FEBRUARY MEETING, 1908

A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Thursday, 27 February, 1908, 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 pro tempore reported that letters had been received from Mr. Julius Herbert Tuttle accepting Resident Membership, and from Mr. James Kendall Hosmer accepting Corresponding Membership.

The Council reported that at its Stated Meeting, held on the sixth instant, Mr. Thomas Minns had been unanimously elected a Member of the Council for the unexpired term ending 21 November, 1909, to fill the vacancy caused by the declination of service, on account of absence from Boston, of Mr. John Eliot Thayer.

The Rev. Charles Edwards Park of Boston was elected a Resident Member.

The Rev. Henry A. Parker spoke as follows:

The Rev. Stephen Bachelor, whose arrival Winthrop records June 5, 1632, he being then aged seventy-one, quite the most aged of the nonconformist clergy who came to New England, was, as will be remembered, a nonconformist to the Massachusetts establishment as he had been to the established church in England. A notice of him which shows something of the extent and character of his influence in England, some time after his departure to this country, may be of interest.

The year of Mr. Bachelor’s departure from England Sir Robert Paine was Sheriff of Hampshire, and was also chosen churchwarden of the parish of Barton Stacey, which adjoined the parish of Wherwell,—of which Mr. Bachelor was the minister, or had been the minister just before, as I imagine, though Mr. Pope places the time of his incumbency there as only lasting from January 26, 1587–88, to 1601. At any rate Sir Robert, three years later, found himself in very serious difficulties which he ascribed to the influence of the teaching of Mr. Bachelor as follows:

1635, Dec. 1. Petition of Sir Robert Paine to the same [i.e. the Council]. Petitioner being in 1632 Sheriff of Hants, was also chosen Churchwarden of Barton Stacey135 in the same county, and finding the church and chancel ruinous and indecent, at his own charge beautified some part thereof, intending and offering fair hangings for the chancel. But some of the parishioners, petitioner’s tenants, having been formerly misled by Stephen Bachelor, a notorious inconformist, had demolished a consecrated chapel at Newton Stacey, neglected the repair of their parish church, maliciously opposed petitioner’s intent, and executed many things in contempt of the canons and the bishop. There being divers suits in the ecclesiastical and temporal courts between petitioner and Robert Cooper and others, his tenants of the manor of Barton Stacey, the Lords on complaint directed three trials at law, and in the meantime ordered all the suits to be stayed. Petitioner has conformed to that order, but his tenants have slighted the same, and have sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court at Winchester, presented him in the Archbishop’s metropolitical visitation, and served him with a subpoena for costs for not filing a bill against them in the Star Chamber. Prays that he may be allowed to proceed against them in the High Commission upon articles exhibited two years ago.136

This was by no means the end of the matter, but that does not concern us. One would like to know what was the beginning of the trouble and what Mr. Bachelor thought of Sir Robert. Sir Robert clearly had a low opinion of Mr. Bachelor.

The Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, a Corresponding Member, read the following paper:

THE SECESSION OF SPRINGFIELD FROM CONNECTICUT.

Massachusetts never had among her people a larger proportion of men of mark, ambitious and deserving of high station and wide influence in public life, than in 1633.

The Colony at this time reached hardly as far as thirty miles from the sea coast. It had a slender population, mainly of poor people. Cotton said that its greatest poverty was a poverty of men. Cotton Mather spoke of it later as at this time “like an hive overstocked with bees.”137 A vote of the freemen of Watertown, on August 30, 1635, serves to corroborate this assertion, though evidently drawn to put on record a justification for what might be claimed to be an act of selfishness and unfair exclusion. It reads thus:

Agreed by the consent of the freemen (in consideration there be too many inhabitants in the Towne, & the Towne thereby in danger to be ruinated) that no forrainer comming into the Towne, or any family arising among ourselves shall have any benefit either of Commonage or Land undivided, but what they shall purchase, Except that they buy a man’s right wholly in the Towne.138

Wherever the truth in these respects may lie, the Colony was rich, too rich, in political leaders. Differences between these—partly honest differences of policy, and partly personal rivalries—led to the emigration in 1635 and 1636 to the banks of the Connecticut River.

The General Court of the Colony consented to it only with the proviso that the emigrants should continue under its government, and on March 31, 1636, a commission was issued to “Roger Ludlowe Esq^r, Will^m Pinchon Esq^r,” and six others not given that suffix of distinction, or the greater part of them, to order for one year “the affaires of the said plantac̃on,” with power “to convent” the inhabitants, from time to time, in the form of a court. All this, however, was expressly declared to be without prejudice to the rights held under the Earl of Warwick’s patent of 1631. These were possessed by several men of rank and distinction, including Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Brooke, John Pym and John Hampden, who were then about to erect a trading post and fort at Saybrook.139

Ludlow and Pyncheon had both been assistants in the Colony. Ludlow had also served as Deputy-Governor, and Pyncheon as Treasurer.

This emigration was an emigration of communities rather than of individuals.

The church was the centre and soul of the early New England town. The pastors of the church were leaders in all public affairs. Of the clergy of the Bay settlements at this time, a majority favored the policy of confining suffrage to church members. A vigorous minority were opposed to it, and carried with them many of the laity, including several of those who stood first in respect to property, station, and public influence. Those embracing their views were especially numerous in Newtown, Watertown, and Dorchester, and these three settlements (for they were hardly yet to be called towns) were in large part transferred from the banks of the bay to the banks of the great river. The seceders carried the town names with them, and each of the three new settlements maintained its separate existence as a village community. That they might carry the ark of their covenant with them, each company of planters sought to bear off with them their church organization.140

Two succeeded. The Newtown church had been formed in 1633. The Rev. Thomas Hooker, its pastor, was a leader in the emigration movement, and a plan was arranged by which the Rev. Thomas Shepard, who afterwards became his son-in-law, should organize a new church to take the place of his. This was accomplished February 1, 1635–36, and its members, several of whom had come over from England with Mr. Shepard in the previous autumn, bought the houses to be vacated by the Hooker party, to their mutual advantage.141 In the following June the old church was removed, to become the First Church of Newtown in Connecticut.142

The pastors of the Dorchester church did not favor the scheme of removal. One of them, however, died in March, 1636, and the other was swept off with the tide of his people. The Dorchester church of Massachusetts therefore became the Dorchester church of Connecticut, although on August 23, 1636, a new church was formed to take its place in the old colony.143

In Watertown the original church organization was continuously maintained by those who remained on the soil.144

A town organization was maintained in each of the three places, without a break, although Governor Winthrop speaks of “three towns” having gone to Connecticut.145

William Pyncheon, a man of means and ability, was the principal inhabitant of Roxbury. He led off a few families from that place to join those leaving the other towns; but the church and the main body of the people remained, and there was nothing that resembled a removal of Roxbury as an organized community. He took letters of dismission and recommendation to the church set up at Windsor, to serve till his company should form a new one, at the place of their settlement.146

The name Agawam had been originally given to what is now and was in 1636 called Ipswich.147 It was adopted for the second time by Pyncheon and his followers for the place on the river situated above Enfield Falls, where they concluded to remain. In the old records and letters of that day it is variously spelled as Agawam, Agawom, Aggawam, Agaam, and Aguam.

Pyncheon’s selection of this site for his new town was the farsighted act of a sagacious trader. As the northernmost of the five river settlements, it was in a position where there could be no competition in dealing with the Indians. For those ranging the wilderness then covering northern New England, it was the natural market to which to bring their beaver skins; and it was in these that there was the greatest chance of immediate profit. Pyncheon in fact enjoyed for years a lucrative trade in them. He also had considerable commercial dealings with Hartford for some time. There he had a close business connection with one of the leading men, Jonathan Gilbert, through whom he sold goods shipped up the river and imported from England.148

For merely agricultural purposes, the land at Agawam was no better than that below the falls. An exploring party from Dorchester had been over the ground in 1635, with a view to the removal there of that town, but preferred the lower site subsequently selected at Windsor.149 Its selection by Pyncheon as the place of his settlement was probably largely due to the fact that it was at the intersection of the great Indian trail, leading west from Massachusetts Bay, with the river which formed the natural channel of intercourse between the Northern wilderness and Long Island Sound.150

Pyncheon built a warehouse and landing-place at the head of navigation on the Connecticut River, near the foot of Enfield Falls. Its site soon became known as Warehouse Point and a village grew up around it which still exists under that name. From hence it was easy to ship the peltry collected at Agawam.151

The emigrants, as a whole, were a choice body of men, though perhaps overweighted by a superabundance of leaders. Cotton Mather speaks of these as “worthy, and learned, and genteel persons going to be buried alive on the banks of Connecticut, having been first slain by the ecclesiastical impositions and persecutions of Europe.”152

Four separate settlements were made by those who thus left their homes in Massachusetts; at Agawam, under Pyncheon, at Hartford, at Windsor, and at Wethersfield.

The first of the general courts contemplated by the Commission was held at Newtown (later known as Hartford) on April 26, 1636. Agawam was not represented, and did not appear by her representatives at the united councils until the fifth court, on November 1, 1636, in which Mr. Pyncheon sat as one of the Commissioners.

In the following February the Massachusetts names of the three southern plantations were dropped, and by order of the court “Newtowne” became “Hartford Towne,” “Watertowne” became “Wythersfield,” and Dorchester became Windsor.153

In founding Agawam, the inhabitants signed a written compact of local government. This was dated May 14, 1636, and states that it was not contemplated or desired that more than forty or fifty families should settle there.154 Mr. Pyncheon was probably apprehensive from the first that if there were a large population, his trading interests might be prejudiced by competition.

From the first the Connecticut emigrants were recognized as four distinct companies, though starting out on a common errand. Of the eight persons named on the commission from the General Court of Massachusetts Bay, each of these companies contributed two. William Pyncheon and Henry Smith, afterwards his step-son and son-in-law,155 were those thus named to represent the Roxbury party.

This commission, the Connecticut authorities afterwards insisted, rested quite as much on the assumed assent of the grantees under the Warwick patent, represented on the spot by John Winthrop, Jr., as on any inherent authority of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay.

The real object of procuring such a paper from Massachusetts became a matter of dispute at a Congress of the United Colonies of New England held in 1648. The Massachusetts Commissioners who sat in it contended that—

those whoe went from Watertoune and Camberidge and Roxebery and Dorchester, . . . tooke possession in our name and Right and had a Commission of Gouerment from vs, and some ordinance for theire defence, and in this State they remained a good Space.156

The Connecticut Commissioners replied to this that—

the Masachusets by vertue of the Expressions in theire patent of goeing to the South Sea clayme an interest to Sprinkefiled (WarroNoco &c) after they were settled Under another Goverment, yet they claim not the licke at Forte Oraina that lyeth without any Controversy within their Limites upon that grounde; and wee further concaiue if the Massachusetts setle any plantacion upon Hudson Riuer by vertue of their graunte theire present plea for free egress and regress in and out of that Riuer would not bee founde of a prevailing Power.157

They added that—

The Commission of Gouernment mentioned tacken from the Massachusets was taken Salva Jury of the enterest of the Gentlemen whoe had the Patent of Conecticut, that Comission takeinge rise from the desier of the People who removed, whoe judged it in Conveniencie158 to goe away without any frame of Gouernment, not from any Claymes of the Masachusets Jurisdiction over them by vertew of Patent.159

That patent, it will be recollected, embraced “all that part of New England in America which lies and extends itself from a river there called Narragansett river, the space of forty leagues upon a straight line near the sea-shore towards the Southwest, West, and by South or West, as the coast lieth towards Virginia, . . . North and South in latitude and breadth and in length and longitude of and within all the breadth aforesaid, throughout the main lands there, from the Western ocean to the South sea.”160 This, if it refers to the head waters of the Narragansett, covers all that is now Connecticut and a strip of Massachusetts reaching as far north as Worcester.161

Lord Saye and Sele, the leading patentee, had given assurances of his friendly interest in the proposed emigration from Massachusetts to the great river,162 but Winthrop, whom he and his associates had sent out as their Governor, probably went beyond his instructions in countenancing the issuance of the commission, for it was not long before we find him joining with Sir Harry Vane and Hugh Peter in a protest, in behalf of the Warwick patentees against the setting up of claims to land-titles in the towns established under the new jurisdiction.163

Massachusetts, however, had, six months before, asserted her dominion over these settlements, which had been already then begun.

On September 3, 1635, her General Court ordered that “every town upon Connecticut shall have liberty to chuse their owne constables, who shall be sworne by some magistrate of this Court.”164

The earliest courts of Connecticut consisted of the magistrates from each town who were named in the original commission of March 3, 1636. That expired by its own limitation on March 3, 1637, and there must have been, though the Colonial Records do not explicitly state it, some kind of an election between the court of February 21, 1636–37, and the next, which was held on March 28, 1637.

This is indicated by three things.

1. “Mr. Welles,” who was not named in the Massachusetts commission, sits at the latter court as one of the magistrates, and is named next after Mr. Ludlow. This was Thomas Welles of Hartford, who in 1639 became treasurer of the Colony and in 1655 its Governor. He must have owed his seat to the choice either of his town or of all the towns.165 William Westwood of Hartford, one of the magistrates named in the Massachusetts commission, was apparently not elected at this time as a magistrate, and Mr. Welles was probably chosen instead by the inhabitants.

2. At the court next following, on May 1, 1637, in addition to the magistrates there are entered, as sitting, nine persons styled “Committees,” three of whom come from each of the lower towns. These men are evidently legislative representatives sent by each of these three settlements,—prototypes of the deputies provided for in the colonial Constitution of 1639.

3. At the last court held during this year—the first year after the expiration of the commission—on February 9, 1637–38, it was voted to dissolve, and ordered that the attendance of those at present “members” of the General Court was not thereafter “to be expected, except they be newly chosen in the next General Court.”166 The term “members” was here apparently used to signify both the magistrates and the members of the several town committees.

The next General Court opened on March 8, 1637–38, and was, as previously ordered, a Court of Election. The plan pursued, it would seem, was to invest the committees from the several towns with the right by a general vote of choosing all the magistrates. No doubt each committee made its nominations for those from its own town. Referring to this occasion, the Rev. Thomas Hooker wrote, a few months later, in a letter which has been preserved, that—

at the time of our election, the committees from the town of Agawam came in with other towns, and chose their magistrates, installed them into their government, took oath of them for the execution of justice according to God, and engaged themselves to submit to their government, and the execution of justice by their means and dispensed by the authority which they put upon them by choice.167

At this court Mr. Pyncheon and Mr. Smith sat among the magistrates. The Colonial Records of Connecticut do not show that there had ever been a committee from Agawam in attendance at any previous General Court, nor at that. None apparently was elected by the inhabitants of that settlement until March 28, 1638. The town records of Agawam (now Springfield) make this entry concerning it in the minutes of a meeting on that date:

There was a free choyce according to an order from Mr. Ludloe by the plantation of two Good men, Committys for the General Court to be at Hartford the 4th of April 1638. The partys chosen are Mr. George Moxom and Jehue Burr.168

Agawam had been settled on both sides of the river, but it still had only a handful of inhabitants.169

President Dwight of Yale College tells us that of the first planters one was a tailor and another a carpenter. The tailor bought from an Indian chief a tract three miles square in what afterwards became known as West Springfield. He was in need of a wheelbarrow, and the carpenter had made one. The tailor offered him either this land for it, or a suit of clothes, and he wisely chose the land.170

This carpenter, whose name tradition has not handed down, was, no doubt, the Jehu Burr chosen on the committee of representatives. His name is written in such a way in the ancient script of some of the public records that it is difficult to say whether the penman meant to write it as John or as Jehu.171 Apparently he was an illiterate man, for his signature affixed to an important document on record was made by a mark. He is described by Hubbard, under the name of John Burr, in his General History of New England, as following the trade mentioned and one of the principal men among the Roxbury company.172

At the April Court at Hartford (April 5, 1638), Mr. Pyncheon and Mr. Smith again sat as magistrates, and Mr. Moxom and Mr. Burr appear as the committee from Agawam. Probably the two magistrates had simply held over until this time, and were now elected on the nomination of the committee.

Mr. Moxom was the minister of Agawam, and a graduate of Cambridge University from Sydney College.173 Burr, a year after Springfield had identified itself with Massachusetts, removed to Southern Connecticut and made that colony his future home.174

In 1637 the Pequot war had been fought, and a heavy expense incurred. Of this it was thought fair that Agawam should bear its share, and at a court held on February 9, 1637–38, a tax of £620 had been laid to defray the cost of it. Of this sum £86, 16 shillings was assessed upon Agawam, about a third of the sum levied on Hartford. Mr. Pyncheon’s shallop had been used in the expedition,175 but Agawam had sent no men. She had quite enough to do to defend herself, far removed as she was from her sister towns.

Roger Ludlow writes to Pyncheon under date of May 17, 1637:

I have received your letter wherein you express that you are well fortified, but few hands. For my part, my spirit is ready to sink within me when, upon alarms which are daily, I think of your condition; that if the case be never so dangerous, we can neither help you, nor you us. . . . I can assure you it is our great grief we cannot, for our plantations are so gleaned by that small fleet we sent out that those that remain are not able to supply our watches, which are day and night, that our people are scarce able to stand upon their legs.176

Early in 1637 the General Court of Massachusetts Bay authorized the Council to treat with “o^r frends vpon Conectecot” in regard to matters of common defence against the Indians, and “to proceede w^th them in the said treaty as occation shall require.”177 Correspondence resulted in which, as noted by Governor Winthrop in his Journal under date of April 1, 1636 (doubtless a mistake for 1637), the representatives of Connecticut stated “their unpreparedness to declare themselves in the matter of government, in regard of their engagement to attend the answer of the gentlemen of Saybrook about the same matter.”178 In May, 1637, John Haynes was in Saybrook on his way to his new home,179 and doubtless talked this question over with the younger Winthrop.

Early in the following month (June 2, 1637) the General Court of Connecticut ordered that forty men should be despatched from Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield “to set down in the Pequoitt Countrey & River in place convenient to mayntaine o^r right y^t God by Conquest hath given to us,” and this was followed upon June 26 by an order that—

Mr. Haine and Mr. Ludlowe shall goe to the mouth of the River to treate and Conclude w^th o^r frend^es of the Bay either to joine w^th their forces in p^rsecutinge o^r designe against o^r enemies or if they see cause by aduise to interprise any Accon accordinge to the force we haue. And to parle w^th the baye aboute o^r settinge downe in the Pequoitt Countrey.180

It will be observed that this action strongly confirms the conclusion that after March 3, 1637, Connecticut, if it did not claim to be a self-governing body, at least no longer acknowledged any political dependence on Massachusetts.

The negotiations between the two colonies thus commenced were followed up during the following year (1638), at Boston, on the invitation of Governor Winthrop.

At the General Court of Connecticut held February 9, 1637–38, John Burr was appointed collector for Agawam, and it was ordered that “noe man in this River nor Agawam shall goe vpp River amonge the Indians” to trade for corn until otherwise ordered.181

The object of this was to give a monopoly of this trade to Mr. Pyncheon; but for the benefit of the lower towns he was to sell five hundred bushels there, if he could get as much from the Indians, at five shillings a bushel, “if hee can save by that;” otherwise at five shillings, two pence, or more if need be. No Indian bringing corn down the river was to be paid more than four shillings a bushel for it.182

Agawam was also required to provide and keep on hand, by way of military supplies, seven corselets, half a barrel of powder, and a hundred and fifty pounds of lead.

A bitter controversy arose as to the manner in which Mr. Pyncheon had fulfilled his undertaking as to supplying corn to the lower towns. He was charged with acting in bad faith. A trial followed in March at Hartford. He made a vigorous defence, Mr. Moxom appearing as his counsel. The magistrates asked the opinion of the two Hartford ministers as to whether the facts proved established the accusation, and they both (the Rev. Thomas Hooker and the Rev. Samuel Stone) said that it showed that Mr. Pyncheon had violated his oath as a magistrate.

The matter came up for final disposition before a court held at Hartford April 5, 1638, at which Mr. Pyncheon was present, as one of the magistrates, and it was there adjudged that he had not been “soe carefull to p^rmote the publique good in the trade of Co^rn as hee was bound to do.” For this he was fined forty bushels of corn.183 The General Court which convicted him offered at the same time an olive branch by granting him a monopoly of the beaver trade at Agawam.

This traffic with the Indians brought large returns, so long as it was under the exclusive control of one man. Subsequently, when thrown open to competition, the profits became so reduced that farming was found to pay better.184 The vote of censure, however, stung Mr. Pyncheon too deeply to let him hesitate as to sacrificing his grant of monopoly. It was certainly an impolitic act on the part of his associates to deal out such a sentence against the head and centre of the Agawam plantation, if they desired to retain it within their jurisdiction.

It is probable, however, that he had been sounded before this as to the scheme by this time under serious consideration, for setting up a new commonwealth upon the upper waters of the Connecticut, and had been found not in favor of it. The plan as finally developed was the work, we are told by one of our oldest authorities, of six or eight of the leading men of the three lower towns.185 Among them, no doubt, were John Haynes, Thomas Hooker, Roger Ludlow, Thomas Welles, George Wyllys and Edward Hopkins. The formal draft of the “Fundamental Orders” was probably from the hand of Roger Ludlow.

In determining all the causes which led Agawam to draw off when this project was agitated, it will be necessary to review events of preceding years.

American geography at this period presented almost an unknown field. No map could be constructed in which patents did not overlap. As has been seen, the emigrants to the Connecticut river went out under a show of authority derived partly from the patent of the Massachusetts Bay Company and partly from that given by the Earl of Warwick. Governor Winthrop regarded it as doubtful whether the new Dorchester on the Connecticut (that is, Windsor) was not within the bounds of Massachusetts.186

When John Winthrop, Jr., after the expiration of his term as Governor and his return from Saybrook to Boston, desired to acquire a title to Fisher’s Island, he was not content until he had obtained a grant of it from Massachusetts. The General Court, however, was careful to add to the conveyance, “so far as is o^r power, reserving the right of Connecticut & Saybrooke.”187

On August 30, 1637, an ecclesiastical synod was held at Newtown. It was attended by the teaching elders of all New England, and seats were provided for the magistrates. The Rev. Thomas Hooker of Hartford was one of the moderators. He had come on some weeks before with his colleague, Mr. Stone, and on August 5 was at Boston, where Roger Ludlow and William Pyncheon had also come from Connecticut, with a view of treating for a confederation between the two jurisdictions.188 A day was set for a conference between them and representatives of Massachusetts, and Plymouth was also invited to join in it. The notice given to that colony was, however, so short that it sent no delegates.189

The result was that some of the magistrates of Massachusetts prepared a draft of articles of confederation, which was discussed, and an agreement reached that it should be referred for ratification to the proper authorities in each colony, that is, to the General Court of Massachusetts and “the magistrates and people” in Connecticut.190

It would seem that Massachusetts at first regarded it as provisionally in force, before final ratification; for on November 30, 1637, her General Court voted that inasmuch as the Pequots had been conquered, and their lands “are by iust title of conquest fallen to vs, & o^r freinds & associats vpon the ryver of Connecticut,” and so peace secured to such as should settle “at Pecoit & Quinapiack & the parts beyond towards the Dutch, wee do hearby declare the iust right & title w^ch o^r selues & o^r said associats vpon Conecticut have to all the said lands & territories, & w^th all it is o^r desire that o^r said associats (according to the articles of confederation agreed vpon between vs) wilbee pleased to appoint 2 com̄ittees sufficiently authorized, to give o^r com̄ittees a meeting at Newtoune so soone as the season of the yeare will ꝑmit” to decide as to the disposition of the lands and as to a suitable portion of the expenses of the war to be paid by future settlers on them.191 Later (in 1641), however, the General Court of Massachusetts referred to the articles on which the negotiations in August, 1637, were based as “articles claimed by Connecticut to have been ꝑpounded to them by authority of this Court,” but declared by way of “answer that they were ꝑpounded & drawen out onely by some of the Ma^trats of each p̃ty, w^tb out any order or alowance of this Court.”192

It is possible that the articles of confederation relied on in the vote of November 30, 1637, may have been some concluded with the commissioners sent by Connecticut to Saybrook on June 26 of that year, which have failed of record in either colony. We have surer ground on which to stand with regard to action taken in the direction of confederation in 1638. On May 29 of that year, Roger Ludlow writes from Windsor to the “Governor and brethren of the Massachusetts Bay” a commission of authority to John Haynes, William Pyncheon and John Steele to treat with them on this subject. It opens with a reference to “There being of late a generall assembly of these plantacons in this River, & falling into considerac̃on of divers p̃ticulers that might or may concerne the generall good of these p̃ts,” and states that this resulted in deputing the three persons named to confer with the Massachusetts authorities as to some “rules, articles & agreemts” for the purpose of combining and uniting the Connecticut plantations with Massachusetts Bay.

The signature to this missive was “R. Ludlowe in the name of the whole.”193 His name stood first in the original commission from the Bay Colony, of March 31, 1636. It was always put first, in the list of those holding the courts of Connecticut, in the records of that jurisdiction until and including that of the General Court of May 1, 1637. During that month John Haynes removed to the river colony, and as he so recently had been Governor of Massachusetts, and was a man of high social position, it seems probable that by vote of the next court he was elected a magistrate. Two General Courts were held in June, the record of which, contrary to the usual custom, contained no minute of the magistrates present. The next assembled November 14, 1637, and in the records of that, Mr. Haynes’s name stands first, as it does in the records of all that follow, until the date of the adoption of the Eleven Fundamental Orders in 1639, under which he was elected the first Governor.

It is evident, therefore, that Roger Ludlow signed the commission of May 29, 1638, as the ranking magistrate, next after John Haynes, who could not well authenticate a commission to himself.

The Records of Massachusetts, under date of June 2, 1641, assert that at a General Court held at Cambridge in June, 1638, articles of agreement for that purpose were “agitated and brought to some issue,” as the result of negotiations with commissioners from Connecticut who were there present; and that at this time—

Springfeild, then called Agawam, was claymed by the Court (though by occasion of some private speach &c) to belong to us; & it was then agreed by the Court, & yeilded unto by their com̃ission^re, that so much of the ryver of Connecticut as should fall w^th in the line of o^r patent should continue under o^r iurisdiction, (& it was then taken for granted that Springfeild would fall to us w^th out question;) & those articles had then beene fully agreed on between the Co^rt & their com̃ission^rs, had there not bene some question about their granting us free passage up the river, in regard of the lords interest, (as they alleadged).194

This reference to the Lords refers, of course, to Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Brooke, and the other owners of the Warwick patent.

The Massachusetts Records for 1638 show that a General Court held at Newtown May 2, 1638, was adjourned “to the 7th of the 4th m^o, being the 5th day of the same week in w^ch the Quarter Court is,” and that an adjourned session was in fact held there on the eighth day of that month (June 8, 1638), at which it was voted that for the future the place of holding courts be transferred to Boston.195 The record of this adjourned meeting does not state that any Connecticut matters were taken up. Other sources of authority, however, make it reasonably certain that important negotiations were then had with commissioners sent from Connecticut for that purpose, and that Mr. Pyncheon was one of these.

At a meeting of the Congress of the United Colonies of New England held in New Haven on September 9, 1646, a question arose between Massachusetts and Connecticut as to which had jurisdiction over the plantation then recently made by John Winthrop, Jr., at “Pequot.” Massachusetts claimed title by conquest; Connecticut by patent, purchase, and conquest. The record then proceeds thus:

It was remembered that in a treaty betwixt them at Cambridg 1638, not perfected, a proposition was made that Pequot river in reference to the conquest should be the bounds betwixt them, but Mr. Fenwick was not then there to pleade the pattent, neither had Connecticute then any title to those lands by purchase or deed of gift from Vncus.196

The Connecticut Commissioners also claimed that the treaty for a confederation began in June, 1638.197 Later a letter from Massachusetts signed by Governor Winthrop and other magistrates, was filed in reply. This seems not to have disputed that the date thus claimed by Connecticut was the true one, and refers to the meeting as held at Cambridge.198

Another and fuller description of the negotiations of 1637 and 1638 is given in the records of the Congress of the United Colonies, held at Boston, July 23, 1649. The Massachusetts commissioners there stated that—

at the meeting at Cambridg about ten or twelve years sence Mr. Pynchon in the behalfe of Sprinkfield declared his desire to bee and remayne vnder our Goverment, and so haue continewed ever sence without question or word speaking against it that wee remember, till something was moved to that purpose the last yeare at Plimouth.199

The Connecticut Commissioners thereupon rejoined—

that Sprinkfield was in Combination with Conectacutt and so owned by the Goernment of the Massachusets is more cleare than to bee left vnder any doubt; propositions being sent in Anno 1637 by the honered Gouernor lately desseased200 to all the plantations vppon that River concerning a Combination with the Massachusets, and Mr. Pinchon in prosecution thereof chosen and sent as Comissioner from that Colonie to acte in the treaty for them in Anno 1638, at which time and not before hee declared his apprehensione that Sprinkfield would fall within the Massachusetts line: and was so accepted, without any proufe of what was alledged; and that motion by Mr. Pincheon arose (as is verily conceived) from a present pange of discontent vpon a sensure hee then lay vnder by the Gouernment of Conectacutt.201

This last allusion, unquestionably, is to the vote of the General Court of Connecticut passed April 5, 1638, which has been previously mentioned. Governor Winthrop, under date of June 5, 1638, notes in his Journal,202 the arrival of Governor Haynes in Massachusetts. That he sent back by him to Connecticut some formal reply to the communication from Ludlow and that in this the question of jurisdiction over Agawam was raised appears from several letters found among the Winthrop Papers. In one of these sent to him by Ludlow, under date of July 3, 1638, the hope is expressed that he will not “take it amisse wee have written backe no thinge aboute yor Ppositions sent by Mr. Haines. Or imploym^ts are soe many att this tyme wee cannot drawe our people togeather, but as soone as conveniently wee cann wee intend to consider of it.”203

On November 29, 1638, William Spencer of Hartford writes at length204 to Winthrop in regard to the negotiations at Cambridge. The Connecticut Commissioners had reported, to quote his words, that—

when it came vnto the isue, you would have Aggawame joyned vnto you, or else you would not conclud of the Vnion; and to that purpose, they say, you have written to dismiss the same from them; this w^th some other, wch I forbeare to name vntill I speake w^th you, because I presume they are but reports, and soe may be false; but heering the other, I could not tell what to say; only I their left it, and spake no moore aboute it. Now the truth is, S^r., although, for my owne part I do earnestly desier what euer may promote your good, and soe I hope shall doe, yet I must confes I doe not yet see what benifit it canbee vnto you to haue a plantac̃on soe far remote dependent upon y^u, w^ch cann in noe kinds be seruiceable and in the mean tyme may bee very preiedusall vnto the plantac̃o heer, for they cannot posible bringe aboute some of ther ocations, as it war meet they should, if they bee severd from them. Nay, further, I doe concede it may bee an ocation of some differce betwixt you and them.

Neither the Records of Massachusetts nor of Connecticut were kept at this period with perfect accuracy or completeness, but it is made reasonably certain by the documents which have been cited that early in June, 1638205 John Haynes, William Pyncheon and John Steele were in Massachusetts as envoys from Connecticut to confer with the General Court as to articles of confederation between the colonies, and to urge certain amendments to those framed in 1637. Connecticut objected to these, for one reason, because they put too much power in the hands of the commissioners, preferring to leave a right of veto to each party to the combination.

The propositions of Massachusetts brought back by Governor Haynes, in June, 1638, no doubt suggested as one of the matters to be agreed on, that Agawam should be treated as belonging to Massachusetts.

Between June and December, 1638, there was a correspondence between Governor Winthrop and the Rev. Mr. Hooker of Hartford, which throws a strong light upon this question. It is of the greater value to the historical student, because the Colonial Records of Connecticut were not written up between the Court of April 5, 1638, and that of January 14, 1638–39. In the colonial record book, ten pages were left for this purpose, but the gap was never filled. A partial explanation is to be found in the fact that John Steele, who had acted as Secretary of the Colony from its first beginnings, was replaced in April, 1639, by the election of Edward Hopkins.

It is hardly possible that so long a period as nine months elapsed without several meetings of the courts, and in the letter mentioned from Mr. Hooker, as will be seen from quotations now to be made, it is explicitly stated that in the fall of 1638 there was a court at which an Agawam culprit was punished for a misdemeanor, on complaint of those representing that settlement.

The Governor in his letter to him had said that the objections of Connecticut to the plan of union seemed ill taken, and complained that Connecticut still exercised jurisdiction at Agawam, saying that “Mr. Pincheon had small encouragement to be under them.”206 Hooker’s answer, written in the fall of 1638, “touching the business of Agaam,” says that the sum of the matter lies “partly in the jurisdiction we have exercised, partly in the jurisdiction which, at this time, you so suddenly, so unexpectedly take to yourselves.”

As to the former, he says that the jurisdiction of Connecticut (i.e. the organization into a collective body in the nature of a colony) was established by commissioners from four towns, including one from “Agaam.” Since Governor Winthrop’s letter they had exercised an act of jurisdiction over Agaam. That town had sent one of its inhabitants apprehended in some misdemeanor to the Court of Connecticut, to desire justice, “which they answerably did.” Nor, Mr. Hooker continued, could they have done otherwise. The magistrates of Connecticut had been elected by the committees of all the four towns. When the men of Agaam demanded justice from magistrates so chosen, how could it be denied? He went on thus:

Yea, taking it for granted that it is in each inhabitant’s liberty in Agaam to choose his jurisdiction (which is to me beyond question) if I was there an inhabitant, I should judge myself bound in conscience to submit to the jurisdiction of the river, and do believe I should make a breach upon the eighth commandment, if I should do otherwise, because in so doing I should steal from mine estate, in that I should rush myself into needless and endless inconveniences: namely to cast myself into that condition that for a matter of five shillings (as the case may fall out) I should put myself to unreasonable charges and trouble to seek for jurisdiction hundred miles off in the wilderness. If Mr. Pyncheon can devise ways to make his oath bind him when he will and loosen him when he list: if he can tell how, in faithfulness to engage himself in a civil covenant and combination (for that he did, by his committees, in their act), and yet can cast it away at his pleasure before he give in sufficient warrant, more than his own word and will, he must find a law in Agaam for it; for it is written in no law nor gospel that ever I read. The want of his help troubles not me, nor any man else I can hear of. I do assure you we know him from the bottom to the brim and follow him in all his proceedings, and trace him in his privy footsteps; only we would have him and all the world to understand, he doth not walk in the dark to us.207

Hooker evidently writes under the strain of strong feeling. Pyncheon had been one of the leaders of the Connecticut expedition. He had been prospered in his undertakings. He had been honored with all that Connecticut had to give in the way of official distinction. He had sat year after year as a magistrate, and now, that they were planning to set up a permanent scheme of government suitable for a separate colony, he held off, and was evidently preparing to carry Agawam over to Massachusetts. Hooker viewed him as a kind of traitor. Possibly he had some knowledge also of Pyncheon’s attitude towards Calvinism, which a dozen years later brought him under the censure of the orthodox both in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The breach between them was evidently irreconcilable.

Winthrop replied to Hooker in an amicable spirit. There is, he says, a gospel rule to “let the Cloke goe after the Coat; but (I suggest) you will not tye us to that; neither will we require it of you.” In lieu of this he proposes “that you should yield in some thinges & we in the rest.” He prefers not to go into particulars as to a compromise, adding “but if matters must come to be scanned, I doubt not there will appear some reason on o^r part & that the occasions of yo^r greatest grief arise wholly from your owne Comission w^thout any thought of o^rs touchinge that course.”208

While Winthrop must have respected Hooker’s ability as a preacher, it may be doubted if he regarded him as well fitted to engage in statecraft. The great source of the disagreements between Massachusetts and Connecticut, he wrote at about this time (December, 1638) in his Journal, was that in Connecticut, for want of civil officers of sufficient training and parts, “the main burden for managing of state business fell upon some one or other of their ministers, (as the phrase and style of their letters will clearly discover).”209

On January 14, 1638–39, there was a General Court of Connecticut, at which it would seem that the plan of government which Hooker, Ludlow, and others had long been preparing was formally adopted in the name of “the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield,” those of Agawam not participating.210 No reference to Agawam was made in any part of the instrument, unless it can be implied in the provision that each town should send four deputies to the General Court “and whatsoeuer other Townes shall be hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many deputyes as the Courte shall judge meete, a reasonable p^rportion to the nũber of Freemen that are in the said Townes being to be attended therein.”211

Two days later (January 26, 1638–39), Edward Hopkins of Hartford encloses in a letter to Pyncheon a copy of a vote passed, with the latter’s consent,212 at the General Court of April 5, 1638, at which he was present as a magistrate, requiring him to pay William Whiting forty pounds in corn or merchantable beaver. The benefit of this contract had been assigned by Whiting to Hopkins, who writes to acknowledge the receipt of a partial payment upon it. He adds that he has been ordered by the Court to write to him (Pyncheon) about the fine that is due from him, and for such moneys as are coming to the country for such beaver as he had traded for, and requests him by the next opportunity to give him an answer, for it will be expected of him (Hopkins).213 This order is not to be found in the Colonial Records of Connecticut, but was probably passed at the General Court of January 14, 1638–39 at which the new frame of civil government was adopted. That step was no doubt felt by the three lower river towns to put them in such new relations to Agawam as to make it desirable to come to an early settlement with Pyncheon of all matters pending undetermined.

He was prompt to sever the last thread of political connection, and in the following month declared his attitude, in terms which were unmistakable.

An agreement, under date of February 14, 1638–39, was drawn up, executed and recorded by him in the “Pyncheon” or town records of Agawam, commencing thus:

February 14, 1638. Wee, the inhabitants of Aguam uppon the Quinecticut, taking into consideration the want of some fit magistracy among us, Beinge now by God’s Providence fallen into the line of the Massachusetts jurisdiction, and it beinge far off to repair thither in such cases of justice as may often fall out among us, doe therefore think it meett by a general consent and vote to ordaine (till we receive further directions from the General Court in the Massachusetts Bay) Mr. William Pyncheon to execute the office of a magistrate in this our plantation of Agawam, etc., etc.214

The dispensation of Providence, on which this vote relies for its justification, can hardly be the discovery of any new light as to the southern bounds of the Massachusetts patent in that quarter, for no survey to determine it had yet been made. It was no doubt the reorganization of the jurisdiction of Connecticut, in a way which left Agawam out, and—to go one step farther back—the conclusion of Pyncheon to have it left out, and to cast in his lot with the older colony.

Mr. Pyncheon now proceeded to prepare a vindication of his conduct in respect to his contract relations to Connecticut, which was circulated in manuscript throughout the river towns. The General Court of Connecticut appointed John Haynes and Thomas Welles a committee to compose an answer. A letter of this nature, signed by them, “by apointement of the Court” and addressed to “Mr. Pinchon,” was sent to him under date of April 18, 1639. “Your ‘Apology,’” they say, “is an attempt to vindicate your owne credit to the dishonor and wronginge the Court, a course very offensive and far unbeseeminge on of your quality.”215

The Windsor church, which he had joined by letter, made Mr. Pyncheon’s action the subject of disciplinary proceedings, and (September 5, 1640) came to the conclusion that he had not made good his defence to the charges against him. He undertook to bring this finding under review by the Roxbury church, and there obtained a favorable report.216

It was evidently not without some hesitation that Massachusetts concluded to treat Agawam as within her jurisdiction. It was a petty settlement, separated from the Bay towns by a long stretch of wilderness. Access to it by water could be had only by leave of the river towns, or by resort to measures of force or reprisal. Agawam stood, in 1639, to Massachusetts, much as the early settlements at Wyoming stood to Connecticut, or, let us say, as the Philippines now stand to the United States.

In a letter of September 6, 1639, from John Harrison to Governor Winthrop, he addresses it “To the honoorable my truely noble freind, John Winthrop Esq^r Govornour of Masecusets bay and Agawom.”217

Ten years were yet to pass before Massachusetts was found ready to admit to her General Court representatives from this distant possession.

In May, 1639, the newly elected Governor of Connecticut, John Haynes, and Mr. Hooker went on to Boston to propose a renewal of the treaty for a combination between the two colonies, and their overtures were favorably received by the General Court.218 In the following August, Governor Haynes, Deputy-Governor Ludlow and Thomas Welles, or any two of them, were appointed by the General Court of Connecticut “to goe to the Rivers mouth to consult with Mr. Fenwicke about a treaty of combinac̃on w^ch is desi againe to be on foott with the Bay.” Fenwick was now Governor of the Saybrook settlement, and Ludlow and Welles went there, taking Mr. Hooker with them, and reported to the next Court that Governor Fenwick had no objections to the proposed combination, provided any settlement of “matters of Bounds” were postponed until he heard further from the Warwick patentees.219

Early in the next year, on April 16, 1640, the inhabitants of Agawam wiped out their Connecticut name by the following vote: “It is ordered that the Plantation be called Springfield.”220

That there was any moral justification for their course of action was denied by the lower river towns. Thomas Hooker’s letter of 1638, already quoted, shows how deep this feeling then was. That it had not abated in 1640, and that some at Agawam were rendered uneasy by it appears from a letter dated in July of that year from the Rev. George Moxom to Governor Winthrop. It was written to ask if there was any order of the Massachusetts General Court showing that the settlers of Agawam “were dismissed out of the Bay with this ꝑviso, to continue of the Bayes iurisdictiõ.” He gives as his reason for the inquiry that he hears—

some of o^r neighboo^rs in the River are doubtful whether we lye not in sin (not in fallinge from theyre governm̃et but) in fallinge disorderly from them without first orderly debaytinge y^e matter & o^r greiuances, if we had any . . . . I conceiue some objectiõ may be grounded on this, that they were possest of vs at that tyme.221

A few months later, a petition to the General Court of Massachusetts was prepared, which was formally presented to that body in June, 1641, signed by William Pyncheon and others, describing themselves as inhabitants of Springfield, in reference to their separation from Connecticut. In this they say that—

some of their neighbo^rs & freinds upon Coñecticut have taken offence at them for adhereing to o^r government & w^thdrawing frõ that upon the river, supposeing that they had formerly bene dismissed from this iurisdiction, & that wee had bound o^rselves (by o^r owne act) frõ claiming any iurisdiction or interest in Agawam, now Springfeild.

The Court thereupon declared that the commission of March, 1635, was “not granted upon any intent either to dismise the ꝑsons frõ us, or to determine any thing about the limits of iurisdictions,” and disposed of other points mentioned by the petitioners as pressed by the Connecticut people, by the reference to the doings at the General Court of June, 1638, to which I have already alluded.

The conclusion of the Court was to put the inhabitants at Springfield under the government of “Willi Pinchen, gent̃” for the current year, according to the laws of Massachusetts, and with an appeal from his doings in weighty matters to the Court of Assistants at Boston.222

A letter was also agreed on at this Court to the Connecticut authorities, complaining that they had assumed to make grants of lands as far north as Springfield, and stating that “wee intend (by God’s help) to know the certainty of o^r limitts.” A grant of the kind named had, indeed, been made on September 10, 1640. The General Court of Connecticut then invested Edward Hopkins, the Governor of the Colony, with “the benefitte and liberty of free trade at Waranocoe & att any place thereabout, vppe the Riuer, and all other to be restrayned for the terms of seauen yeres, and the land to be purchased for the Com̃onwealth.”223 Waranocoe, otherwise written Waranoco or Waranoke, was the Indian name for what is now Westfield, some twelve miles west of Springfield. Under this grant Governor Hopkins, shortly afterwards, purchased the Indian title and built a trading house there.224

The misunderstandings between Massachusetts and Connecticut did not prevent the continuation of negotiations for a combination of the colonies in 1642, nor their favorable conclusion in 1643, when articles of confederation between the United Colonies of New England were finally ratified by all the parties to them.225 Fenwick had personally participated in the final proceedings, and was made in July, 1643, one of the two Connecticut Commissioners to sit in the Congress of the Confederacy.226 Not long afterwards Connecticut bought through him the Warwick title. This gave new strength to her claim to Agawam and Waranoco, since Governor Fenwick had always claimed, not without at least strong color of right, that they fell within the bounds of his jurisdiction.

Part of the consideration of the purchase was a grant to Fenwick for ten years of a duty on exports of certain kinds of goods from the mouth of the river. Mr. Pyncheon and the people of Springfield generally refused to pay it, on the ground that Connecticut had no jurisdiction over them.

These differences between Massachusetts and Connecticut were soon carried before the Congress of the United Colonies. That as to Waranoco came up first, and in 1644 (shortly before Fenwick’s sale to Connecticut) at the annual Congress held in Hartford, it was adjudged that the settlement there should be under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts until or unless it should become evident from further proof that it did not belong there.

In the Congress of the following year, before which the Warwick title had passed to Connecticut and that colony had passed a statute laying the tolls on exports which the bargain of sale called for,227 her right to make such an imposition was challenged by Massachusetts. The decision of the Congress was again of the procrastinating and in statu quo order,—namely, that the duties set must be paid, until at some future time the question could be thoroughly examined and finally decided.

At the Congresses of 1646, 1647, and 1648, it was again debated at length before the Commissioners from Plymouth and New Haven, sitting alone (those two colonies being the only ones not interested in the dispute). The original Warwick patent was called for by Massachusetts, and Connecticut could only produce a copy, though offering to authenticate it by the oath of Governor Hopkins. The Commissioners at last, “further considering that the Commissioners from Conectacut have formerly and doe still lay Clayme to Sprinkefield, as falling within their patent and not within the Limits of the Massachusetts,” ordered a copy of this patent to be laid in at the Congress of the following year,—

and that in the meane time the two Colonys of the Masachusets and Conectacut would agree vpon som equall and satisfying way of rooneing the Masachusets line that it may without further dispute apeare into which of the Jurisdictions Sprinkefield falls, which being don, the supose that either the question betwixt the twoe Colonyes will cease or there may be a dew consideration of what shall further bee tendered from the order of Conectacut, and in the meantime what was done the last yeare to stand as then concluded.228

Connecticut was apparently not disinclined to this proposal that the south bounds of Massachusetts should be settled by a definite survey to which both governments should be parties, for at her General Court on June 6, 1649, over which Haynes presided as Governor, it was declared that, while as early as 1645 it had treated that place as under the Massachusetts government, “they are yet altogether vnsatisfied that Springfield doth properly fall in within the true limmitts of the Massachusetts Patent w^ch they much desire may with all convenient speed bee clearly issued in a way of love and peace and according to truth.”229

A few weeks later, at the Boston Congress of July 23, 1649, of which Governor Hopkins was a member, Massachusetts made reply to the counsel that a boundary line should be run in a proper way, by observing that she had run such a line, long before, on an understanding with Governor Fenwick, prior to the acquisition by Connecticut of the Warwick title, and had found Waranoco to be within the lines of their patent, but would consent to have it run again, in connection with Connecticut, provided that colony would pay the whole bill for the re-survey. This Connecticut declined, but offered to pay half the cost of such a survey,230 and so the matter dragged along on its way into another century.

In fact, Massachusetts had, as early as 1642, employed two surveyors, who unfortunately were of quite questionable ability, to run the southern boundary of her patent. This required the ascertainment of “the South part of the Charles River, or of any or every part thereof.” Three miles south of that began the line that ran west to the South Sea.

It is now conceded that the survey put it eight miles further south. This gave Springfield to Massachusetts and gave her also a long strip of territory embracing a large part of what now forms thirteen Connecticut towns.231

Connecticut followed with surveys of her own. Appeals to the King in Council were threatened by each colony, and negotiations ensued that were protracted for nearly three quarters of a century. At last a compromise line was settled by an agreement ratified by Connecticut in 1713.232 It was afterwards found that Connecticut had yielded too much. The towns of Enfield, Suffield, and Woodstock were above the south line of Massachusetts as thus established. Each colony claimed them. In 1749 the General Court of Connecticut formally asserted her jurisdiction,233 but it was not until 1804 that Massachusetts finally abandoned her claim.234

In apparent anticipation of the decision of the Commissioners at the Congress of 1649, the General Court of Massachusetts (on May 3, 1649) had adopted retaliatory legislation, laying a tax on all exports from the Bay or imports into Boston harbor of goods owned by citizens of the other New England Colonies. The Commissioners of the three other colonies in the Congress remonstrated against this policy, in a letter addressed to the General Court, suggesting the propriety of its reconsideration on the ground that such action was inconsistent with the tenor and import of the Articles of Confederation. “And in the mean time,” they added, “desire to bee spared in all further agitations concerning Sprinkfield.”235 This appeal was not without its effect, for on May 23, 1650, the Court, reciting that it is informed that Connecticut intends to repeal her order taxing exports from the river, and meanwhile to suspend its execution, suspended the enforcement of its retaliatory measures until it could be certainly known what the course of the other colony would be.

In 1643, William Pyncheon had again been elected an Assistant in Massachusetts, and on May 14, 1645, the General Court ordered that the Commissioners of the Confederation for the year should form with Mr. Pyncheon a court of justice at Springfield.236 Two years later (in October, 1647) he was authorized by the General Court to make freemen in the town of Springfield “of those that are in covenant and live according to their profession.”237 Up to this time the inhabitants had possessed no electoral or political power, since they had broken off their connection with Connecticut; and it was not till May, 1649, that the first deputy from Springfield appeared to take his seat in the General Court. Until 1647 it was never included in any official list of Massachusetts towns.238

Mr. Albert Matthews made the communication which follows.

While in Philadelphia recently I found, in a collection of broadsides and other documents at the Ridgway branch of the Library Company of Philadelphia, a small document of four pages containing satirical epitaphs on Wedderburn and Hutchinson. These showed that those two objects of our forefathers’ execration were burned in effigy in Philadelphia on May 3, 1774. The epitaphs follow. That of Wedderburn fills pages 1 and 2, that of Hutchinson pages 3 and 4.

EPITAPH, &c.

To the Memory of

ALEX. WEDDERBURNE, ESQ.

He was born in the City of Edinburgh,

in North-Britain.

In Order fully to gratify his LUST for

Wealth, Power, and Popularity,

he pushed his Fortune in the

METROPOLIS of the British Empire.

His Abilities and Eloquence soon procured him

a Seat in the House of Commons,

where he embraced the Principles,

and followed the Practices of a Company

of STATE PROSTITUTES.

Finding the Pleasures and Emoluments

of this House, unequal to the

Sacrifice he had made of his Virtue,

He renounced their Society, and

(how condescending is REAL Goodness!)

He was received into the Society of

the Friends of Liberty and his Country.

But alas! the Acclamations of Millions,

proclaiming his Reformation,

and the Pleasures of accepted Contrition,

were not able to protect him from a

SECOND SEDUCTION.

He was led on from one Degree of Venality to another;

untill he was at last prevailed upon

to commit MURDER upon the Character

of an illustrious AMERICAN Patriot & Philosopher,

and HIGH TREASON against

BRITAIN and HER COLONIES.

Traveller;

While you tread heavily upon his Dust,

Remember, that the Pangs of a

first Fall from Virtue,

are not to be compared with the Anguish

of a Heart, awakened to the Guilt of a

Second Defection.

Also; that great Abilities and Eloquence, are

not the Marks of a Favourite of Heaven, or

they would not have been conferred upon

THIS UNHAPPY CULPRIT.

He was Executed May 3d, 1774,

in the City of Philadelphia, in the Presence of

many thousand Spectators.

He had no Friends to lament his Fate,

for “Treachery would not trust him:”—

He had no Enemies to forgive—-—-

for he was below Contempt.

Even the Eye of Pity (which sometimes

drops at the Expiation of Murder,)

refused him this

Tribute of Humanity.

[A skull and bones.]

EPITAPH, &c.

To the Memory of

THOMAS HUTCHINSON, ESQ.

Governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay.

He was descended from an ancient Race

of American Worthies,

And was educated in the Principles of

Virtue and Religion.

But alas! what availed the Renown of

his Ancestors,

And the holy Precepts of his Parents!

He remembered no more of the former,

And practised no more of the latter,

Than were sufficient to raise him to

The first Offices, and the Honours of the

Government.

He was an Enemy to

Virtue, Liberty and his Country.

Let Antiquity be dumb, nor

Reproach with Obloquy, her

Catalines, Caligulas, and Neros,

Since Mankind are here furnished

With an Instance of Depravity which

Includes with their Guilt, the

Basest Hipocrisy.

American Traveller,

Forbear to open his Sepulchre, and to avenge

Upon his Ashes, the Injuries he did

Thy Country.

His private Virtues did not atone for

His public Vices.

He was detected in an Attempt

To “abridge the English Liberties”

And to destroy the Charter of his

Native Province.

Let Posterity remember with Gratitude

The illustrious

Dr. FRANKLIN (not

Less successful in disarming political

Than natural Clouds of their Mischief)

For this Discovery.

Although this treacherous Governor

Was defended by one of the most artful

British Counsellors, yet he was

Condemned by a Jury of all the

Freemen in Britain and America,

To be hanged, and burned

May 3d 1774, in the City of Philadelphia in the

Presence of many thousand Spectators,

Who while they exulted in his

Punishment,

Lamented that he could suffer but

Once

To expiate the high Treason he

had committed against

his

COUNTRY.

[A coffin.]

The following account is taken from the Pennsylvania Gazette of May 4, 1774 (p. 3/1):

Yesterday, about Four o’Clock in the Afternoon, the Effigies of Alexander Wedderburne, Esq; convicted of traducing the American Colonies, and insulting their Agent before his Majesty’s Privy Council for doing his Duty; and of Thomas Hutchinson, Esq; Governor of Massachusetts-Bay, convicted of an Attempt to incense Great Britain against her Colonies, were put into a Cart, and conducted through the Streets of this City. On the Breast of Wedderburne the following Label was fixed,

The infamous

WEDDERBURRNE,

“A pert prime Prater, of a scabby Race,

“Guilt in his Heart, and Famine in his Face.

Churchill altered.

Similis Proteo mutet, et fallacior Catalina

Hunc vos Britanni cavete!

“He availed himself of the Licence of the Bar to insult the venerable Dr. Franklin, whose Knowledge in Philosophy, universal Benevolence, just Sentiments of Liberty, and indefatigable Labours to promote Harmony between Britain and her Colonies, entitle him to the Esteem of the Learned of every Nation, the love of all good Men, and the sincere Affection of every honest Briton and American.

“But the base born SOLLICITOR, who attempted to turn his Learning, Benevolence and Patriotism into Ridicule, is (like Hutchinson) a Paricide of the first Rank, who would sacrifice his Country, his Liberty and his God, and delight in the Carnage of the most faithful British Subjects in America, to gain Promotion at Court. - - - Such horrid Monsters are a Disgrace to human Nature, and justly merit our utmost Detestation and the Gallows, to which they are assigned, and then burnt by Electric Fire.”

With several others, and the following Lines from Hudibras:

So a wild Tartar, when he spies

A Man that’s handsome, valiant, wise,

If he can kill him, thinks t’ inherit

His Wit, his Beauty, and his Spirit:

As if just so much he enjoy’d,

As in another is destroy’d.

On Governor Hutchinson’s Breast was fixed the following Label,

“Governor HUTCHINSON,

whom we now consign to the Gallows and Flames, as the only proper Reward for Double-Dealing and Treachery to his native Country.”

After being exposed for several Hours, they were hung, and burnt, in the Evening, amidst a vast Concourse of People, who testified their Resentment against the Originals with the loudest Acclamations.

The account of the affair which appeared in the Pennsylvania Journal of May 4, 1774 (pp. 2, 3), differed slightly from the above. In the former it is stated that it took place “about 3 in the afternoon;” that Hutchinson “was represented with a double face;” and that “after being exposed for several hours, they were hung on a Gallows erected near the Coffee-House, set in flames by electric fire, & consumed to ashes, about 6 o’clock.”

Mr. Henry H. Edes exhibited an original letter dated at Paris, 12 March, 1793, written by Gouverneur Morris to Robert Morris.239

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

In my edition of the Writings of George Washington (I. 231–234) I gave an extract from the Ledger of income and expenditure kept by Washington from an early period. That extract, covering his expenses in a visit to Boston, was inserted for a special purpose. In the following pages I give a transcript of the early leaves of the same Ledger, beginning with the first general entry and continuing to his Boston journey. After the fashion of good accountants, Washington also kept entries of his accounts with individuals, some of which are of earlier date than the first of these general expenses, but they were also continued in some cases to the opening of the Revolution. It appeared more logical to confine this extract to the general items, leaving to a future time the individual accounts.

Washington was at this time in the Colonial service, and later accompanied Braddock as a volunteer aid on his unfortunate adventure. The entries are of value as showing the tastes and amusements of the young Virginian, proving that he played cards and billiards, even when on the serious mission of seeking recognition of the House of Burgesses. He was buying slaves and horses, and some furnishings for his house. The details do not throw much light upon his actions, but they serve to supplement what is already known.

WASHINGTON’s LEDGER, 1754–1756.

							£	s		d
1754 Oct^r 15	By Captⁿ. Merrie charges on my watch						1	1		6
	By Ditto for a chance to Raffle for a watch							5
	By Chair leathers							3		3
1754 Oct^r 16	By Buckles for Ditto							4		3
	By Captⁿ Newton for Frank Self						4	6		10½
18	By Servants 5/ Expences at Taylors Ord^y 3/9							8		9
19	By Expences at Todds Ord^y							1		10½
	By Ditto at King William C^t House							5		7½
20	By Ditto at Claybourns 4/10½ Ditto at Chiz^ls Ord^y 6/7½							11		6
	By 2 Almanacks 2/6 By my Serv^t Jn^o Alton 6/							8		6
23	By Dinner and Club at Finnies							5		3
	By Barber &c^a 3/9 By Jn^o Alton ⅓							5
24	By Club 7/6 Mending y^e Axle tree of my Chair 5/							12		6
	By Shoes and Gloves 20/ 25^th By Jn^o Alton 5/						1	5
25	By Silver lace for a Hatt						1	8		5
	By Shoe Blacking							2
	By one pair Buckskin Gloves							7		6
	By a Horse whip							15		6
	By a Shot Pouch							6
	By 3 pair Stockings						1	16
	By Shoe Blacking & Brushes old acc^t.							3		8
31	By M^r Collin Campbell my deputy Adjutant his Salary for the last half year						25
	By a Saddle Cloth							6		3
	By a Circingle							3		6
	By Shoeing my Horse							1
	By a Negro Fellow bought at Publick Sale of John Wake as p^r rec^t.						40	5
	By Cash lost or st 1 e						1	6
	By 12½ Yards Cotton Velvet						9	7		6
	By the Barber							10
	By M^r Finnies Ordinary Acc^t.						5	9		6
	By Board at M^rs Coulthards						1	7		6
Nov^r 2	To Expences at Armisteads Ordinary							7		6
3	To Ditto at King William Court House							3		7½
	To a pair of Gloves							3
	To Servants							3
11	To Doctor Halkerston							5
	To a Servant							1		3
1754 Nov^r 11	To Shott &c^a							3		9
12	To M^r Antho: Strother on acc^t of Jacob Vanbra^m						16	2		6
14	To Servants							2		7½
19	To Club at Chews Ordinary							1
20	To John Roberts Taylor his Acc^t						2	3
	To washing while Quartered in Alexandria						1	13		3
	To gave Joseph Powell							6		3
	To Wilson a smith his acc^t. in full						1	1		6
21	To Expen^s at Saml Jenkins’s 3/1 Ditto at G: Creek 5/3							8		4
23	To Ditto at Thompsons 7/. Ditto to y^e Ferryⁿ at Shan^h 1/3							8		3
25	To M^r Stephenson’s son Richard							1		3
D^o	To Simeon Rice for Carriage of 10 Hhds. Tob^o. and back Loads to this date						13
26	To a joiner for his advice upon Sawing							2		6
28	To Cash to Ch^r Hardwick to make Sundry Paym^ts						1	11		13
29	To M^r Stephensons Children & Servants							8		9
	To my Broth^r John							3		2
	To gave away at Edward Thompson’s							3		9
31	To Powder							1		3
Dec^r. 1	To Expences at Samuel Jenkins’s							1		3
	To a Quarter of Vennison of Ditto							2		6
2	To D^d. Green for Corn, and pasturage of my Horses while I was quarterd in Alex^a in full						2	3		7½
	To a Tenant of mine to pay his Levy							5		9
	To John Alton							2		6
	To Captⁿ Mercer’s acc^t. in full						4	11		11
	To Ditto lost at Cards							4		4½
	By Servants							1
	By Jn^o Alton’s Expences to Marlborough							2
	By Lawyer Johnston’s opinion on Col^o Lee’s claim						1	1		6
	By Cards							3		6
1755 Jan^y 1.	By the following Servants at Col^o. Fairfax’s
	Myrtilla		£.5.9
	The Cook		2.6
	House Maid		2.6
1755 Jan^y 1.	Laundry Wench		2.6
	Hostler		1.3
	Pompey					1.3		18
	Will					1.3
	Jack					1.
	By the Ferryman at Occoquan							1
3	By 300 bundles of Fodder							9
5	By Billiards							4
	By one quire of best Paper							2
	By Jervis Heyden for Corn &c^a							13		9
	By Pevey for Sundries done to my Chair							8
	By Doct^r. Lynn for Col^o. George Fairfax							8
	By Expences at Caroline Court House							5		3
9	By Ditto at Ditto							5
	By a Servant at Col^o. Baylors							1
	By my Servant & Horses Exp^s. at Todds							6		8
	By a Negro fellow namd Jack bo^t. at Buckners Sale						52	5
	By a Negro Woman called Clio, bo^t. at Ditto						50
	By a Servant at Col^o. Spotswoods									7½
11	By M^r. Mercer for his opinion of the devise of my Brothers Negroes						1	1		6
	By Ditto on his Opinion on the devise of Mount Vernon Tract to me						1	1		6
12	By the farrier for visiting a sick Horse							2		6
13	By Cards						1	6
17	By gave Jn^o Alton							1		3
21	By Ditto to a Sailor							2		7½
22	By Col^o Stephen for a broken sett of Smiths Tools						10	15
	By Ditto for 6 leather bottomd Chairs						3	15
25	By Cards							2		7½
	By Col^o Fairfaxs Ned							3		9
	By M^r Mercer for drawing a Release & for Advice						1	1		6
	By his Gardner							2		6
Feb^y 1	By two Salts ⅓ By 1 Mustard Pot 8½^d							1		11½
	By a Beer Glass and Pepper Box							1		3
	By Captⁿ Burden for 2 Gross Bottles						2	3
2	By knitting a pair of yarn Gloves							1		6
5	By Club in arrack at M^rs Gordons							2		6
1755 Feb^y 5	By Cash lent M^r James Hunter							5	9
	By Andrew Sheppard for a pair of Gloves							3	6
	By Cash lent my Brother John						1	1	6
	By my Broth^r Charles for a p^r of Black Gloves							1	3
	By Ditto for Ethiops Mineral got of D^r Lymefool: Jr							7	6
7	By Margaret Fitzjoe for marking							3	9½
	By a Young Mare of Patrick Kendrick						6
	By two wounded Soldiers of the Virginia Regiment							5
12	By Dinner & Club at Caroline C^t House							2	6
13	By Ditto at Ditto							3	1½
	By Col^o. Spotswoods Coachman						2	6
14	By a Carpenter named Kitt, bo^t at Buckner’s Sale						39	5
15	By a bed of Old Heyden						1	5
	By 500 bundles of Fodder of Jacobs							15
16	By y^e Ferryman								7½
18	By Robin Loyd							1	3
21	By Billiards								3¾
	By a great Coat for John Alton							5	9
23	By Ordinary Expences at Moxley’s							12	2
Mar. 3	By Cards							11	4½
	By Charles Griffith for a Bed &ca.						3	4	6
6	By Cash gave Myrtilla							5
	By Billiards lost							3
10	By Cash gave away							2	6
	By Ditto							3
	By Ditto							2
	By Ditto to the Sailors that bro^t my Goods from Rap^k							3	9
18	By Eggs							2	6
	By Cards							1	3
20	By Col^o. Fairfaxs Gardener							2	6
24	By Sam^l. Johnston for Wheat &ca.							17	9
25	By Oysters							2	6
	By Eggs							3
	By Jn^o. Bishop							2	6
Ap^l. 3	By Jn^o. Gunston for build^g a Chimney in my Smiths Sh^p						1	1	6
1755 Ap^l. 3	By a Servant given							1	5½
10	By John Ballendine in part for Iron						11
	By M^r Hart for a Field Bedstead & Curtains						4	16	3
15	By Cash for Fowls							3	1¾
	By Cash given Sergeant Hamilton							5	9
	By Washing							5	9
	By Servants							2	1
19	By Eggs							1	7
	By two Horse Collars							4
20	By Eggs							2
23	By Cash gave to M							11	6
24	By Ditto to John Alton							5	9
25	By Expences							4	4
	By Ditto at Minors							9
28	By gave Hardins Son							1	6
	By Col^o Chambers for a Canoe						1	5
	By Hardin, for Ditto							15
	By Ditto for Plank in part							3	8
30	By Expences at Swearingen’s							3	9
	By Richard Stephenson’s Children							11	6
	By a Servant Maid of His							1	3
May 1	By my Servant Jn^o. Alton, lent							5	9
2	By Expences at Frederick Town, Maryland							4	9
	By Captⁿ. Ormes Servant							1	3
	By a Knife							1	3
6	By a Servant Maid at Cocks’s							5	9
	By the Saddler							2	6
	By a Smith							4	6
	By							2
15	By the Generals Coachman							1	10½
	By Washing							5	9
20	By Captⁿ. Dalton to pay M^rs Langfear						4	6	8
23	By two tooth Brushes							1	3
	By a Sword Belt							8
	By two Combs and an Ink holder							1	10½
	By two pair of Gloves							4
	By wounded Soldiers							2	6
	By a Fan and pair of Gloves							10
	By John Alton							3	9
1755 May 23	By the Watchmaker cleaning M^r Gists Watch							5
25	By M^r. Bowee for a Negro boy named Harry						45
	By two Padlocks							1	6
	By a Circingle							3
28	By four pair thread Stockings @ 7/6						1	10
	By 1 p^r. Shares and 2 Pencils							2	9
	By 3 Yards narrow Ribbon							2	6
	By 1 Quire Paper							1	6
	By Cash to my Bro: John supposed to be as they were 5 dubloons						21	13	4
	By a large Bay Horse of Sam^l. M^cRoberts						10	6
29	By Bhurras for a Bell							5	9
	By Ditto gave							11	6
	By Ropes &ca							5
June 1	By altering my Valise							1	3
2	By Captain Ormes Servant							1	3
3	By Cresaps acc^t						2	16	10
7	By M^r. Shirley’s Servant							1	3
8	By John Alton							10
	By making a black Stock							4
	By Cash gave to——							5
13	By Washing							10	3
	By Tho^s. Bhurras							2	10½
17	By Col^o. Burton’s Servant							2	10½
27	By cleaning my Pistols							3	10½
July 2	By 8 days attendance of a Nurse in my Sickness							8
4	By Milk							5	9
	By 3 pair Hopples							9
21	By M^r. Hawthorn for a Mattrass						1	2	6½
22	By Washing							5	9
	By Thomas Bhurras for a Horse						2	1	6
	By Joseph Bunnian, Batman							5	9
	By Smith for Shoeing my Horse							1	3
23	By Expences at M^cCrackens							5	9
24	By Jos: Oliver							5	9
	By Expences at Winchester							2	6
	By Ditto at Edward Thompson’s							5	9
27	By Water Mellons							1	3
1755 July 31	By 40 Bushels of Oats						2
Aug^t 1	By M^r. Posey						4	6	8
	By my Brothers Serv^t ⅓ By Presley in p^dfor D^g 6/3							7	6
	By M^r Dalton for Paying Bell & Meads acc^ts						4	6	8
24	By Cash p^d. for Sundries at M^cGraths Ord^y							4
	By Ditto to the							1	6
27	By Ditto to John Alton							7	6
	By two Cockades							2	6
	By M^r Blairs Coachman							1	3
	By Fidlers							1	3
	By the French Barber in W^msburg							2	6
	By Billiards							1	10
Sept^r 2	By John Alton							5
	By Shoes							15
	By Gloves							12
3	By one Silver Shoe Buckle & p^r of knee Ditto							15
	By the Saddler for making a sett of Furniture						1	10
	By the Printers Acc^t.						2	5
	By M^r. Mitchelson’s Acc^t.						2	15
	By Expences at Doncastles						4	1	1
	By the Governors Clerk for my Commission						2	12	9
	By Ordinary Expences at Captⁿ Danzies							6	10
4	By Ditto at Tods							3	1½
6	By John Alton							3	9
8	By Ditto gave to my Broth^r John							5
	By repairs done my Mill by Masterson						3	15
9	By William Pool 5/. Punch and Cards 3/							8
	By Cash gave the Widow Langdon						1	12	4½
13	By Ordinary Expences at Colemans							3	1
15	By Expences at Lewis’s 5/. Ditto at Cox’s 2/6							7	6
	By John Alton 2/6 By a guide from Pattersons 2/6							5
	By a Guide from F^t. Cumb^d to F^t. Dinwiddie						2	16	3
1755 Sept^r 22	By a black Horse bought of						11	5	9
	By a Grey Ditto Ditto						11	5	9
	By a Sold^r. 1/3. By Expences at Earlys 3/1½							4	4½
26	By Exp^s. at Augusta C^t. House 1/3. A Negro boy 1/3							2	6
	By a Cane 6/. Exp^s. at Morgans 1/3							7	3
	By Jn^o. Alton’s Exp^s. 3/9. Col^o. Fox’s Ned 1/3							5
29	By Billiards							3
30	By M^rs. Spearing, for Bedsteads &ca						11	6
Oct^r 2	By Tavern Expences at Moxley’s						1	14	8
7	By Ditto at Todds Ord^y							3	6
10	By Captⁿ. John Hardin						1	1	6
16	By a Penknife 1/3. By Cards 14/9.						16
25	By Cash for the Milk of sundry Cows						1
28	By Cards 4/4 By Washing 8/							12	4
	By Evans’s Map and the Gazettes in part							16	6
30	By Expen^s. at Jo: Neavils 6/7½. Ditto George’s 13/							19	7½
	By Ditto at Colston’s						2	14	6
Nov^r 1	By Jervis Heyden for Corn							11	3
2	By John Alton 10/. Exp^s. at M^cGraths 3/1½							13	1½
7	By Expences at York 5/7½. Shoes at Ditto 10/6							16	1½
8	By Coach hire at sundry times							5	6
	By repairs to my watch 6/3. Coach hire 5/							11	3
11	By Fidlers 5/. By coach hire 1/3							6	3
	By M^r. Palmer 20/. Sundrie Tickets for y^e Ball 60/						4
	By Servants							2	6
12	By M^r. Prentis’s Acc^t. in full						21	14	7
17	By M^r. Ja^s Hunter for his own Lydes & M^r. W^m Hunter’s Acc^ts. in full						5	18	7
	By Billiards							5	7½
	By M^r. Field^g. Lewis						55
18	By 5 p^r Stockings of M^r. Dick						2	10
	By Corn and Fodder						1	10
	By M^r. M^c Williams’s Acc^t.						6	14
	By M^r. Yates Ditto						34	17	3½
1755 Nov^r 18	By a p^r of bl^k. leath^r. Breeches & buckskin Gloves						1	15
	By the Smith 1/3. By R. Lewis Saddler in full £5						5	1	3
19	By M^r M^cCreas Acc^t. in full						34	13	3
Oct^r. 29	By Enoch Pearson’s Acc^t. neglected to be chargd						15	16	9¼
Nov^r 25	By Cash p^d. the Ball^e. of Maj^r. Carlyle’s Acc^t.						101	18	7
	By Billiards and Cards						1	10
26	By Charles Mason Taylors Acc^t.						4	16	6
	By William Baker Hatters Acc^t.						1	18	6
	By M^r. Adam Merch^t. Acc^t.							14	9
	By Dan^l. Lawrence Sadlers Acc^t.							3
	By William Sewell Barbers Acc^t.							17	6
	By Joseph Chew Ordinary Acc^t.						3	16	6
	By Alex^r. Bell Smiths Acc^t.							3
	By Tho^s Bishop						1	10
	By Sundry payments made in Williamsburg by my Serv^t. Bishop
	To Charles Jones, Taylor	2		9	0
	To Alex^r. Craik Sadler	3		10
	To W^m. Flatters Shoemaker			13
	To Sarah Cummins for Washing			13	4½
	To the Black Smith			2	6
	To the Barber	1		5
	To Corn at the Brick House			1	3
	To Bishops Drink			6	6		9		7½
26	By 1 Pistole gave						1	1	6
Dec^r. 8	By my Quitrents to the Date							15	4
11	By Cards 1/3. By Billiards 2/6 gave away 2/6							6	3
12	By Doct^r. Ross for 6 p^r. Negro Shoes						1	15
16	By Mes^rs. Carlyle & Dalton to purchase a Bill of Excha						45
	By a pair of Leather Breeches						1	6
25	By Cards 5/6. By Jn^o. Alton 10/. Cutting Wood 5/						1		6
31	By Cocks’s House Maid								5
1756 Jan^y 10	By John Alton 10/. Jn^o Leyden’s Wife 5/							15
	By Thomas Bishop part Wages						1
16	By Col^o. Fairfax’s Pompey							1	3
22	By Oats £5. By Billiards 20/. Jos. Chew for Wine 15/						6	15
31	By Valentine Crawford 10/. Col^o Fairfax’s Serv^ts.2/							12
							937	7	3
	Cash.
1754 Oct^r. 15	To Cash in hand						145
25	To Ditto of M^r. Prentis, my Salary as Adjutant						50
30	To Ditto of Maj^r. Carlyle in Williamsburg						8	14	2
Nov^r	To Ditto in Alexandria						21	12	1
20	To Cash won at Cards							3	9
25	To Ditto for Corn						1	3
Dec^r 2	To Ditto in an Exchange of my Char. Horses						4	6
	To Ditto won at Cards							8
25	To Cash at Cards							8
26	To Ditto at Ditto							3	9
	To Ditto of Major Carlyle						60
27	To Ditto at Cards							2	6
	To Ditto of Major Carlyle
1755 Jan^y 6	To Ditto of M^r. Woodward at Cards							2	6
	To M^r. Mercer at Ditto							4	4½
13	To M^r. Lewis at Billiards							2	6
15	To M^r. Strother at Cards							5	9
	To Ditto at Ditto							2
	To Patrick Kendrick						23	13	1
Feb^y 5	To M^rs. Thornton for my Lotts in Fredricks^g						50
10	To Patrick Kendrick						12	7	9
21	To M^r. Spearing at Billiards							8	9
26	To M^rs. Spearing at Cards							4	6
Mar. 11	To Ditto at Ditto							3	9
	To Ditto at Ditto							1	6
	To Cards at Sundry Times						1	10	9
Ap^l 7	To Cash of Maj^r. Carlyle						6	13	2
	To Ditto of Ditto						5
1755 May 6	To Cash of the Right Hon^ble the Lord Fairfax						40
	To Ditto my Pay &ca. of the Country						61
	To Smiths acc^t. of the Country							6
	To Cash						25
	To Cash rec^d. as a present from the Assembly						300
Sept^r 29	To Billiards							10
Nov^r 12	To my Salary as Adjutant						25
	To my Expences in going to Fort Dinwiddie refunded						3	1	3
Dec^r 1	To my Pay to this						136	10
16	To Cash of the Publick						60
1756 Jan^y 10	To Ditto at Cards							10
	To Ditto of the Publick						16
16	To Ditto of Ditto						15
Feb^y 2	To Ditto of Ditto						96
	To Ditto of Ditto						43	10
	To Ditto of Ditto lodgd with Captⁿ. Mercer						117
	To Ditto of Ditto for Ditto						20	15
	To Ditto borrowd of Col^o. Carlyle						5	7	6
	To Ditto of the Publick for Captⁿ. Mercer						4	6	8
	To Ditto of Ditto for Ditto						8
							1370	18	½

1 The title of this book is as follows:

2 This paper was originally prepared to be read as a part of the memorial exercises at Cambridge which were held under the auspices of the Harvard Memorial Society, in honor of the three hundredth anniversary of Harvard’s birth. The material then collated relative to the construction of houses, etc., when worked into shape proved to be far in excess of the demands for the occasion, so that the paper had to be much abridged in reading; but in submitting it to the Colonial Society with a view to publication, the rejected matter has been restored.

3 Winthrop’s Journal, ii. 88, note by Savage.

4 Ibid. ii. 342.

5 Magnalia (1853), ii. 10.

6 Cotton Mather gives his father’s argument in full, as to the power of the College to confer degrees, in Magnalia, ii. 19, 20, and the degree itself, ii. 26.

7 Magnalia, ii. 10, 30.

8 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vol. iii. p. iv.

9 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 196.

10 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 237.

11 In “The Site of the First College Building at Cambridge,” in the Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society for October, 1888, the “Way to Charlestown” is identified with Kirkland Street, and the inference is drawn that the town grant was north of Kirkland Street, as it is now laid out. There can be but little doubt that Kirkland Street represents the “Way to Charlestown,” but whether the way was not from time to time removed from place to place is another question. President Wadsworth’s location of the town grant within the Yard shows his opinion, and my own later views are expressed in “The College in Early Days,” in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for April, 1893.

12 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 206.

13 Records of the First Church in Charlestown, Boston, 1880, p. 9.

14 “The 26 of the ii. Month” (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vol. iii. p. iv.).

15 Records of the First Church in Charlestown, p. 165.

16 Frothingham’s History of Charlestown, p. 74.

17 In Pientissimum, Reverendissimumque virum, Johannem Harvardum, è suggestio Sacro Caroloensi ad cœlos evectum (Magnalia, ii. 33).

18 Frothingham’s History of Charlestown, p. 55.

19 Frothingham further says that in another division his lot was nearly a third larger than that of Mr. Symmes, and adds that on November 27, 1637, he had a grant of three and a half feet of ground for a portal (History of Charlestown, p. 74).

20 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vol. iii. p. iv.

21 Diary, i. 446, 447.

22 Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. 48, facsimile of the record.

23 Hutchinson’s Collection of Original Papers, p. 49.

24 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 408; Palfrey’s History of New England, i. 298; Neal’s History of New England, i. 129, 130.

25 Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts (1795), i. 431.

26 Journal, i. 33.

27 Winthrop, writing in 1633 of the proceedings against Saltonstall, Humphry, and Cradock, says that “the defendants were dismissed with a favorable order for their encouragement, being assured by some of the Council, that his Majesty did not intend to impose the ceremonies of the Church of England upon us; for that it was considered that it was the freedom from such things that made people come over to us” (Journal, i. 103).

28 His description in his mother’s will as “clarke” and in his marriage licence as “clìcum,” carries with it the probability that he was ordained in the Anglican Church.

29 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 219, 220.

30 Ibid. i. 220. The proceedings this day were replete with interest. Winthrop baffled Vane’s attempt at delay and finally compelled him against his will to proceed with the election by threatening to assume charge of the meeting himself, if Vane would not yield to the desires of the majority.

31 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 220.

32 Ibid. i. 220.

33 Ibid. i. 232.

34 Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts, i. 64. Winthrop’s account is: “None of them met him & the Sergeants who had escorted the former Governor refused to perform that service for him alleging that such service had been performed on account of the man not the place” (Journal, i. 234).

35 Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts, i. 65.

36 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 235.

37 Wonder-working Providence (1867), p. 72.

38 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 74.

39 Ibid. i. 74, 76, 77, 79, 91, 109, 160 (wages); 126, 183 (sumptuary laws).

40 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 88. Thomas Dexter was in March, 1632–33, set in the bilboes, disfranchised and fined 40 s. for reproachful and seditious words against the Government here established, and for finding fault to divers with the Acts of the Court, and for saying “this captious ^t will bring all to naught, adding that the best of them was but an atturney” (ibid. i. 103).

Capt. John Stone, in September, 1633, for “confronting aucthority, abuseing M^r Ludlowe both in words and behaviur, assalting him & calling him a iust as,” was fined £100 and prohibited “comeing into this pattent, w^thout leaue of the , vnder the penalty of death” (ibid. i. 108).

41 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 211, 212.

42 Journal, i. 322, 323.

43 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. (second edition) 1.

44 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 86.

45 Ibid. i. 75.

46 Ibid. i. 83.

47 Ibid. i. 111.

48 Ibid. i. 93.

49 The situation was sized up by Chalmers in the following words:

The colonists became at length dissatisfied with adjudications various and contrary, since every magistrate decided according to the equity of his own mind, without established laws to inform his judgment, or former precedents to direct his practice. Dissatisfaction soon swelled into clamor, and continued complaint produced ultimate reformation (Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American Colonies, Boston, 1845, i. 50).

50 Winthrop himself contended that he was not in favor of a rigorous execution of the orders against those who were merely residents. He stated “that it was his judgment, that, in the infancy of the plantations, justice should be administered with more lenity than in a settled state;” and after some discussion he acknowledged “that he was convinced, that he had failed in over much lenity and remissness and would endeavor (by God’s assistance), to take a more strict course hereafter” (Journal, i. 178).

51 Magnalia, ii. 33.

52 Autobiography, p. 64.

53 Wonder-working Providence, p. 103.

54 Certain Select Cases Resolved, p. 49.

55 The memorandum made by Winthrop and published by Savage in the Addenda reads: “Mr. Harvard gave to the College about £800” (Winthrop’s Journal, ii. 342). The author of New England’s First Fruits, p. 12, says “one halfe of his estate, (being in all £1700) towards the erecting of a college, and all his Library.” Thomas Shepard says, “The Lord put it into the heart of one Mr. Harvard, who dyed worth £1600 to give halfe his estate to the erecting of the Schoole” (Autobiography, p. 64). Johnson in his Wonder-working Providence fixes the amount of the bequest at “near a thousand pounds” (p. 133).

56 Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 374.

57 Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts, i. 91; Johnson’s Wonder-working Providence, p. 31.

58 Magnalia, i. 80.

59 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 268.

60 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 192.

61 Ibid. i. 201.

62 Winthrop calls them wigwams (Journal, i. 36, 38); Prince, booths and tents (Annals, p. 309); Scottow, huts and smoky cottages (Narrative of the Planting of Massachusetts Colony, 1694, p. 16); Hubbard, small cottages (History of New England, p. 134); Winslow, booths and huts (Good News from New England, 1648, 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 201)

63 Early Records of Charlestown, in Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 374.

64 March 2, 1646–47, John Crocker vs. Thomas Shawe, “for coming into his house by pulling aside some loose pallisadoes, on ye Lords day, about ye middle of ye day” (Plymouth Colony Records, i. 111).

65 New Englands Plantation, in Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 244.

66 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 48.

67 For references to wooden chimneys and thatched roofs, see Dudley’s letter to the Countess of Lincoln, March, 1631 (Collections New Hampshire Historical Society, iv. 248)

68 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 70.

69 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 54.

70 Magnalia, i. 311.

71 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 63.

72 Mourt’s Relation (1865), p. 9.

73 Scottow’s Narrative of the planting of the Colony, p. 40.

74 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 40.

75 Ibid. iv. 63. See also two charges in 1637 for daubing the meeting-house (Essex Institute Historical Collections, iv; Second series, i). Roger Clap describes the Castle as built with “Mud walls which stood for divers years” (Memoirs, Boston, 1731, p. 15).

76 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 82.

77 Ibid. i. 73.

78 Scottow’s Narrative of the Planting of Massachusetts Colony, p. 41.

79 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 87.

80 The Early College Buildings at Cambridge, Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society for April, 1890.

81 It may seem unnecessary to devote so much time to the discussion of daubed walls in connection with the career of one whose mother was from Stratford and a contemporary of the poet who wrote the familiar lines—

Imperious Cæsar dead and turned to clay

Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.

82 “Bring paper and linseed oil for your windows” (Winslow in Mourt’s Relation, p. 142).

83 Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 254. Capt. Smith says, “traine oyle with the splinters of the roots of pine trees for candles” (3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, iii. 38); Wood, New England’s Prospect (1898), p. 18.

84 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 92 (corn), 97 (bullets), 140 (beaver), 208 (wampum).

85 Dunster’s list of these books comprehends 260 titles. Several of these titles indicated works published in several volumes. See A few Notes concerning the Records of Harvard College, Bibliographical Contributions, Library of Harvard University, No. 27. Quite recently a praiseworthy effort has been put forth to place upon the shelves of the Harvard Library a copy of each work named in the catalogue—a contemporaneous publication by preference. The study of the subject has revealed the fact that the library bequeathed by Harvard must have contained 373 volumes.

86 The effort to duplicate these volumes has disclosed the fact that many of them were octavos and some even smaller.

87 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 304.

88 Winthrop was not, apparently, opposed to its use. March 18, 1627, he wrote “We want a little tobacco. I had very good, for seven shillings a pound at a grocer’s by Holborn Bridge” (Journal, i. 350). The statutes referred to will be found in the Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 101 (use prohibited), 109 (constables to take note of persons), 136 (sale prohibited), 204, 206 (former laws repealed), 241–242 (new law against use).

89 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 377.

90 Ibid. i. 379.

91 Wood writes in 1634: “Four eggs may be had for a penny and a quart of milk at the same rate and when butter is six pence a pound and Cheshire cheese at five penc” (Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 414).

92 When the Governor’s wife arrived in 1631 people sent him “fat hogs, kids, venison, poultry, geese, partridges, &c.” (Journal, i. 57). By 1633, the gardens had become productive, so that notwithstanding a scarcity of corn people lived well with fish and the fruit of their gardens (ibid. i. 108).

93 “For bread and beer, that it was denied to them betwixt meals, truly, I do not remember, that ever I did deny it unto them; and John Wilson will affirme, that, generally, bread and beer was free for the boarders to go unto” (Winthrop’s Journal, i. 310 note).

94 Thomas Dudley writes in 1631 to the Countess of Lincoln saying “having yet no table, nor other room to write in than by the fireside upon my knee” (Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 305).

95 My attention has been called to the omission in the text of reference to the use of intoxicating liquors. Of course drunkenness was one of the troubles of that time. Numerous convictions are recorded for the offence, but at the period which I cover, all liquors were imported except strong beer. In 1630, Winthrop restrained the drinking of healths at his table, and so it grew little by little to disuse (Journal, i. 37). In 1635, he speaks of drunkenness occasioned by people running to the ships (ibid. i. 161).

96 I am indebted to Professor Kittredge for calling my attention to two things: first, the proverb “fingers were made before forks,” evidence in itself that the knife was not used by well bred persons for conveying food to the mouth; and secondly, to Chaucer’s description of the dainty manner in which the Prioress fed herself, obviously with her fingers, given in the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Thomas Shepard in one of his sermons calls attention to the danger accompanying the use of the knife in cutting one’s meat: “Its from the excellency of a knife to cut well, but to cut my finger with it when I should be cutting of my meat with it, ariseth not from the end of the knife, nor from the intention of him who made it” (Certain Select Cases Resolved, p. 7).

97 Montaigne’s Journal, iv. 210.

98 William T. Davis in his Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth (p. vii.) makes substantially the same observations as to the preponderance of napkins.

99 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 210.

100 Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 54.

101 “We could not follow them in our Armor” (Winthrop’ Journal, i. 199).

102 Massachusetts Colony Records, i, 125.

103 “Our men being completely armed with Corslets, muskets, bandoliers, rests and Swords.” Head pieces are also mentioned in this account. (Capt. John Underbill’s Newes from America, in Hart’s American History told by Contemporaries, p. 439.) Besides the expression, showing that the men were in armor—quoted in the note above—Winthrop, in another description in the same year, 1636, speaks of their being armed with corselets (Journal, i. 194).

104 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 126, 183.

105 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 8, iv. 3.

106 Boston Record Commissioners Reports, iv. 22.

107 “He demands of the next man he met, what the signall of the drum ment, the reply was made they have as yet no Bell to call men to meeting” (Johnson’s Wonder-working Providence, p. 103).

108 Winthrop’ Journal, ii. 220.

109 Wonder-working Providence, p. 41.

110 See C. F. Adams’ Antinomianism (Prince Society), p. 251. Shepard did not take a very active part in the discussion relative to the heresy of Mrs. Hutchinson, and he evidently considered that he occupied a neutral opinion in the controversy, for he says that Newtown was “kept spotless from the contagion of opinion.” He was, however, one of a committee which examined Mrs. Hutchinson, and although he was not violent in his opposition to her, yet he joined in a report with Thomas Welde which was referred to several times in the discussion. It seems to me therefore that he must be considered as practically taking sides in the matter.

111 Cotton Mather is authority for the statement that the Clergy had “eminent skill in physick.” He says, “it is well known that until two hundred years ago, physick in England was no profession distinct from divinity.” Most of Charles Chauncy’s sons, six in all, were, he says, practicers of physic as well as clergymen (Magnalia, i. 475).

112 Magnalia, ii. 33.

113 It is known that Mrs. Harvard bore children by her second husband. It is probable that Wilson was thinking of these children when he composed his elegy. The form of the elegy, an address by Harvard to an assembly of graduates, involves the idea of the lapse of many years after Harvard’s death before such a gathering could have taken place. Wilson died in 1667 at the age of seventy-nine, and if we allow an interval of at least twenty-five years to have elapsed after Harvard’s death before the elegy was composed, it would make him seventy-five years of age when it was written. This may perhaps account for this expression in the elegy, as confusion of memory on his part. That this must have been so, becomes apparent when we take into consideration the date of Harvard’s marriage, April 19, 1636.

114 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 183.

115 Ibid. i. 208.

116 Ibid. i. 217.

117 The close resemblance of this committee to the body to whom was entrusted the care and regulation of the affairs of the College in 1642, has led encyclopædists to record that members of the committee were at that time appointed Overseers of Harvard College.

118 Magnalia, i. 386.

119 Autobiography, p. 64.

120 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 447, note. George E. Ellis was one of the committee in charge of the publication of this volume and doubtless is responsible for this witty and appropriate quotation.

121 The assumption that Harvard’s will was nuncupative may be correct, but it does not rest upon direct evidence.

122 Publications, viii. 243, 244.

123 The Boston News-Letter of Thursday, 30 September, 1756, stated that “On Saturday last His Excellency embarked on board His Majesty’s Ship Mermaid, Washington Shirley, Esq; Commander” (p. 1/2).

124 Suffolk Deeds, ci. 164.

125 Suffolk Probate Files, no. 15,041.

126 Suffolk Deeds, cxxxv. 196. See also clxx. 48, 96, clxxvi. 13, 15.

127 Born in 1590 at Wethersfield, Essex, where his father the Rev. Richard Rogers held a lectureship from about 1577 to 1618, being repeatedly “suspended for Nonconformity though supported by the Puritan Lord Knolys.” Ezekiel Rogers’s elder brother, Daniel, succeeded his father, after an interval, in the Wethersfield lectureship. All three were of the University of Cambridge. See Victoria History of the County of Essex, ii. 52.

128 The History of Rowley, by Thomas Gage, with an Address by the Rev. James Bradford, 1840. Most of the information about Mr. Rogers is contained in the Address and in Appendix A to the Address.

129 This reminds one of the inability of the younger Weller to see his father in court.

130 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1638–1639, pp. 430, 431.

131 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1574–1660, pp. 263, 264.

132 Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Report vii. App. p. 538.

133 There is a letter dated November 6, 1621, from Mr. Rogers to Lady Joan Barrington, the wife of Sir Francis, who was a daughter of Sir Henry Cromwell and so an aunt of the Protector (ibid. p. 543). Another letter dated September 28, 1626, tells of Mr. Rogers’s sickness and recovery (ibid. p. 543). In 1644 Sir Thomas Barrington died and was succeeded by his son Sir John, and Mr. Rogers wrote to Mr. John Kendall at Sir John Barrington’s on December 8 of that year—

A long letter about what the late Sir Thomas Barrington had promised him in the way of preferment. He alludes to his diligent attendance on and comfort to Sir Thomas “on his sad and deep distemper of melancholy; not only in the day but in the night watchings and midnight rising he (Rogers) did much to impare his health.” (On the back is the copy of an answer by Kendall dated 1 May, 1645, in which he says that Sir Thomas had left his son burdened with 10000 l) (ibid. p. 570).

Mr. Rogers wrote again November 9, 1645, and once more December 9, 1646: “He mentions that old Lady B. promised him 100 l, and that Mr. Bridge said that he himself paid it to Robert Barrington, to be sent to New England for Rogers.” On April 25, 1646, “John Barrington to Ezekiel Rogers in England.—Copy of a letter on the subject of Rogers’s claims.” Was he then in England? See also a letter of the Rev. Daniel Rogers, a brother of Ezekiel, of July 7, 1647 (ibid. p. 570).

134 Ibid. pp. 543, 570.

135 Barton Stacey, a tithing and parish in Hants. The parish includes also the townships of Bransbury, Drayton, and Newton Stacey.

136 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1635, pp. 520, 521.

137 Magnalia (1820), i. 74.

138 Bond, Genealogies and History of Watertown, p. 995.

139 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 170.

140 Trumbull, History of Connecticut, i. 11.

141 Johnson, Wonder-working Providence, pp. 75, 77; Holmes, History of Cambridge, 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vii. 15, 16; Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut, p. 86 note.

142 Winthrop’s Journal (1853), i. 214 note.

143 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, ix. 154; Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut, p. 512; Stiles, History of Ancient Wethersfield, i. 24. But see Records of the First Church of Dorchester, Massachusetts, 1636–1734, p. vii. The records of the Windsor Church, now extant, do not embrace anything pertaining to its life at Dorchester, Massachusetts.

144 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 2.

145 Journal, i. 203.

146 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxxv. 21

147 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 26, 103, 123.

148 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, iv. 230.

149 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 580.

150 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlviii. 263.

151 Stiles, History of Ancient Windsor, i. 429.

152 Magnalia, i. 74.

153 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 7.

154 Holland, History of Western Massachusetts, i. 24.

155 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxxv. 21. Dr. H. R. Stiles, in his History of Ancient Windsor, i. 54, and of Ancient Wethersfield, i. 39, seems to confuse him with the Rev. Henry Smith, who later came over from England and became the minister in Wethersfield. See his Ancient Wethersfield, i. 154.

156 Hazard, Historical Collections, ii. 113.

157 Hazard, Historical Collections, ii. 118.

158 Trumbull says that this reads “inconvenient” in the manuscript Journals of the Congress (Historical Notes on the Constitutions of Connecticut, p. 5).

159 Hazard, Historical Collections, ii. 119.

160 Trumbull, History of Connecticut, i. 525.

161 Bowen, Boundary Disputes of Connecticut, 15.

162 Trumbull, History of Connecticut, i. 544.

163 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 477.

164 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 160.

165 Dr. Henry Bronson states, I think mistakenly, that Mr. Welles was for a short time a magistrate under the Massachusetts commission. New Haven Colony Historical Society Papers, iii. 296.

166 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 12.

167 Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, i. 13.

168 Burt, First Century of the History of Springfield, i. 152.

169 As late as 1639 there were probably not over fifteen men there. Green, Springfield, 1636–1886, p. 45.

170 Dwight’s Travels in New-England and New-York, i. 319.

171 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, v. 472.

172 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 308.

173 Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, ii. 283.

174 Morris, Early History of Springfield, p. 11; Todd (The Burr Family) puts the date of his removal as 1644. He represented Fairfield in the Connecticut General Court in 1645, his name being enrolled as “Jehu Burre” (Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 130).

175 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 10, 13.

176 Letter quoted in Taylor, Roger Ludlow, p. 70.

177 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 192.

178 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 259.

179 Ibid. i. 260.

180 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 10.

181 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 11.

182 Ibid. i. 13.

183 Ibid. i. 19.

184 Johnson, Wonder-working Providence, p. 199.

185 Roger Wolcott’s Memoir, Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, ii. 326.

186 Journal, i. 216.

187 This was on October 7, 1640 (Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 304). Connecticut assented in 1641 (Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 64).

188 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 281.

189 Ibid. i. 284.

190 Letter of Thomas Hooker to Gov. Winthrop. Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, i. 9; Winthrop’s Journal, i. 237, 285, 286.

191 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 216.

192 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 320, 321.

193 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 260.

194 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 321.

195 Ibid. i. 229, 230, 232.

196 Hazard, Historical Collections, ii. 72.

197 Ibid. ii. 111.

198 Ibid. ii. 112.

199 Ibid. ii. 137.

200 John Winthrop, Senior.

201 Hazard, Historical Collections, ii. 139.

202 Journal, i. 319. Cf. i. 335.

203 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 264.

204 Ibid. “You” in this letter evidently refers generally to those who represented Massachusetts at the conference.

205 Winthrop’s Journal indicates that this conference occurred not in June but July, 1638. He speaks, under date of December 13, 1638, of these three men as having brought their Connecticut amendments to the attention of the General Court at Newtown (i.e. Cambridge) on “the of the 5^th” (Journal, i. 342). This probably indicates simply a lapse of memory.

206 Winthrop’s Journal, ii. 428; Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, i. 2.

207 Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, i. 14.

208 Life and Letters of John Winthrop, ii. 422.

209 Journal, i. 344.

210 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 25, 26.

211 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 20, 24.

212 Ibid. i. 18.

213 Massachusetts Historical Society Manuscripts, 81. D. p. 4. I am indebted for this reference to the courtesy of Mr. Charles K. Bolton, the librarian of the Boston Athenæum.

214 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xiii. 291; Holland, History of Western Massachusetts, i. 33; 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 487.

215 Green, Springfield, 1636–1886, pp. 29–36; quoted from the original manuscript now owned by Charles E. Oliver of Boston. The only date of the letter is the 18th day of the second month, but it was addressed on the back “To his lov. friend, M^r Pinchon, at his house in Aguam, lett these bee del^d,” and on the first page is a marginal note, apparently in his handwriting, of its receipt on “the 20 April, 1639.”

216 Green, Springfield, 1636–1886, pp. 55, 60.

217 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 119.

218 Winthrop’s Journal, i. 360.

219 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 30, 31.

220 Burt, First Century of the History of Springfield, i. 144.

221 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 296.

222 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 320–322.

223 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 57.

224 Trumbull, History of Connecticut, i. 115.

225 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 31, 35, 36; Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 82.

226 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 90 note.

227 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 119, 185.

228 Hazard, Historical Collections, ii. 123.

229 Colonial Records of Connecticut, i. 139.

230 Hazard, Historical Collections, ii. 136.

231 A copy of this survey is given in Bowen’s Boundary Disputes of Connecticut, opposite p. 19. It runs the line below Enfield Falls. See further Bowen’s description of the territory included, in chapters iii and iv of his work.

232 Colonial Records of Connecticut, v. 390–399.

233 Colonial Records of Connecticut, ix. 431.

234 Johnston, History of Connecticut, p. 209.

235 Hazard, Historical Collections, ii. 142.

236 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 109.

237 Winthrop’s Journal, ii. 457.

238 Green, Springfield, 1630–1886, p. 63.

239 This letter, dated 15 March, 1793, is printed in Anne Cary Morri’s Diary and Letters of Gouverneur Morris (1888), ii. 38. The opening words—“I have receiv’d yours of the third of February and reply shortly that I may reply immediately. My Reason for which is that”—are omitted in the Diary and Letters, as are also the words printed in italics in the following sentence: “In the first Place I must have leave to resign from the President but further you will consider that the very Circumstance,” etc.

240 Publications of this Society, vi. 109–130.

241 For Boyle, see ibid. vi. 321 note 4, ix. index.

242 Palfrey, History of New England, i. 313.

243 Cambridge Modern History, iv. 275.

244 Ibid. iv. 266–275.

245 In the Massachusetts Colony Records (i. 36), under date of March 17, 1628–29, is the following entry:

A warrant was made ffor payment of 120^t to M^r Nathaniell Wright, for so much p^d by him to M^r Jarvis Kerke, M^r W^m Barkley, & M^r Roᵬrt Charlton, ffor the shippe.

The Jarvis Kerke here referred to is the Gervase Kirke named in the text, both forms of the name being found in the Calendars of State Papers. Thia entry was made a few days after the date of the Charter, March 4–14,1628–29, but before organization thereunder.

246 Henry Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada (1871), p. 69.

247 History of New England (1853), i. 15, 16.

248 Ibid. i. 17. Terceira is one of the large islands of the central group of the Azores. It is in slightly above 27° west longitude. Under date of May 9, Winthrop says that the fleet was a little west of Corvos. Corvo and Flores are the two islands comprising the northwestern group of the Azores and are in slightly above 31° west longitude. Upon the two estimates the fleet made about four degrees of longitude in ten days.

249 History of New England, i. 17, 18, 21.

250 See Parkman, Pioneers of France (1896), p. 444; Winsor, Cartier to Frontenac, p. 136; Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada, pp. 69–74. In saying that “Champlain surrendered Quebec to the English on the 9th of August, 1629,” Henry Kirke is slightly inaccurate. The surrender of Quebec took place on July 20; the articles, drawn up July 19, were ratified on August 9 by David Kirke at Tadousac. See Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1574–1660, pp. 98, 99. The matter is correctly stated by R. Brown in his History of the Island of Cape Breton (1869), p. 73. The articles are printed in Hazard’s Historical Collections, i. 285–287.

251 Birch’s Court and Times of Charles the First contains letters bearing on the subject from the Rev. Joseph Mead to Sir Martin Stuteville dated September 26, 1629 (ii. 28), from Mr. Beaulieu to Sir Thomas Puckering dated January 20, 1629–30 (ii. 52), from John Pory to Puckering dated January 13, 1630–31 (ii. 89, 90), from Beaulieu to Puckering dated May 25, 1631 (ii. 122), from Pory to Puckering dated June 16, 1631 (ii. 123), and from Pory to Puckering dated February 23, 1631–32 (ii. 171, 172). In his letter to Puckering of January 13, 1630–31, Pory, with pleasing naïveté, writes:

That Philip Burlamachi hath gotten a brave employment into France, to fetch home the latter half of the Queen’s portion, being £120,000, and satisfaction also for three great rich English ships, treacherously taken by the French after the peace proclaimed. “Do you think that the French, being so exhausted by their wars, would part with such heaps of treasure for nothing? No: you may be sure they would not. The bait, therefore, to allure them thereunto, is the fort of Kebeck, in Canada, to get it out of Capt. Kirk’s clutches; the trade of beavers and otters, which they want to enjoy by the possession whereof, having been worth unto them, communibus annis, £30,000 by year.” That the said fort sticketh in their hearts, as Calais did in Queen Mary’s.

252 Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada, pp. 82–86; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1574–1660, pp. 117, 118.

253 In a note to Winthrop’s History of New England (i. 15), Savage says that “Capt. Kirk” was “probably a brother of Sir David Kirk.”

254 Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada, p. 93.

255 Mosquitoes.

256 Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada, p. 87.

257 Parkman, Pioneers of France, p. 444. In Rymer’s Foedera (xix. 303) is a promise of Charles I to return Quebec to the French King dated June 29, 1631.

258 Winsor, Cartier to Frontenac, p. 137. The Treaty of St. Germain has been printed several times in French, but not in English. See Rymer’s Fœdera, xix. 361–365; Memoires des Commissaires (1755), ii. 7–13; Collection de Manuscrits relatifs a la Nouvelle-France (1883), i. 86–97; Hazard, Historical Collections, i. 319, 320.

259 See E. F. Slafter, Sir William Alexander, and American Colonization (Prince Society), pp. 62–72.

260 Winsor, Carrier to Frontenac, p. 138.

261 Ibid. p. 138. In a letter to John Winthrop, Jr., dated London, December 26, 1631, Francis Kirby wrote:

Captain Bruton who was imployed by my cozen Moris Thomson and company for the trade of bever in the river of Canada is now arrived heer . . . he hath brought in heer about 3000^lb weight of bever, and they are now hasteninge to set forth a small ship only for that river hopinge to be there before Captain Kerke whom (I hear) Is to fetch his men from Quibeck and yield up the Castle againe to the French this next somer (3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, ix. 238).

It would appear from these statements that the English were making the most of their control of the River St. Lawrence while it lasted.

As contemporary glimpses of the Kirkes are somewhat rare, it may not be without interest to bring together a few. In a relation written at Quebec August 28, 1632, Father Le Jeune said:

At length, on the 5th of July, which was Monday,—two months and 18 days since the 18th of April, when we sailed,—we reached the much desired port. We cast anchor in front of the fort which the English held; we saw at the foot of this fort the poor settlement of Kebec all in ashes. The English, who came to this country to plunder and not to build up, not only burned a greater part of the detached buildings which Father Charles Lallement had had erected, but also all of that poor settlement of which nothing now is to be seen but the ruins of its stone walls. This greatly inconveniences the French, who do not know where to lodge. The next day Captain Thomas Ker was summoned, a man of French Nationality, born at Dieppe, who had gone over to England, and who, with David and Louys Ker, his brothers, and one Jacques Michel, also born at Dieppe, all huguenots, had thrown themselves upon this poor country, where they have done great damage and have prevented the doing of much good. . . . The English Clergyman, who was not of the same Faith as his people,—for he was a Protestant or Lutheran, and the Kers are Calvinists or of some other more libertine Religion (they held this poor Minister a prisoner in their house for six months),—told me that the Moutagnards wanted to negotiate a peace with the Hiroquois (Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, v. 39, 41, 49).

Under date of July 25, 1645, Governor Winthrop wrote:

Monsieur La Tour having stayed here all winter and thus far of the summer, and having petitioned the court for aid against Monsieur D’Aulnay, and finding no hope to obtain help that way, took shipping in one of our vessels which went on fishing to Newfoundland, hoping by means of Sir David Kirk, governour there, and some friends he might procure in England to obtain aid from thence, intending for that end to go from thence to England. Sir David entertained him courteously, and promised to do much for him; but no means of help appearing to answer his ends, he returned hither before winter, Sir David giving him passage in a vessel of his which came hither (History of New England, ii. 303).

In a letter to John Winthrop, Jr., dated New Haven, September 26, 1659, the Rev. John Davenport said:

I desire . . . to let you know that I have received a large letter fr: M^r Blinman date^d Aug. 22. whereby I understand that God hath brought him and his to Newfoundland, in safety and health, . . . After these passages and his notifying to me the Lady Kircks respectful and loving mention of me whom she saith, she hath heard in London, he addeth to what I had heard fr: England that a fine of 5^£ is put upon any that shall name the last protector (3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, x. 25, 26).

No doubt this was the widow of Sir David Kirke.

262 W. A. Shaw, Knights of England, ii. 201.

263 Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada, p. 161 and note.

264 Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada, p. 167.

265 Shaw, Knights of England, ii. 215. In his History of Newfoundland (pp. 155, 162, 164), Judge Prowse speaks of “Sir James Kirke.” This is apparently a mistake, for in the documents from the Calendars of State Papers referred to by Prowse James Kirke is not spoken of as a knight, nor is his name found in Shaw’s work. On the other hand, John Kirke, though his name too is not in Shaw’s work, was knighted, though exactly when does not appear. On May 14, 1683, there is mention of a “Petition of Sir John Kirk, Knight, to the King” (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1685–1689, p. 643), and on January 26, 1684, of “Sir John Kirk” as the father-in-law of Radisson (ibid. p. 648). The second wife of Radisson is sometimes erroneously said (Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, v. 277) to have been the daughter of Sir David Kirke. Radisson himself said that he was “marry’d at London unto an Hon^ble familly,” and spoke of “my father-in-Law, Sir John Kirk” (Voyages of Peter Esprit Radisson, Prince Society, pp. 250, 254).

266 R. Brown, History of the Island of Cape Breton, p. 112 note; Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada, p. 173.

267 That from the autumn of 1651 to June 11, 1652, Sir David was in London, as stated by Henry Kirke, is shown by the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1574–1660, pp. 363, 371, 372, 373, 381. Henry Kirke writes:

At the same time [i.e., June 11, 1652], permission was granted to Sir David to return to Newfoundland, on condition that he returned to England with the Commissioners, and in the meanwhile gave security that he would answer whatever was objected against him, and to pay such sums as shall appear to be due from him to the Commonwealth. Upon such hard terms as these, Sir David Kirke returned to his estates at Ferryland, in the summer of 1652. He could not have remained there long, for in the spring of 1653, we find him again in England, . . . he was allowed to return to Newfoundland, upon entering into a bond of double the value of his estate, to answer any charges that might be brought against him. With such terms, which were the best he could procure, Kirke was bound to be satisfied; so he set sail for Newfoundland and arrived there in the autumn of 1653. . . . But all hopes and expectations were blighted by his death, which took place in the winter of 1655–6, but the exact date is not known. (First English Conquest of Canada, pp. T77–184.)

Henry Kirke offers no proof that Sir David returned to Newfoundland in the summer of 1652 and again in the autumn of 1653, and, while the statement may be correct, there is nothing in the Calendar of State Papers to support it. As to the date of Sir David’s death, Henry Kirke is clearly wrong. On June 11, 1653, a petition of Sir David was referred to the Committee of the Admiralty, and on December 1, 1653, an order of the Council of State referred the petition to the Committee for Irish and Scotch Affairs. On April 24, 1654, Sir David was spoken of as dead. (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1574–1660, pp. 404, 412, 415.)

268 “In the full conviction,” writes Henry Kirke, “that the Baltimores had abandoned Newfoundland, Sir David Kirke obtained a grant of that place from the King, . . . This was in 1637, and no complaint was made by Lord Baltimore till 1660” (First English Conquest of Canada, pp. 188, 189). As early as February, 1637, Lord Baltimore presented a memorial “touching his right to part of Newfoundland” (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1574–1660, pp. 246, 247). On June 11, 1652, the Committee for Foreign Affairs considered “the interests of the Commonwealth in Newfoundland, and the encouragement of the fisheries there;” and “Sir David Kirke and Lord Baltimore, who pretend private interest, agree that the proceeding therein will be no inconvenience to them” (ibid. p. 381). The Maryland Historical Society owns several documents relating to the subject dated 1652 or 1653, among them “the Lord Baltimore’s case concerning Avalon” (Calvert Papers, part i. p. 113). Under date of June, 1660, is a—

Petition of Cecil, Lord Baltimore to the King. Recites King James’s patent of Newfoundland to his father; where he began a plantation, built a fair house in which he resided, and expended above 30,000 l. After his decease, the petitioner deputed Capt. William Hill, Governor. In 1638 . . . Sir David Kirke surreptitiously obtained a patent, went over the following year, and dispossessed the petitioner of all his rights there. In 1655 Kirke made over part of his patent to John Claypole (son-in-law to Cromwell), . . . and others, and Sir Lewis Kirke and others are endeavouring to get a confirmation of that patent. Prays that no grant may be passed to his prejudice, and that he may be restored to his rights according to his patent (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1574–1660, p. 481).

It has been stated that the Kirke who in 1655 “over part of his patent to John Claypole” was Sir David; but if the date is correct, Sir David was then dead; hence probably it was James Kirke, or else there was a mistake in, the date. A little later than the above petition, we find, presumably dated in 1661, another—

Petition of Cecil Lord Baltemore to the King. Recites his former petition and the proceedings thereon . . . ; with his Majesty’s order (of 20th March 1660/1) to restore petitioner to his possession and rights in Newfoundland, but that he hath yet no satisfaction for such damage done him by Sir David Kirke and others in dispossessing petitioner of his house, goods, and rights in the province of Avalon, and keeping him out of possession many years, to his prejudice of above 20,000 l. sterling, for which damages petitioner sued said Sir David Kirke at his first return thence into England about ten years since, and laid him in prison, where he died before making any satisfaction to petitioner. That nevertheless Sir Lewis Kirke claims satisfaction for the charges wrongfully bestowed by his brother upon said province to petitioner’s prejudice (ibid., Colonial, 1061–1668, p. 21).

Lord Baltimore appointed Captain Robert Swanley to be his lieutenant in Avalon, and on May 9, 1663, the King’s officers and subjects were “to be assisting to Capt. Swanley or his deputy in the Government of said province” (ibid. p. 132).

269 History of New England, i. 24. The following is the entry for May 30:

The wind N. by E. a handsome gale, but close, misty weather, and very cold; so our ship made good way in a smooth sea, and our three ships kept close together. By our account we were in the same meridian with Isle Sable, and forty-two and a half (ibid. i. 24).

270 That the colonists felt that they were in grave danger of hostilities by the French is shown by a statement in Thomas Dudley’s letter to the Countess of Lincoln, dated March 12, 1630–31, wherein Dudley, referring to the efforts of the colonists in July and August, 1630, to find a place for their sitting down, says:

And to that purpose, some were sent to the Bay, to search up the rivers for a convenient place; who, upon their return, reported to have found a good place upon Mistick; but some other of us, seconding these, to approve or dislike of their judgment, we found a place (that) liked us better, three leagues up Charles river; and thereupon unshipped our goods into other vessels, and with much cost and labor brought them in July to Charlestown. But there receiving advertisements, by some of the late arrived ships from London and Amsterdam, of some French preparations against us, (many of our people brought with us being sick of fevers and the scurvy, and we thereby unable to carry up our ordnance and baggage so far,) we were forced to change counsel, and for our present shelter to plant dispersedly, some at Charlestown, which standeth on the north side of the mouth of Charles river; some on the south side thereof, which place we named Boston, (as we intended to have done the place we first resolved on;) some of us upon Mistick, which we named Medford; some of us westwards on Charles river, four miles from Charlestown, which place we named Watertown; others of us two miles from Boston, in a place we named Rocksbury; others upon the river of Saugus, between Salem and Charlestown; and the western men four miles south from Boston, at a place we named Dorchester. (Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, pp. 312, 313.)

It thus appears that the danger of attacks by the French may have affected the locations of towns and town boundaries in the neighborhood of Boston.

271 Savage, referring to the capture of Quebec by the Kirkes, says (Winthrop’s History of New England, i. 13 note) that it was an event then and long after thought of so little consequence as not to be noticed in Hume’s History of England.

272 History of New England, chap. xiv.

273 History of New England, chap. lxxi.

274 This estate was at the southerly comer of what are now known as Washington and State Streets.

275 Mather, Magnalia (1702), book iii. chap. xxv. p. 144.

276 The Rev. John Wilson.

277 The Rev. John Norton.

278 See Massachusetts Colony Records (second edition), i. 37 f, 37 g, 37 h.

279 Original agreement in possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

280 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (part i.) 327.

281 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. (second edition) 158.

282 For Oxenbridge in England, see index of Masson’s Life of Milton.

283 Mather Papers, in Catalogue of Prince Library, ii. 15; Suffolk Probate Files, no. 716.

284 Acadia was ceded to France by the Treaty of Breda, 1667, but was not actually turned over until 1670.

285 Both wills are given in Prime’s Some Account of the Temple Family, Appendix (1899), pp. 94–99.

286 The title-page has neither imprint nor date. It is generally assigned to the year 1670. In the address “To the Reader,” the Rev. Increase Mather, a brother of Samuel Mather, speaks of it as a posthumous work; and as Samuel Mather died October 29, 1671, the pamphlet obviously could not not have been printed before the end of 1671.

287 See John Dunton, Life and Errors (1818), p. 204.

288 John Usher (1648–1726).

289 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 576.

290 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vii. 162.

291 Diary, i. 141.

292 Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, i. 45, 46.

293 Diary, June 27, 1671; August 3, 1671.

294 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vii. 162.

295 Diary, i. 159, 160, 162.

296 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vii. 220.

297 See Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xi. 13, 14.

298 Ibid. xi. 26.

299 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 178.

300 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xi. 37.

301 See Palfrey’s History of New England, iv. 295 note, quoting a letter from Governor Dudley to the Lords of Trade, March 10, 1705: “I have received her Majesty’s picture and coat of arms. The same were the next day fixed in the Council Chamber of this Province.”

302 See John Hull’s Diary, p. 150 note.

303 See Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts (1767), ii. 187.

304 Sewall’s Letter Book, i. 422.

305 See Publications of this Society, viii. 19–21.

306 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xi. 185.

307 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vii. 163.

308 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xiii. 249.

309 See Publications of this Society, xi. 196–207.

310 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xviii. 422.

311 [The return of Mede’s book to the King’s Chapel Library came from a suggestion by Mr. Canavan.—Editor.]

312 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xi. 240.

313 Sewall’s Letter Book, ii. 208.

314 See J. J. Ogle’s The Free Library (London, 1897), p. 11.

315 Report for 1899, p. 43.

316 The inscription has been kindly verified by Dean Wace of Canterbury Cathedral, who writes that the tablet is of white marble. It need scarcely be pointed out that the terms “British Colony of New England,” “British Forces,” and “American Commonwealth” would not have been employed by an American.

317 This silhouette of Bishop Cheverus belonged originally to the Rev. Dr. Eliphalet Pearson (H. C. 1773), a Fellow of the Corporation of Harvard College, and the first Principal of Phillips Academy, Andover. It was inherited by his daughter Margaret Bromfield Pearson, who married the Rev. 1. H. T. Blanchard (H. C. 1817), the Unitarian minister of Harvard, Massachusetts, and always adorned the wall of her chamber. At her death it passed to her kinsman our late associate Dr. Daniel Denison Slade, and is now the property of his son, Mr. Denison R. Slade. See Publications of this Society, v. 198 note, 205 note, viii. 290.

318 Jean Louis Anne Madeleine Lefebvre de Cheverus (1768–1836) signed himself, when Bishop of Boston, John Cheverus (Memorial History of Boston, iii. 518).

319 Some Select Cases Resolved (Boston, 1747), p. 44.

Again, the authors of A Defence of the Answer made unto the Nine Questions (London, 1648) say: “We had neither time nor Bookes ready at hand to Consider some of the quotations” (p. 29). Thomas Shepard and John Allen figure as the joint authors of this volume. Sabin treats it as identical with the Treatise of Liturgies, which is placed among the works of Shepard.

320 Legal may have a technical meaning here. Legalists are contrasted with Antinomians in contemporary literature. They were those who adhered to a rigorous administration of the word.

321 Theses Sabbaticæ, or The Doctrine of the Sabbath: etc., etc. By Thomas Shepard, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Cambridge in New England. London, 1649. The Sanctification of the Sabbath . . . The fourth Part, p. 36 et seq.

322 Theses Sabbaticæ, or The Doctrine of the Sabbath: etc., etc. By Thomas Shepard, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Cambridge in New England. London, 1649. The Sanctification of the Sabbath . . . The fourth Part, p. 45.

323 Subjection to Christ (London, 1652), p. 25.

324 Subjection to Christ (London, 1652), Quest. 3, p. 120.

325 Ibid. Answ. 2, p. 122.

326 Subjection to Christ (London, 1652), p. 124.

327 May 25, 1636, “M^r Shepeard” was one of a committee appointed by the General Court to prepare “a draught of lawes agreeable to the word of God, w^ch may be the Fundamentals of this com̄onwealth” (Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 174). March 12, 1637–38, “M^r Sheopard”—one of several who were described as “elders of severall churches”—was also on a committee appointed by the same body for a similar purpose (ibid. i. 222). This Shepeard or Sheopard was probably our Shepard.

328 The Church Membership of Children, p. 26.

329 The Parable of the Ten Virgins (London, 1660), p. 106.

330 Ibid. p. 166.

331 New England’s Lamentation for Old England’s Errours (1644), p. 5.

332 A Treatise of Liturgies . . . in answer to Mr. . . . Ball, p. 8.

333 The Sincere Convert (London, 1659), p. 69.

334 The Parable of the Ten Virgins (London, 1660), p. 226.

335 The Parable of the Ten Virgins (London, 1660), part ii. p. 5.

336 Ibid. p. 6.

337 Some Select Cases Resolved (Boston, 1747), p. 49.

338 The Parable, p. 103.

339 Ibid. p. 106.

340 Certain Select Cases Resolved, p. 7.

341 The Parable, p. 223.

342 Ibid. p. 127.

343 The Sound Believer (Boston, 1742), p. 206.

344 Subjection to Christ, p. 116.

345 The Parable, part ii. p. 61.

346 Ibid. p. 41.

347 Subjection to Christ, pp. 119–120.

348 Ibid. p. 121.

349 The Parable, p. 89.

350 Subjection to Christ, p. 192.

351 The Saints Jewel, p. 184. This is printed in connection with The Sincere Convert, with continuous pagination.

352 The Parable, part ii. p. 55.

353 The Sound Believer, p. 216.

354 Subjection to Christ, p. 132.

355 The Parable, pp. 107, 166.

356 The Sincere Convert, p. 164.

357 The Saints Jewel (London, 1659), p. 197. Printed with the Sincere Convert and having continuous pagination.

358 The Parable, p. 110.

359 The Sound Believer, p. 62.

360 The Parable, part ii. p. 97.

361 The Sound Believer, pp. 111, 112.

362 Theses Sabbaticse, The Sanctification of the Sabbath, p. 43.

363 The Parable, p. 57.

364 Ibid. p. 211.

365 The Parable, p. 227.

366 The Parable, part ii. p. 23.

367 The Sincere Convert, p. 114.

368 The Sound Believer, p. 238.

369 The Sincere Convert, p. 52.

370 The Sound Believer, p. 142.

371 Theses Sabbaticæ, The Beginning of the Sabbath, p. 3.

372 The Sound Believer, p. 33.

373 The Parable, p. 41.

374 Ibid. p. 215.

375 The Parable, part ii. p. 7.

376 The Parable, part i. p. 80; The Sincere Convert, p. 163.

377 The Parable, part i. p. 191.

378 Theses Sabbaticæ, The Sanctification of the Sabbath, p. 88.

379 Ibid. p. 175.

380 Ibid. p. 49.

381 Theses Sabbaticæ, The Morality of the Sabbath, p. 28.

382 Theses Sabbaticæ, The Morality of the Sabbath, p. 88.

383 A Treatise of Liturgies, p. 42.

384 Subjection to Christ, p. 92.

385 Ibid. p. 106.

386 Preface by Thomas Shepard—without pagination—to A Reply to a Confutation of some Grounds for Infants Baptisme, by George Philips (London, 1645). See sixth page.

387 The Parable, part ii. p. 103.

388 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxiv. 363.

389 Subjection to Christ, p. 100.

390 Ibid. p. 100.

391 Wine for Gospel Wantons: or Cautions against Spiritual Drunkenness (Cambridge, 1668), p. 9.

392 This is to be found on the third page of a preface by Shepard, which has no pagination, to A Reply to a Confutation of Some Grounds for Infant Baptisme, by George Philips (London, 1645).

393 Luke, vi. 2.

394 Exodus, xxxi. 15.

395 The Parable, p. 18.

396 Autobiography, p. 34.

397 Subjection to Christ, p. 97. For the explanation of this I am indebted to Professor Roger B. Merriman.

398 Subjection to Christ, p. 11

399 Ibid. p. 27.

400 The Sound Believer, p. 101. For the meaning of this, Professor Kittredge, who has helped me in solving some of these questions, says: See Jonah, ii. 5.

401 Certain Select Cases Resolved, p. 49.

402 (1) Autobiography. (2) The Church Membership of Children. (3) New England’s Lamentation for Old England’s Errours. (4) The Parable of the Ten Virgins. (5) The Saints Jewel, with The Sincere Convert. (6) The Sincere Convert. (7) Some [or Certain in some editions] Select Cases Resolved. (8) The Sound Believer. (9) Subjection to Christ. (10) Theses Sabbaticae. (11) Treatise of Liturgies. (12) Wine for Wanton Gospellers. The Saints Jewel, which is separately cited, is only to be found in connection with The Sincere Convert. The Day-breaking if not the Sun-rising, etc., is the title of another pamphlet included by Sabin among Shepard’s works, but not considered by me as entitled to this attribution.

403 The Clear Sun Shine of the Gospel breaking forth upon the Indians, etc., separately published; First principles of the Oracles of God, to be found in Three Valuable Pieces; and Meditation and Spiritual Experiences, also to be found in Three Valuable Pieces, but which was subsequently published by itself. The Sincere Convert in the form of a translation into the Indian tongue is also to be seen in some of our libraries.

404 The Liturgical Considerator Considered in Reply to Dr. Gaudon, London, 1661.

405 See p. 160, above.

406 William Clarke was the father of Richard Clarke, one of the consignees of the tea in 1773. See Publications of this Society, viii. 78 note.

407 The Hon. Josiah Willard, son of Samuel and Eunice (Tyng) Willard and grandson of Major Simon Willard, was born in Boston 21 June, 1681; graduated in 1698 at Harvard College, which he served later as a tutor and librarian; studied divinity and preached, but retired from his profession because of unconquerable diffidence; travelled in Europe and the West Indies, and at one time commanded a ship in the London trade. On 17 June, 1717, he was commissioned Secretary of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay and held the office till his death. From 1728 till 1745 he was Judge of Probate in Suffolk; and from 1734 till 1755 he sat in the Executive Council. He was universally honored and esteemed and was affectionately called “the good Secretary.” At the time of the Knowles riot in Boston, in 1747, Commodore Knowles dined with him. During the dinner the Commodore used some profane language, for which he was gently admonished by his host, but not until the next day. (See the correspondence in Publications of this Society, iii. 239, 240.)

Secretary Willard married (1) Katharine Allen, 24 October, 1715, by whom he had several children; and (2) Mrs. Hannah Clarke, 7 April, 1726, who also brought him two sons and a daughter. Mrs. Clarke was born in Lynn, 1 November, 1684, the daughter of Samuel and Elizabeth (Whittingham) Appleton of Ipswich. She married William Clarke of Boston, at Ipswich, 11 October, 1705, by whom she had several children; and after his death, as already stated, she became the second wife of Secretary Willard. Her first husband, William Clarke, had inherited from his uncle of the same name valuable real estate in Boston, including a parcel at the southeasterly corner of Tremont and School Streets, opposite King’s Chapel, now covered by the newer part of the Parker House. The lot measured 68 feet, 10 inches, on School Street and 94 feet, 5 inches, on Tremont Street, its southerly line bounding on the present site of Tremont Temple. On the northerly portion of this lot stood his mansion house, which faced School Street. Here his widow continued to reside after her marriage to Secretary Willard; and here is where Commodore Knowles dined on the occasion already referred to. Mr. Willard died 7 December, 1756. His widow survived him nearly ten years and died 28 July, 1766. See Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 156, xxviii. 61, 135, xxx. 302; Willard Memoir (1858), pp. 368, 369, 400–403; Whitmore, Massachusetts Civil List, pp. 44, 55–59, 80; Publications of this Society, viii. 78 note, 79 note, xii. 134; Suffolk Probate Files, nos. 3273, 4439, 11,380, 13,898; Suffolk Deeds, lxviii. 136, lxxvii. 191; Minute Book no. 26 of the Superior Court of Judicature, third leaf from end, Docket no. 227, Suffolk term beginning 13 February, 1738–39, of which no Record is known to exist; Suffolk Court Files, dccvi. 15, case no. 108,493; Boston Evening Post, 13 December, 1756, p. 2/2, 4 August, 1766, p. 2/3.

408 Lefroy, Memorials of the Bermudas or Somers Islands, i. 710. Governor Lefroy considers Nathaniel Ward of Ipswich, New England, and him of Bermuda the same; but on p. 545 he says, whether they are the same individual or not “the Editor has not ascertained. N. Ward can be traced in Bermuda from 1627 to October 1631.” At vol. ii. p. xv of the same work the title-page of Nathaniel Ward’s sermon preached before the House of Commons on June 30, 1647, is given, with a parenthesis for explanation, thus: “By Nathaniel Ward, minister of God’s word (long a minister in Bermuda).” The words in parenthesis are not a part of the title, and the assertion is clearly a mistake.

409 Ibid. i. 583.

410 Savage says born in 1606. Foster (Alumni Oxonienses) says born 30 Jan., 1608; matric. 20 June, 1623, aged 18; M. A. 17 April, 1627. The editor of Laud’s Works (v. 98) says that he took the degree of M. A. at Magdalen College June 18, 1631. Hotten’s Original Lists (p. 87) gives his age in June, 1635, as 24 years. There is a very good account of Mr. Oxenbridge and his family, which I had not seen until after this article was in type, in the Sussex Archseological Collections (xii. 203–220); where may be found his will, printed at length, and the epitaph of his first wife, whose influence over him was very great. I think the writer has somewhat misunderstood the matter of the sacramentum academicum and Laud’s connection with it. See also p. 121 notes 3 and 4, above, and p. 173 note 4, below.

411 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1633–1634, p. 563.

412 Ibid. p. 571.

413 History of Laud’s Chancellorship of Oxford, Laud’s Works, v. 98.

414 Hotten, Original Lists, pp. 85, 87.

415 Lefroy, Memorials of the Bermudas, i. 706.

416 He was the other or another schoolmaster who was, it would seem, a real Church of England man and whose imprisonment and other sufferings make him write more violently if not more strongly than Norwood.

417 Memorials of the Bermudas, i. 706, 707.

418 Tribe in Bermuda is equivalent to township elsewhere.

419 Memorials of the Bermudas, i. 585.

420 Otherwise Graeme, or Grames, the Rev. Alexander. Ibid. i. 663,704.

421 For an instance somewhat earlier (1616), see ibid. i. 107.

422 Memorials of the Bermudas, i. 569.

423 Ibid. i. 570.

424 Ibid. i. 571.

425 Ibid. i. 573, 574.

426 Ibid. i. 581.

427 Memorials of the Bermudas, i. 583.

428 Ibid. i. 584.

429 David Stokes, who had been removed by the Puritans, being restored.

430 Mr. Oxenbridge’s first wife, Jane Butler, was with him in Bermuda. She was a masterful woman, and in England is reported to have had much to do with her husband’s ecclesiastical activities. She died April 25, 1658. See also p. 168 note, above.

431 Memorials of the Bermudas, i. 692.

432 Ibid. i. 694.

433 Whitmore, Massachusetts Civil List, p. 45. See Massachusetts Province Laws, vii. 24, 54. This was not his first public service. After the overthrow of Andros, Taylor was chosen one of the Representatives from Boston to join in a convention with the Council of Safety at Boston on the ninth of May, 1689, for consultation in regard to the adoption of a form of government (General Court Records, vi. 15, 25). After the arrival of the Province Charter, he again represented Boston in the lower House at the session which began 31 May, 1693 (Massachusetts Province Laws, vii. 20). He may have been identical with the James Tailer, as the name was frequently spelled, who was Commissioner of Impost and Excise from 17 June, 1696, till 18 June, 1697 (Whitmore, Massachusetts Civil List, p. 125). Taylor died in Lynn 29 July, 1716, and was buried in Boston on the second of August (Sewall’s Diary, iii. 94, 95).

434 Savage, Genealogical Dictionary of New England, i. 392.

435 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 59, 63. She was buried in Boston 23 July, 1718, æ. 60 (Sewall’s Diary, iii. 190).

436 Records of the First Church in Boston.

437 Suffolk Probate Files, no. 2005. The estate was administered by Stephen. Minot, who had married Capt. Clarke’s youngest daughter Mary (or Mercy).

438 Essex Probate Files, no. 27,301. See also Rebecca Taylor’s estate, ibid. no. 27,315; Rebecca Kelsoll’s (sometimes Kelsey’s) will, ibid. no. 15,297; Essex Deeds, xliv. 152; Sewall’s Diary, iii. 94, 95.

439 Massachusetts Province Laws, vi. 108, 119, 123, and side notes. See also ibid. ii. 195 note.

440 William Taylor died 23 January, 1769, æ. 72 (Lynn Vital Records, ii. 602). See Essex Probate Files, no. 27,320. He married Sarah Burrill of Lynn, their intentions having been recorded 29 May, 1726, by whom he had two daughters one of whom, Rebecca, born 5 June, 1727, married her second cousin Timothy Orne of Salem, 20 June, 1747, and became the ancestor of our associate Mr. Francis H. Lee (Lynn Vital Records, i. 395, ii. 285, 368, 369).

441 Both declined service and William Taylor, the testator’s half-brother, administered the estate (Suffolk Probate Files, no. 6603). See Massachusetts Archives, li. 283; 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xiii. 410, 414,416.

442 Suffolk Probate Files, no. 8656.

443 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 207.

444 Rev. Jeremiah Condy’s Funeral Sermon, New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ix. 175. This sermon was called to my attention by Mr. William P. Greenlaw. See ibid, xxxii. 423.

445 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxviii. 83.

446 Rev. Jeremiah Condy’s Funeral Sermon on her husband.

447 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xi. 27, 28; Suffolk Probate Files, no. 11,430. This family appears to have spelled its name Procter and not Proctor.

448 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 23.

449 Boston Town Records,—Old Sexton’s bill.

450 Suffolk Probate Files, no. 4273; Suffolk Deeds, xxxviii. 224. This house stood on a part of the site of the Adams Building, between the Ames Building and Franklin Avenue. In 1714 Richard Procter dwelt in Cornhill (now Washington Street), on the westerly side, between Queen (now Court) Street and the present thoroughfare known as Cornhill. This estate ran through to the passageway now called Franklin Avenue (ibid. xxix. 252, xxx. 199).

451 Caulkins, History of New London (1852), p. 318, 367; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 177. See Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxx. 20, 422.

452 Mrs. Procter’s gravestone at New London is inscribed: “In memory of M^rs Lucretia widow of M^r John Procter M.A. who died Sept. 10^th 1770 in y^e 64^th year of her age” (New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xi. 27, 28). If Procter ever received an academic degree, the name of the college or university conferring it has not been discovered. See Caulkins, History of New London, p. 318.

453 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xii. 21. See Publications of this Society, x. 257 note.

454 Records of the First Baptist Church, passim; Nathan B. Wood, History of the First Baptist Church of Boston, pp. 201, 204, 208, 209, 234.

455 In March, 1746, the Society met in their new meeting-house in Baldwin Place. It is now known as the Warren Avenue Baptist Church (ibid. p. 241). Concerning the schoolhouse, see Publications of this Society, x. 257 note.

456 I am indebted to our associate Mr. Julius H. Tuttle for this important item.

457 After Procter’s death, a dispute arose between his widow and executrix and the Baptist Church officials over his accounts with them. A commission appointed to adjust the dispute awarded in favor of the Church officials, 12 October, 1758 (Suffolk Probate Files, no. 11,430).

458 Suffolk Deeds, xlix. 141.

459 Ibid. xxii. 451.

460 Ibid, xxxiii. 235 (two instruments); xxxvii. 79, 80; xlii. 181.

461 As the parchment has, between the given name and surname of the signature, three slits for the insertion of a ribbon, a seal was probably pendant.

462 This entry and the next entry are on the face of the parchment.

463 The Boston Town Records preserve the dates of birth of the following named children of James Taylor which do not appear on the parchment: by wife Elizabeth, Elizabeth, 24 October, 1674; and by wife Rebecca, Abigail, 2 August, 1690; Ann, 13 November, 1692; Sarah, 19 May, 1695; William, 19 June, 1696; Mercy, 13 November, 1700, and Mary, 15 July, 1702 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ix. 134, 191, 202, 224, 228, xxiv. 5, 17). The daughter Mary, born of James Taylor’s first wife, Elizabeth, 25 January, 1675, had married William Payne, 11 October, 1694 (ibid. ix. 218) and died in childbed, 6 January, 1700–01, before the birth of Taylor’s youngest daughter of the same name by his second wife, Rebecca, 15 July, 1702 (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xiii. 410). Cf. Suffolk Deeds, xxxvii. 79, 80.

464 Argent; a chevron between three cross-crossleta sable within a bordure engrailed gules bezantée; impaling argent on a saltire azure a dragon’s (?) head, erased or.

465 Hartford, 1790; Boston, 1825–1826; Boston, 1853; New York, 1908 (Hosmer’s edition).

466 Journal (Hosmer’s edition), i. 32.

467 Smiles, John Harrison, Inventor of the Marine Chronometer, in Men of Invention, London, 1884.

468 Lady Arbella Johnson.

469 See pp. 101–113, above.

470 Terceira is one of the central group of the Azores, and is in about 27° 10′ west longitude.

471 In his journal of his voyage to New England, Francis Higginson says under date of June 1, 1629, “For coming now to the height of the Western Islands, some of our men fell sick of the scurvy, and others of the small pox,” etc. (Young’s Chronicles of Massachusetts, 1846, p. 226). Higginson sighted Cape Sable June 24 (ibid. p. 231). On his second voyage, Josselyn sighted Flores and Corvo June 25, 1663, but passed them without landing. (Two Voyages to New England, 1865, p. 32.)

472 See Edmund M. Blunt, American Coast Pilot, 1827, p. 564; E. & G. W. Blunt, Chart of the North Atlantic Ocean, New York, 1832; A Chart of the Banks of Newfoundland, 1775, in Jefferys’s American Atlas, 1778, No. 13; Alexander G. Findlay, Directory of the North Atlantic Ocean, London, 1895.

473 Winsor, Christopher Columbus, pp. 201–203; L. A. Bauer, United States Magnetic Declination Tables and Isogonic Charts for 1902, pp. 22–24, 24 note. Under date of May 25 Winthrop writes: “We went on with a handsome gale, and at noon were in forty three and a half; and the variation of the compass was a point and one-sixth.”

474 Barrow, Life of Lord Anson, 1839, p. 84.

475 Ibid. pp. 46–47; F. J. Britten, Old Clocks and Watches and their Makers, 1899, pp. 235, 236.

476 Williamson, History of Maine, 1832, i. 231 and note.

477 Savage believes this to have been the White Mountains (Winthrop’s Journal, 1853, i. 28).

478 It will be remembered that the promontory now known as Cape Ann was originally named Tragabigzanda by Captain John Smith, and that Smith also named three of the islands off that Cape the “three Turks heads” (Works, 1884, p. 204). I suggest the probability that Mt. Agamenticus temporarily acquired the name of the Three Turks’ Heads through some confusion in the description of, or reference to, the said three islands off Cape Ann.

Hubbard gives his version as to how the cape and three islands referred to ceased to be called by the above names respectively in characteristic language as follows:

As some merchants from the west of England had for a long time frequented the parts about Munhiggon, for the taking of fish, &c, so did others, especially those of Dorchester, make the like attempt upon the northern promontory of the Massachusetts Bay, in probability first discovered by Capt. Smith, before or in the year 1614, and by him named Tragabizanda, for the sake of a lady from whom he received much favor while he was a prisoner among the Turks; by whom also the three small islands at the head of the Cape were called the Three Turks’ Heads. But neither of them glorying in these Mahometan titles, the promontory willingly exchanged its name for that of Cape Anne, imposed, as is said, by Captain Mason, and which it retaineth to this day, in honor of our famous Queen Anne, then surviving, the royal consort of King James; and the three other islands are now known by other names (History of New England 1878, p. 105).

The story of “this Noble Gentlewoman,” as Smith called Charatza Tragabigzanda, and of the three Turks whom he overcame in single combat, is told by the redoubtable Captain in his True Travels, Adventures, and Observations, published in 1630 (Works, pp. 838–840, 853, 866). But Hubbard was mistaken in thinking that Capt. John Mason imposed the name of Ann upon the cape, as the change was made by Prince Charles (ibid. p. 232). It is worth noting that the same royal personage altered the name of Accominticus to Boston. But while the former change was accepted, the latter was rejected. Young gives the present names of the three islands as Straitsmouth Island, Thacher’s Island, and Milk Island (Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 22 note).

479 On the sketch a line across the Atlantic on the parallel of 43° 15′ is laid in illustration.

480 See Johnson, Wonder-working Providence, pp. 31, 34; Hubbard, History of New England, pp. 199, 200.

481 In his Annals of New England, published in 1755, Prince gives (p. 10) this “List of Ships which arriv’d in New-England this Year,” 1630:

No	Names	whence set sail England	whence set sail 1630	when arriv’d 1630	where arriv’d New-Engl.
1	Lyon	Bristol	Feb.	Maye.	Salem
2	Mary-John	Plymouth	March 20	May 30	Nantasket
3	Arbella		April 8	June 12
4	Jewell		Ditto	June 13
5	Ambrose		Ditto	June 18
6	Talbot		Ditto	July 2
7	May Flowr	S. Hampton	May		Charleston
8	Whale	ditto	Ditto		Charleston
9	Hopewell	ditto	Ditto		[Salem]
10	Wm & Fran.	ditto	Ditto		[Salem]
11	Tryal	ditto	Ditto
12	Charles	ditto	Ditto
13	Success	ditto	Ditto	July 6	[Salem]
14	Gift	Maye.	Aug. 20	Charlestown
15	Another	June
16	Handmaid	Aug. 6	Oct. 29	Plymouth
17	Another set out by a private Merchant

The Mayflower, Whale, Hopewell, William and Francis, Trial, Charles, and Success, are the ships which in the text are stated to have sailed in May.

482 In a letter to his wife written on board the Arbella at Cowes on March 28, 1630, Winthrop, referring to the four vessels which sailed from Yarmouth and the seven which sailed from Southampton, says: “We are, in all our eleven ships, about seven hundred persons, passengers.” He also states that the Mary and John carried about one hundred and forty persons, and the Lion about eighty (Life and Letters, 1864, p. 388). Young says that the Handmaid brought about sixty passengers (Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 310 note).

483 History of Plymouth Plantation (1908), pp. 106, 107.

484 Leviathan (1651), pt. i. ch. xiii. p. 63.

485 Ibid. pt. ii. ch. xviii. pp. 89, 90.

486 Leviathan, pt. ii. ch. xx. p. 102.

487 Ibid. pt. ii. ch. xxix. p. 169.

488 Observations upon Aristotles Politiques, touching Forms of Government (1652), Preface.

489 Ibid.

490 Observations, etc., Preface.

491 On November 29, 1769, Harvard College received from Thomas Hollis a volume containing six of Filmer’s pamphlets printed in 1680. On a fly-leaf Hollis has written the following:

As the Patriarcha gave occasion to two of the noblest works which were ever executed by men, the “Discourses of Government” by Algernon Sydney, and “Two Treatises of Government,” by John Locke; I have been willing to send all the Publications of Sir R. Filmer, to Harvard College, that so the whole of those Works by the curious may be compared.

Aug. 12. 69. T. H.
- Floreat Libertas!

492 The Social Compact (1842), p. 28.

493 Discourses on Government (1805), i. 453, 454.

494 Discourses on Government, ii. 20, 21.

495 Ibid. ii. 381.

496 Two Treatises, § 22, Works (1823), v. 351.

497 Ibid. § 90, v. 389, 390.

498 Ibid. § 95, v. 394.

499 Two Treatises, § 99, v. 396.

500 Early Records of the Town of Providence, i. 1.

501 Whittier, The Mayflowers.

502 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, lvi. 341–344.

503 The words “so long as his Master lives of said Term” are interlined.

504 Presumably he was the “[C?] ollister Baker” who was baptized on March 1, 1720 (Vital Records of Marlborough, p. 15).

505 The Philadelphia Hospital, the first in this country, was established in 1751. See Harrington, Harvard Medical School, i. 30, 31; Scharf and Westcott, History of Philadelphia, ii. 1584, 1588.

506 This was the class which President Stiles of Yale University called “the learned class.” Our associate, Mr. Franklin B. Dexter of the Yale University Library, in a letter to Mr. Henry H. Edes, writes that this phrase is pencilled in President Stiles’s copy of the Harvard Triennial of 1776, now preserved in the Yale Library, and that certain members of the class are marked as “docti” and “doctissimi.”

507 I am indebted to our associate Mr. Julius H. Tuttle, of the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, for suggesting this identification.

508 It is written on a small folio sheet of four pages, 15¾ by 6 inches. Pages 2 and 3 are blank.

509 History of Concord (1835), p. 45.

510 Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv. part i. 100, 101.

511 Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv. part i. 205. See also ibid. vol. iv. part i. 179, 186; Publications of this Society, iii. 417–425.

512 Substituted for “and.”

513 I am indebted to Mr. William Prescott Greenlaw, a descendant of the Rev. Peter Bulkeley, for deciphering this very obscure signature. Although not mentioned by Shattuck in his History of the town, Maj. Thomas Henchman, Hinchman, or Hincksmen, was among the early inhabitants of Concord who removed to Chelmsford, which was settled soon after the date of the Agreement in the text. He is also said to have been one of the “Wenham company” who under the leadership of the Rev. John Fiske, and as members of his church in Wenham, transplanted themselves to Chelmsford, where Allen says he “was for many years a leading character, and became a large land holder.” Savage says that Maj. Henchman died 18 July, 1703. See Colony Records, vol. iv. part i. 251, 261, 431, 432,441,460, vol. iv. partii. passim, and vol. v. passim; Province Laws, i. 93, 406; Wilkes Men, History of Chelmsford (1820), pp. 8, 16, 21, 27, 106, 122, 148, 149, 152, 154, 156–158, 162, 163, 166–170; Savage, Genealogical Dictionary of New England, ii. 403.

514 William Underwood also removed to Chelmsford, of which he was one of the first settlers, and a selectman in 1679. Other signers of this Agreement cast in their lot with the founders of Chelmsford.

515 Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts, p. 304.

516 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, iii. 147.

517 Life of Thomas Hutchinson, chap. xii.

518 See G. E. Ellis, in Atlantic Monthly, liii. 662.

519 See Eighth Annual Report, pp. 14–15; Tenth Annual Report, pp. 19–20. A photograph of the field accompanies both Reports.

520 Andrew Oliver.

521 Stephen Greenleaf.

522 David Phips.

523 Of the Class of 1770.

524 College Book, vii. 216–220.

525 Of the Class of 1737.

526 The original is in Harvard College Papers, ii. no. 73.

527 This letter is printed in the Magazine of American History (1883), ix. 375.

528 Col. William Dalrymple.

529 On July 17, 1774, Omiah was presented to George III, who recommended his being inoculated; and on August 25, having recovered from the small-pox, he dined with the Royal Society. He was still in England in 1775. See the Gentleman’s Magazine, xliv. 330, 388, 441, xlv. 167, 169.

530 John Bowers came to Medfield with the Braintree and Weymouth people about 1652. His house lot was near the Great Bridge. His house was burned and he was killed by the Indians in their attack on Medfield February 21, 1676–76. See Tilden, History of Medfield, p. 320.

531 Henry Adams, son of Henry Adams of Braintree, came to Medfield, of which he was the first town clerk, with the Braintree and Weymouth people about 1652. He was killed by the Indians on February 21, 1675–76. Hannah Adams, the well-known writer, was descended in the fifth generation from Henry Adams of Medfield. For a sketch of him, see Tilden’s History of Medfield, p. 281.

532 Probably John Biscoe (1622–1690). See Bond’s Genealogies and History of Watertown, i. 43.

533 The words “might be caused to” are substituted for “would.”

534 Richard Norcross, a son of Jeremiah Norcross of Watertown, was born in England about 1621, was admitted a freeman in 1652 or 1653, and died in 1709. He is supposed to have been the first schoolmaster of Watertown, to which office he was chosen on January 6, 1650–51. See Bond’s Genealogies and History of Watertown, i. 376–377; Watertown Records, i. 21.

535 This document is in the hand of Thomas Danforth.

536 Thomas Danforth (1623–1699), Deputy-Governor of Massachusetts.

537 Capt. Hugh Mason of Watertown. He died October 10, 1678. See Bond’s Genealogies and History of Watertown, i. 356.

538 Deacon William Stitson, Stetson, or Stilson, of Charlestown. He died April 11, 1691. See Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 902.

539 Medallic Portraits of Washington, No. 78, pp. 49, 52. See also, under date of April 20, 1778, S. Curwen’s Journal and Letters (1864), p. 204.

540 Publications, x. 258, xi. 195 note.

541 See Columbian Centinel, February 22, 1794, p. 3/2; February 26, p. 4/1; March 1, p. 3/2.

542 See pp. 174–181, above.

543 Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (1908), pp. 68–70.

544 Byington, Puritan in England and New England, p. 170.

545 Old Virginia and her Neighbours, ii. 29, 30.

546 Beginnings of New England, p. 127 note.

547 Ibid. p. 105.

548 Beginnings of New England, pp. 93–94.

549 Fiske, Old Virginia and her Neighbours, i. 177

550 Ibid. i. 186.

551 Drake’s History and Antiquities of Boston, p. 599.

552 History of American Literature, ii. 120, 121, 123.

553 See remarks of Mr. Charles Francis Adams in 3 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, ii. 154–170.

554 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ii. 351.

555 Mirick, History of Haverhill, p. 139.

556 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ii. 353.

557 Ibid. ii. 351 note.

558 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xv. 204.

559 The reason for giving these titles at such length is that no complete list of Mr. Checkley’s printed sermons has been made and that hitherto the writings of Mr. Checkley and those of his son, the Rev. Samuel Checkley, Jr., have been confused. Thus three sermons have been attributed to our Mr. Checkley which were really preached by his son, pastor of the Second (or North) Church, as is proved by the following title-pages:

The Character and Hope of the Righteous Consider’d, in a Sermon Preach’d the Lord’s-Day after the Funeral of Madam Lydia Hutchinson, the Virtuous Consort Of The Honourable Edward Hutchinson, Esq; Who departed this Life, July 10. 1748. Aged 61. By Samuel Checkley, A.M. Pastor of the second Church of Christ in Boston. Boston, 1748.

The Duty of God’s People when engaged in War. A Sermon Preached at the North-Church of Christ in Boston, Sept. 21. To Captain Thomas Stoddard, and his Company; On Occasion of their going against the Enemy. By Samuel Checkley, A.M. Pastor of said Church. Boston, 1755.

The Christian triumphing over Death through Christ. A Sermon Preached November 10. 1765. At the second Church of Christ, in Boston; Upon a mournful Occasion. Published with some Enlargements. By Samuel Checkley, jun’r. Pastor of said Church. Boston, 1765. The “mournful Occasion” was the death of “Mrs. Mary Gallop, Widow, aged 37 Years.”

560 The words in the text are those of the half-title, missing in some copies. There were three sermons, each separately paged, but with a continuous register. The titles are as follows:

Murder a great and crying Sin. A Sermon Preach’d on the Lord’s-Day March 4th. 1732–3. To a poor Prisoner Under Sentence of Death for that Crime.

Mercy with God for the chief of Sinners. A Sermon Preach’d on the Lord’s Day March 4th To a Prisoner Under Sentence of Death for Murder.

Sinners minded of a future Judgment. A Sermon Preached to, and at the Desire of, A Condemned Prisoner, March 18th. 1732–3. Being the Lord’s-Day before his Execution.

561 Pages 49–52.

562 Pages 33–36.

563 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, i. 134, ii. 353; Drake, History and Antiquities of Boston, p. 820; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, vol. xxii. p. iv.

564 Publications of this Society, ix. 9.

565 History of Newton, p. 252.

566 Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 322 note; Hine, Early Lebanon, p. 153.

567 Allen, American Biographical and Historical Dictionary; Freeman, History of Cape Cod, i. 362, 566.

568 Mirick, History of Haverhill, p. 138.

569 J. S. Cushing, Cushing Genealogy, p. 34; J. Scales, Historical Memoranda of Dover, N. H.

570 Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 280 note.

571 H. Child, Gazetteer of Cheshire County, New Hampshire; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ii. 208.

572 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ix. 340, 341.

573 See p. 214, above.

574 Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 385.

575 Paige, History of Cambridge, p. 572; Hudson, History of Lexington, pp. 53, 71, 84.

576 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xliv. 251.

577 F. Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, N. J., pp. 338, 367, 568, 572, 629.

578 History of New England, v. 7.

579 Memorial History of Boston, ii. 231. Dr. McKenzie’s account, it must be confessed, is somewhat confusing. He says:

The new life began to appear in 1734, under the powerful preaching of Jonathan Edwards, at Northampton. It spread to the surrounding towns. It aroused the interest of the Boston churches. Dr. Colman wrote to Dr. Edwards for an account of the work, which was given in a letter long afterward published in London. The Boston ministers kept their people interested, and circulated among them Dr. Edwards’s letter and several sermons which had been influential in the movement. The remarkable interest in the valley of the Connecticut was not of long continuance; partly, it would seem, because so many had quickly felt the new life, and had come under its control, or turned away from it. But Boston was yet to feel its power.

Edwards’s letter to Colman was dated November 6, 1736, and was printed in abstract in the Appendix to the Rev. William Williams’s Duty and Interest of a People, among whom Religion has been planted, to Continue Stedfast and Sincere in the Profession and Practice of it, published at Boston in 1736. The letter was printed in full in London in 1737 under the title of A Faithful Narrative of the Surprizing Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton, and the Neighbouring Towns and Villages of New-Hampshire in New-England. This was reprinted in Boston in 1738. The London editors speak of “the Neighbouring Towns and Villages of New-Hampshire in New-England.” This natural error was corrected by the Boston editors to “the Neighbouring Towns and Villages of the County of Hampshire, in the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England.”

At the time when Edwards started his movement, Whitefield was an undergraduate at Oxford. He first came to Georgia in 1738 and to Boston in 1740.

580 Suffolk Probate Files, no. 6672.

581 Ibid. no. 6677.

582 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, lv. 305, lxi. 303.

583 Ibid. xl. 59.

584 Publications, vi. 47.

585 This Anthony Stoddard—he married Martha Belcher, a sister of the Madam Oliver whose burial is recorded by Mr. Checkley—who was born in 1678, who graduated at Harvard College in 1697, and who died in 1748, should not be confused with his first cousin, the Rev. Anthony Stoddard, who was also born in 1678, who also graduated at Harvard in 1697, but who died in 1760. The grandfather of Mrs. Fitch was Simeon Stoddard, whose sister Lydia married Samuel Turell and became the mother of the Rev. Ebenezer Turell mentioned in the text. Hence Turell, who graduated at Harvard only six years before Fitch, and Anthony Stoddard, the father of Fitch’s wife, were first cousins.

586 See also p. 220, above.

587 Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 785–786; Thacher, American Medical Biography, ii. 13–16.

588 New England Weekly Journal of August 4.

589 Capt. Thomas Durrell. See Publications of this Society, viii. 244.

590 In these days such a death seems extraordinary. The following extract is taken from the Boston Evening Post of Monday, January 24, 1737:

Friday last one Richard Williams, a Chimney-Sweeper at the South End of the Town, was found in his Bed froze to Death, where in all probability he had lain since Tuesday Night, having never been seen by the Neighbours since that Time.

591 In the Weekly Journal of November 25, the name given is James Darling. This is correct. He was the son of George and Abigail (Reed) Darling. See Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 276.

592 Diary, i. 102, 235, 368, 462.

593 S. Briggs, Essays, Humor and Poems of Nathaniel Ames, pp. 139, 440.

594 Dedham Historical Register, ii. 27.

595 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxiv. 61.

596 Palfrey, History of New England, v. 339; Snow, History of Boston (1825), p. 263.

597 John Boyle’s Journal, p. 87. For these extracts from this imprinted Journal, owned by a member of the Palfrey family, I am indebted to Professor George L. Kittredge.

598 Letters and Diary, p. 67.

599 I am indebted to Mr. Matthews for aid in the preparation of this paper.

600 Publications of this Society, viii. 90, 91, 92, 104.

601 Dialect Notes, i. 18, 217.

602 Journal of American Folk-Lore, v. 335.

603 Portsmouth Republican News, Monday, November 7, 1892.

604 Portsmouth Daily Evening Times, November 7, 1892.

605 Journals of the Rev. Thomas Smith and the Rev. Samuel Deane, pp. 329, 331.

606 Literary Diary, i. 182, 470.

607 Works, ii. 201.

608 History of Newbury, pp. 249–251.

609 Massachusetts Province Laws, iii. 647, 997, iv. 78, 617; v, 87, 459, 1122.

610 On the first page is written in ink:

Rev. Mr. Checkley of Boston appears to have been the author of the notices entered in this Almanac. M.A.S.

May 4, 1837.

The top of the volume has been trimmed, thereby cutting off a few entries. Where these are undecipherable, square brackets are used.

There are no entries on the following days: January 15, February 18, 19, March 6, 19, July 8, October 8, November 8, 24, 26, December 17, 18.

The word “fair,” and that only, is entered on the following days: February 26, March 25, May 7, June 10, 16, 21, July 3, 21, August 6, October 7.

The words “fair pleasant,” and those only, are entered on the following days: February 6, 7, 10, 27, March 22, 26, April 17, 18, May 5, 6, 14, 16, 26, 27, 28, June 25, 26, 27, July 19, 22, 24, 30, August 11, 15, 16, 18, 25, September 6, 12, 13, 15, 20, October 2, 10, 18, 22, November 5, 10, 22, 25.

The following days are labelled “hot,” “cold,” “cool,” “dry,” “moderate,” “seasonable,” “cloudy,” or in some such indefinite way: January 6, 7, 10, 24, 25, March 8, 10, 11, 12, April 9, 11, 21, 30, May 1, 9, 10, 21, 31, June 5, 7, 13, July 17, August 21, 23, 30, September 4, 18, 23, 29, 30, October 17, November 3, 4, 11, 29, December 6, 11, 13, 23.

611 See p. 272, above.

612 See p. 281, above.

613 See p. 281, above.

614 See p. 281, above.

615 See p. 281, above.

616 See p. 275, above.

617 What follows is written on the other side of the leaf.

618 This name is uncertain. It might be “M^cLong” or “M^cLorey.” On May 2, 1734, Mr. Checkley married “Thomas McLory & Isabella Hood” (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxviii. 186).

619 See p. 283, above.

620 See p. 281, above.

621 See p. 283, above.

622 See p. 281, above.

623 See p. 279, above.

624 See p. 282, above.

625 See p. 276, above.

626 See p. 276, above.

627 See p. 282, above.

628 See p. 276, above.

629 See p. 282, above.

630 What follows is written on the other side of the leaf.

631 See p. 276, above.

632 What follows is written on the other side of the leaf.

633 See p. 276, above.

634 See p. 277, above.

635 See p. 284, above.

636 See p. 282, above.

637 See p. 277, above.

638 What follows is written on another leaf in the middle of the book.

639 See p. 285, above.

640 See p. 277, above.

641 What follows is written on the other side of the leaf.

642 Perhaps this name is “Burch’s.”

643 See p. 283, above.

644 See p. 279, above

645 see p. 279, above.

646 See pp. 284, 287, above.

647 This entry is on the other side of the leaf, and of course was not made until about a fortnight later.

648 See pp. 288–295, above.

649 See p. 278, above.

650 See p. 283, above.

651 See p. 277, above.

652 This refers to the entry under date of November 5. See p. 288, above.

653 See p. 278, above.

654 This entry is somewhat uncertain.

655 See p. 283, above.

656 See p. 278, above.

657 See Publications of this Society, vi. 288.

658 History of the Harvard Medical School, i. 111.

659 College Book, viii. 185 ff.

660 Overseers’ Records, iii. 300 ff.

661 College Book, viii. 264.

662 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vii. 177 ff.

663 History of the Harvard Medical School, i. 112 ff.

664 College Book, viii. 387.

665 Overseers’ Records, iv. 192.

666 College Book, viii. 480.

667 July 15, 1801, College Book, viii. 484; Overseers’ Records, iv. 335.

668 August 25, 1802, College Book, viii. 500; Overseers’ Records, iv. 361.

669 August 30, 1809, College Book, ix. 152

670 August 29, 1810, College Book, ix. 179.

671 So spelled here and in all Triennials until that of 1830, when the spelling “Clapp” appears thirteen years after the man’s death.

672 Harvard College Papers, vi. 61.

673 That is, Benjamin Shurtleff.

674 College Records, x. 48. The Overseers’ Records (v. 360) give no lists.

675 Prophesying is dangerous. While these pages were going through the press, Charles W. Eliot received from Harvard the honorary degree of M. D.!

676 College Book, viii. ISO; Overseers’ Records, iii. 300.

677 This is the spelling of the name in the records of the First Church, but the more usual form is Hibbins or Hibbens.

678 February, 1907, Publications, xi. 196–207.

679 So called in the Proprietors’ Records, Boston Athenæum, March 18, 1826.

680 So called in the Proprietors’ Records, Boston Athenæum, January 1, 1827.

681 Memoirs of Rev. Joseph Buckminster (1849), pp. 188, 207.

682 William Emerson, Nathan Frazier, James Jackson, John S. Popkin, Josiah Quincy, Timothy Williams, John Quincy Adams, John Lowell, and later John C. Warren, John C. Howard. (Life of J. C. Warren, i. 72; MS Records of the Society, p. 11.) The records of this society were presented to the Boston Athenæum in 1909 by the present Dr. John Collins Warren.

683 Catalogue / of / Books / in the / Boston Medical / Library, / and the / Rules and Regulations / concerning the same. / Also, / a Statement of the Trustees / to the Proprietors. / Boston. / Printed by Thomas Fleet, No. 5, Cornhill, 1808. Title, 1 leaf; Catalogue, pp. 3–10; Rules and Statement of the Trustees, pp. 11–16.

684 See E. J. Forster’s article in Professional and Industrial History of Suffolk County, iii. 220. The present Boston Medical Library was incorporated in 1877, after several meetings dating from 1875.

A copy of the catalogue of a so-called Second Social Library has been preserved, and it shows that this library was in 1808 wholly general in character. This copy, owned by Dr. Ayer, has many titles added in manuscript, suggesting that the library had a considerable call for books. The title-page reads:

A / Catalogue of Books, / in the / Second Social Library / in the / Town of Boston. / Instituted January, 1805. / Incorporated 1806. / Boston: / Printed at the Emerald Printing office, / No. 5, Court Street. / 1808. / E. G. House, Printer, /pp. 12.

This copy belonged to the Rev. William Emerson and bears his autograph signature on the title-page.

The Boston Public Library has a second edition, which was John H. Gould’s copy with a supplement covering twelve additional pages, entitled:

Supplementary Catalogue of Books, added to the Second Social Library, from January, 1809, to May, 1811. pp. 12.

685 The names read: Theoph: Parsons, Chas Jackson, Charles Paine, Rd Sullivan, Warren Button, Wm Stackpole, Jr., James Allen, Jr., Israel Munroe, Wm. H. Sumner, Thomas Williams of Roxbury, Peter Thacher, Cha Davis, John Heard, Jur., Samuel D. Parker, Ira: D. Channing, Edward Gray, Joseph Hall, Jno Lowell, Geo: Blake, Danl Davis, Eben Gay, John Phillips, R. G. Amory, Josiah Quincy, Robert T. Paine, Jr., Jos. Rowe, Thos. O. Selfridge, C. Gore, Geo. Sullivan.

686 Preface to Catalogue of 1849.

687 Preface to Catalogue of 1865.

688 Quincy, History of the Boston Athenseum, p. 94.

689 View in Ellis’s History of the First Church in Boston, facing p. 172.

690 Ibid. View facing p. 237.

691 W. Emerson, History of the First Church, p. 168.

692 The catalogue bears the title:

Catalogue of Books, / in the / Theological Library, / in the / Town of Boston. / March 1, 1808. / Snelling and Simons, Printers, / Devonshire-Street. . . . Boston. /1808. Title, 1 leaf; Rules and Regulations, Subscribers, and Government for 1807–8, pp. 3–6; Catalogue of Books in the Theological Library, including those Deposited by the Corporation of “King’s Chapel,” in Boston, pp. 7–33.

693 Greenwood, History of King’s Chapel, p. 162.

694 The General Theological Library was organized April 20, 1860, with the Rev. Charles Burroughs as president and J. Sullivan Warren as secretary. In 1862, with the Rev. Luther Farnham as secretary, the Library began its work, having quarters at different times on Tremont, West, Somerset, and now on Mount Vernon Streets. It is open to members, clergymen, and visiting strangers.

695 The Boston Public Library has a catalogue of books in “the Columbian Social Library, instituted January, 1813,” and of “Social Library No. 1, March, 1823.” The title-page of the latter reads:

Catalogue of Books / in / Social Library, / N^o 1. / March, 1823. / Boston: / Printed for the Proprietors. / pp. 36. 4 books at once. $10 a share.

696 Shaw’s Description of Boston, p. 278.

697 See Life of John C. Warren, i. 79. Members were Col. George Gibbs, President Holley, Dr. James Jackson, the Rev. Joseph S. Buckminster, Benjamin Vaughan, and Francis C. Gray.

698 Including some on International Law.

699 The writer.

700 See Howe v. Morse, 174 Massachusetts Reports, 491 (1899).

701 These included our associate, Major Henry L. Higginson, nephew of Colonel Lee, who narrated the incident to me.

702 A.B. Harvard, 1864; A.M. Harvard, 1870; LL.B. 1886.

703 The firm of Balch & Rackemann was formed in October, 1886, and consisted of Mr. Balch, the writer, and Felix Rackemann.

704 In his Memorial to Mr. Tillinghast, Mr. George H. Martin says:

In 1849, in order to give the Board and its Secretary an office, an act of the legislature made the Secretary of the Board of Education State Librarian with the power to appoint an assistant librarian and clerk, and the business of the Board was installed in one of the rooms of the Library.

This relation between the Board and the Library continued under sanction of law until 1893, when provision was made by statute for the appointment of the Librarian by the Governor.

705 Harvard College Papers, viii. 89.

706 Life and Letters of George Bancroft, i. 33.

707 Life and Letters of George Bancroft, i. 42.

708 Life and Letters (1909), i. 79.

709 The name Virginia, as is of course well known, was, when given by Queen Elizabeth at the time she knighted Ralegh (January 6, 1584–85), applied to an indefinite tract of territory north of Florida. The name Massachusetts occurs in Capt. John Smith’s Description of New England, published in 1616. The name Connecticut (under the form Quonehtacut) is found in Winthrop’s Journal under date of April 4, 1631. The Connecticut River was named the Fresh River by the Dutch, and continued to be so called by them long after the adoption by the English of the name Connecticut.

710 Documentary History of the State of Maine, vii. 223, 224. In the Century Cyclopedia of Names is this: “Maine. [In the charter granted by Charles I. in 1639 named ‘The Province or Countie of Mayne,’ because regarded as a part of ‘the Mayne Lande of New England.’]” This reason, it is perhaps unnecessary to point out, is not found in the charter itself.

711 History of Maine, p. 122.

712 Ibid. p. 307.

713 American Annals, i. 311 note.

714 History of Saco and Biddeford, p. 53.

715 History of the State of Maine, i. 277. Early in 1635 the Council of the Plymouth Company decided to return its charter into the hands of the King; but before doing so, an agreement was made on February 3, 1634–35, for the several divisions of the seacoasts of New England. In this division no name is given to that portion which became Gorges’s, but he soon (in 1636) called it New Somerset or New Somersetshire. For the history of the name of Somerset as employed in Maine, see Publications of this Society, vi. 61–70.

716 Folsom is not the only one who has fallen into error in calling Gorges “Lord Palatine.” Gov. Chamberlain did the same (Maine: her Place in History, p. 54), and also a writer in London Notes and Queries, Ninth Series, xii. 23. Such a title, however, was not used by Gorges himself. See Publications of this Society, viii. 206–207.

717 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, ii. 58. Folsom adds: “The biography of this queen recently published by Miss Strickland, is a work of intense interest and apparently drawn from original and authentic sources.” This allusion would seem to indicate that Folsom, who in 1830 (as quoted in the text) had held that Henrietta Maria was “connected by title or estate with the province of Meyne in France,” changed his opinion as a result of something said by Miss Strickland; but in her sketch of Henrietta Maria (Lives of the Queens of England, 1845, viii. 1–266) she apparently does not mention the French province of Maine.

718 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, iii. 31 note.

719 History of New England, i. 525 note.

720 History of the United States, i. 337 note.

721 Maine: her Place in History (1877), p. 54 note.

722 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, vol. v. p. xxi.

723 American Historical Record, i. 211.

724 History of Maine, p. 107.

725 Brief History of Maine (second edition), p. 42.

726 Rural Hours, pp. 479, 483.

727 See p. 367, above.

728 See p. 368, above.

729 Ancient Dominions of Maine, p. 124.

730 Gov. Chamberlain makes a curious slip. In one place he speaks of the grant of August 10, 1622, “which the indenture itself states ‘they intend to call the Province of Maine,’” yet a little later declares that in the charter of April 3, 1639, the territory “was now for the first time, and by charter, named the Province of Maine” (Maine: her Place in History, pp. 44, 54).

731 Documentary History of the State of Maine, vii. 66, 67, 68.

732 The word “charter” as here used includes charters, grants, and patents, as it is impossible to distinguish between the terms.

733 In J. A. Poor’s Vindication of the Claims of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, pp. 121–123.

734 Documentary History of the State of Maine, vii. 102.

735 History of New Hampshire, i. 8.

736 S. F. Haven, History of Grants under the Great Council for New England, in Early History of Massachusetts (1867), p. 150. Charles Deane called attention to Belknap’s mistake in Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society for April 24, 1867, p. 56 note, and ibid, for October 21, 1868, p. 34.

737 History of Maine, pp. 267–269. Yet Sullivan himself seems to have been hopelessly confused. Cf. pp. 111, 119, 304.

738 History of the State of Maine, i. 225.

739 Collections of the Maine Historical Society, ii. 52.

740 Ibid. in. 30.

741 History of New England, i. 205.

742 History of the United States (1876), i. 257; ibid. (1883), i. 217.

743 Brief History of Maine, p. 34.

744 Boston Transcript, June 8, 1872, p. 6/4. When this letter was reprinted in. the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for July, 1875, xxix. 243–244, it was preceded by an editorial note stating: “We learn that Mr. Tuttle is preparing a full account of the origin of the name of Maine.” So far as I am aware, that account was never written.

745 H. Ellis’s Original Letters, Second Series (1827), iii. 226–228.

746 Mr. Baxter says that “Charles, accompanied by the dissolute Buckingham, had seen and wooed the princess Maria, but, returning through France incognito, had stopped in Paris, and at a ball there had seen the French princess Henrietta” (Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine, Prince Society, i. 133). It was, however, on their journey to Madrid that the two travelled incognito. Charles left the Escorial September 2, 1623, sailed from Santander September 18, and landed at Portsmouth October 5. (Gardiner, Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage, ii. 409, 413, 421.) In a letter dated Paris, February 22, 1622–23, Charles himself gave this description:

Since the closing of our last we have beene at Court againe, (and that we might not houd you in paine, we assure you that we have not been knowen,) where we saw the young Queene, littell Monsieur, and Madame, at the practising of a Maske that is intended by the Queene to be presented to the Kinge, and in it ther danced the Queene and Madame with as manie as made up nineteen faire dancing Ladies, amongst which the Queene is the handsomest, which hath wrought in me a greater desier to see her sister. (In H. Ellis’s Original Letters, 1824, iii. 121–122.)

The wife of Louis XIII was Anne, sister of the Infanta Maria; “littell Monsieur” was Gaston, Duke of Orleans; “Madame” was the Princess Henrietta Maria. Henrietta Maria’s sister Elizabeth married Philip IV of Spain. After the breaking off of the English marriage, the Infanta Maria married the Emperor Ferdinand III.

747 In an account of an interview with Lady Carew, dated September 19, 1618, Sir Thomas Wilson said, referring to Queen Anne of England, that “Her Majesty said she would rather have the match with Mdme. Chretienne than the Spanish lady with all her gold” (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1611–1618, p. 573).

748 See the notices (by S. R. Gardiner) of Charles, Digby, Hay, and Henrietta Maria, and that of Rich (by C. H. Firth) in the Dictionary of National Biography; Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1611–1618, 1619–1623, 1623–1625.

749 In his text (see p. 368, above) Williamson spoke of “the provincial name of Maine, though one by which this section of the country was at that time frequently called,” etc. This statement is somewhat misleading. The word “main” was applied to the mainland along the coast, but it was not applied to the territory as such. Previous to the charter of April 1, 1639, the country was once and once only called “Maine”—namely, in the grant of August 10, 1622. Thus before 1639 a man at Boston or Plymouth would never have said that he was going “to Maine,” meaning the present State of Maine. He might have said that he was “going to the main;” but that would have left the exact locality in doubt. See also note 3, below.

750 History of New England, i. 525 note.

751 In speaking of Maine’s “own unique geographical features,” Tuttle was using exaggerated language. Maine is not the only State in the Union that has islands along its coast, though it has more than any other. The word “main” was applied in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to the mainland along the entire Atlantic coast, from the Carolinas to Greenland. See also note 1, above.

752 Boston Transcript, June 8, 1872, p. 6/4; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxix. 244.

753 History of the United States, i. 337 note.

754 Maine: her Place in History, p. 54 note.

755 Narrative and Critical History of America, iii. 363 note.

756 The lack of certainty on the part of historians is doubtless due to the fact that this point has never received adequate treatment. Writers have asserted that the word “main” was frequently used for mainland, but have failed to furnish proof. “The name of ‘Province of Maine,’” says Miss Mary F. Farnham, “is first used in the grant to Gorges and Mason, 1622; its origin is not difficult to trace in the frequent use of maine as applied to ‘maine land,’ and ‘along the main’” (Documentary History of the State of Maine, vol. vii. p. xxi). And again, referring to the charter of April 3, 1639, she says: “The name ‘Province of Maine’ is repeated from the grant of 1622. By reference to the early charters it is easy to arrive at a correct idea of the origin of the name, which has survived all the changes of colonial rule, and is perpetuated in the phrase ‘state of Maine’” (ibid. vii. 222). It is obvious that nothing later than August 10, 1622, is of value. Now the word “main,” in the sense of mainland, occurs only three times previous to that date in the documents printed by Miss Farnham,—namely, on March 3, 1619–20, November 3, 1620, and July 24, 1622. These extracts are quoted in the text, p. 379, below. Hence it is necessary to go to other documents than those given by Miss Farnham. Williamson (History of the State of Maine, i. 277 note), quotes three extracts, one from Smith’s Generall Historie of Virginia, published in 1624, one from a document dated 1635, and one from a work written about 1680. These are of course too late. Palfrey (History of New England, i. 525 note) repeats two of Williamson’s citations. In the present paper, for the first time so far as I am aware, full evidence on this point is given.

757 “The poet found out, one day,” writes W. J. Rolfe in the Nation of October 22, 1908, “that the Spanish Main was the mainland bordering on what he—like nine people out of ten—had supposed to be the sea called by that name” (lxxxvii. 383). Dr. Rolfe, however, does not indicate when the discovery was made. The reading is “Had sailed the Spanish Main” in Longfellow’s Poems, 1842, ii. 43, and in his Poems, 1866, i. 95. In the Poetical Works, 1872, p. 40, the reading is “Had sailed to the Spanish Main.” Hence the change was made in 1872 or between 1866 and 1872.

758 Purchas his Pilgrimes (1906), xviii. 306, 307, 309.

759 Purchas his Pilgrimes (1906), xviii. 315.

760 Ibid, xviii. 323, 324.

761 Ibid, xviii. 338.

762 Description of New England, Works (1884), p. 190.

763 Purchas his Pilgrimes, xix. 132, 133.

764 Documentary History of the State of Maine, vii. 17.

765 Ibid. vii. 33.

766 Sir George Calvert, later first Baron Baltimore.

767 Documentary History of the State of Maine, vii. 61–62. In a letter written to Mason on March 18, 1631, Gorges said:

As for the ꝑtie yon write of that hath lived w^th the Dutch soe longe time I wishe yo^u would not omitt to keepe him on reasonable condic̄ns untill my comeing vpp [to London], in the meane while that you will informe your selfe of the strength they haue where they Hue, how fortified, & ꝑuided for, how farr vpp, into the Maine they bee, What other Commodity they finde besides their Trade of furrs, what Cattle, what Horses, and what carriages they make vse of w^th what people they hold Coraspondancy w^thall, and what Enemyes they haue, and in what parts of the Country ther Enemyes, or freinds are (Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine, Prince Society, iii. 254).

In the index to that volume “the Maine,” which of course means mainland, is entered under “Maine,” as if it referred to the Province of Maine.

768 Capt. John Mason (Prince Society), p. 174.

769 Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine (Prince Society), i. 124 ote.

770 Boston Transcript, June 8, 1872, p. 6/4; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxix. 244.

771 This is an allusion to the grant to Sir Robert Heath on October 30, 1629, of Carolana (or Carolina). No settlements were made under it.

772 Juan de Mariana (1536–1623).

773 Scharf gives as his authorities manuscripts in the British Museum.

774 History of Maryland, i. 51–52.

775 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1623–1625, p. 387; ibid. 1625–1626, p. 16.

776 Lives of the Queens of England, viii. 33.

777 Capt. John Mason (Prince Society), p. 14.

778 A facsimile of the title-page of this almanac is given in the Church Catalogue, iii. 1113.

779 See pp. 270–306, above.

780 Between 1725 and 1776 inclusive there are in addition to the specimens in the text almanacs for the several years named giving longitudes as follows: 1725, 4 h. 44 min.; 1726, 4 h. 44 min.; 1728, 70° or 4 h. 44 min.; 1729, 72°, in another 289°; 1730, also 1731, 4 h. 44 min.; 1732, 289°; 1733, 4 h. 25 min.; 1737, about 71°; 1738, 71°; 1740, 69°; 1743, 69° 27′; 1744, 69° 15′; 1750, about 4 h. 40 min.; 1751, 4 h. 45 min.; 1753, 69°.

In the New England Almanack, or Lady’s and Gentlemen’s Diary for 1769, by Benjamin West, the meridian is 4 h. 40 min. west from the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. This language tends to indicate that the maker had knowledge of the British Nautical Almanac first published in 1766, as stated in the text. From 1725 to 1776 the almanacs stating the longitude to be that of Boston without addition appear to be in a large majority.

781 Account of Two Voyages to New England made during the Years 1638, 1663, Boston (1865), p. 124.

782 Ibid. p. 157.

783 The Massachusetts Town Boundary Survey makes the State House to be in longitude 71° 03′ 51.040″ (Atlas, Boston and Brookline, 1902).

784 I take the longitude of St. Michael’s from the map of that island in Walter Frederick Walker’s The Azores, London, 1886, opposite p. 46.

785 Voyages and Works of John Davis, the Navigator, Hakluyt Society, London, p. 284.

786 Personal Narrative of the First Voyage of Columbus to America, translated by Samuel Kettell, Boston (1827), pp. 18–19.

787 Schott, Secular Variation in the Position of the Agonic Line of the North Atlantic and of America between the Epochs 1500 and 1900 A. D., in Bulletin No. 6, United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, June 7, 1888, p. 29 (being the first page of Bulletin) and footnotes.

788 Frontispiece to The Azores.

789 Schott, Bulletin No. 6, ubi supra, p. 29. See also Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, iii. 41. On p. 40 of the last named volume a facsimile is given of Michael Locke’s or Lok’s map of 1582, whereon the meridian of 350° passes through the Azores, and the meridian of 360° passes between the Azores and the Madeiras.

790 A Discourse of the Variation of the Compass by William Borough was published as an addition to Robert Norman’s The New Attractive in 1581.

791 St. Mary’s, a smaller island than St. Michael’s, lies about forty miles south from it, in the eastern group of the Azores.

792 Facsimile, New York, 1907.

793 By Andrew Wakely, Corrected and Enlarged by James Atkinson, London, 1716.

794 The first edition was published in 1652.

795 In this connection I quote from Bauer’s United States Magnetic Tables, etc., pp. 27, 28. The author, after stating that the purpose of Table I on p. 28 represents an attempt to collect the values of the magnetic declination up to the year 1600, inclusive, etc., goes on to say:

The values obtained with sea compasses require careful scrutiny, as these compasses were frequently shifted to allow for the supposed variation or “error” of the needle. Thus, Robert Norman, instrument maker, in 1581, says: “Of the common Sayling Compasses, I find heere (in Europa) five sundry sortes or sets”—according to the amount of correction allowed for by different makers. Thus, “by the Isle of Saint Michaell in the Acorres,” he found “that the North poynt of the common compass, showeth the Pole very neere in that Meridian, but the bare Needle sheweth about 4 Degrees 50 Minutes to the Eastwards of the Pole.”

It was not until the close of the sixteenth century that the “variation from the true north” came to be generally accepted as an and not one to be accredited to the imperfection of the construction of the compass.

796 Schott, United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Bulletin No. 5, The Value of the Arcano del Mare with reference to our knowledge of the Magnetic Declination in the earlier part of the seventeenth century, June 7, 1888, p. 26. Schott, United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Appendix No. 7, Report for 1888, Secular Variation of the Magnetic Declination in the United States and at some foreign stations, seventh edition, June, 1889, p. 182.

797 Vol. i. chaps, viii, x.

798 See my paper on Winthrop’s Course across the Atlantic, p. 192, above.

799 See p. 198 and note 1, above.

800 See pp. 194–195, above.

801 The great salt and the loving-cups are described and portrayed in the Curio for 1887 (New York, 1888), i. 20–22, and the loving-cups in the Catalogue of American Silver exhibited at the Museum of Fine Arts in 1906 (Boston, 1906), nos. 37, 64, pp. 45, 51, plates I, II, IV, V, VII. See also Publications of the Cambridge Historical Society, iii. 15.

802 This address was written by President Lefavour and was engrossed on parchment, measuring 17 by 22 inches, by Mr. Frank Williamson Martin. It is illuminated in red and gold. The seal of the Society is pendant on a scarlet grosgrain ribbon.