, 1911.

320 See pp. 110, 111, above.

321 Through an inadvertence or a misprint, Quincy (History of Harvard University, ii. 394) gives the date as 1790, and this error has been repeated in various books. The address, dated October 27, 1789, is printed, together with Washington’s reply, in Eliot’s Sketch of the History of Harvard College, pp. 150–152.

322 Massachusetts Mercury, February 18, 1800, p. 3/2; Columbian Centinel, February 19, p. 3/2.

323 The Boston Athenæum owns a copy of this edition in its original dark blue paper cover, having on a fly-leaf this inscription:

The Hon’ble Bushrod Washington Esq.

from his respectful & humble servant

Jed^h Morse

324 The Boston Athenæum owns a copy of this edition in its original light blue paper cover.

325 J. B. Flagg’s Life and Letters of Washington Allston, pp. 26–27. Jarvis’s account is not dated, but presumably it was written after Allston’s death in 1843. The following extract is taken from the Massachusetts Mercury of July 18, p. 2/3:

Exercises of the Candidates for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts.

1. A Salutatory Oration in Latin — “Comprehending a Dissertation on the Progress and Improvement of the eighteenth Century.” By Benjamin Marston Watson.… 10. An English Poem upon “Energy of Character.” By Washington Alston. 11. An English Conference upon “The Characters of Epaminondas, Fabius, Alfred, and Washington.” By David Greene, Leonard Jarvis, Charles Lowell, and James Morse.

326 Some of these volumes are now in the library of the American Antiquarian Society.

327 The Town Records of Petersham tell us that Samuel Calhoon of Petersham and Lucy Gibbs of New Salem entered their intentions of marriage 18 November, 1788, and that James Calhoon of Petersham (perhaps a brother of Samuel) was published to Susannah Hinds of Greenwich 29 June, 1787. We also find an entry of the death of Lucy Calhoon, the subject of the poem in our text, which gives a different date (11 July, 1806) from that printed by Mr. Dunn. See Vital Records of Petersham, pp. 76, 182.

328 John Howe, a small printer living in Greenwich, published for many years an almanac, at first called Howe’s Almanac and later Howe’s Genuine Almanac, notable for being largely given over to poetry, jingles, and jokes. His Prefaces are dated at “Mont Prospect.” In his first issue (1804) he says, “I am a stranger to a great Part of the Public where my Labours are now to appear.” The imprint was Greenwich until 1818, when it was changed to Enfield, the adjoining town. The authorship of this Almanac is stated on the title-page to have been John Howe, 1804–1811; Philo Astronomiæ, 1812–1820; J. M. Howe, 1821–1823; and Philo Astronomiæ, 1824. Howe’s press was a poor one.

Mr. Clarence S. Brigham has kindly furnished the facts for this note.

329 There can be no doubt that Samuel Dunn, the author of this poem, was also the author of another effusion, a copy of which was in the Brinley library and is thus described:

Dunn (Samuel) A Word in Season; or, The Burthen of Samuel, (the son of Richard, the son of Samuel, the son of James the Rhode-Islandite,) which he saw while under the mountain, in the land of Prescott, Mass. in the days of James Munroe, President, … concerning the Division of Christianity … [With] Some Remarks on … Free-Masonry, pp. 12, uncut, curious. 12° n. p., n. d. [1825] (Brinley Catalogue, iv. 101, no. 6839.)

The town of Prescott, incorporated in 1822, was formerly the southern part of New Salem. It is a curious fact that while the towns of Petersham, New Salem, Greenwich, and Prescott are contiguous, they lie in three different counties, — Worcester, Franklin, and Hampshire.

As our author is so obliging as to record his pedigree on the above-described title-page, it seems probable that he is the Samuel Dunn, son of Richard and Mary Dunn, who was born in Newport, Rhode Island, 14 July, 1746 (Arnold, Vital Record of Rhode Island, vol. iv. part ii. p. 94. See also p. 34).

I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. William P. Greenlaw for the reference to the Brinley title.

330 Cf. p. 53, above.

331 College Book, i. 55.

332 i. 82. This sum is expressed in New England currency.

333 iii. 60.

334 College Records, x. 131. For this extract I am indebted to Mr. Lane.

335 Massachusetts Province Laws, ii. 149.

336 ii. 663.

337 iii. 195.

338 iv. 834, v. 212. The passage of the Act of 1765 on June 24 was noted in the Boston Gazette of July 1, 1765, p. 3/2; but apparently the lottery did not reach the advertising stage.

339 Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1789), ii. 405.

340 Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1807), iii. 361.

341 Lawful money.

342 Boston Gazette, July 13, 1772, p. 1/1. The advertisement was repeated in the issue of August 10, p. 4/1.

343 Columbian Centinel, March 18, 1795, p. 3/1. In the Harvard College Library there is a broadside dated “Boston, October 22, 1795,” which begins as follows:

Harvard College Lottery.

THE Managers of Harvard College Lottery, present the Public with a SCHEME of the Fourth Class of said Lottery, which will commence Drawing on, or before the first Thursday in April next, in the Representatives’ Chamber in Boston.

The strict punctuality which the Managers have hitherto observed, as to the time fixed for Drawing, and in the payment of the Prizes — They flatter themselves, has so established the Credit of the Lottery — that the Tickets will meet with a rapid Sale, both in this, and the neighbouring States.

SCHEME

of the 4th Class Harvard College Lottery,

Not two Blanks to a Prize.

344 Columbian Centinel, February 7, 1807, p. 2/3. In the College Library there is a pamphlet containing twelve unnumbered leaves, the gift of Mr. Charles P. Greenough on November 4, 1868. The title reads:

At the bottom of the verso of the eleventh leaf is this statement: “The Managers expect all Prize Tickets to be endorsed by the person to whom they are paid.” Attached to the second leaf is a lottery ticket of the Fifth Class, No. 9997, dated “Boston, February, 1811,” the gift of the late J. Wingate Thornton on September 19, 1864. This ticket has on the back the following endorsement:

Pay seven dollars, to W. & T. Kidderor

their order, & to none other —

15. Sept. 1811 S. Greenleaf

And this again, across the centre of the back, is endorsed “W & T K”

The last leaf of this pamphlet contains an advertisement of the Second Class, dated February 24, 1807, and an advertisement of Gilbert & Dean’s “Lottery and Exchange Office.”

There is in the Boston Athenæum a pamphlet containing twelve unnumbered leaves, entitled —

This has manuscript notes, doubtless written either by the Treasurer of Harvard College or by one of the managers of the lottery, and on the title-page is written in ink “For the Treaser,” who at that time was John Davis. From this List of Prizes it appears that ticket No. 9997, mentioned above, drew seven dollars. The last page of this pamphlet contains an advertisement of the Sixth Class.

345 There is a copy of this broadside, dated “Boston, July 9th, 1812,” in the Boston Public Library. Attached to it is a lottery ticket of the Seventh Class, No. 14637, dated “Boston, Feb. 1812.”

346 Columbian Centinel, July 18, 1812, p. 4/1.

347 Columbian Centinel, August, 19, 1812, p. 2/4.

348 Columbian Centinel, October 3, 1812, p. 3/1.

349 Besides the one reproduced in the text, the College Library has four other tickets of the Third Class, Nos. 17417, 17432, 17436, 17437; and two quarter tickets of the Second Class, unnumbered. These last two were the gift of Dr. Samuel A. Green. There are also four tickets of the Third Class hanging in the hall of the Harvard Club of New York City.

The number was not printed on a ticket, but was inserted in ink, presumably by one of the managers.

350 College Records, x. 133–134. For this extract I am indebted to Mr. Lane. Room No. 12 in Holworthy Hall contains an interesting transmittendum. When the late King Edward, then Prince of Wales, visited Cambridge in 1860, and when the Grand Duke Alexis went there in 1871, both were shown No. 12 by the College authorities, and each left in the room his photograph. These photographs were in the room in 1875 (Harvard Book, i. 83 note). Mr. H. Chessman Kittredge, one of the present occupants of No 12, informs me that the photograph of the Prince of Wales is still hanging in the room, though that of the Grand Duke Alexis is no longer there, having apparently disappeared many years ago.

351 History of Harvard University, i. 183.

352 This will is printed on pages 175–176, below.

353 This Robert, whose will was dated August S, 1600, and proved January 13, 1601, is the only Robert Holworthy that appears in the Holworthy pedigree sent me by Mr. Holworthy. It is interesting to note, however, that “A List of Names of the Passengers on board the Ship Arabella Richard Sprague Master for New England, May y^e 27th, 1671,” contains that of “Robert Halworthy” (New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ii. 407). Who this Robert Holworthy was is not known.

354 Nicholls and Taylor, Bristol Past and Present, i. 292. The date of Richard Holworthy’s mayoralty is variously given as 1634 and 1635.

355 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1619–1623, p. 619.

356 The Lord Admiral was Eliot’s patron, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.

357 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1619–1623, pp. 605, 606, 611; 1623–1625, pp. 29, 53, 69. In his sketch of Eliot in the Dictionary of National Biography, Gardiner says that “Eliot was committed to the Marshalsea on some trumped-up charges connected with the arrest” of Nutt.

358 Nicholls and Taylor, Bristol Past and Present, i. 300.

359 Barrett, History and Antiquities of Bristol, p. 230; Seyer, Memoir of Bristol, ii. 418–119; Nicholls and Taylor, Bristol Past and Present, i. 310.

360 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1641–1643, p. 516; 1645–1647, p. 275.

361 Narrative and Vindication of John Ashburnham, 1830, vol. ii. app. p. xiii.

362 An abstract of Richard Holworthy’s will is in Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings, i. 500.

363 To Principal Heberden of Brasenose I am indebted, through our associate Professor George L. Kittredge, for the information that “we have no signature of Matthew Holworthy and nothing in our archives to add to the information” in the text.

364 This Andrew Henley was made a Baronet June 20, and a Knight July 21, 1660, and died in or shortly before 1675. For a notice of him, see Cokayne’s Complete Baronetage, iii. 69–70.

365 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1652–1653, pp. 437, 481.

366 James Holworthy is mentioned in this petition.

367 Publications of the Harleian Society, xxiv. 106.

The genealogy of the Henley family is complicated, and I am indebted for information to Mr. Holworthy and to our associate Mr. Henry W. Cunningham. Robert Henley of Leigh, Somerset, whose will was proved July 19, 1614, was the son of George Henley of Taunton, Somerset, and was twice married: first to Anne Truebody, and secondly to Elizabeth Freake. By his first wife, Robert Henley had a son, Andrew Henley of Taunton, whose will was proved January 14, 1630–31. This Andrew Henley married Dorothy Sandford and was the father of the Robert Henley who was buried in the Temple Church on February 29, 1655–56. This Robert Henley married Anne Eldred and had, among other children, Sir Andrew Henley and Mary Henley, the latter of whom was the first wife of Sir Matthew Holworthy.

By his second wife, Robert Henley of Leigh had a son Henry Henley of Leigh, who married Susanna Bragge and died in 1638. Henry and Susanna (Bragge) Henley had a son also named Henry Henley, of Leigh, who married for his first wife Susan Morridge. It was their daughter Susanna who became the third wife of Sir Matthew Holworthy.

It thus appears that the first wife and the third wife of Sir Matthew Holworthy were second cousins.

368 Environs of London (1795), ii. 450.

369 This rare little volume was reprinted by Hotten in 1863 under the title of “The Little London Directory of 1677. The oldest printed List of the Merchants and Bankers of London.” There is a copy of the reprint in the Boston Athenæum.

370 A plan of the “Walks “as they were in 1837 is given in Thornbury’s Old and New London, i. 497. See also Notes and Queries, Tenth Series, xii. 356.

371 Lysons, Environs of London, ii. 499.

372 Lysons, Environs of London, ii. 499.

373 The will is printed on pp. 176–180, below.

374 At Hinton, Devonshire.

375 Lysons, Environs of London, ii. 499.

376 The name is also spelled Desborow and Disbrowe. I adopt the form given in the Dictionary of National Biography.

377 College Book, iii. 53.

378 In October, 1908, Mr. Holworthy sent me photographs of the portraits, which were exhibited at the meeting of this Society held in January, 1909 (Publications, xii. 237). As the photographs were old and not suitable for reproduction, Mr. Holworthy kindly had new photographs taken and sent me the negatives in July, 1909. The one of Sir Matthew not being altogether satisfactory, when the portraits reached Cambridge new photographs of both were taken, and from these are reproduced the illustrations in the text. The facsimile of Sir Matthew’s signature is from an autograph appended to Sir Edward Bysshe’s Visitation of London, 1664, in the Heralds’ College. The manuscript Holworthy pedigree, also sent me by Mr. Holworthy and exhibited in January, 1909, has been placed in the library of the New England Historic Genealogical Society. Many names appear in the pedigree that are not mentioned in this sketch.

379 Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Carew, 19.

380 A previous will, dated March 20, 1676, of which a copy was sent me by Mr. Holworthy, contained a similar provision.

381 For a sketch of the Rev. Thomas Gouge (1609–1681) and his labors in Wales, see the Dictionary of National Biography.

382 Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Reeve, 41. An abstract of Sir Matthew’s will is given in Waters’s Genealogical Gleanings, i. 500, where also will be found various Holworthy, Haviland, Desborough, and other wills. See also Notes and Queries, Tenth Series, ix. 208, 273, 377.

Since the above paper was written, several matters have come to light that are worth recording. First, Mr. Charles Warren kindly calls my attention to a curious letter quoted in his History of the Harvard Law School. It was written in 1812 by President Kirkland to Treasurer Davis and reads as follows:

I find some gentlemen are sorry to have our new college receive so hard a name — Holworthy Hall — has two aspirates besides the W. and the T. H. — which twist and squeeze the organs not a little. Is there other any better or more suitable — or will you reconsider on account of the objection — which is of some consequence (i. 323 note).

Secondly, Mr. Edward W. Forbes writes me that the Holworthy portraits have, at the request of our associate President Lowell, been transferred from the Fogg Art Museum to the Faculty Room in University Hall.

Thirdly, Mr. Charles N. Baxter informs me that the Bostonian Society owns two Harvard College lottery tickets. On inspection, one proves to be No. 10699 of the Fifth Class, dated February, 1811, and signed by John Williams as manager. The other is a quarter-ticket, also of the Fifth Class, No. 11280, dated May, 1811; but instead of a manager’s name there is written in ink “W & T Kidder,” and at the bottom is the line, “At their Real Fortunate Lottery Office, No. 9, Market-square.” Apparently, therefore, this quarter-ticket was printed not by the managers of the lottery but by the lottery dealers.

Fourthly, I have been able to identify the Henry Henley of Lyme Regis who in 1669 gave £27 to Harvard College (p. 174, above) as Henry Henley of Colway, son of Henry Henley of Leigh and own brother of Susanna Henley, the third wife of Sir Matthew Holworthy. See Publications of this Society, xiv. 45–49.

383 In his Lists of New England Magazines, 1743–1800, communicated to the Society in January, 1910, Mr. Matthews gave the title of this magazine, but at that time no copy was known to be in existence. See p. 70, above. For the information given in the text, the Editor is indebted to Mr. Clarence S. Brigham.

384 “Pole” is of course a misprint for “Equator.”

385 So far as I have been able to ascertain, these journals were never published.

386 Here follows the Table printed in this volume on p. 190.

387 The page is here indistinct.

388 The page is here indistinct: perhaps “¹/₉₀” was written.

389 The material in this paragraph is gathered from “Principal Facts Relating to the Earth’s Magnetism,” referred to in the text, p. 183, above.

390 Memoirs, London, 1749, i. 223. A second edition, containing the portrait here reproduced, was published in 1753.

391 Memoirs, i. 296–297.

392 i. 315–316.

393 For information in regard to Beale, I am again indebted to Mr. Matthews.

394 History of South Carolina, i. 311–312. The date of this voyage is not given, but Hewatt is describing events that occurred about 1721. Previous to that time, Beale had married, on March 25, 1722, Katherine Gale at Charleston. Hewatt is slightly mistaken in regard to Beale’s age: see page 196 note 1, below.

395 His wife died January 4, 1774. He and his wife were buried in the cemetery of St. Philip’s Church, and in 1788 their son John (who married Mary Ross) erected to their memory in the church (which was destroyed by fire on February 15, 1835) a monument from which the above dates are taken. On August 17, 1746, Othniel Beale’s daughter Hannah married William Bull, Jr. Born in 1710, Bull became Lieutenant-Governor of South Carolina in 1759, frequently administered the government between 1760 and 1775, retired to England in 1780, and there died in 1791. See E. McCrady, History of South Carolina, 1719–1776, pp. 61, 175, 246, 288, 683, 684, 801; W. R. Smith, South Carolina as a Royal Province, 1719–1776, pp. 178, 199, 202–206, 218–219, 312, 316; Mrs. Ravenel, Charleston: the Place and the People, pp. 88, 91–92, 169; City of Charleston Year Book for 1880, p. 271; A. S. Salley, Jr., Register of St. Philip’s Parish, Charles Town, 1720–1758, pp. 62, 111, 152, 184; South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, i. 84–85, ii. 134 note, 136. An attempt to find a portrait of Othniel Beale in Charleston or elsewhere has not met with success.

396 Publications of this Society, xii. 382.

397 xii. 192.

398 See pp. 193–194, above.

399 John Theophilus Desaguliers (1683–1744).

400 Page 193, above.

401 Rev. John Edwards (1637–1716).

402 This Latin inscription to Dr. Edwards is reprinted line for line in the London edition in the collation of which it is given below in full (p. 200), though with two slight changes.

403 Of two copies of this edition in the British Museum, one has, the other has not, this translation of the Latin dedication on the verso of the title-page.

404 He died April 16, 1716.

405 S. Mather, Life of C. Mather, p. 73.

406 Richard Clarke died at London on February 27, 1795, “at the House of his Son-in-law, J. S. Copley, Esq. in the 84th year of his age” (Morning Chronicle, London, March 3, 1795, p. 4/1).

407 Richard Clarke graduated at Harvard College in 1729.

408 Joseph Lee graduated at Harvard College in 1729.

409 Mrs. Copley’s mother was Elizabeth (Winslow) Clarke.

410 Richard Clarke’s daughter Mary married Samuel Barrett, and their daughter Sarah married Samuel Cabot.

411 Presumably Mrs. Mary (Clarke) Barrett.

412 Elizabeth Bromfield, who later married Daniel Denison Rogers, was the daughter of Col. Henry Bromfield by his second wife Hannah Clarke, a daughter of Richard Clarke.

413 Col. Henry Bromfield (1727–1820).

414 Doubtless the copyist’s error for “Harvard.”

415 Henry Bromfield, Jr., was a son of Col. Henry Bromfield by his first wife Margaret Fayerweather.

416 George Erving graduated at Harvard College in 1757.

417 Later Baron Lyndhurst.

418 Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Newcastle, 372. There were no witnesses.

419 There is a copy of this pamphlet in the British Museum, though it is not entered in the catalogue under Peters’s name. It is ascribed to Peters by C. H. Firth in his sketch of Peters in the Dictionary of National Biography. As apparently no American library contains a copy of the pamphlet, its title is given in part: A True | Relation | of the | Passages of | Gods Providence in a | Voyage for Ireland. | With | The Additionall Forces sent for reducing of | that Kingdome by his Maiesie | and Parliament | Wherein every Dayes worke is set downe faithfully by H. P. an | Eye-witnesse thereof, under the Command of Alexander | L. Forbes, Lieutenant Generall under the L. Brooke | for that Service; from the 29. of June to the | 29. of September. 1642. | … | London | Printed by Luke Norton, for Henry Overton. | in the Yeare. MDCXLII.

420 Brinley Catalogue, i. 92. Cf. iv. 163.

421 The following list explains these abbreviations. An asterisk following an abbreviation denotes an imperfect copy:

AAS = American Antiquarian Society

BPL = Boston Public Library

EDO = E. D. Church Collection

ADF = A. D. Foster Collection

H = Harvard College Library

LC = Library of Congress

MHS = Massachusetts Historical Society

NYHS = New York Historical Society

422 This advertisement is quoted in Drake’s History and Antiquities of Boston (1857), p. 474 note. There was a market in Boston as early as 1634, but there was much opposition to one. See Drake, pp. 166, 334, 555, 596, 610–611; Memorial History of Boston, ii. 462 note.

423 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, viii. 21–22.

424 Brinley Catalogue, i. 92

425 In Mr. A. D. Foster’s collection is a volume containing many almanacs from 1690 to 1747, one bearing the title in part as follows:

This contains ten leaves. On the recto of the eighth leaf is a poem in twenty lines, beginning and ending as follows:

To Their Most Sacred MAJESTIES

King WILLIAM, and Queen MARY.

MAy Heav’nly Delights, & Joys Transcending, wait

About the Throne of your illustrious State.

. . . . . .

And Your New-England Subjects with one voice,

Shall both in You and your blest Seed Rejoyce.

B H

Beneath the poem is a line containing the words “Bills, Bonds, and Indentures, &c.”

426 Though Mr. Foster’s copy is complete in the sense of having all the leaves, yet the tops of some of the pages have been cut by the binder.

427 This fragment is owned by Mr. E. S. Phelps of Boston.

428 2 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, vii. 414–415.

429 Benjamin Harris.

430 Act of June 15, 1696 (Massachusetts Province Laws, i. 237–239). This is mentioned in the Memorial History of Boston, ii. 462 note; but neither in that work nor in Drake’s History and Antiquities of Boston is any account given of earlier fairs. Spring and autumn fairs were appointed in Massachusetts in 1638 and in Plymouth in 1639: see Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 241; Plymouth Colony Records, xi. 32; Massachusetts Province Laws, i. 141–142.

431 This entry is against Sunday.

432 Presumably the Rev. Thomas Hooker.

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

434 xii. 384.

435 Lippincott’s New Gazetteer, 1906, gives the longitude of Ferro as 18° 7′ 5″ west of Greenwich.

436 Publications, xii. 389, 392.

437 The features of Champlain’s three maps as given in the text are taken from the reproductions of the same in The Voyages of Samuel de Champlain translated from the French by C. P. Otis and published by the Prince Society in three volumes (1878–1882). The large map of 1612 and the small map of 1613 face p. 228 of vol. iii; the map of 1632 faces p. 304 of vol. i.

438 Publications, xii. 392; Encyclopaedia Britannica, ninth edition, xxiii. 394.

439 Memorial History of Boston, i. 52.

440 Memorial History of Boston, i. 56.

441 i. 54.

442 The number 315 at the bottom of the map was engraved below the framing lines because its proper space in the field was occupied by Smith’s coat-of-arms, and in Arber’s reproduction it is not shown; but it appears, in the original figures, on the photographic copies made from the Lenox Library specimens.

443 The map of Virginia was first published in a book entitled A Map of Virginia with Description of the Countrey, … by Captaine John Smith, Oxford, 1612, but was afterwards reissued in his Generall Historie, 1624, and in Purchaa his Pilgrimes, 1625. According to Mr. Eames it exists in eight states, of which the last two have much more detail than the earlier six. (See Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606–1625, edited by L. G. Tyler, 1907, p. vi; map at p. 76.) The facsimile that I have examined accompanies Deane’s edition of Smith’s A True Relation of Virginia, Boston, 1866. It bears figures referring to the pages at which it appeared in the Generall Historie and in Purchas, and appears to be taken from one of the last two states.

444 Publications, xii. 384–385.

445 In Stanford’s London Atlas, third edition, 1904, in the List of Names with Latitudes and Longitudes at the end, the longitude of the Island of St. Michael is given as 25° 30′ west. In W. F. Walker’s The Azores, London, 1886, on the map of St. Michael’s opposite p. 46, that island extends in longitude from about 25° 9′ west to about 25° 52′ west.

446 The Charlestown records are now in the custody of the City Clerk of Boston. Regarding Greene’s narrative, see also H. H. Sprague’s Founding of Charlestown by the Spragues, 1910, pp. 5–9, 33–37.

447 Arber, facing p. 694.

448 These lines are taken from a copy of the First Folio in the Boston Public Library. Cf. Works of Ben Jonson, Gifford’s edition (1816), viii. 328; R. G. White’s edition of Shakespeare, Boston, 1865, vol. ii. p. xxx.

449 Complete Works of John Davies of Hereford, Grosart’s edition, vol. ii., The Scourge of Folly (1611), p. 26, Epigram 159.

450 Arber, pp. 181, 491.

451 Edition of 1840, ii. 79.

452 The statement above, that he was buried in St. Dunstan’s, is taken from the Dictionary of National Biography, xiv. 139.

453 Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 417–421; Historical Notices of the New North Religious Society in the Town of Boston, p. 28.

454 Mr. Prentice graduated at Harvard in 1726. He was settled at Arundel, Maine, 1730–1737, and at Charlestown, Massachusetts, 1739–1775. He died in 1782.

455 John Burt graduated at Harvard in 1736, was ordained as minister of Bristol, Rhode Island, in 1741, married a daughter of Lieut.-Gov. William Ellery, and died in 1775.

456 So attractive as a preacher was he, that Mr. Prentice received, almost simultaneously, calls to the pulpits of the New North Church in Boston, of West Cambridge, and of Charlestown. He accepted the call to Charlestown and declined the other two on the same day.

457 Daniel Rogers graduated at Harvard in 1725, was a tutor, 1732–1741, and in 1748 was settled over the Second Church in Exeter, New Hampshire. Another man of the same name graduated in the class of 1725 and in 1732 was ordained at Littleton, Massachusetts.

458 Jonathan Helyer graduated at Harvard in 1738, was settled at Newport, Rhode Island, in 1744 and died in 1745.

459 Lately Gee, an influential, though blind, man and a zealous friend of Mr. Eliot, was son of John and Joane Gee; was born in Boston 4 February, 1687–88; was cousin to the Rev. Joshua Gee; and married Sarah Ellise, 2 November, 1710. On the previous thirteenth of September, his intention of marriage with Priscilla Thornton was published (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 174, xxviii. 28, 32). See also Historical Notices, etc., p. 20.

460 We have here a reminder of the quarrel when the Rev. Peter Thacher of Weymouth was settled as the first colleague of the Rev. Mr. Webb, in 1719, which resulted in the founding of the New Brick Church.

461 Records of the Church of Christ at Cambridge in New England (1906), p. 100. By an unfortunate mistake this entry is erroneously indexed under the surname Andrew.

462 The Records of the New North Church, besides being remarkably full as regards the doings of the members, contain upwards of six thousand entries of admissions, baptisms, marriages and deaths covering more than a century, beginning with 1714. As these entries relate to the Cabot, Barrett, Parkman, and other prominent North End families during a period when the public vital records of the town of Boston are very imperfect, it is much to be desired that these valuable and important Records should be printed and indexed, and thus be made available to students and scholars interested in the history of Boston and its families.

463 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, v. 403–414.

464 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, iii. 166–173.

465 G. B. Merrick, Merrick Genealogy (1902), pp. 15–17.

466 See D. B. Hall, Halls of New England (1883), pp. 211–215; Swift, History of Old Yarmouth, pp. 100–102; Genealogical Notes of Barnstable Families, i. 450–456.

467 Plymouth Colony Records, vi. 65, 112, 130, 132, 169.

468 Church, History of Philip’s War (Drake’s edition, 1829), p. 170, and cf. Dexter’s edition (1867), ii. 10 note.

469 Documentary History of the State of Maine, v. 4.

470 Massachusetts Province Laws, vii. 92.

471 vii. 486. The order was allowed December 11, 1695, after striking out the words printed in italics.

472 History of Hingham, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 314.

473 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, i. 148, 163.

474 vii. 113, 141.

475 Drake, History and Antiquities of Boston, p. 483 note.

476 Drake, p. 524; Sewall’s Diary, i. 359 note.

477 See Felt, Annals of Salem (1827), pp. 346, 545; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlvi. 238.

478 See Drake, History and Antiquities of Boston, p. 431; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vii. 125.

479 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 43.

480 Suffolk Deeds, viii. 322–324.

481 Sewall’s Diary, i. 71, 96, 134, 235.

482 Suffolk Probate Files, no. 1672.

483 See Hammatt Papers, pp. 167–169; Waters, Ipswich, pp. 146, 157, 357.

484 Tyler, History of American Literature, i. 335.

485 Suffolk Deeds, x.

486 Diary, i. 213.

487 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vii. 219, x. 136.

488 See Mr. Park’s sketch of Oliver, pp. 92–94, above.

489 Dr. Henry Goddard Leach of Harvard University called Mr. Kittredge’s attention to the portrait and procured the photograph from Professor Wulff. Dr. Leach recognized the photograph as of the Lansdowne type.

490 MS. 23. L. 35, p. 128.

491 Contractions are expanded in italics.

492 Read B[reagh]?

493 Perhaps to be expanded scealaidhe.

494 Before n-gléasfaigh, n-glaoghfaigh is written and then expunged.

495 For the suggestion that miledh is Milesius, the translators are indebted to Professor Douglas Hyde.

496 That laoisigh is Louis XVI, is Professor Hyde’s suggestion.

497 For Chrotaigh perhaps we should read chruthaigh, “shapely.”

498 Letter to Mr. Albert Matthews, March 3, 1911. Cf. p. 259 note 2, below.

499 See p. 257 note 2, above.

500 As to the air (the Irish name of which is not wholly legible) Dr. W. H. Grattan Flood, the distinguished authority on Irish music, informs Dr. Hyde that the tune is probably that sometimes entitled Sa Maidin Fear gan Bríste (“In the Morning the Man without Breeches”) and better known as Nora an Chuil Omra (“Nora of the Amber Hair”). The music, Dr. Flood adds, was printed as “The Poor Thresher” in 1790, and a different version, entitled Bean Dubh an Ghleanna (“The Dark Woman of the Glen”) is in O’Daly’s Poets and Poetry of Munster (see the third edition, Dublin, 1850, p. 184).

501 Writings of Washington, ix. 13–14.

502 By Mr. Charles Butler Brooks, who had recently bought it at auction.

503 There is another contemporary copy of this paper, in the handwriting of Caleb Gibbs, enclosed in Washington’s letter of 14 May, 1779, to the President of Congress, in the Papers of the Continental Congress. (Library of Congress, Calendar of the Correspondence of George Washington … with the Continental Congress, Washington, 1900, p. 306.)

504 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 152, vol. 7, folio 335.

505 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 152, vol. 7, folio 331.

506 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 163, folio 341.

507 The following passage, under date of 18 May, 1779, is taken from the Journals of the Continental Congress (Ford’s edition), xiv. 607:

A letter, of 16, from G. Morgan, agent for Indian affairs in the western district, was read, accompanied with the Indians speech to General Washington, and the General’s answer:

Ordered, That the letter be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

508 Sparks, ii. 47 note.

509 Journals of the Continental Congress (Ford’s edition), iv. 268, 294–295.

510 Pennsylvania Archives, vi. 587, 652.

511 C. Gist’s Journals (1893), pp. 281–285.

512 See Monette, History of the Valley of the Mississippi, i. 475; Albach, Annals of the West, pp. 505–506; 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xvii. 190.

513 The horn-book measures 3 by 4 ¹¹/₁₆ inches, and the oak frame (including handle) 4½ by 9 inches.

514 Tuer, History of the Horn-Book, i. 5.

515 i. 7.

516 G. E. Littlefield, Early Schools and School-Books of New England, p. 113.

517 John Davis was Governor of Massachusetts in 1833, 1834, 1840, 1841, and United States Senator from 1835 to 1840 and again from 1845 to 1853, when he retired.

518 Probably John Bell of Nashville, Tennessee, then Member of Congress, and in 1860 a candidate for President.

519 “Plotty, a hot drink, composed of wine or spirits with hot water or spices” (Oxford Dictionary). It is a Scotch word.

520 In the campaign of 1840, much was said in the Whig papers about the splendid appointments and furniture of the “Palace,” as they called the White House — thereby reviving a term employed in the War of 1812.

521 The following passage is taken from Parton’s Life of Andrew Jackson:

To the last day of his residence in the presidential mansion, General Jackson continued to receive proofs that he was still the idol of the people. The eloquence of the opposition had not availed to lessen his general popularity in the least degree. We read of one enthusiastic Jacksonian conveying to Washington, from New York, with banners and bands of music, a prodigious cheese as a present to the retiring chief. The cheese was four feet in diameter, two feet thick, and weighed fourteen hundred pounds — twice as large, said the Globe, as the great, cheese given to Mr. Jefferson on a similar occasion. The President, after giving away large masses of his cheese to his friends, found that he had stih more cheese than he could consume. At his last public reception he caused a piece of the cheese to be presented to all who chose to receive one, an operation that filled the White House with an odor that is pleasant only when there is not too much of it (iii. 626).

From the following contemporary account, taken from Niles’ Register of November 28, 1835 (xlix. 212–213), it appears that the cheese was sent during the closing months of Jackson’s presidency:

The Jackson cheese. Yesterday were exhibited in our village ten of the most splendid cheese ever manufactured in this state, or in the nation. Their aggregate weight was 8,150 lbs. highly ornamented with paintings upon the belts and coverings around them, interlarded with appropriate historical extracts and statistics of state and national character. The mammoth cheese, measuring three feet nine inches in diameter, two feet thick and weighing 1,400 pounds was superscribed to Andrew Jackson, president of the United States. It appears from an account in the Pulaski Banner, that there was a great display in transporting them from Sandusky Creek, where made, to Selkirk, where shipped on board the schooner North America for this place. We received the Banner too late for insertion, but it appears that about sixty gray horses were employed in the procession, guns were fired, &c. They will proceed upon the canal via Syracuse, Schenectady, Troy and Albany, thence to New York, at all of which places the citizens will have an opportunity of seeing them. [Oswego (N. Y.) Observer.

522 The Rev. Joseph Allen (H. C. 1811), the father of our late associate the Rev. Joseph Henry Allen.

523 Magnalia (1855), i. 342, 265.

524 Winthrop, History of New England (1853), i. 104.

525 Magnalia, i. 342.

526 See letter of Hooker to Winthrop, in Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, i. 1–18.

527 Hubbard, General History of New England, p. 173.

528 History of the First Church in Hartford, pp. 82–83.

529 The name of the Massachusetts town of Newtown was changed to Cambridge on May 2, 1638; that of the Connecticut town of Newtown was changed to Hartford in February, 1636–37. (Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 228; Connecticut Colonial Records, i. 7; Publication of this Society, xii. 56, 58.)

530 Magnalia, i. 385.

531 Magnalia, i. 385. See also Winthrop, History of New England, i. 214–215; W. Newell, Discourses and Poems, pp. 37–74.

532 Newell, p. 77.

533 Walker, pp. 83–84; Paige, History of Cambridge, pp. 36–39.

534 Walker, pp. 410, 478.

535 Magnalia, i. 71.

536 Magnalia, i. 70.

537 First Church in Cambridge, p. 32.

538 The original is in the library of the New Hampshire Historical Society at Concord, New Hampshire. See p. 284 note 8, below.

539 Perhaps “25^th.”

540 The letters A–H to indicate the columns, and the numbers prefixed to the names, are not in the original but are inserted for convenience.

541 Perfectly distinct, and might be “Seinior.” William Slemmons came to Maine.

542 Perhaps “Roe.”

543 An asterisk indicates pale ink.

544 A 20 and 21 are not in the same hand.

545 A 35–45 are perhaps in the same hand.

546 Perhaps “Love.”

547 B 28 and 29 are in the same hand.

548 Perhaps “Jamson.”

549 Later at Londonderry, New Hampshire.

550 C 13 and 14 are in the same hand.

551 There is a blot here.

552 Of Garvagh, County Deny. Later at Merrymeeting Bay in Maine.

553 F 1 and 2 are in the same hand.

554 F 13–16 are in the same hand.

555 F 19 and 20 are in the same hand.

556 Of Ballymoney, Antrim.

557 F 25–27 are in the same hand.

558 Later at Rutland, Massachusetts

559 F 33–47 are probably in the same hand.

560 G 6–8 are in the same hand.

561 Of Macosquin, County Derry.

562 Perhaps “Tarbel.”

563 Perhaps “Tarbel.” G 27 and 28 are in the same hand.

564 A ruling elder in Macosquin.

565 G 32–38 are in the same hand.

566 Perhaps “Mattbey” or “MacCoy.”

567 Same signature as A 2.

568 Some of the names in the above list differ from those printed in my Scotch Irish Pioneers, pp. 325–330. A photograph of the petition was exhibited a year ago (see p. 145, above) but since then a new photograph has been taken, and a study of the photographic plate has rendered clearer some names that were before obscure. Permission was kindly given to remove the MS from its frame when the new photograph was taken.

569 In this list, surnames are printed as in the original petition; christian names are modernized.

570 Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, New Series, xx. 280–290.

571 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 76, 77.

572 Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, New Series, xx. 290.

573 xx. 270 et seq.

574 Suffolk Probate, ii. 146; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxx. 432.

575 Suffolk Probate, iv. 137; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, si. 344.

576 Suffolk Probate, ix. 175.

577 College Book, iii. 4. Cf. Quincy, History of Harvard University, i. 512.

578 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, i. 212.

579 xiii. 36–43, for a sketch of his life.

580 xiii. 38.

581 Massachusetts Archives, lviii. 10. The brackets appear in the original MS, and a few letters torn off are printed in italics.

582 Massachusetts Archives, lviii. 247.

583 This map was bought by Mr. Farwell from a London firm in 1904. The map was originally published in 1720, but Mr. Farwell’s copy is of an impression not earlier than 1733. Its title reads as follows:

An actual Survey of the Sea Coast from New York to the I Cape Breton, with Tables of the direct and thwart Courses & Distances from Place to Place, by Capt. Cyprian Southack. Illustrated, with Particular Plans, of the Harbours of New York, Boston, Canso Bay & Annapolis Royal, on a larger Scale. As also, A New Chart of the Atlantic Ocean. Printed and Sold by w^m Herbert under the Piazzas on London Bridge & Robert Sayer facing Fetter Lane, Fleet Street.

584 On December 23, 1712, Nicho. Zinzan married “Edward Stables of Lincoln’s Inn and Susanna De Berdt of Wandsworth in Surrey” (Publications of the Harleian Society, Registers, xxxii. 53).

On April 29, 1729, took place the marriage of “John de Berdt of S^t Andrew, Holborn, Midx., B., and Jane Greer of S^t Gyles in the fields, Midx., S.” (Publications of the Harleian Society, Registers, xxxix. 363).

The Gentleman’s Magazine for August, 1731, records the death of “John de Berdt, of Battersea, Esq; Grandson to the late Sir John Fleet, and Son-in-Law to Edward Staples, Esq; Clerk to the H. of Commons “(i. 354). The will (Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Isham, 207) of John De Berdt of Battersea, County Surrey, dated August 5 and proved August 19, 1731, contains these items: “I bequeath all my freehold lands & tenements & all my copyhold & leasehold estates in Battersea, Wimbledon & Wandsworth, co. Surrey, to my wife Jane De Berdt & her heirs for ever. To my sister in law, M^rs Amy Greere, £20. A gold ring to each of my wife’s brothers & sisters. Residuary legatee & executrix, my said wife.”

The Gentleman’s Magazine for December, 1731, notes the death on the 12th of “Edward Stables, Esq; Clerk of the House of Commons, at Wandsworth” (i. 540). Unless there was a double marriage between the Stables and the De Berdt families, it would seem as if this John De Berdt must have been the brother-in-law, not the son-in-law, of Edward Stables.

585 In Austin Friars, London.

586 William B. Reed, Life of Esther De Berdt, afterwards Esther Reed, pp. 188–191. This book was privately printed in 1853.

587 William B. Reed, Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, i. 37 note. This work was published in 1847.

588 Writings of Samuel Adams, i. 62.

589 Massachusetts Papers, pp. 22–23. This volume, otherwise called Papers relating to Public Events in Massachusetts preceding the American Revolution, was printed for the Seventy-Six Society at Philadelphia in 1856. The documents printed in it originally belonged to the late Dr. Alfred Langdon Elwyn, but were by him given to the Massachusetts Historical Society on January 10, 1878. See p. 454 note 2, below.

590 The Curse of Cowardice: A Sermon preached To the Militia of Hanover County, in Virginia, at A General Muster, May 8, 1758. With a View to raise a Company for Captain Samuel Meredith.… London:… MDCCLVIII.

591 Brief Narrative of the Indian Charity-School, In Lebanon in Connecticut, in New-England, London, MDCCLXVI, p. 13.

592 Massachusetts Historical Society. The letter is printed in full, though not with verbal accuracy, in Massachusetts Papers, pp. 113–115. The following passage is from the Massachusetts House Journals of July 13, 1769:

Upon a Motion made, Ordered, That Mr. Hancock, Mr. Gardner of Cambridge, and Mr. Turner, be a Committee to count and sort the Votes of this House for an Agent of the Province.…

The House according to Order, proceeded to bring in their Votes for an Agent, and upon sorting and counting the Votes, it appeared that Dennts De Berdt, Esq; of London, was chosen, by a great Majority (p. 72).

See also House Journals, July 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 1769 (pp. 49, 52, 53, 56, 64, 67); 6 Massachusetts Historical Collections, ix. 149–150, 160.

593 Belknap Papers, iii. 41. The reasons for De Berdt’s financial difficulties are given by Joseph Reed in a letter dated May 7, 1770 (Life of Esther De Berdt, pp. 146–148). In his Life of James Otis (1883), Tudor is severe on De Berdt: see pp. 283 note, 292, 309, 311, 323–325, 329–330. On the other hand, as the extracts quoted in the text show, De Berdt was uniformly spoken of with respect and even affection by his contemporaries on this side of the water. In a latter to Sayre dated November 23, 1770, Samuel Adams alluded to “our worthy Friend M^r De Berdt” (Writings, ii. 66).

594 London magazines; Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 144 note.

595 Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 53.

596 The elder De Berdt always spelled his christian name Dennys, while the younger De Berdt always spelled his christian name Dennis.

597 London Chronicle, April 17–19, 1770, xxvii. 374.

598 Boston Evening Post, June 4, 1770, p. 4/2.

599 Boston News-Letter, June 7, 1770, p. 2/2. De Berdt’s death is also mentioned, but without characterization, in the Boston Gazette, June 4, p. 1/2; Boston Post Boy, June 4, p. 4/2; Boston Chronicle, May 31–June 4, iii. 179/2.

600 Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 99.

601 Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 18.

602 House Journals, p. 81.

603 House Journals, p. 143.

604 For references to grants, and other allusions, to De Berdt, see Massachusetts House Journals, 1765, November 5, 6, 7, pp. 167, 173, 175, 176; 1766, February 12, 19, 20, pp. 268, 291, 297; 1766, May 29, June 13, 19, 20, 28, November 7, 12, December 3, 4, 6, 9, pp. 9, 81, 104, 106, 138, 180, 190, 191, 205, 206, 213, 219; 1767, February 7, March 3, 16, 17, 19, pp. 259, 350, 393–404, 409, 412; 1767, May 29, June 9, 11, 17, December 30, pp. 10, 33, 34, 40, 60–61, 88; 1768, January 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 26, February 1, 12, 20, pp. 102, 104, 107, 108, 109, 116, 135, 142, 143, 161, 183, 184, App. pp. 22, 25–34; 1768, June 18, 30, pp. 64, 96, App. p. 4; 1769, June 1, July 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, pp. 10, 49, 52, 53, 56, 64, 67, 72, 73, 83; 1770, March 16, 29, April 9, 21, 26, pp. 92, 114, 141, 176, 189, 191, 192.

For grants to De Berdt or his heirs, see Massachusetts Archives, xxii. 467? 504, 566–567, 568–569, 570, 572–579, 589, 590, 592, 597, 636, 637, 638, 639–640; 1. 320.

The account rendered by Dennis De Berdt on February 1, 1771 (xxii. 572–579), contains many interesting items throwing light on the duties and expenses of an agent, such as: “Coach hire £30.0.0;” “a Pair of Horses £105.0.0;” “To a Servants Wages Livery & Board £25.0.0;” “To the Annual Excise Tax on the Coach Wheels £4.0.0;” “Tavern & Coffee House Expences;” “To a General Retaining fee to the Clerk of the house of Commons to be immediately informed when any Affairs of Importance came before the House respecting America £10.0.0;” “To republishing 500 Appeals to the World £7.4.0;” “Publishing 500 Extracts of a Letter & Remarks £3.8.6;” “To Serj^t Glynn’s General retaining ffee £2.2.6;” “To Printing 500 Junius Americanus £16.10.6.”

This account, caught the eye of Governor Gage, and some of the items were transmitted in his letter of June 26, 1774, “because they appeared to him extraordinary” (4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, x. 717). The third pamphlet was Arthur Lee’s “The Political Detection; or, the Treachery and Tyranny of Administration, both at Home and Abroad; displayed in a Series of Letters, signed Junius Americanus. London: … M DCC LXX.”

605 Massachusetts Archives, clxxi. 170. The letter is addressed “To The Honourable James Bowdoin Esquire President of y^e Councell Boston;” and is endorsed, “Letter from Rich^d Cary Esq^r Presenting a Picture of Dennis De Berdt Esq^r & Vote of Council. June 7^th 1780.” The “Vote of Council” is of course merely a copy of that given in the text, and is signed “Attest John Avery D Sec.”

606 Council Records, xxv. 175. See also Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, i. 38 note.

607 Richard Cary was an intimate friend of the De Berdts. On November 2, 1774, Mrs. Joseph Reed wrote from Philadelphia to her brother Dennis De Berdt:

The Congress brought some private pleasure as well as public advantage. It gave us the opportunity of seeing some of our old correspondents, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Adams, etc., with whom we spent some cheerful hours, but especially our very worthy friend Mr. Cary, who has just left us, after spending near a month with us, and giving us much pleasure with his company. He is a most cheerful, worthy old gentleman, and from his former friendship with our dear father, and regard for us and you, I never entertained any person more affectionately or with greater pleasure. We were all low-spirited when he went away.… He gave us a kind invitation to his house, which we intend to accept about this time next year, if no accident prevents, and if things take a favorable turn, I think you must come and go with us (Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 204).

Richard Cary died on February 7, 1790. Of the two following notices, the first is taken from the Massachusetts Centinel of Wednesday, February 10, 1790 (p. 3/1), and the second from the same paper of February 17 (p. 3/1):

DIED] — Suddenly, at Charlestown, Sunday morning, Richard Cary, Esq. aged 73, greatly esteemed and lamented. His funeral will be from his late Dwelling House, this afternoon at half past 3 o’clock which his relations and friends are requested to attend from this invitation.

On Wednesday, the 10th inst. the remains of Richard Cary, Esq. of Charlestown, were committed to the grave with every mark of respect due to so excellent a character. Mr. Cary was an ornament and blessing to society. His temper was gentle, pacifick and benevolent; his deportment polite and engaging; his friendships were sincere and affectionate; his piety ardent and exemplary; his charity warm and extensive. He was a true friend to religion, and zealously engaged in every practicable design of promoting the cause of Christianity. His virtues and accomplishments gained him the love of a numerous acquaintance: He maintained a large correspondence, and was highly respected at home and abroad. Strangers were always happy in his company. He was affable, condescending and obliging to all; and was never more in his element than when doing good. His death was sudden; but he died as he had lived, and as every good man would wish to die, bearing testimony with his last breath to the religion of the gospel, and supported by the hope of a blessed immortality.

608 Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, ii. 258; Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 292.

609 W. B. Reed states that he “died at an advanced age in or about the year 1820” (Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 35 note). His death is recorded in the Morning Chronicle, London, of April 1, 1817: “On the 31st ult. Suddenly, by the rupture of a blood vessel, Dennis De Berdt, Esq. of Clapton, Middlesex” (p. 3/5). The death of a “Mrs. De Berdt, of Totenham,” is noted in the Gentleman’s Magazine for March, 1803, lxxiii. 283.

The will (Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Jenner, 284) of Dennys De Berdt of St. Luke’s, Middlesex, merchant, dated August 11, 1769, and proved August 6, 1770, contains the following items: “I desire that not more than £20 be paid on my funeral. I hereby confirm the gift of a house at St. John’s Row, Exeter, to my cousin Francis Bedwell, of the said city, to him & his heirs for ever. I bequeath to the widow of the late M^r Thomas Zouch, of the Bank of England, or if she be dead to be equally divided among their children, £100. To my late partners, Wright Burkitt & Stephen Sayre, £20 each. To my son Dennis & my daughter Esther, £1000 each. To my wife Martha De Berdt, £2000. To my executor, Thomas Uffington, £50. Residuary legatee, my wife Martha. Executors, my said wife, M^r Thomas Uffington & my son, Dennis De Berdt.” The name of Wright Burkitt, broker, appears in a list of bankrupts printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for April, 1773 (xliii. 104).

The will (Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Effingham, 237) of Dennis De Berdt of Freeman’s Court, Cornhill, and Clapton, parish of St. John, Hackney, Middlesex, dated March 20, 1811, and proved May 3, 1817, contains the following items: “Residuary legatees, my son Dennis De Berdt & my daughter, Mary Hovell. I desire to be buried in Bunhill Fields. Executors, James Comerford & my son-in-law, Thomas Hovell. Codicil dated December 6, 1811, that having given large sums of money to his son, the same are to be counted as part of his legacy.”

610 On May 11, 1769, William Franklin wrote to his father:

Mr. Morgan, our Secretary, is in Canada.… Mr. Reed, our Dep’y Sec’y, has, I understand, let his house in Trenton, and intends soon for England, to marry De Berdt’s Daughter. He has not, however, mentioned his intention to me, and perhaps will not think it necessary (New Jersey Archives, x. 114).

On January 5, 1776, Governor Franklin wrote to Lord Dartmouth:

But I am told that they have obtained a Copy of the whole of that Letter, though only a part was laid before Parliament. By what means this has been done I cannot learn, but I find it is suspected that it was obtained by some management of M^r De Berdt, and that this has been one Reason for the Assembly appointing him their Agent (New Jersey Archives, x. 681).

To this passage is appended this note: “Dennis De Berdt, father-in-law of Joseph Reed. He was appointed November 24, 1775. — Minutes of Provincial Congress, etc., 1775–6, 295.” The person alluded to in the first of these extracts was of course the elder De Berdt, while the person mentioned in the second was the younger De Berdt.

611 From a letter written by Esther De Berdt (Life, p. 49) on March 16, 1765, it appears that her parents were married about 1745. Mrs. De Berdt lived with her son-in-law Joseph Reed until 1783, when she returned to England. The date of her death is unknown.

612 Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 107.

613 Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 210.

614 Exactly how many have previously been printed it would be impossible to say without an exhaustive search in the contemporary Boston newspapers. Some were there printed with De Berdt’s name attached, others were there printed but without naming De Berdt as the writer.

615 Many letters written to De Berdt will be found in Massachusetts Papers, in Bradford’s Massachusetts State Papers, and in 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, iv. 347–366.

616 Many letters written to De Berdt will be found in Massachusetts Papers, in Bradford’s Massachusetts State Papers, and in 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, iv. 347–366.

Attention may not inappropriately be called to Edwin P. Tanner’s paper on “Colonial Agencies in England during the Eighteenth Century” (Political Science Quarterly for March, 1901, xvi. 24–49).

617 Samuel White (1700–1769), Speaker of the Massachusetts House.

618 Richard Jackson.

619 A copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives contains the following sentence, not in the Letter Book: “I write this as a Committee man as well as as Agent as I would omitt nothing that would ease the minds of the province being ambitious in every Capacity of shewing you how much I am Yrs &c” (lvi. 467).

620 Capt. Thomas Dixey.

621 The Stamp Act Congress.

622 John Smith, a Boston merchant, often mentioned.

623 A copy of this letter is in the Massachusetts Archives, lvi. 468–169.

624 Arthur Onslow (1691–1768).

625 George Wyllys (1710–1796), long Secretary of Connecticut.

626 George Cooke: cf. p. 335, below.

627 Capt. Robert Calef.

628 Richard Jackson. See Massachusetts House Journals, December 8, 1766, February 5, 1767, pp. 216–217, 250.

629 A letter dated February 28, 1766, about the Declaratory Act, signed by De Berdt and twenty-eight others, is in 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xi. 446–448. For allusions to De Berdt, see Massachusetts Historical Collections, First Series, ii. 44; Fifth Series, ix. 214; Sixth Series, ix. 150, 160, 165, 269; New Jersey Archives, xxv. 40.

630 Capt. Howard Jacobson.

631 William Smith (1697–1769) graduated at Yale College in 1719. He married (1) Mary Het, who died in 1754; and (2) Elizabeth, daughter of the Rev. Thomas Scott of England and widow of Col. Elisha Williams (H. C. 1711), fourth Rector of Yale College. The second William Smith (1728–1793) graduated at Yale in 1745 and wrote the well-known History of New York.

632 This is apparently an allusion to the case of Waddel Cunningham, about which there is much in the Colden Papers.

633 Stephen Sayre, who graduated at the College of New Jersey in the same class with Joseph Reed (1757), became De Berdt’s partner, and to him Reed attributed the financial disasters that overtook De Berdt at the close of his life. Sayre was elected a sheriff of London in 1773 — not, as usually stated, in 1774 — and, after a varied and picturesque career, died in Virginia in 1818.

634 See p. 324 note 1, below.

635 See p. 324 note 1, below.

636 Probably Capt. Barnabas Binney.

637 Probably Charles Townshend.

638 Esther De Berdt, who married Joseph Reed.

639 On January 19, 1765, John Sargent was returned to Parliament from West Looe (alias Portpigham) Borough, Cornwall, vice Francis Butler, deceased. In June, 1766, the New York Assembly resolved to make provision for an equestrian statue of George III, a statue of Pitt, and a piece of plate for Sargent; but it was not until February 6, 1768, that the money was actually voted — £1000, £500, and £100, respectively. (Colonial Laws of New York, iv. 1002–1003; Journal of the Legislative Council of New York, h. 1653.)

640 Probably George Grenville.

641 Perhaps “Shelly.”

642 Joseph Reed (1741–1785).

643 Dennis De Berdt.

644 William Brattle (1706–1776).

645 Doubtless “A Thanksgiving Sermon on the total Repeal of the Stamp-Act. Preached in Cambridge, New England, May 20th, … By Nathaniel Appleton, M.A., Pastor of the First Church in sajd Town. Published by the Desire of the Audience, and at the Expence of the Honorable Brigadier General Brattle.… Boston: … 1766.”

646 In the Diary of Dr. Nathaniel Ames is the following entry under date of November 20, 1765: “Scholars punished at College for acting over the great and last day in a very shocking manner, personating the Jude etertat Devil, &c.” (Dedham Historical Register, ii. 27).

647 Thomas Cushing (1725–1788) was chosen Speaker of the House on June 28, 1766, after James Otis had been disapproved by Governor Bernard.

648 See p. 301, above.

649 Probably Capt. Robert Young.

650 There is a copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives, Ivi. 487. It was printed in the Boston Gazette of November 10, 1766, p. 1/2; in Massachusetts State Papers, p. 101; and in the Massachusetts Province Laws, iv. 936. The following is taken from the Massachusetts House Journals of November 7, 1766:

Bill read.

A Bill intitled, An Act for granting Compensation to the Sufferers, and of free and general Pardon, Indemnity and Oblivion to the Offenders in the late Times, was considered and Debated according to Order: And it was moved that a Clause be inserted therein to oblige every Town for the future, where any Riots shall happen and Damage ensue, to make Compensation for the same: And the Question being put, it pass’d in the Negative, 27 Yeas, 45 Nays.

Printers directed.

Ordered, That the Printers be directed to publish a sufficient number of copies of this Bill; and also Mr. Agent De Berdt’s two Letters of 6th of August, and 19th of September, and deliver the same to the Members for the Consideration of their several Towns (p. 182).

There is in the Boston Public Library (H. 90a. 88) a four-page leaflet which begins as follows:

The following Bill now pending in the House of Representatives, is published by their Order for the Consideration of the several Towns in this Province.

A Bill intituled, An Act for granting Compensation to the Sufferers, and of free and general Pardon, Indemnity and Oblivion to the Offenders in the late times.

Then follow the Act, an extract from Secretary Conway’s letter of August 31, 1766, and De Berdt’s letters of August 6 and September 19. The Act was passed December 6, 1766 (Massachusetts Province Laws, iv. 903–904), but was disallowed by the Privy Council May 13, 1767.

651 “A Faithfull Narrative of the Remarkable Revival of Religion, in the Congregation of East-Hampton, on Long-Island, In the Year of our Lord 1764. With Some Reflections. By Samuel Buell, A.M. Minister of the Gospel there. New-York: … 1766.”

The dedication is dated September 25, 1765; and the Narrative concludes (p. 87) as follows:

Some late Accounts from the Rev. Mr. Wheelock, of Lebanon, together with the prevailing and excellent Disposition of many Persons both in Europe and America generously to contribute towards the Support of the collegiate School, more immediately under his indefatigable Care, gives ground to hope for the Propagation of the Gospel among the original Natives of America: Whereby the Kingdom of our inthroned Saviour will have the greater Extension, and the brighter Resplendency on Earth. Amen! Even so come Lord Jesus; Come quickly!

On the verso of the half-title of the copy of this pamphlet in the Harvard College Library is written in ink “For M^r John Bailey from Samson Occom.” In 1761 Mr. Buell published at New York “The Excellence and Importance of the saving Knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel-Preacher, plainly and seriously represented and enforced: And Christ preached to the Gentiles in Obedience to the Call of God. A Sermon, Preached at East-Hampton, August 29, 1759; at the Ordination of Mr. Samson Occum, A Missionary among the Indians.” See pp. 426, 444, below.

The Boston Gazette of December 23, 1765 (p. 3/1), states that Occom and the Rev. Nathaniel Whitaker sailed that morning for England. Landing at Brixham, Devonshire, on February 3, 1766, the two rode on horseback to Exeter, thence in a coach to Salisbury, and reached London on the 6th. There they were “hospitably entertained at the house of Mr. De Berdt,” and the next day were conducted by John Smith to the house of Whitefield.

652 The Rev. Dr. Samuel Chandler (1693–1766). In the Dartmouth Manuscripts is a memorial and petition, dated March 18, 1766, from the Presbyterian Church in New York to the Moderator and Members of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, “soliciting the help of the venerable Assembly in obtaining a charter of incorporation for them. They have also applied to Mr. Dennis Debert and Doctor Samuel Chandler to make and solicit their application for the royal order “(Historical Manuscripts Commission, 14th Report, app. part x. p. 38).

653 The Rev. Samuel Finley (1715–1766), President of the College of New Jersey.

654 George Onslow (1731–1814), afterwards first Earl of Onslow.

655 Probably Thomas Townshend (1733–1800), afterwards first Viscount Sydney; but possibly Thomas Townshend (1701–1780), son of Charles Townshend (1674–1738), second Viscount Townshend.

656 Charles Townshend (1725–1767), son of Charles Townshend (1700–1764), third Viscount Townshend.

657 There is a copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives, lvi. 507.

658 See Massachusetts House Journals, June 20, October 30, November 13, 1766, pp. 108–109, 150, 202.

659 Probably Capt. John Blake.

660 There is a copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives, xxii, 496.

661 Capt. James Bruce.

662 There is a copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives, lvi. 515–516. It was printed in the Boston Gazette of November 10, 1766, p. ½; in Massachusetts State Papers, p. 102; and (in part) in the Massachusetts Province Laws, iv. 936. See also p. 322 note 2, above.

663 Cæsar Rodney (1728–1784), Thomas McKean (1734–1817), and George Read (1733–1798).

664 See pp. 300–301, above.

665 This letter is concluded on a page torn out. It is quoted in J. T. Scharf’a History of Delaware, i. 144, 185.

666 Edward Sheafe represented Charlestown in the General Court during 1764–1770. He was chosen Commissary General April 26, 1770 (Massachusetts House Journals, p. 189). The Boston Gazette of May 17, 1771, contained this notice: “This Morning died at Charlestown, Edward Sheaff, Esq; Commissary-General” (P. 2/3).

667 Samuel Dexter (1726–1810). He represented Dedham in the General Court. Cf. p. 296, above.

668 Doubtless Charles Townshend, who died September 4, 1767.

669 Doubtless the Rev. David Sherman Rowland’s Divine Providence Illustrated and Improved, a sermon preached in Providence, Rhode Island, on June 4, 1766, on the repeal of the Stamp Act.

670 De Berdt’s memorial to Shelburne is printed below, pp. 448–450.

671 Sir John Cust (1718–1770) was Speaker of the House of Commons, but doubtless De Berdt refers to the Speaker of the Massachusetts House — Cushing.

672 Capt. James Scott, commander of the brig Lydia. He afterwards married the widow of John Hancock.

See p. 338 note, below.

673 See De Berdt’s letter to S. White of February 15, 1766, p. 312, above.

674 See Massachusetts House Journals, December 9, 1766, p. 219.

675 John Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies.

676 See p. 304 note 2, above.

677 George Cooke, Member of Parliament for Middlesex, died in June, 1768.

678 There is a copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives, xxii. 524–526. It is printed in Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 160–161.

679 Edward Church: see Writings of Samuel Adams, i. 213.

680 Probably Capt. Benjamin White.

681 A copy of this letter is in the Massachusetts Archives, xxii. 527–529. It is printed, but dated August 29, 1768, and lacking the final paragraph, in Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 160–161. So many petitions to the King were adopted that it is not always easy to distinguish between them. One was voted January 20, 1768 (Massachusetts House Journals, pp. 122, 124, app. pp. 1–3); another was voted June 30, 1768 (Massachusetts House Journals, pp. 95–96). That of January 20 caused De Berdt much trouble, and perhaps accounts for some of the dissatisfaction already noted (pp. 298–299, above). In the Massachusetts Gazette of November 3, 1768 (p. 1/2), it is stated that the “Transactions of the Colonies having peculiarly attracted the Attention of the Public in England: the public Papers in London of the latter End of August are taken up with Accounts” of various matters. After mentioning some of these, the writer goes on to say:

As [misprint for At] the End of these Publications is inserted the following Advertisement, which we shall print Word for Word as it is in the Gazeteer, of August 26, 1768.

WHEREAS it has been publicly reported that the Earl of Hillsborough has neglected to deliver a petition from the Assembly of the Massachusetts-Bay to his Majesty, at a time when his Lordship had not even seen the said petition, I think it my duty to inform the public that such insinuations are entirely groundless. My reasons for any delay and proceedings therewith, I have duly given the Assembly in my letters to them of the 12th and 18th of March, and 27th of June.

DENNYS DE BERDT.

De Berdt’s advertisement was also printed in the Boston Post Boy, November 7, p. 2/1; Boston Evening Post, November 7, p. 2/2; Boston News Letter, November 10, p. 2/2; Boston Gazette, November 14, p. 2/2; Boston Chronicle, November 7–14, i. 435/3. See also Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, iii. 209 note; American Gazette, p. 289; Boston Gazette, November 21, 1768, p. 3/1.

The Boston Evening Post of November 21, 1768 (p. 4/2), contains a letter signed “The Public,” addressed “To Mr. dennys de Berdt, Agent for the General Assembly of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay,” copied from the Public Advertiser of August 31st. This letter was written by Franklin: see Calendar of the Papers of Benjamin Franklin in the Library of the American Philosophical Society, iii. 474, where the letter, being without date, is conjecturally assigned to “1770. September?” See also pp. 330, 331, 332, above.

682 This was dated February 11, 1768.

683 That is, the mother country and her colonies.

684 They arrived September 28.

685 Perhaps “lenity.”

686 Probably Capt. Alexander Watt.

687 The circular letter of February 11, 1768: see Publications of this Society, viii. 95 note 1.

688 Probably the copyist’s mistake for “Nov.” There is a copy of this letter, but dated November 16, 1768, in the Massachusetts Archives, xxii. 546–549.

689 Harrison Gray, Treasurer of the Province.

690 The convention was held September 22–29. For the petition to the King and Richard Jackson’s opinion on it, see Massachusetts Papers, pp. 108–113.

691 De Berdt and Sayre.

692 George Hayley, at one time alderman of London, died in 1781. He married Mary Storke, widow of Samuel Storke and sister of John Wilkes. Mrs. Hayley came to Boston in 1784 and here married Patrick Jeffrey in 1786.

693 This letter was printed in part in the supplement to the Boston Gazette of January 23, 1769, p. 1/2.

694 In a letter to Sayre dated February 20, 1769, Cushing says: “Mr. De Berdt writes the 19th Nov. that his Lordship informed him that he had seen this Petition in Print before he offered it. Hi a Lordship must be under a mistake if he means that he saw it in any of our public Prints because I am sure it never has been printed on this side the Water, what ever it may have been on your side” (Massachusetts Papers, p. 119). An examination of Boston papers confirms Cushing’s statement.

695 A copy of this letter is in the Massachusetts Archives, xx. 530–533.

696 “A Letter from a Gentleman in Boston,” dated August 18, 1768, encloses “one of the Commissioners Commissions,” and mentions the receipt of a copy of Sayre’s “Englishman deceived.” See the American Gazette, p. 127, where also are printed (pp. 112–120) the Commissioners’ instructions.

697 This is not an autograph signature.

698 The deposition, dated June 11, 1768, of “Benjn. Hallowell the younger, Comptroller of his Majesty’s Customs at Boston,” is printed in Massachusetts Papers, p. 74. Hancock’s sloop Liberty was seized June 10, 1768.

699 These affidavits, dated June 16 and 17, 1768, are printed in the American Gazette, pp. 101–112. Cf. Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xvi. 255, 257.

700 William Dowdeswell (1721–1775), Chancellor of the Exchequer.

701 See p. 352 note, below.

702 John Pownall.

703 Lord Shelburne. See p. 353, below.

704 On October 31, 1768, certain persons entered a complaint with the selectmen against Capt. John Wilson of the 59th Regiment “for practising on their Negro Servants to induce them immediately to enter into a dangerous conspericy against their Masters, promissing them their freedom as a reward — whereupon M^r. Justice Ruddock was desired by the Selectmen to take the several Affidavits relative to the above mentioned complaint” (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xx. 313, 314). An account of the affair was printed in the Boston Gazette of November 7, 1768, p. 3/2.

705 This is printed in the American Gazette, pp. 218–225.

706 The Boston Chronicle of November 7–14, 1768, contains this notice: “Philadelphia, Nov. 3. We are informed that the assembly of the three Lower counties of this province, have appointed Dennys de Berdt, Esq; their agent, in England, and have harmonized with their sister colonics, in petitioning the King, Lord and Commons for redress of the grievious burdens laid on America” (i. 434/1).

707 This petition is printed in the American Gazette, pp. 240–243. De Berdt’s letters to the Delaware Committee are of particular value, as so little has been preserved relating to the history of Delaware at that period.

708 Probably David Barclay.

709 This letter was printed in part in the Boston Gazette of April 10, 1769, p. 3/1, but dated February 5th.

710 It is impossible to identify this pamphlet, but possibly it was Sayre’s “Englishman deceived.”

711 Capt. Nathaniel Byfield Lyde.

712 Charles Pratt (1714–1794), first Baron Camden and first Earl Camden.

713 Sir George Savile (1726–1784).

714 Isaac Barré (1726–1802).

715 Probably Frederick Montagu (1733–1800).

716 The instructions are printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for February, 1769, xxxix. 73–75, 107. One of the Members of Parliament for London was Barlow Trecothick: cf. Notes and Queries, Eleventh Series, iii. 11, 330.

717 There is a copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives, lvi. 555–556. It is printed, but with some omissions, in Massachusetts State Papers, p. 194

718 William Wildman Barrington (1717–1793), second Viscount Barrington.

719 There is a copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives, xxii. 534–535.

720 The convention held in Boston in September, 1708: see p. 342, above.

721 Phineas Lyman (1716–1774).

722 Perhaps “story.”

723 There is a copy of this letter in the Massachusetts Archives, xx. 536–538, but dated March 13, 1769.

724 See p. 338 note, above.

725 Privy Council.

726 The Paoli was commanded by Capt. James Hall.

727 For the Selectmen’s address of February 16th, and the Governor’s reply of the 18th, see Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiii. 6–7.

728 Bernard was not knighted, but was made a baronet on April 5, 1769.

729 The letter ends here. It was printed in part in the Boston Gazette of July 31, 1769, p. 1/1.

730 See the Gentleman’s Magazine, xxxix. 289–291.

731 The Boston Evening Post of June 11, 1770, contained this notice: “The Rev. Mr. Moore, Minister at Halifax, now in England, solliciting Charity for the Support of Dissenting Ministers in that Province, has had the Honor of Doctor of Divinity conferred on him by the University of King’s College, Aberdeen” (p. 3/2). The degree was conferred on “Mr. Gulielmus Moore,” “Minister of Halifax, Nova Scotia,” on March 2, 1770 (P. J. Anderson, Officers and Graduates of University & King’s College, Aberdeen, 1893, p. 102).

732 The Rev. Eleazar Wheelock (1711–1779), whose Indian Charity School at Lebanon, Connecticut, developed into Dartmouth College.

733 Charles Garth, Member of Parliament for Devizes Borough, Wiltshire, and agent for South Carolina.

734 The rest of this letter is crossed out.

735 William Bollan

736 Perhaps Col. Jonathan Hoar (1720–1771). The Boston Gazette of May 27, 1771, contained this notice: “We hear that Col. Jonathan Hoar, who was employed in the Service of this Province during the last War, and some Time since went from this Place to London, lately died on his Passage thence to Newfoundland” (p. 4/1).

737 Col. William Dalrymple and Lieut. Alexander Ross, both of the 14th Regiment.

738 See p. 344 note, above.

739 See Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 84 note.

740 John Glynn (1722–1779).

741 Perhaps “Rily.”

742 Printed in Massachusetts Papers, p. 126.

743 Printed in Massachusetts Papers, pp. 126–127.

744 This is not an autograph signature. The petition is printed in Massachusetts Papers, pp. 127–128.

745 Probably Capt. Isaac Cazneau.

746 John Robinson’s assault on Otis occurred September 5, 1769.

747 James Murray (1712–1794).

748 Joseph Reed was in Boston in the summer of 1769. A letter of his, dated August 7, 1769, is in W. B. Reed’s Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 137.

749 On October 23, 1769, a committee wrote De Berdt that “in pursuance of the directions of the Town of Boston we have the honor to transmit you a Pamphlet containing some observations upon divers letters and memorials wrote by Governor Bernard and others wherein the Town has been injuriously aspersed and its inhabitants grossly misrepresented” (Massachusetts Papers, pp. 124–125). The pamphlet was the Appeal to the World, written by Samuel Adams. It was advertised as “Just Published, and to be Sold by Edes and Gill, in Queen-Street” in the Boston Gazette of October 30, 1768, p. 1/1, and was reprinted in London in 1770. Cf. p. 302 note 2, above.

750 An error for 1770.

751 See p. 302 note 2, p. 389 note, above.

752 Junius’s letter dated December 19, 1769, contained the celebrated address to the King.

753 “Extract of a Letter from the House of Representatives of the Massachusets-Bay, to their Agent Dennys De Berdt, Esq; with some Remarks. London:… M DCC LXX.” The “Remarks” are printed below, pp. 455–461.

754 The firm of Lane, Son, & Fraser is mentioned in Historical Manuscripts Commissions, 14th Report, app. pt. x. pp. 295, 304.

755 Norborne Berkeley (1717–1770), fourth Baron Botetourt.

756 For “a Copy of Minutes taken by a Gentleman who was present at a late Hearing before a C—ttee of C—1,” see the supplement to the Boston Gazette of May 21, 1770, p. 2.

757 Dr. Benjamin Avery (d. 1764), of London.

758 See pp. 296–297, above.

759 See p. 425, below.

760 Dartmouth College MSS. For copies of the letters obtained from this source, I am indebted to the officials of the Dartmouth College Library, more particularly Mr. Harold Goddard Rugg. For further information about De Berdt and Dartmouth College, see F. Chase, History of Dartmouth College and the Town of Hanover; B. P. Smith, History of Dartmouth College; D. M’Clure and E. Parish, Memoirs of the Rev. Eleazar Wheelock; W. DeL. Love, Samson Occom.

761 Absalom Peters.

762 The Rev. John Brainerd of Bethel, New Jersey.

763 See pp. 296–298, above. In a letter to De Berdt dated December 17, 1759, Wheelock said: “Sir, I heartily thank you for the service you did the public, in publishing President Davis’ serious, seasonable, and animating sermon to the soldiery, &c.” (Memoirs, p. 222).

764 In an undated letter to De Berdt, Wheelock, referring to De Berdt’s letter to him of February 25, 1757, said: “I took the freedom to read your former letter to my congregation, and if I shall think this, or any other I may receive from you, may be for their edification; I trust you will account that a sufficient excuse” (Memoirs, p. 217).

765 Dartmouth College MSS.

766 The Rev. Benjamin Pomeroy (1704–1784) was a brother-in-law of Wheelock, having married the latter’s sister Abigail.

767 Ferdinand (1721–1792), Prince of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, won the battle of Minden August 1, 1759.

768 Louis Georges Erasme (1704–1795), Due de Contades; and Victor Francois (1718–1804), Due de Broglie.

769 Charles Louis Auguste Fouquet (1684–1761), Due de Belleisle.

770 Dartmouth College mss.

771 The Bedford was commanded by Capt. Thorpe Fowke (W. L. Clowes, The Royal Navy, 1898, iii. 206 note). Whether De Berdt married a sister of Capt. Fowke, or Capt. Fowke married a sister of De Berdt, it has been impossible to determine. For a notice of Capt. Fowke, who died in 1784 (Gentleman’s Magazine, liv. 238), see J. Charnock, Biographia Navalis (1797), v. 173–175.

772 François Thurot (1727–1760), a famous privateer.

773 The fire occurred March 20, 1760: see Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxix, 1–132.

774 Dartmouth College MSS.

775 Dartmouth College MSS.

776 See p. 461 note, below.

777 Thomas Hollis (1720–1774), the second Harvard College benefactor of that name.

778 Dartmouth College MSS.

779 The Rev. David Bostwick (1721–1763). The societies referred to are the Society in Scotland for Promoting Christian Knowledge; and the Company for Propagation of the Gospel in New England (London).

780 Dartmouth College MSS.

781 Elisha Gunn, an interpreter.

782 Samuel Ashpo, an Indian: see Chase, History of Dartmouth College, i. 41.

783 Martinique was taken by the British in February, 1762.

784 See p. 437 note, below.

785 Dartmouth College MSS. The MS is torn in places.

786 Dartmouth College MSS.

787 The Rev. Ebenezer Pemberton (H. C. 1721). See Chase, History of Dartmouth College, i. 30.

788 Charles de Rohan (1715–1787), Prince de Soubise, and Louis Charles César Le Tellier (1697–1774), Due d’Estrées.

789 Havana was taken by the British in August, 1762.

790 It would be of interest to identify this pamphlet and its author, but unfortunately the data are insufficient. The death on May 31, 1762, of the “Rev. Mr. Barker, an eminent dissenting minister,” is recorded in the London Magazine for June (xxxi. 341), and perhaps this was De Berdt’s “venerable pastor.” If so, it was the Rev. John Barker (1682–1762), of whom there is a notice in the Dictionary of National Biography. The Rev. George Benson, “an eminent and learned dissenting minister” (London Magazine, xxxi. 229), died in April of the same year, but as he was born in 1699 he was scarcely old enough to have been called “venerable.”

791 Doubtless an error for Whitefield, who was then in Holland (L. Tyerman, Life of the Rev. George Whitefield, ii. 453).

792 Dartmouth College MSS.

793 “Muir’s” is doubtless a mistake for “Buell’s.” See p. 323 note 1, above.

794 Dartmouth College MSS.

795 Dartmouth College MSS. The following letter is obtained from the same source:

Boston Sept. 6th: 1764

Rev’d & Dear Sir

My present indisposition would forbid my writing at this time; But as I just received from Mr. De Berdt a letter with the following words I forward them & am most respectfully

Your obedient hum. Serv.

John Smith.

“Mr. Wheelock’s Institution is certainly good & promises singular advantages

“to the Interest of Christ in your western world. Tho’ we learn by the last

“packett The Indians are still making depradations on the southern colonies.

[Addressed]

The Rev’d Eleazer Wheelock

Lebanon

Connecticut.

[Endorsed]

Letter from Mr.

John Smith

Boston Dec. 2. 1764

796 Doubtless John Smith.

797 Wheelock’s Memoirs, p. 263.

798 Dartmouth MSS. This letter is not dated, but it must have been written before the letter which next follows: see p. 432, below.

The ten letters in this correspondence drawn from the Dartmouth MSS are calendared in the Historical Manuscripts Commission, 14th Report, app. part x. pp. 16, 19, 25, 29, 34, 48, 58. I am indebted to the present Earl of Dartmouth for his courtesy in sending those ten letters to the Public Record Office for the purpose of being copied.

799 Rockingham’s ministry was formed in July, 1765, and Dartmouth was appointed July 19.

800 William Pitt.

801 See p. 429, above.

802 Dartmouth MSS. This letter was printed in the Boston Gazette of November 18, 1765, supplement, p, 1/1, preceded by the following:

Messieurs Edes & Gill,

The following Letter lately wrote by an eminent Merchant in London, to a noble Lord in the present Ministry, relative to the distressing Situation of the Colonies,

I doubt not will be highly agreeable to the Publick.

803 The Rev. George Whitefield.

804 Dartmouth MSS.

805 Dieskau was defeated and captured by Johnson at Lake George on September 8, 1755.

806 An allusion to the Family Compact, a treaty made in 1761 between the Bourbon dynasties of France, Spain, and the Two Sicilies, especially against England and Austria.

807 Dartmouth MSS. This letter was printed in S. Sayre’s “The Englishman deceived; a Political Piece: wherein Some very important Secrets of State are briefly recited, And offered to the Consideration of the Publick.… London, Printed, 1768. Salem: Re-printed … 1768,” pp. 24–30. Sayre does not give the name of the person to whom it was written and wrongly dates it “November, 1765.” Sayre also printed in the same pamphlet De Berdt’s memorial to Lord Shelburne (see pp. 448–450, below), and introduced the letters with this sentence: “The following Letters, presented not long since to a noble Lord, by an old, firm, steady friend to the constitution, whose abilities enabled him to make the clearest observations, upon many years great, experience will confirm this opinion” (p. 24), The pamphlet was published anonymously, but that it was writ ten by Sayre is proved by a letter from Esther De Herdt to Joseph Reed dated May 20, 1768:

Sayre … has been very busy in writing his political piece, and is so now in sending them to the most considerable of the nobility and House of Commons, by the desire of his patron, General Oglethorpe, who has a very high opinion of Sayre’s understanding and genius. I am so really his friend that I begin to fear the effect this applause may have on his mind, but perhaps the Critical Reviewers will prevent the bad consequence, as they ever oppose books on that side of the question. I fancy the author will be guessed by those two letters of my dear father (Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 129).

The Boston Gazette of August 8, 1768, contained an “Extract from a Pamphlet lately printed in LONDON, intituled, the Englishman deceived” (p. 1/1).

The letter in the text was also printed in the Boston Gazette of December 30, 1765, where it fills the entire first page of the supplement, preceded by the following:

Messieurs Edes & Gill,

AS you inserted in your Gazette of Nov. 18, a Letter wrote by an eminent Merchant in London, to a noble Lord in the present Ministry; your publishing the following Second Letter, relative to the distressed Situation of the Colonies, I doubt not will be as highly agreable to the Public.

808 Dartmouth MSS.

809 In 1748.

810 Dartmouth MSS. Apparently written late in 1765.

811 The “Inclosed Letter,” signed by James Otis, Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Gray, dated December 20, 1765, is printed in Writings of Samuel Adams, i. 61–71, and also in Massachusetts Papers, pp. 6–13. The “Extract” is from a letter dated Charlestown, December 21, 1765.

812 Dartmouth MSS.

813 Oliver Partridge, a member of the Stamp Act Congress from Massachusetts.

814 W. B. Reed’s Life of Esther De Berdt, pp. 77–79.

815 See p. 323, above.

816 See p. 322, above.

817 Dartmouth MSS.

818 Dartmouth’s letter of August 13, 1766, is printed in W. B. Reed’s Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, i. 46–47.

819 Massachusetts. On June 20, 1766, the Massachusetts House voted their thanks to various persons, among them Shelburne, Dartmouth, and George Cooke (Journals, pp. 108–109). Cushing’s letter to De Berdt of June 28 is printed in Massachusetts Papers, pp. 14–16.

820 Dartmouth MSS. This letter is printed in part in W. B. Reed’s Life of Esther De Berdt, pp. 89–90.

821 Massachusetts Archives, lvi. 517. Pages 515–516 contain a copy of De Berdt’s letter to Cushing of September 19, 1766. See pp. 325–326, above.

822 Massachusetts Historical Society. Printed in Massachusetts Papers, pp. 44–46. Perhaps drawn up in the fall of 1767: see p. 453, below.

823 This memorial, though without precise date, must have been written early in 1767: see De Berdt’s letters of February 14 and March 9, 1767, pp. 450–451, below.

824 Dartmouth MSS. This memorial was printed In 1768 by Sayre in his Englishman deceived, etc., Salem, pp. 30–32, where it is dated “January, 1768;” and also in Massachusetts Papers, pp. 46–48.

825 Boston Gazette, April 27, 1767, p. 3/1. This letter is preceded in the Gazette by the following:

By the February Packet a Letter has been received from Dennys De Berdt, Esq; directed to the Speaker of the late House of Representatives, and dated the 14th of February last — As the Minds of many Persons are disturb’d with Apprehensions that the Ministry and the Parliament are displeas’d with the Representations lately sent Home by the House, and that we are to be punish’d with Troops to keep us in Order, we have obtain’d an Extract of the Letter, which we now publish for the Information and Comfort of the good People of the Province.

826 Massachusetts Historical Society.

827 Sir Hugh Palliser (1723–1796), Governor of Newfoundland.

828 Massachusetts Historical Society.

829 Massachusetts Archives, lvi. 525.

830 Massachusetts Archives, lvi. 534–535.

831 Maurice Morgann (1726–1802).

832 W. B. Reed’s Life of Esther De Berdt, p. 121.

833 Massachusetts Archives, xxii. 516–517. Printed in Massachusetts State Papers, p. 142.

The letters and documents in Massachusetts Papers are inaccurately printed. Copies of such as are also printed in our text have been obtained from the originals in the Massachusetts Historical Society. See p. 296 note 2, above.

834 As it has been denied that the military were set above the controul of the civil authority, the reader is referred for the truth of it, to the following Answer to a Message from the House of Representatives of Massachuset’s-Bay, dated May 31, 1769.

“Gentlemen,

“I have no authority over his Majesty’s Ships in this port, or his Troops within “this Town.”

“Francis Bernard.

835 Extract of a Letter, etc., London, 1770, pp. 15–28.

In his letter to Wheelock of August 31, 1761, De Berdt said:

Since I wrote to you I have mett the society and also writ to Scotland to the committee there and they seem resolved to support Mr. Occom’s mission £20 a year, and will propose it to the society who meet in Nov. and I hope to gett it allowed from Michaelmas (p. 420, above).

The word printed “writ” was, in the copy of the letter furnished me, spelled “wn’t;” but an appeal to Mr. Rugg brought the information that the word is really “writ.” In his History of Dartmouth College, Chase remarks:

Mr. De Berdt also, besides being very active in London, made a journey to Scotland, where he obtained in 1761 a direct appropriation from the Scotch society of £20 for Occom (i. 27).

As there is nothing in De Berdt’s letters to indicate that he “made a journey to Scotland,” it is possible that Chase misread the word commented upon in the letter of August 31, 1761.