APRIL MEETING, 1903.

A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Thursday, 23 April, 1903, at three o’clock in the afternoon, Vice-President William Watson Goodwin, D.C.L., in the chair.

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

The Chair appointed the following Committees in anticipation of the Annual Meeting:

To nominate candidates for the several offices,—Messrs. James B. Ames, Thomas Minns and James A. Noyes.

To examine the Treasurer’s Accounts,—Messrs. Ezra R. Thayer and John G. Palfrey.

The Corresponding Secretary reported that since the last meeting of the Society he had received a letter from Mr. George Arthur Plimpton of New York accepting Corresponding Membership.

The Treasurer reported that since the last meeting of the Society two gifts of money had been received,—one of One hundred dollars from the Hon. Horace Davis of San Francisco, a Corresponding Member, which had been added to the Publication Fund; the other of Ten thousand dollars from the Executors of the estate of the late Robert Charles Billings.

On the motion of Mr. John Noble, it was voted that the thanks of the Society be extended to Mr. Davis for his acceptable gift.

The Treasurer offered the following Votes in the form submitted by Mr. Billings’s Executors:

Voted, That The Colonial Society of Massachusetts gratefully accepts the gift of ten thousand dollars made to said Society by Thomas Minns and Joseph S. Kendall, surviving executors of the will of Robert Charles Billings, from the remainder of the estate distributed by them in accordance with the terms of said will and a decree of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts dated April 1, 1903.

Voted, That said Society also accepts the conditions of said gift making said sum a permanent fund of ten thousand dollars to be called the Robert Charles Billings Fund, the income only to be used for Publications; and the Treasurer of said Society, Henry Herbert Edes, is hereby authorized to receive and receipt for the same.

After these Votes had been unanimously adopted, Mr. David R. Whitney offered the following Minute, which was also unanimously adopted:

The Colonial Society of Massachusetts wishes to record its appreciation of the interest in its prosperity and work evinced by its associate Mr. Thomas Minns, in permitting it to share in the bounty of the late Robert Charles Billings, under whose last will he has faithfully served as an executor and almoner. With the exception of the late President Wheelwright, no member of the Society has, as yet, contributed so much to its material welfare. This substantial addition to the endowment of the Society is timely and inspiring, and impels the members to offer to Mr. Minns this formal testimonial of their gratitude.

On behalf of Dr. Horace Howard Furness, a Corresponding Member, Mr. Henry H. Edes communicated some letters written by James Martineau1 and James Russell Lowell to Dr. Furness’s father, the Rev. Dr. William H. Furness. The letters follow.

JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

Legacion

De Los

Estados Unidos de America

En España

Particular

13 July, 1879.

Dear Doctor Furness,

It was a very kind thought in you to give me an account of your visit to Emerson & of his actual condition, for I feared from what I had heard that his mind as well as memory had begun to fail him. The tone of your letter, even more than what you say, convinces that he is at least happy, & happy from his own resources. This is as it should be, for he of all men deserves

An old age serene and bright,

And lovely as a Lapland night,

& so I fancy him since your letter with one daylight bending over to kiss the other above his head. However, I cannot conceive him as an old man. I associate him always with things vernal & in their prime, with the everlasting forces that know not decay, & though by the common doom his bodily presence must be taken from us ere long, there are few men of whom so much will be left living & giving life. I have never known a character on the whole so beautiful, so high above self, & so kindly a mixture of strength & gentleness. How firmly he always held his own & that without ever withstanding others but only the thing they represented. I have known a bit of scenery & now & then a Cathedral to stamp itself on my memory as he did, but no other man & no other thing. I remember as if it were of yesterday the first time I ever walked with him & the exquisite suavity of his demeanor towards me—a boy of nineteen & very young of my age. It was to the “South-Cliff” (I think they called it) in Concord, a lovely summer day forty one years ago. What an other New England it was then to that we have now!

I sometimes think that it is not our own growing-old that is painful—if indeed we are altogether conscious of it—but that of those older than ourselves & associated with the better memories of our prime. With every one of them we lose a bit of our youth which survived for us still in them, & at last find ourselves alone in an unfamiliar or even alienated landscape which they tell us is the same but from which all the old landmarks that made it dear to us are gone. Even the cutting-down of a long-known tree leaves a scar in the heart that aches in bad weather, but when the cara e buona imagine paterna of such a man as Emerson is seen no more a gap is left between us & our past that nothing can ever fill.

It rejoiced me to see in your handwriting that you at least may mock at calendars. And if, so you say, you are nearing eighty, it must be very jolly to be at once so old & so young. I do not remember the year of your graduation,1 but you must in the nature of things be soon celebrating your sixtieth anniversary. May I be there to see! For I am sure that after all other reminiscences are exhausted I shall see you proposing a dance round the tree to supple your joints a little after sitting so long.

When your letter came I was passing through the most painful week of my life. My wife1 (a very beautiful & noble woman) was at the very gates of death with typhus. Five days ago she was thought by the doctors to be actually dead—but revived as by a miracle & is now thank God getting slowly better. My mind is still somewhat confused with the horrors I have passed through & which I think I could hardly have endured but for the kindness & devotion of two of our Spanish friends here. Especially to Señora de Riaño I think I owe the saving of what was so incalculably dear.

Let me add my felicitations to those of your other friends that Old Age if Old Age it be that has such an elastic step finds you happy at the close of a life on every day of which you can look back with satisfaction.

With great respect

faithfully & cordially yours

J. R. Lowell.

JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

2, Radnor Place,

Hyde Park, W.

16th June, 1887.

Dear Doctor Furness,

I would gladly have done what you wish both on account of my high regard for you and for my own sake, but I could give no point-blank answer unless it were “no.” There is no use in whistling for a wind on such occasions and one must brood awhile before he can be certain that it is the Muse or some less auspicious spirit that invites him. I came over here very weary and hoping for a summer of absolute rest. When one is approaching sixty-nine, one hasn’t the courage of one’s prime. The occasion2 lends itself but grudgingly to lyricism and the fate of the Jubilee Odes here was not encouraging to violent methods with the Muse. Tennyson has run away to sea that he may escape a second mischance.

I had been meditating over the subject and gradually blocking out a framework in my mind that might sustain and give order to a fitting fabric of strophes. But I had not got so far as to know whether my thoughts would sing when your telegram came. Telegrams always scare me and yours upset me altogether. So with the best good-will in the world, I feel that it will be better all round if I withdraw from the enterprise.

Mr. Lodge in writing to me speaks of a letter from your son Mr. Howard Furness. I have never had such a letter or I should have answered it.

With high and affectionate regard,

faithfully yours,

J. R. Lowell.

JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

Elmwood,

Cambridge, Mass.

20^th Nov: 1889.

Dear Doctor Furness,

I also have a very high appreciation of Miss Repplier1 & should be glad to see her. But you don’t say when she is coming. Perhaps she might be good enough, considering my ’ears, as Dogberry says, to let me see her here when she comes Eastward.

Send the sermon by all means—one of yours can’t fail to do me good. It is a comfort to think of you as still active for good.

Faithfully yours

J. R. Lowell.

The Rev^Ḏ D^Ṟ Furness.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

Liverpool, Dec. 7.th 1836.

My dear Sir,

These lines will be presented to you by Mr Henry Ames who, with Mrs H. A., is about to spend some time in Philadelphia, and will find a residence there so much the more interesting, if you will permit them to enjoy the privilege of an acquaintance, personal and pastoral, with yourself and M^rs Furness. M^r. Ames was a fellow passenger of Harriet’s,1 when she went to visit your country; and now, with the ready enterprise of the English merchant, which gives him a home as wide as his commerce, leaves us for another season. M^rs Ames is, if I recollect right, a member of one of our sound old Presbyterian families.

M^rs. Butler2 arrived here well, but anxious about her child. We saw her two or three times during her short stay in Liverpool. I do not think that any thing serious ails her baby, but her agitated spirits on returning to her country under circumstances so changed disposed her to needless solicitude. She showed me the outside of your book.3 This is a tantalization I cannot bear. You must send me the means of looking into the interior. May I send my own and wife’s kind regards to M^rs Furness?

Ever yours with high esteem,

James Martineau

[Addressed]

Rev^D. W. Furness,

Philadelphia.

Favored by

Henry Ames Esq^R.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

South Kinrara, Aviemore,

Inverness-shire.

July 10, 1873.

My dear D^R. Furness,

Your prompt and generous contributions to the wealth, as well as the accuracy, of my Hymn book, deserved an earlier acknowledgment. But till the vacation carried me off to the Scotch mountains, I struggled in vain with the more importunate claims which in London keep me in a state of permanent compunction about my correspondence. I do not know how to restrain within measure my thanks both for the hymns (of which I have used all but 2), and for the glorious Song on John Brown. All of them go to my heart: and the last is truly noble and magnificent in its simple power. I was also much obliged by your son’s kind offer to hunt up the original form of Peabody’s hymn. But having taken it from the Springfield Collection, for which, I think, it was written, and tested it in various ways, I have no excuse, on the score of doubt, for imposing further trouble about it. There are however a few obscurities, with regard to the literary history of American hymns, which I find it still difficult to clear up, notwithstanding the very valuable help I have received from Mr Samuel Longfellow. Among other things, I cannot make out the date of your hymn in the New York Coll. beginning “Father in heaven, to whom my heart.” This doubtless you will kindly tell me. I think it must be 1824. Should you happen to know also the dates of any of the following, perhaps you would jot them down at the same time.

		Bk. of Hymns
Tho^s Gray	“Suppliant, lo! thy children bend”	15
H. Ware	“To prayer, to prayer” &c	2
		H. & Tune Bk
Bryant	“Mighty One, before whose face”	726
Pierpont	“O God! I thank thee that the night”	Bk. of H. 366
“	“Another day its course hath run”	372
Sam^l Gilman	“This child we dedicate to thee”	377
		H. of the Spirit
M^rs Willard	“Rocked in the cradle of the deep”	267
H. M. Kimball	“We have no tears thou wilt not dry’	607
N. P. Willis	“The perfect world by Adam trod” (What were Willis’ Christian names?)	Plym^th Coll. 938

The volume is now in the press: so that I hunger for all last scraps of information that may reduce its imperfections and fill up its lacunae.

I had the great pleasure of just falling in with D^r. Sears1 before I left town. I had long known and loved him through his writings: and it was delightful that the personal impression so absolutely harmonized with the imaginative prepossession. It needed not D^r. Bellows’s2 affectionate introduction to give assurance of what he is. Though unable to occupy his position in theology, I wish I could feel more confidence that a different and more modern position is likely to reproduce such a spirit as his. Perhaps in a generation or two it may be so: but at present the saintly mind seems to be the attribute of the old theology. It is a pathetic lot that assigns some of us in feeling to the Past, and in thought to the Present.

Believe me ever,

Yours very faithfully,

James Martineau.

Rev. D^R Furness.

P. S. My address will be here for some time to come.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

10, Gordon Street,

London, W. C.

Feb. 26, 1874.

My dear D^R. Furness,

That my Hymnbook should go so far towards satisfying your feeling is the best possible compensation for its falling short of my own. To acquiesce in imperfect works is one of the hardest lessons of life: yet without learning it, nothing is to be done. I could write half a dozen hostile criticisms on this book, all without real injustice: yet it has cost me my best pains, and perhaps improves sufficiently on its predecessors to justify its appearance.

I know the Hymn of Doddridge’s which you cite, and like the feeling of it much. But I cannot get over the “Rivers of salvation”: and the “Tongue of feeble clay” sticks in my throat. Moreover, the feminine character of Doddridge’s mind, which touches many of his hymns with a delicate grace, here seems to me to verge towards feebleness, and rather dangerously try the piety of strong men.

Such a recognition of the Book as would be its adoption by your congregation is beyond all my expectations. If however the idea should be seriously entertained, you could have any required number of copies, in the cloth binding of which you have a sample, at 3 shillings and 3 pence per copy, i. e. I suppose 78 cents: or, if you preferred to “bind at home,” in Sheets, at 2 shillings and 9 pence, or, I suppose, 66 cents, reckoned in specie. These are the prices to our English congregations. The Edition with Tunes will be not less, I fear, than double these prices. I am so much better pleased with a New York Presbyterian book (“The Sacrifice of Praise”) than with any Music printing I can find here, that I have sent over to the Printers of it for an Estimate: so that I may possibly print in New York. But I am afraid that the range of prices is higher with you than with us at present, and that I may be unable to carry out this scheme. I quite hope that the Musical Edition will be brought out within the year. It waits only for the harmonizing and transcribing of the tunes, a process which is rapidly advancing under the care of a small Comm^ee, consisting of my two sons,1—both of whom, happily for me, are scientific as well as executant musicians,—and my friend Rev. James Whitehead of Hackney, who is one of our best authorities in regard to Church Music. They are all rigorous in their disapproval of adaptations, picked out of Operas and Oratorios: so that the volume will consist wholly of pure Church Music: and as the range of exceptional metres and special hymns is considerable, there will be a good number of original compositions, written for the words.

In the first issued copies of the Hymnbook there appeared a few vexatious misprints, which did not exist in my Revises and are not in the electroplates, but which were introduced at the last by a careless workman. Some of these you may probably have noticed. They are all corrected now, except 2 or 3 slight ones affecting only the punctuation.

Believe me ever, dear D^r. Furness,

Yours very faithfully,

James Martineau.

Rev^d D^R Furness.

Pardon this soiled page. To think that I should put a blot upon your name!

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

10, Gordon Street,

London, W. C.

May 23, 1874.

My dear D^R. Furness,

The favour with which your congregation regards the Hymns of “Praise and Prayer” is a heartfelt joy to me: and I shall make no protest against any treatment, in the way of excision or addition, which you are likely to apply to it.

The price must be 2 shillings and 9 pence per copy in sheets. This is the rate for our congregations here: and it is fixed so as to be really below cost price,—at least, unless more than 20,000 copies are sold. My old Liverpool congregation is at present the only one where the book is in use. People wait for the musical and smaller editions: and, as my funds are limited, they unfortunately wait for some adequate sale of the present edition. But this waiting race shall not result in standing still.

Eliza Scudder1 is, I think, a Washington lady: at all events she belongs to you. Her hymns are full of verve and nobleness: and 168 is, I quite agree, especially fine.

At the end of June, I shall be leaving London for my vacation retreat on Loch Long side in Argyllshire. Though I can give any orders about the Hymnbook by letter to my printers, it would be more satisfactory to me to see, personally, to the carrying of them out. Should you therefore be able to send me instructions before I leave home, better attention would be secured to them, than if they came in July, August, or September.

I shall regard it as a true privilege, should I, through this volume, be associated with your day of congregational and personal Jubilee. “Fifty years Pastorate!” it is a refreshing instance of conservative and enduring life in this age of restlessness. The world would move better, as I think, if its steps could be brought nearer to so dignified and faithful a measure of change.

Believe me ever,

Yours most truly,

James Martineau.

Rev. W. H. Furness

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

10, Gordon Street,

London, W. C.

Sep. 8, 1874.

My dear D^R. Furness,

I am sorry if the inopportune arrival of the Hymn books robbed you of one of your precious country days. Glad as I am to know of their safe delivery, there was no hurry about the Invoice: and I had rather have gone six months without my remittance than give you a needless hour in town. The too prompt Draft has duly reached me today. It is the first reimbursement of my outlay on the book: for, though the large Edition is for the most part sold, my Publishers will not account to me for anything till December,—perhaps not even till June next year.

I cannot hope that so large a lot of books has altogether escaped the effects of carelessness on the part of the Binders. Should copies turn up here and there with misplaced or omitted sheets, I shall feel obliged by your keeping a register of their number; and perfect copies shall be sent in their place by the next opportunity. And as the book comes into use, I shall be thankful to be told of any slips or errors which you may notice on my part. Already there are a few corrections and additions (to names & dates) on my list, which will improve the next edition. These relate chiefly to the American Hymns; on which, notwithstanding the friendly aid of Samuel Longfellow in addition to yours, I found it extremely difficult in the first instance, to obtain exact information. The publication of the book has brought out the communications which I could not elicit before. Mr Bryant1 says,—and it pleases me to know it,—I have convinced him,—of what previously he did not admit,—that changes and differences in theology justify alterations in the text of hymns. This is a great and large-minded concession from a veteran poet of the most sensitive literary taste.

Believe me ever,

Yours very faithfully,

James Martineau.

Rev. D^R. Furness.

Received, per Draft on Mess^rs Brown, Shipley & Co., in discharge of Hymn book Invoice, £83=4=10.

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

5, Gordon Street,

London, W. C.

June 14, 1876.

My dear D^R Furness,

Your promptitude in acknowledging the receipt of the Hymn-books shames me by its contrast with my Agents’ delays. But if “all’s well that ends well,” it is better to say no more about the sins of the past, and simply to thank you for your kind remittance, and to hope that, with continued use and growing intimacy, the Time-book will more & more commend itself to the feeling of your congregation and the critical judgment of the musical experts among them.

I must not forget to thank you for your very interesting and admirable paper in the Unitarian Review on the Religious application of the “Evolution” doctrine. I read it with delight and hearty assent, from beginning to end; and with joyful wonder that your mind seems able to beep for ever young. And now you tell me that you are retiring from the field of active labour, and that your successor is already at work. I shall never be able to think of the Philadelphia pulpit as occupied by any one but W. H. Furness. With him the brightest and noblest chapter in the history of American Unitarianism closes: and we descend from heroic & prophetic heights to the levels of business organization and civic commonplace. No repose for declining years has ever been more thoroughly earned than yours: and I trust that it may enable you all the more effectively to speak to us at intervals through the press, as suggestive occasions may arise.

Believe me ever,

Yours very faithfully,

James Martineau.

Rev. W. H. Furness.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

5, Gordon Street,

London, W. C.

Dec. 23, 1878.

My dear D^R Furness,

In venturing to send you my recent Address, I did not mean to impose upon you even the task of reading it,—which, I know, is not a light one,—much less that of sending me so charming an answer to the presentation. I often lament the metaphysical habit which,—as my friend W. R. Greg1 tells me,—spoils my style, and makes all that I write very stiff reading: but it is too late to mend. My own faith by no means requires me to sink deep in the scrutiny of ultimate principles: I rest contentedly in the common trusts of the human soul, and seek no recondite verification of them. But when I encounter the doubts of others, a fear of not getting to the bottom of them drives me too far from the surface,—in which after all, they may probably have their only roots.

I wish I could look with your genial and hopeful eye on the negative tendencies of our recent culture in regard to religion, or could detect any better affirmation looking behind their denial. Without for a moment doubting that, when the darkness and the storm are past, the air will be brighter and sweeter, and the clear heaven embrace us again, I cannot but apprehend great desolation of heart and no little moral shipwreck meanwhile. Indeed, they are already abundantly visible: and when a generation has grown up without the idea of Duty, or with no sacred feeling connected with it,—and that is certainly what is coming upon us here,—the social result is one which I shrink from contemplating. My German and Dutch friends are affected by similar anxieties.

You introduce me to a personage quite strange to me in your mention of Omar Kayyam: & as it is a part of my business to make acquaintance with all oddities and extremes of thought, I shall look him up,—probably with the help of Mr Channing,1 who lives very much with these queer Orientals. I suspect I shall share Emerson’s feeling,—as M^r Channing will be found to share yours. I am obliged to own that I have never found any light I care for in either Indian or Persian literature, so far as accessible in English; and the study of it is mere task-work to me.

Believe me always,

Yours very cordially,

James Martineau.

Rev. D^R Furness.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

35 Gordon Square,

London, W. C.

Feb. 29, 1888.

My dear D^R. Furness,

By the help of Leap-year alone my lazy conscience saves its usual vow & answers your delightful letter within the mouth of its own date. In asking silently your acceptance of my recent book, I reckoned on no more than the silent reply of friendly acquiescence. You have given me a hundred-fold more, and from my heart I thank you. It is not difficult to me to dispense with public approval in matters of deep inward conviction. But here and there are a few loved and venerated men, whose sympathy at once intensifies my faith and doubles my joy in it, & this it is that makes your word so precious to me. I pray you, do not worry yourself with my metaphysics: they are but medicine for sickly minds, which the healthy may well fling away as they would “apples of Sodom.” It is the constructive part of the book in which alone I do profoundly care for fellowship; precisely because it is out of the sphere of “originality,” and only recites once more the eternal conditions of our common life and love. I believe in the permanent necessity of the philosophic schools which torment the wits of mankind. It is useless to rave at them as the scientific & scholarly men are apt to do. Their modes of thought lie behind the first assumptions of all that can be practically learned or taught, and will force themselves into consciousness with a few of the learners & teachers, though unsuspected by the rest. And when once they speak out, they will not be put off till their rights have been determined and set clear of false pretensions set up on their behalf. The critical process to which, I believe, this task is possible, gives no new revelation, but re-instates us where we intuitively stood, only with certainty secured that the ground is not hollow beneath us.

It is refreshing to hear of your continued immunity from all the usual disabilities of age. I am your junior by 3 years; but I could not legibly tell you so, had I not glasses for my eyes. And deafness in one ear obliges me to choose my place with care at any meeting where the interest depends on speech or music, and to manœuvre with a companion in a walk to get hold of his right arm. Else, this 9^th decade is little different with me from its predecessors, unless it be that my work is slower and cannot be dashed off in haste as in younger days.

I thank you heartily for “The Faith of Jesus.” I am with you in devoted acceptance of that faith in its essence, its self-evidence, & its applications; though, to reach it, I should remove some of the alleged reports of it in the Gospels wh. you are able to retain; &, to hold it, do not find it requisite, or possible, to reckon among its effects the “signs & wonders” attached to it in the narrative. The features of a transcendent personality may be guaranteed to us by internal evidence. But external facts must rest on testimony: and that is shown, by the historical criticism of the last 30 years, to fail us completely, as I am obliged to own. In this there is to me far more gain than loss: the lines and touches of colour which have vanished from the prior image of Jesus have left his figure, fainter indeed but diviner far than I had conceived before, & clearer than ever of all responsibility for the strange mythology by which Christendom has hid it from view. I have no faith in a religious future for those who renounce their allegiance to that personality; whether to try a Philosophical Theism, or a bare Ethical Ideal, without him.

I remain, always,

Yours with lifelong affection,

James Martineau.

Rev. D^R Furness.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

35, Gordon Square,

London, W. C.

April 14. 1889.

My dear D^r Furness,

Your charming letter of birthday greeting makes me feel as if, with the grasp of your loving hand, I stood by your side on the verge of two worlds but a step apart,—one in the twilight of tender memories, the other in the dawn of brighter hopes. I often think, in these evening hours of life, of what W. H. Channing said to me within two or three days of his departure,—“I have long lived so freely in the invisible future just as in the remembered past, that the boundary of the two worlds has almost vanished and reduced death to nought.” To his intensely ideal nature, this was simply true. Those of us who, though in advance of his age, are still day-labourers here, with unfinished tasks that press for completion, may perhaps be pardoned, if they have not yet reached the point of absolute indifference at which his spirit rested in suspense.

Gently as old age deals with me, your wonderful energy far outstrips my poor performances. I have left the pulpit, the Lecture-room, the Public Meeting, and the private dinner party; and now concentrate what faculty I have on quiet work within my own study. There, the same subjects engage me which have so long and so fruitfully occupied your thoughts. If the results do not quite coincide with yours, it is from no demur to your fundamental principles, which I heartily accept, but from inability to accept as historical facts the greater part of the reported acts & incidents to which you apply the principles. The fresh light which has been thrown, by the critical investigations of the last 30 years, on the origin and growth and early literature of the Christian Church, seems to me to alter the whole aspect of the problem with which we have to deal, and relieve us of many phenomena for which special hypotheses had been devised to account. A book1 on which I am at work will ere long, if I live, so much better explain my meaning than this hasty note, that I will say no more.

My congratulations are too late, I fear, to do their duty on the right day. None the less hearty and affectionate are they. Had I. known your date, they should have led the way as a prelude, instead of hanging on as an appendix. By the way, I think you have one Senior—in D^r Farley,1—and he seems to be your partner in vigour.

Believe me ever, with best wishes and many thanks,

Yours most cordially,

James Martineau.

JAMES MARTINEAU TO WILLIAM HENRY FURNESS.

The Polchar,

Rothiemurchus,

Aviemore.

Scotland

May 27, 1890.

My dear D^R. Furness,

The first use to which I put my escape from London distractions into this mountain nest shall be, to send you my hearty thanks for your two last publications,—the “Conference Discourse” & the “Story of the Resurrection.” Both of them I read with the delighted interest which all that you write awakens in me,—none the less that I reach essentially the same result as yours by a different track and at a heavier cost of discarded “impedimenta.” I cannot rate the historic elements of our Gospels so highly as you do: but what I have to eliminate as increments of tradition is precisely what confuses rather than clears the entrancing image of the central figure wherein the Human & the Divine characteristics are unified. The Evangelists give us, no doubt (inter alia), some early and genuine Memorabilia of the Ministry of Jesus, Matthew of what he said, Mark of what he did & suffered; but, as a whole, their narratives reflect more of his subsequent church than of his personal biography, & fuse together the primary Religion and the derivative Theology in a way which seriously dims the pure lustre of the former. It is the glory of the modern criticism, that it more & more enables us to separate the two.

Notwithstanding the inevitable excisions which reduce the historic gospel to a short & simple compend, I cling with an intense tenacity to the distinctive Christian life & name; out of which, as from nothing else, may and must be developed all that belongs to the spiritual perfection of humanity. And I cannot see, without regret, the disposition among our younger men either to begin, de novo, from mere Ethical postulates, at most from abstract Theism, or to go a-hunting among foreign Religions,—Buddhism, the Zendavesta, Confucius, the Vedas,—for something which, as chosen and patronized by them, will never overawe & subdue them. Good as anthropological studies, these exotics become imposters when they pretend to capture and redeem the soul. For myself, I would cast my lot with those who keep true to the line of their history, & own their trust to push it on into new latitudes of Divine reality. Let other races do the same: & all perhaps will meet at the same pole at last. Our good & accomplished friend, J. H. Allen1 (now in London) chides me for narrowness for thus judging; while I rather complain of his cold critical externality to all the religious tendencies which he so impartially reviews. I hope we shall have it out together in friendly converse soon: for he promises to visit me here at the beginning of July, when, in one direction or another, the breezes of the mountains shall blow all our dialectic away.

It is delightful to hear how blest you are in your sons & daughters; it is the joy which fulfills the first prayer and the last of a loving old age. I am so much withdrawn now from the literary world that I cannot say whether the last Vol. of the Variorum Shakespeare is yet known here. I have little doubt that it is: for nothing is more quickly caught up in the book market than any new product of the Dramatic Press, whether original or critical.

Our Unitarian Anniversaries are being held in London this week. I am doubly thankful to be in this retreat: for they are not congenial to me, & I can do no service to them; so the distance between us is a benefit to both, conducing to mutual good-will.

Believe me, dear D^r Furness,

Ever most cordially yours,

James Martineau.

Mr. Albert Matthews read a paper on the term Red Man as applied to the North American Indians. He remarked that no attempt had been made to give the history of the term, that little had been written on the subject, and that the generally accepted notion was that Indians were called Red Men on account of the natural color of their skin. He showed that the adjective red—qualifying various nouns—had been applied to the Indians since at least as early as 1699, and that it had long been accepted by themselves. He then proceeded to quote many extracts, and concluded by remarking:

These extracts are examined in vain for confirmation of the generally accepted notion that Indians were called Red Men on account of the natural color of their skin. On the contrary, we find current in the seventeenth century the curious belief that Indians were born white, and that the darker hue was later acquired as a result of bathings and ointments. But this darker hue was regarded not as red, but as brown or “tawny;” indeed, this last word was considered so aptly descriptive that it was turned into a noun. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to show that red was a favorite color with the Indians at all times, and especially in time of war. Must we not then conclude that Indians have acquired the sobriquet of Red Men by reason not of the natural but of the artificial color of their skin?

Mr. John Noble made the following communication:

A FEW NOTES ON ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION IN THE COLONY AND IN THE PROVINCE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY.

A young colony naturally has little occasion for any full code of Admiralty laws or any distinctive Admiralty Courts. It has little concern about those matters which fall properly within such jurisdiction, for it can dispose of them with a fair amount of justice and convenience in its local courts. Until more complex internal conditions and outside relations grow up, it finds this the easiest and most satisfactory way. It was evidently so in Massachusetts. Not until 1650 is there any legislation, even remotely connected with such affairs, apparent in the Massachusetts Colony Records, and the Court records are silent in the early years. Up to 1644 neither in the Massachusetts Colony Records nor in the records in the so-called Barlow Copy is there more than a single entry that savors of Admiralty jurisdiction. At a Court held 2 June, 1635, controversies which arose between certain parties as to their rights in the ship Thunder were sent to a board of arbitrators for determination.1 The latter fact in itself, however, proves nothing, for to a large degree the Court records are missing, and where they exist they are conspicuously incomplete, as I have shown elsewhere,2 and contain little beyond the record of cases of a criminal or of municipal or otherwise public character. Civil cases between individuals seem not to have been recorded at all in the earliest years, and the later records, which are shown to have existed, have been lost from a time beyond the memory of living man. No full records of the Court of Assistants appear till 1673, and of the other Courts at about the same time. Much can be supplied, however, from certified copies found in later cases among the Court files and in the writings of contemporaries, especially of Winthrop.3

The Colony Charter of Charles, without the reservation of the Province Charter of William and Mary, gives full power to hold Courts, to “establishe all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, lawes, Statutes, and Ordin͠nces, direc͠cons, and instruc͠cons, not contrarie to the lawes of this our realme of England,” and for “the directing, ruleing, and disposeing of all other matters and thinges” for the religious, peaceable and civil government of the Colony, with “full and absolute power and authoritie” to all the higher officers of the Colony, “according to the Orders, lawes, ordin͠nces, instruccons and direc͠cons aforesaid, not being repugnant to the lawes and Statutes of our realme of England.”

Acting under this authority, and with its usual sturdy independence and its application of good common sense and Anglo-Saxon notions of justice, the Colony probably got safely through all those cases that smelled of the sea, either in the Court of Assistants or in the General Court, without much difficulty, for many years.

As showing how little distinction was made by the courts between admiralty and common law proceedings in eases before then, Washburn1 refers to the case of Madame La Tour in 1644, giving some account of it taken from Winthrop.2 But some twenty years after the first settlement in Boston, questions apparently began to arise, and the necessity of some formal code began to show itself. And here appears the first attempt at legislation—which was apparently attended with only indifferent success:

Att a Courte of Elec͠con, held at Boston, the 22^th 3 M^o, 1650.

Whereas this commonwealth is much defective for want of lawes for Marityne affayres, and forasmuch as there are already many good lawes made & published by o^r owne land & the French nation, & other kingdomes & common wealths, this court doth therefore order, that the sajd lawes, printed & published in a booke called Lex Mercatoria, shalbe pused & duly considered, & such of them as are approved by this Court shalbe declared & published, to be in force within this jurisdiction after such a time as this Court shall appoynt; and it is further ordered that M^r Bellingham, M^r Nowell, M^r Willoby, Capt. Hawthorne, the Audito^r Generall,3 & M^r John Allen, shalbe a committee to ripen the worke, & to make returne of that which they shall conclud vppon unto the Generali Court, and the time of their meetinge to be the first third day of the sixth mo^th next–

ꝑ Cur̃.4

This Committee appears to have been somewhat slack in the duty assigned to it, and—

Att the Second Session of the Generali Court, held at Boston the 14th October, 1651, [it appearing that] s^d committee haue not yett mett according as was then concluded, . . . it is ordered by the Court, that the accomplishing of that worke shalbe referred to M^r Nowell & the Audito^rgenerall . . . to make returne thereof to the next Generali Court.5

The second Committee apparently accomplished as little. At any rate, it does not appear how much benefit was derived from the labors imposed, how far they were discharged, or what was the practical outcome.

But whether with or without a code there is no evidence of any change in the jurisdiction, and at all events it is evident that they dealt with piracies and other happenings upon the high seas as if they had occurred on the main land. Exigencies would arise from time to time when the want of controlling laws would be felt.

Incompetency and greed are peculiar to no time or people, and even Puritan Commonwealths are not exempt. Somewhat later it seems to have become necessary to protect the interests of merchants and the lives of mariners from such shortcomings of human nature, and, though perhaps not strictly a matter of admiralty jurisdiction, resort is had to legislation.

At the Session of the General Court in October, 1667, it appearing that “divers unskillful persons, pretending to be shipwrights, doe build shipps & other vessells . . . which are very defective, both for matter & forme, to the great prejudice of merchants & ounors, & the danger of mens lives at sea,”1 a Committee is appointed to draw up laws to remedy the evil.

For many years after the unsuccessful movement in 1650, the Colony ran on without any distinctive maritime code. The Body of Liberties, Liberty 67, had laid it down as among the rights of the freemen, “to choose yearly at the Court of Election” “all the General Officers of this Jurisdiction,” among them the “Generali of our warres” and “our Admirall at Sea”—subject to discharge as therein provided. But the growth of the Colony at last brought about some legislation, and—

Att y^e Second Sessions of the Generali Court, held at Boston, 14th of October, 1668.

Whereas, through the blessing of God vpon this jurisdiction, the navigation & maritine affaires thereof is grown to be a considerable jnterest, the well management whereof is of great concernment to the publick weale; for the better ordering the same for the future, & that there may be knowne lawes & rules for all sorts of persons imployed therein, according to their severall Stations and Capacitjes, & that there may be one rule for the guidance of all Courts in their proceedings in distribution of justice,

a law is enacted containing twenty-seven sections and covering differences between owners, conduct of masters and mariners, penalties to be imposed on them for breaches of duty, questions of wages, provisioning of vessels, conduct of voyages, loss of goods, collisions, and other kindred matters.1

There would seem to have been some sort of an Admiralty Court or a Court exercising such jurisdiction in Massachusetts a dozen years earlier, by the mention made in the Danforth Papers of “our Court of Admiralty here,” in 1666.2 It seems most likely that it was no distinct Court, but simply an exercise, as occasion required, of Admiralty powers in the local Courts of the Colony, probably the Court of Assistants, or under the Governor as Vice-Admiral, as the colonists were always equal to the situation at hand, and had no hesitation in finding good legal ground for meeting necessary emergencies.

In 1673 appears the first formal legislation as to the trial of “all cases of admiralty.”

Att a Speciall Generall Court, called by order of the Council, and assembled together in Boston, 10th December, 1673. [At an adjournment thereof on the 6th of the following January,] It is ordered by this Court & the authority thereof, that henceforth all cases of admiralty shall be heard and determined by the Court of Assistants, and to be issued by the bench w^thout a jury, unless the Court shall see cause to the contrary, prouided allwayes this act shall not be interpreted to obstruct the just plea of any marriner or merchant impleading any person in any other Court vpon any matter or cause that depends upon contract, covenant, or other matter of com̃on æquity in maritine affayres, to be issued according to the knowne lawes of this colony.1

Numerous cases under this jurisdiction are to be found in the Records of the Court of Assistants, Volume I., lately issued, which show the variety of causes that came before it and their character. Among them are some interesting trials for piracy occurring not only upon the high seas but within the limits of Massachusetts waters not far from Boston.

The records show the Court of Assistants under this law of 1673 to have sat regularly and frequently as a Court of Admiralty. Besides these regular sittings, a special or additional sitting seems sometimes to have been called upon request, or rather a matter brought specially before it.

Att a Court of Assistants or Admiralty held at Boston on the 15^th of April 1686

The Court mett at the time and at the request of M^r Willjam Woodrope of the Island of St. Christophers now Resident in Boston A Court of Admiralty is granted him against M^r John Keech [and another,] to be held at sajd Boston on the 22^th of Instant Aprill at three of the Clock in the Afternoon; [and] Att an Adjournment of the Court of Assistants or Admiralty held at Boston 22^th of April 1686 [the case is heard, the complaint being for a wrongful attachment and judgment in the County Court.]

The case against Keech as also that against Thornton is recorded at length.2 As this volume covers the period from 1673 to 1692, it shows that this jurisdiction continued up to the time when the Colony passed into the Province.

There is to be found an instance of the General Court acting as a Court of Admiralty:

Att the second Sessions of the Generali Court, held at Boston, the 11^th of October, 1676.

The Court, as the Court of Admiralty resolved, & that by voate, that Robert Orchard, the officer, had not acted regularly in his seizing, &c., and to find for the plaintiff, Daniel Anderson.1

The Colony passed away and the Province succeeded. The Provincial Charter of William and Mary made direct mention of Admiralty Courts and reserved to the Crown the right to establish and organize them:

Provided alwaies and it is hereby declared that nothing herein shall extend or be taken to Erect or grant or allow the Exercise of any Admirall Court Jurisdicc̃on Power or Authority but that the same shall be and is hereby reserved to Vs and Our Successors and shall from time to time be Erected Granted and exercised by Vertue of Com̃issions to be yssued vnder the Greate Seale of England or vnder the Seale of the High Admirall or the Com̃issioners for executing the Office of High Admirall of England.2

In the absence of any regularly constituted Courts, whatever Admiralty authority became necessary was executed by the local authorities.3

As showing that the local Courts took and exercised jurisdiction at this time over matters that savored of Admiralty is the case of Charles La Tour v. Thomas Walters, etc., in 1696. This was an appeal from a judgment of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas on a “Libell . . . as well for and in behalfe of our Sovereign Lord the King as for themselves,” brought by the defendants in the Inferiour Court, under “An Act made by the Generali Assembly of this His Maj^ties province of the Massachusetts Bay, in the Seventh year of His present Maj^ties Reigne, Entituled an Act to prevent the Supplying of his Maj^ties Enemies.”4 The jury—find for the defendants.—Confirmation of the fformer Judgment. It is therefore considered by the Court That the s^d Informers shall recover the s^d Shallop Jacob with her Tackle Apparrell ffurniture Lading on behalfe of His Majesty and themselves in manner as by the aforesaid Act is directed.1

There is a large group of papers among the Suffolk Court Files relating to this case and giving much of its inside history:—the Information, plea, judgment and record of the Inferiour Court; a petition for protection and aid as not knowing the English language; the reasons of appeal, and answer thereto; an address to Governor Stoughton (translated), praying the restoration of his goods and vessel; certificates of Naval officers of Boston and of New Castle, New Hampshire; various depositions, a list of the papers, etc., taken on board the shallop, etc.; eighteen in all. The spelling of the name of the original defendant, De La Tour, is in various modes.2

Whatever of this there was at first fell upon Governor Phips. On some complaints arising as to his performance of such duties Washburn says a Court was created in 1694 consisting of a Judge, a King’s Advocate, a Register and a Marshal.3 But as appears by a letter of Lieutenant-Governor William Stoughton to the Lords of the Privy Council, no judge had been appointed and commissioned in September, 1696, and the Lieutenant-Governor adjudicates upon some fishing vessels that had been brought in as prizes by privateers.4

There are no Admiralty records for this early period found upon which to fall back as ultimate authority. Washburn says that the first judge whose appointment he can ascertain was Wait Winthrop, commissioned in 1699 over the Northern District, as it was called, consisting of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.5 Douglass says the same. The Commissions ran from the King, under the broad Seal, or the Warrant of the Lord High Admiral,—in reality from appointment of the Lords Commissioners of Admiralty.

The jurisdiction of the Courts was extensive, but is best shown by the records. The Court sat without juries, and where no express Acts of Parliament existed governing the cases before it, was governed by the Civil and Maritime law. An appeal lay to the Court of Delegates in England. No salaries were fixed, and the compensation depended upon the fees for a long period—till 1769, as Washburn gives it; but apparently the salary of the Judge, Auchmuty, was named in 1767 and increased in 1769. The Province at an early date took into its own hands the regulation of the fees. By Chapter 7, Acts of 1716–17, a fee system was established. Some question having arisen whether this was within the province of the General Court of the Province, it was referred to Paul Dudley the Attorney-General, who decided it was within its power, “more especially if the fees of said Court of Admiralty are either uncertain or grievous.”1 The General Court had already, by Act of 1692–93, Chapter 37, established the fees in the other Courts of the Province. Douglass gives the succession of judges, and Washburn follows him.2

Winthrop was succeeded by William Atwood, 28 October, 1701, whose district took in also the Jerseys. He was followed by Roger Mompesson in April, 1703, but in the same year the district was divided, and a new Commission was issued to Nathaniel Byfield over Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. Mompesson held office till his death, 2 January, 1714–35. Byfield, appointed December, 1693, continued in office till 1715. John Menzeis succeeded Byfield, bringing his Commission with him and arriving here 24 December, 1715, and taking his seat in the following March. He died at Boston 20 September, 1728, at the age of seventy-eight.3 Robert Auchmuty was appointed Judge pro tempore by Governor Burnet, according to Douglass. Judge Byfield was again commissioned 25 November, 1728, though his Commission was not received till 10 April, 1729, when he took the oaths of office, and remained till his death 6 June, 1733, at the age of eighty. Robert Auchmuty followed him and held the office till 1747, when he was superseded by Chambers Russell, dying in 1750.1 Chambers Russell was appointed Judge over the same District of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut in 1747, and held the office till his death at Guildford, Surrey, England, 24 November, 1766. On the death of Russell, Robert Auchmuty the younger was appointed Judge in April, 1767, and on 6 July, 1767, was commissioned as Judge over all New England at a salary of £300. His Commission was renewed in March, 1769, and his salary increased to £600. He held office till the Revolution, and, one of the proscribed, left the country for England in 1776.

Among the names of the Deputy Judges as given are Nathaniel Byfield in 1699; Thomas Newton, 1701–08; Nathaniel Hubbard for Rhode Island; George Cradock, 1747, who resigned in 1766 on account of his years and infirmities, and died at eighty-seven, 26 June, 1771;2 and William Reed, 1766. Brief biographies are given by Douglass and by Washburn of the incumbents of the offices, several of whom also held judicial appointments under the Province. One of the extracts from the Records at the end of this communication shows Thomas Steel to have been appointed in 1722.

The extent of the Northern District varied: at first it included New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire; then New Jersey was added; New York and New Jersey were not long after withdrawn; and finally it embraced Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island only.

A change in the organization of the Admiralty Court seems to have been contemplated and partly carried out in 1764, when Dr. William Spry was appointed a Judge of Vice-Admiralty for all America. On his arrival in Halifax he fixed his headquarters there for “any province of America,” and by proclamation set the times for holding his Court. The next year he contemplated removing to Boston and entering upon the duties of the office there, as Supreme Judge of Vice-Admiralty. But this seems never to have been done, and in 1767 he was made Governor of Barbadoes, so that at all events his incumbency as a judge was of short duration.1

Beside the regular Vice-Admiralty Courts for general admiralty business there were also special commissions convened from time to time for the trial of piracies committed upon the high seas. Douglass gives some account of these, styling them Justiciary Courts of Admiralty.2 Their constitution varied somewhat in the different Provinces. In Massachusetts this Commission usually consisted of the Governor, Members of the Council, the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court, the Commander of the Royal Vessels of War on the Station, the Surveyor of the Customs for the Northern District, the Collector of Customs; sometimes it seems to have been specially constituted, and occasionally officials from other Provinces appear to have taken part. Dr. Douglass characteristically does not hesitate to criticize the constitution of the regular Courts of Vice-Admiralty:

A Sole judge, without a jury, in Cases of high Consequence; and this Judge too frequently appointed at Random, seems to be an Error in the Constitution. It is true there may be an Appeal to the Court of Delegates in Great Britain.1

The crime of piracy was evidently very common, especially in the earlier years of the Province, when it so frequently appears as a branch of Admiralty jurisdiction. Some of the cases have become historically famous, and live not only in the law but also in the literature of the times. The trial of John Quelch in 1704 has become one of the celebrated causes. It was made the subject of an interesting communication to this Society by our associate Mr. Goodell.2 It was held before a tribunal made up of the Governors and the Lieutenant-Governors of the Provinces of the Massachusetts Bay and New Hampshire, the Judge of Vice-Admiralty in each, the Chief-Justice of the Superiour Court of Judicature, the Secretary of the Province, Members of the Council of Massachusetts Bay, and the Collector of Customs for New England. It was convened in the old Star Tavern in Hanover Street. A full account of the trial has been given by Mr. Goodell in his Notes to the Province Laws,3 and he has made an exhaustive and learned examination and discussion of various questions involved in it, touching law and procedure. His account is marked by his usual indefatigable research, keen analysis, independent criticism, legal and historical learning, and characteristic ability. The account is another illustration of the value of his Notes in that great work, and of the loss which has been caused by the restrictions in this direction made necessary in the later prosecution of the work under the stricter construction put upon the original Act authorizing the publication of the Province Laws and Resolves.

There was another trial for piracy, that of Robert Munday, at Newport, Rhode Island, before a jury in the local tribunal, in 1703, where some questions seem to have arisen as to its legality, likewise discussed by Mr. Goodell.4

Legal questions of various sorts were apparently not infrequent in such trials, and were discussed with more or less warmth in. various quarters. Judge Sewall seems to have had doubts on many points, as appears in his Diary and in letters. He hesitated on the evidence in the Quelch case.1 He questioned the legality of sending Kidd to England for trial,2—a matter of vital interest to Kidd by reason of the difference in the penalty.

Washburn3 cites also three courts held by Special Commission for the trial of pirates,—one in Newport in 1723, where the Commission consisted of William Dummer, as President, Samuel Cranston, Nathaniel Paine, Addington Davenport, Thomas Fitch, Spencer Phips, John Menzeis, then Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Massachusetts, and Thomas Lechmere; a second in 1746, held in Faneuil Hall, presided over by Governor Shirley; and a third in 1769, consisting of Governor Bernard, Samuel Hood, the Commander of the Ships on this station, Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, Robert Auchmuty the younger, then Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court, Andrew Oliver, Secretary of the Province, Robert Trail, Collector of Customs at Portsmouth, and John Nutting, Collector at Salem.

The last has a special interest from the fact that John Adams was of counsel for the prisoners, and that he afterward improved the occasion in a characteristic account of the trials. Nearly fifty years later, with a memory as fresh and a narrative as clear and vivid as if of an occurrence of yesterday, in a letter to Jedediah Morse 20 January, 1816, he gives the story: the indictment of four seamen of Marblehead for piracy and murder in resisting a press-gang from the Rose Frigate, on board of a ship of Mr. Hooper of Marblehead, in 1769, just before the recall of Governor Bernard:

When in law, truth and conscience, the commander of the Rose Frigate ought to have been prosecuted for piracy and murder on the high seas, in illegally sending a pressgang to enslave freemen, and compelling them in self-defence to destroy their invader and intended destroyer; or in the better language of the boatswain of the Rose Frigate, “to deprive honest men of their liberty.”

He then describes the affray, the death of Lieutenant Panton and the hand to hand fight; the trial, with its incidents, the legal struggle, the pleas to jurisdiction, the demand for a jury, etc., all overruled; and the mysterious outcome of the whole:

What has become of the records of this Court, whether they have been sent to Halifax or to London, whether they remain in any repository in Boston, or whether they have been burned like most of the records of this world, I know not.

He is especially severe on Hutchinson for his share in this trial, which he says “accelerated the catastrophe of the 5th March, 1770;” but this seems to be unjust, for the explanation given by Hutchinson apparently clears up all the mystery of the case, and puts him in an attitude very different from that attributed to him.1

The frequency of piracy in the earliest years is indicated again by various Resolves of the Provincial Legislature, among them a Resolve (1719–20) ordering a new trial on the petition of Christopher Taylour, setting out a judgment having gone against him by default in the Superiour Court of Common Pleas in 1717, at a time when he was “taken & in the hands of Pirates in the West Indies & uncapable of making his Defence;”2 and another where reference is made to the “pirates who then infested this Coast”—in granting an allowance to persons who had been impressed by order of the Government to serve in an expedition for the capture of pirates.3 And again (Laws of 1724–25, Chapter 14) a Resolve for an allowance to Andrew Harradine and others, the petitioners, who had been taken prisoners by Capt. John Phillips of the Sloop Squirrel, and risen and taken possession of the piratical craft, and brought the Captain and his crew into Boston, “where they have Received a just Sentence to Suffer the pains of Death;” granting £224 and a special grant of £30 to Harradine and three others for special merit in the affair.4 And also a Resolve the next year (1725–26, Chapter 131), for an allowance to the keeper of the gaol “for the charge of keeping William Taylour and William Phillips, two persons Convict of Piracy, but pardoned by his Majestie, from May 5th 1724 to June 8th, 1725.”1 Such legislation is perhaps most frequent just about this time.

It was in the first quarter of the century that piracies seem to have been most frequent, and references most often found in various quarters to pirates, piratical depredations, expeditions in pursuit, trials and executions. They appear in Judge Sewall’s Diary, in the newspapers of the day, especially in the News-Letter, and in contemporary writings, and there is some incidental mention in the records of the Admiralty Court.

Reference has already been made to the trials in the Court of Assistants in the later days of the Colony. In the Inter-Charter period the “Modest Inquiry &c.” in its defence of Dudley, gives him the credit of having effectively cleared out such malefactors from the New England coasts. On the records during the Inter-Charter period there is a single record touching piracy, which is as follows:

Dom. Rex & Whitaker and Shivorick.

Thomas Whittaker & Nathaniell Shivorick standing comitted upon suspicion of Piracie & no Evidence appeareing to prosecute, nor any direct matter to charge them upon relateing to y^e same were ordred to be discharged of theyr Imprisonment giveing Bond to be of the good behaviour &c^a.2

In the Suffolk Court Files there are also many papers touching cases of piracy.3

In the Index to the Province Laws, Volume VIII., is given a list of the English Statutes relating to piracy and crimes upon the high seas. Under the Statute 28 Henry VIII., Chapter 15, it was provided that the trial of pirates should be held within the realm and before a Commission of Oyer and Terminer and a Jury. The Provincial Statute of 1696, Chapter 4,1 followed largely the Statute of Henry and fixed a trial in cases of “Piracy and Robbery upon the Sea,” mainly as if committed upon land, before a Commission therein provided for with a jury, within the Province, settling the penalty as death, if the offence was attended with murder. This Statute was practically superseded, however, by the English Statutes.

In consequence of delays occurring under the earlier Statute a more summary mode of trial was provided for by that of 11–12 William III. before a special Court without jury; and the crime was made capital. Statute 1 George I., Chapter 11, gave the right to try piracies in the British Colonies in America under the old Statute of Henry VIII.2

In the interval after the Revolution broke out and before the establishment of Massachusetts as a free and independent State, various Acts were passed by the General Court establishing Maritime Courts and regulating their jurisdiction and procedure.3 At first such courts were mainly prize courts, later they were to deal with questions of seamen’s wages, salvage, and the usual matters of Admiralty jurisdiction. An appeal lay to the Superiour Court of Judicature and to the Congress. The civil law was to be followed where no special provision was otherwise made. They sat without a jury, though in certain controverted questions of fact a jury might be brought in.

At times there was more or less friction between the Superiour Court of Judicature and the Courts of Admiralty, in consequence of the power claimed by the former to issue writs of Prohibition to restrain what it considered any undue exercise of jurisdiction by the latter. This was not unnatural, considering the difference in the constitution of the Courts, and the source of their authority, each jealous of its own prerogatives; and some political history is involved with the controversies. The officers of the Crown, too, took offence at the exercise of such a power, and the Province suffered some complaint in consequence. Dummer in his Defence of the Charters demonstrates the legal existence of such power, its necessity in preserving the liberties of the people, and claims that it was never improperly exercised.1 The legal source of this power is thus given by Dummer:

The rights of the Courts of Common Law within the Province of the Massachusetts to restrain the excesses of the Admiralty jurisdiction, are not derived from their Charter, but from subsequent laws of the Province, confirmed afterwards by the Crown.2

Whether the instances of its use were so infrequent as he claims would seem open to doubt. It would appear that it must have been exercised on many more occasions than he says, but only a careful investigation and a search of the records would reveal the actual fact. He may have meant only those cases which were important in themselves or involved some important and disputed point of law, disregarding those of lesser consequence.

There is the famous case of Scollay v. Dunn, reported in full in Quincy,3 with subsequent Notes—where the arguments of Counsel and the opinions of the Judges are given. Judge Sewall refers to a case where the writ was issued:

Jan. 29. 1716/1717—Super^r Court at Charlestown held by the 5 Justices with their new Comissions from Gov^r Shute. . . .

The afternoon was taken up with the Admiralty cause. Mr. Auchmuty and Smith for the Libel, Mr. Dudley and Vallentine against it. Court unanimous in the Prohibition.1

This is evidently the case of Thomas Hutchinson and others v. Daniel Wybourne, where the final writ to Judge Menzeis of the Vice-Admiralty Court is ordered to issue.2 There is also the earlier case of John Oulton and others v. John Stacy and others,3 where the writ was issued. In the same volume is another, that of Robart Manderson, sailor, v. John Hughs;4 and in John Hilman and others, complainants,5 reference is made to the issue of a writ to the Admiralty Court on 12 November, 1720, but the record of that case does not appear.

In some of these cases the ground of the application and of the determination was that the cause of action arose in Boston, and not upon the sea, and that jurisdiction lay only in the local Courts.

Sewall refers to another case in 1725, though the case itself does not appear on the Records of the Superiour Court:

Dec^r 17, 1725.

Judge Davenport and Judge Quincy came to me with Mr. Rolf about a Prohibition in Mr. Robinson’s Admiralty Case.

’Tis to be Try’d at Charlestown Court.6

There is a case in the Admiralty Records,7 House v. Gibbs, where Mr. Auchmuty pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court. Nothing is said in the record about a Prohibition, but in the margin under the title of the case is written Prohibition. The Court, however, proceeded with the case.

In the case of Edward Durant v. Court of Admiralty, the plaintiff presented an “Information and Suggestions” by his counsel John Read for a Writ of Prohibition, setting out that one James Scolly, an officer of the Customs, styled a Waiter, “preferred a Memorial to Thomas Lechmere, Esq^r, Surveyor Gen^l, &c,” and “another to John Menzys, Esq^r, Judge of Vice Adm^ty, on account of abuse to himself s^d James Scolly,” and that a libel and complaint by Lechmere and Scolly had been brought against the plaintiff, and praying “that a final Prohibition be awarded forbidding the Judge of the Court of Admiralty to hold plea of this cause, 14^th June 1723.” The Superiour Court on 6 June issued a temporary writ and on 7 June, “after a full hearing,” a final and peremptory Writ of Prohibition.1 As the case does not appear on the Admiralty Records, the Court evidently obeyed the writ.

A letter from Samuel Shute to Lieutenant-Governor and Acting Governor William Dummer, of which a copy was given at the time, touches on the disagreements and collisions:

St. Jamess, June the 5th, 1726– . . .

The affair between the Judges of the Province, and the Officers of the Admiralty and Customs, will be quickly brought to a Conclusion.

It seems very strange on this side the water that the Judges should support any of their proceedings by Acts of Parliament that were made before New England was settled; or any Acts where the Plantations are not mentioned within the Act.

For where they are not specified, the Laws made in England cannot affect them, one way or the other.

Sam^L Shute.2

Bearing on this subject is a copy of a “Memorial of the Admiralty and Custom House Officers,” dated at Boston, 8 October, 1730, “To Gov. Jonathan Belcher Vice Admiral of His Majesties Provinces of the Massachusetts Bay in N. E. &c. &c,” signed by—

Nathaniel Byfield J. V. Adm.
Ja. Stevens Survey^r General
Rob^T Auchmuty Advo. Gen^l
John Jekyll, Collector.
John Boydell Reg^r
W^m Lambert, Comp.
Cha. Paxton Marshall
Jona. Pue, Survey^r & Searcher
W^m Fairfax, Collector,

complaining of the indifference of the Provincial Judges to breaches of Acts of Trade, and the “incroaching proceedings of such Judges.”1

The Admiralty records for the Provincial period, now extant or at least accessible and in the form of regular records, are far from complete. The gaps possibly could be filled to a considerable extent by research in the Massachusetts Archives. Among the records now in the Supreme Judicial Court are five books, which after drifting about in devious wanderings brought up a few years ago in the Library of the Boston Athenæum. These were transmitted to the United States District Court for Massachusetts, by which not long ago through the courtesy of Mr. Justice Gray of the Supreme Court of the United States and of our associate Judge Francis C. Lowell they were sent to the Supreme Judicial Court, among whose records they have at last found their proper and legitimate abiding place. They bear the marks of age and hard usage and consist of “Records of Admiralty,” Book No. 2, 1718–1726; a second volume “At a Court of Vice Admiralty holden at Boston,” 1726–1733; a third “At a Court of Admiralty holden at Boston,” 1739–1745; a fourth “Admiralty Book & Acc’ of Sales,” July 22, 1743 to 1765, which contains no records; and the fifth “At a Court of Vice Admiralty holden at Boston,” 1765–1772. They are full of most interesting matter and in them lies much of the history of Admiralty for that period. The first volume, the earliest, is missing, and the dates above show many gaps.

Some extracts have been made from one of the volumes before mentioned, not so much for their importance as cases, as to indicate something of the variety and extent of the jurisdiction exercised, beside the more common cases involving breaches of trade laws, violations of treaty stipulations, frauds on the revenue, seamen’s wages, collisions, and similar matters, that come up in Courts of Admiralty; and some also for a certain curious character or interest of their own.

The first is a case somewhat curious as showing the enforcement in the Province of a very ancient royal right, and also the fact that in those early days whales still frequented Massachusetts Bay and that the industry of whale fishing was of value. According to Blackstone—

Another ancient perquisite belonging to the queen consort, mentioned by all our old writers, and therefore only, worthy notice, is this; that on the taking of a whale on the coasts, which is a royal fish, it shall be divided between the King and queen; the head only being the King’s property, and the tail of it the queen’s. De Sturgione observetur, quod rex ilium habebit integrum: de balena vero sufiicit, si rex habeat caput, et regina caudam. The reason of this whimsical division, as assigned by our Antieut records, was, to furnish the queen’s wardrobe with whalebone.1

In passing, it may perhaps be questioned whether the “Antient records” were as sound on natural history as on common law.

Again he refers to the King’s right to royal fish, as a branch of his ordinary revenue, when either thrown ashore or caught near the coasts, the important regard attached to it in ancient times, its origin, and the claim and allowance of it in the Statute “de prserogativa regis” (17 Edward II., Chapter 11), and also the distinction between whale and sturgeon before mentioned.2

Somewhat earlier than this case, one of the complaints made against Governor Dudley was the claim made by him under this ancient right:

(Under a Pretence of drift Fish) what Whales are taken by Her Majesty’s Subjects, he takes from them by Force, not giving them the Liberty of a Tryal at Common Law, but for his own Ends, decides the Matter in Admiralty, where his Son Paul is the’ Queen’s Attorney and Advocate, thereby encroaching the whole to themselves, a thing never heard of before, and very much to the Prejudice of Her Majesty’s good Subjects there, and that without Remedy.3

I.

Lord High Admiral vs. Bassett

At a Court of Admiralty holden at Boston before the Hon^ble: John Menzeis Esq Menzeis Esq^r. July 11^th: 1719~

June 5^th. 1719 James Smith Esqf Exhibited an Information in behalf of the Lord High Admiral of Great Britain or the Right Hon^ble the Lords Comiss^rs. for Executing that office against W^m. Bassett of Sandwich within this Province for a certain Royal Fish called a Finback which was ejected by the Sea near that place as ꝑ Information on file more fully may appear. The Information was filed and allowed and Publick Notifications & Advertisements Issued out for all Persons pretending any right or Interest therein to enter and maintain their respective Claims betwixt and the 9^th day of July next ensuing or they will forever be excluded: Accordingly Mess^rs. Joshua Attwood Elisha Parker and Obadiah Buttler lodged their Claim as on file and had a Summons for Witnesses to appear on the 9^th of July aforesaid in order to support and maintain their Claim. On the day aforesaid the Court was opened and the Information read M^r. Auchmuty for the Claimers moved for further time in regard their Witnesses were not come, whereupon the Judge continued the Case to the 11^th. Ins^t. and being on that day called. M^r. Auchmuted [Auchmuty] moved for longer time which the Advocate General opposed and moved for Judgement according to the terms of the Libel; and the Judge pronounced this Decree Viz^t.

Having considered this Libel and that tho’ it be more than a year and a day since the Seizure of the Finback libeled no Person hath appeared and Instructed any Intrest therein albeit Several Dyets and Continuations have been Indulged for that effect I therefore Decern Decree and Declare that the Same belongs to the Lord High Admiral as one of the perquisites of Admiralty and Decree Col. Bassett to deliver or hold compt for the value thereof to the Governour of this Province as Vice Admiral and find the value thereof Subject and liable to the Costs of Suit taxed to four pounds eight shill~ & 4^d.

Sic Subscribitur

J. Menzeis J. Adm:1

Att~ John Boydell Reg^r.

There are several other cases in the same volume (Records of Admiralty, Book No. 2) where the same right was claimed and the drift whale decreed to be a perquisite of the Lord High Admiral.

LORD HIGH ADMIRAL

MAYHEW

26 May, 1719, fol. 32.

“A Certain Whale Cast ashoar on Martha’s Vineyard”—

ADMIRAL

DYER &c.

19 November 1722, fol. 122.

A Libel in behalf of the Admiralty exhibited by John Valentine, the Advocate General,

“Complaining that the Defend^ts well knowing that a Whale was seized as a drift whale and condemned in this Court, did afterwards cut from the s^d Whale a Quantity of Blubber.”

ADMIRAL

WHALE

14 June 1723, fol. 145.

To recover the proceeds of a drift Whale taken off Martha’s Vineyard—

ADMIRAL

WHALE

23 August, 1723, fol. 154.

“Against a drift Whale come ashoare about Scituate or Cohasset”—

Another case appears where the claimants prevailed against the Admiralty.

II.

At a Court of Admiralty holden at Boston before the Hon^ble John Menzeis Esq^r.

March 29^th. 1720.

High Adm^l vs. Whale

January 1719. M^r. Valentine Exhibited a Libel in behalf of the Lord High Admiral against Cap^t. Lobdell for a Whale drave on Shoar at the latter end of January or begining of February last past on Nantaskett als Hull Beach. The Information was allowed to be heard on the last Munday in March at 4 a Clock in the afternoon and in the meantime Citations and Publick Notifications were published for all persons Interested therein to appear at the time prefixed accordingly on the 28^th day of March the Court was opened and the Information read and Ezekel Cushion put in a Claim in behalf of himself and others w^ch the Judge examined into, and on the 29^th. Curr^t. at 3 a Clock in the afternoon

The Judge declared the Whale was no perquisite of Admiralty and that it properly belonged to the Claimors & ordered them to pay the Costs in the first place & then the acc^t. of Charges which they allowed to be just out of the value.

Sic Subscribitur

J. Menzeis J. Adm.1

Att.~ John Boydell Reg^r.

There are also a couple of cases where a controversy arose between persons as to their rights and interest in captured whales, in one of which there is a recognition of a possible right in the Admiralty, which, however, was not actually claimed. Both illustrate the style of proceeding in the Court of Admiralty.

III.

Griffin & Comp^a. vs Thomas, & alios

At a Court of Admiralty holden at Boston before the Hon^ble. John Menzeis Esq^r. February 25^th. 1718

February 19^th Samuel Griffin Exhibited a Petion in behalf of himsef and Company Setting forth, That your Petitioner in company with others being at work on a large Whale on the 27^th day of November last on the High Sea about a league from Cape Anne, the same did mortally wound in Several Places, but by reason of Stormy Winds and night coming on, they lost sight of her, leaving an Iron in the Body of said Whale with a Warp, Drug and Buoy~ That on or about the 10^th day of December following the said Whale was found dead by Gideon Thomas, Arthur Low, and Robert Standford on this Coast near Marsh-field in the County of Plymouth, and y^r Petiti^r having claimed her and fully made out his just right & property by giving unquestionable Marks of his having killed her in Company with Others at the time and place aforesaid left her in the Custody of said Persons to be by them Cut up and the produce to be disposed of as your Petitioner should direct. And whereas your Petitioners right to the said Whale is controverted by said Salvers, notwithstanding the p^rmisses, he humbly prays your Hon^r wou’d be pleased after due Citations and Monitions Issued out to all Persons concerned to hear and allow his Claim as above and by your Definitive Decree the said Whale to him and Comp^a: to adjudge as being by him and them killed on the High Sea, with such an allowance for Salvage as the Law in such Cases requires &c

The above Petition was filed and allowed to be served and heard the 25^th. Ins^t at 3 a Clock P.M. and the Judge Ordain’d Notifications to be fixed up in the Town house in the usual Manner which was Accordingly done and also advertised in the Publick news paper at the Instance of M^r Smith who was advocate for the Petit^rs. on the 25^th Ins^t. aforesaid at the time appointed the Court was opened and the Defend^ts: were called all whom appeard Except Sandford as also all other Persons were call’d by the Marshal that pretended any right or Intrest in said Whale. M^r Valentine s^d. that he appeared in behalf of the Vice-Admiral and moved that the Kings property might be determin’d (said Whale being then under Seizure) before any Persons right therein is determined. M^r. Smith said it was the Mans own Petition and not brought in by him by way of Libel and that the King takes claim when no Person proves a right and that the Petit^r. can try his right with no other Persons but the posessors. M^r. Auchmuty on the same side with M^r. Valentine s^d the Whale was Seized in behalf of the King and that there ought to have been Citations Issued out in his behalf and that these Defend^ts ar made out of Colour & amuzement after more Debates as on file, several Depositions were taken on behalf of the Petition^r. and the Defend^ts: declared the[y] durst not deliver up the Whale because she was under a Seizure; M^r. Smith reply’d that cou’d not alter the Property, and that the Defend^ts: ought to be compelled by a Decree of this Court to deliver up the Whale to the Petit^r who had the sole property and possession therein. Thereafter the Court was adjournd to the 26^th Ins^t. at 3 a Clock P.M. and being again opened at that time M^r Smith moved for a Decree whereupon the Judge pronounced the following Interlocutory Viz^t.

Having heard seen and considered this Petition with what is alledged on behalf of the Petitioner and the Defend^ts. acknowledgement and declaration as on file, as allso the allegations of his Majestys Intrest in the Whale Acclaim’d, and being therewith and with the Evidences adduced in the Case Maturely advised I find it proved, that the Petitioner and Company gave the Mortal wounds to the Whale in Controversie and whereof she dyed, I find also that by an Agreement between the Petitioner and the Defendants who had found her dead on Shoar, that they the Defend^ts: were to break her up and to be accountable to him for the produce Put in regard the Vice Admiral hath granted a Warrant for her Attachment that the produce may remain Secure untill his Majestys Intrest therein (as being a frift Whale) be determin’d, And that the Bone & Oyle are not as yet wholy prepared and Try’d for use I supercede to Adjudge and Decree the same to belong to and be Accountable for to the Petitioner until the 10^th day of March next; and allows to the Defend^ts: to Summons John Sable that he may then appear in Court and alledge what he can he being the Person Imploy’d by the Vice Admiral in that affair as Water Bayliff; and also Ordains the Register of Court to acquaint his Excellency of the foresaid Dyet, that his Majestys Advocate General or such others as his Excellency shall think fit may be appointed to appear and plead his Majestys Intrest therein (if he any have) at that Dyet, with certification &c and Ordains the Defend^ts or Others to retain the possession as they now have it Untill the said Day; and finds and Declares the Defend^ts: liable to the Costs of this Suit taxed to £8 „ 2 „ 6 and Decrees them to pay the same and to have retention thereof in accompting for the produce primo low~ Sic Subscribitur

J. Menzeis J. Ad:

Accordingly the Court was adjourned to the 10^th of March and John Sable and others were Summonsed to appear on that day and the Court being opened it was adjournd to the 11 Ins^t. because it was Charlestown Court and the Lawyers cou’d not attend, on the 11 Ins^t. at 7 a Clock A.M. the Court being opened M^r. Smith Insisted no Person cou’d appear in behalf of the King in this Court without his consent and argued very Strenously on that head, whereupon M^r. Valentine declared he appear for one Clark then the[y] proceeded to a further Tryal and several Depositions were takeⁿ in the Case upon Oath, after which M^r. Valentine moved the Case might be continued till the next morning at 7 a Clock in regard Clarke one of the Principal Evidences was not Come but was Immediately Expected; according^ly: the Court was further adjourn’d till the 12^th Ins^t. at the time aforesaid when Clark was three times Solemnly called but did not appear. Thereafter the Judge pronounced the following Definitive Decree Viz^t.~

Having reasumed the Consideration of the Case together with the Oaths of the Witnesses and other Writts produced as Extant on file I Adhere to the former Interlocutory finding the Petit^r. killed the Whale in Controversy; and find and declare his right thereto; and Decree the Defend^ts: to deliver to the Petitioner the whole produce of the Whale as belonging to him; and find that Thomas Clarke hath no right thereto and in regard the Defend^ts: did acknowledge the Petitioners Intrest and that the same was Intrusted by him w^th. them to be prepared and try’d, that they ought to be liable to no part of the Charge of Prosecution, but that the Petitioner ought to pay the same and Decern & Decree him accordingly to pay the Costs taxed to £8 „ 2 „ 6 (as aforesaid) Reserving to the Petitioner to Insist against the other Competitors for relief of what proportion of the Expence he hath been put to since pronouncing the first Interlocutory as accords ~ Sic Subcribitur

Att^~. John Boydell Reg^r.

J. Menzeis J. Adm.1

IV.

At a Court of Admiralty holden at Barnstable before the Hon^ble: John Menzeis Esq^r. February 4^th 1720.

Davis &c^a. vs Sturges &c^a.

January 23 Robert Robinson Esqr Exhibited a Libel in behalf of Seth Davis of Barnstable Harpeneer and Jonathan Davis of the same Place Steersman whale Fishermen, and others their Partners against Thomas Sturges and Joseph Dimick of Barnstable aforesaid Whale Fishermen, which Libel was filed and allowed to be heard at Barnstable on the 1^o of February at 2 a Clock p. m. and warrants Issued out accordingly. At the time and Place appointed the Court was opened and the Parties being present the Libel was read and Imports in Substance. That your Propon^ts: being on the 9^th. of January in a whale Boat with four Persons more upon the High Seas not far from Barnstable a Fishing for Whales between the said Barnstable and Cape Codd at that time upon the High Seas your Propon^t: Seth Davis being Harpeneer with his Harping Iron struck and wounded a large Cow Whale by means where of your Propon^ts. Possessed themselves of the said Cow Whale and to which said Harping Iron their Main Warp was well fastned and tackled and the said Whale being very large and strong your Propon^ts. were Obliged to call to the Defend^ts who were in another Boat near them for their assistance is taking the said whale and at the same time proposed to them that they should have an eight part for their pains and trouble (which they accepted of) and the said Whale in her Agonies & Strugling with your Propon^ts: so Intangled the said Wharp about the Arm of one of your Appel: Men which was in the same boat with them that she broak his Arm And the said Defend^ts. at the desire of your Proponts and upon the terms aforesaid Did set in with your Proponents to work in killing of the said Whale and soon after she dyed and was brought on Shoar at Barnstable aforesaid by your Appel^ts: and the said Defend^ts: Sturges and Dimick and they Instantly cut up the said Whale together. Notwithstanding which the said Defend^ts: have Unjustly taken the said Whale into their Possession and Detaine the same from your Propon^ts: to whom of right she properly belonged &c^a The Defend^ts: have Unjustly taken moved for time w^ch was allowed to the 2^d Ins^t. at which time the Court was again opened and M^r. Otis for the Defend^t. moved for further time, and upon M^r. Auchmutys appearance in Court it was adjourned to the 3^d Ins^t. at 8 a Clock A. M. at which time the Court was opened and the Parties appeared with their Advocates and Evidences who were all Examined upon Oath whose Testymonys are Extant on file And After a long and full hearing on both Sides the Court was adjourned to the 4^th Curr^t. on which day the Judge Decreed as follows

Having considered the Libel and Plea thereto given in by the Defend^ts: together with the allegations and Declarations of both Parties as emitted by them, as also read heard and considered the Oaths and Depositions of the Evidences and others adduced in the Case, and being therewith and with the Grounds of the Several Claims to the Property thereof maturely advised, after hearing of the whole allegations answers and Replications made by the Attorneys on each side I find it proved That Jonathan Davis and Comp^a. on the day libeled struck the whale in Controversy before any other came up, and that their Iron was fast to her and whilst so under their Power; they called to Thomas Sturges & Comp^a. to come and assist them to kill for which they offered ⅛ part, and that Immediately after the call he came in, but before he could get up so as to put in his Iron also, by Lamberts Arm in Davis’s Comp^a. being broke, the Warp was let Slip I find it also proved That Jon^a. Davis and Comp^a. did continue in the pursuit for some small time in Comp^a with Sturges and then went on Shoar with the wounded Man, and M^r. Sturges continued in the pursuit, and that Jon^a pursuit, and that Davis and Comp^a: did Speedily within a small time set out again to pursue their Game, and were Informed that Sturges had struck and killed the Whale with the assistance he had called in. I find also that Davis’s Warp all the while remained fast to the whale, and that as having a right of Property he did work in bringing the whale to Land. I find also that Sturges persisted in the pursuit till the Whale was killed and was the first Boate that Discovered her on the Eleventh day, and that Sturges in absence of Davis had called in two Boats to his assistance after he had struck the whale to which two he promised ⅛ part. And upon the whole after deliberate Consideration of the various Circumstances of the is Case and having regard to the Custom amongst the Fishermen I Declare and Decree ⅝ parts to pertain to the Plaintiffs and to be delivered or to be accounted for by the Defend^ts: if disposed of, and ⅜ parts to pertain or belong to the Defend^ts: in full of their Interest therein, and that with the burthen of ⅛ promised to the two assisting Boats called in by him and find that each of the Parties had Probabilem Causam litigandi and therefore that the Costs of Court & Suit as the same are taxed Extending to Seventeen pounds Seventeen Shillings and Eightpence is to be deducted out of the ⅞ parts, paid by the Plaintiffs & Defend^ts: Proportionally according to their Interest therein. As also I Decree five pounds to be paid to Samuel Lambert towards the Defraying the Expence of his cure and as a Moderate gratification and acknowledgem^t. for his Misfortune to be paid out of the 8 parts proportionally and after the same manner I Decree the Expences of cutting up and preparing the Oyle to be paid out of the whole 8 parts proportionably and as to the Plaintiffs & Defend^ts: their own Expences and the Extraordinary Charge they have been put I find them respectively liable thereto without relief from the other.

Att~. John Boydell Reg^r.

J. Menzeis J. Adm.1

There is a case (28 June, 1720) having a sea tinge of piracy about it, where the petitioners, alleging—

That on or about the 13th of April last in the Harbour of Cape Porpus als Arrundell, they Surprized and Seized a Sloop called the Sarah & Samuel in the Possession of and under the Command of Sundry Pyrates, which happens to be claimed by Sundry English Gentlemen at Philadelphia [and] Praying that in Consideration of their good Service, Expences and Disburstements, that they may be allowed a just and proper Salvage, as is Customary in like Cases &c.—

there is entered an elaborate decree finding the sloop and cargo liable to salvage, and distributing the proceeds.2

Another extract is a copy of the Order issued by “His Majesty in Councill,” upon the representation of “Capt. Thomas Smart3 Command^r of His Majesty’s Ship the Squirrel,” which will serve as an illustration of certain modes of procedure and the relations of the New England Courts to the Crown.

V.

At the Court of S^t. James’s y^e 9^th. May 1719.

Present.

The Kings most Excellent Majesty

Lord Chancellor	Earl of Lincoln	Lord Viset. Cobham
Lord President	Earl of Westmoreland	Lord Torrington
Lord Privy Seal	Earl of Carlisle	Mr. Comptroler
Lord Chamberlain	Earl of Radnor	Mr. Vice Chamberlain
Duke of Montrose	Earl of Berkley	Mr. Secretar Mr. y Craggs
Duke of Roxbourge	Earl of Holderness	Mr. Chanr. of yr Dutchy
Duke of Manchester Earl of Hallifax	Earl of Ilay	Lord Cheif Justce. King
Marq^s. of Annandale	Earl of Taukerville	Mr. Hampden
Earl of Hallifax	Earl of Stanhope	Mr. Wills

Upon reading this day at the Board a Memorial from the Commiss^rs. for executing y^e office of Lord High Admirall of Great Britain &c. dated the 2^d. of Jan^y. 1718 in y^e words following Viz^t.—

It having been represented to us by Capt. Thomas Smart Command^r. of His Majestys Ship the Squirrell appointed by us to attend on y^e Government of New England, that having Seiz^d. at Canso on y^e 5^th. day of Octo^r. last, and brought with him to that Government two french Vessells which were fishing & trading there Contrary to y^e 5^th & 6^th articles of y^r treaty of Peace & Neutrality in America one of w^ch. vessells is a Brigantine, called y^e Katherine, and y^e other a Sloop Named y^e Abigail, als Latrois Amis, and that notwithstanding both of them have been condemned at y^e Court of Admiralty there, as Lawfull Prizes or Seizures, and Confiscated wdth there Loading to his Majesty & y^e Said Capt. Smart as Captor allowd to dispose thereof, after appraisemant, pursuant whereunto he took possession of them, The Governour of New England hath arbitraryly endeavoured to take them from him, and after y^e Decree of y^e Judge of y^e Admiralty, Sent the Marshall of the Vice Admiralty aboard, By Virtue of a Warrant under his own hand, and Seale, to take them out of his possession under pretence that his Security was not Sufficient and that the Country must be answerable, under which pretence as the Captⁿ. represents, he Hopes to procure a Grant of them from his Majesty, alledging that what Service he had done, was perform’d by his Orders and that of the Council of New England: We do most Humbly propose unto his Majesty, that Since the said two vessells, have been taken by Capt. Smart & try’d & Condemned by y^e Court of Admiralty in New England, His Majesty will be graciously pleas’d to extend his Bounty to him y^e Said Capt. Smart & y^e officers & Comp^y of y^e S^d Ship y^e Squirrell By permitting him to dispose of the Vessells with their Cargoe & all things belonging to them & to grant them y^e whole produce thereof, to be divided in y^e Same Manner as was done y^e last warr, as an Encouragement to them for the service they have performed, & to other Command^rs. & officers of His Majestys Ships to do their best Endeavour, to do y^e Like for y^e future, and that His Majesty will be also pleas’d to send his Commands to y^e Governour of New England to Cause y^e Vessells, with everything that belonged to them to be forthwith restored to Cap^t. Smart, that so, he may be at Liberty to dispose of them to y^e use of himself, Officers & Ships Comp^y. accordingly: which is nevertheless most Humbly Submitted to his Majesty:

Adm^ty. office By Command of their Lop^s 2^d. Jan^y. 1718 J. Burchett		J. Jennings W. Chetwind
		Jo. Cockburne, Jno. Norriss
		Chas. Wager.

His Majesty in councill taking y^e Same into consideration, is pleased to approve thereof and pursuaut thereunto, to order, as it is hereby ordered, that the Said two vessells, taken by Capt. Smart Commander of His Majestys Ship y^e Squirrell, and which were tryed & Condemned by y^e Court of Admiralty in New Eng^d. be forthwith restored to Capt. Smart and that he be at Liberty to dispose of the said vessells w^th. their Cargoe & all things belonging to the same, and the whole produce thereof be divided among y^e officers & Comp^y. of y^e said Ship Squirrell, in y^e same manner as was done y^e Last warr, as an Encouragem^t for y^e service they perform’d in taking y^e said two Vessells: Whereof the Governour or Command^r in chief of New England for y^e time Being, and all others whom it may concern, are to take Notice, and Yeild due Obedience to his Majestys pleasure herein signified:

Rob^t. Stales.1

The earlier story of the case is found “At a Court of Admiralty holden at Boston before the Hon^ble John Menzeis Esq^r October 13th 1718,” in “Rex vs. Sloop Abigail als Les trois Amis,” on the hearing of a libel under “the 5th and 6th Articles of the Treaty of Peace and Neutrality in America Concluded between the Crowns of England and France the 16th day of Novemb^r, 1686”—whereby the subjects of each are prohibited to trade and fish within the dominion of the other.1

There is a still earlier case under the same title,—at a Court holden 1 August, 1718,—on an Information under “An Act of Parliam^t made in the seventh and eighth years of the Reign of King Wm 3d Intituled An Act for preventing frauds & regulating abuses in the Plantation Trade.”2

Whether it is the same vessel is not wholly clear; in each case the vessel is a French sloop; there is a similarity in the name of the master, which in the latter case is Martin Détchevré and in the former Martin Chevré; and where the plea put in by Auchmuty and Valentine sets out “That the vessel was leaky, came into the Port in distress had a Survey from the Governour and she was condemned thereupon, and broak up as unserviceable.” The cargo indicates a different employment and the alleged fate of the vessel seems to raise a question, but whether it was a refitting or a re-christening, either follows close in date.

Another is a Libel or Information by the Collector of Customs for a forfeiture of sundry articles of merchandise under an earlier English Statute. It has also an interest as showing the status of negroes in the Province at that time.

VI.

Province of the Massa. Bay New England

Rex vs 2 Negroes &c

At a Court of Adm^ty:: holden at Boston before y^e: Hon^ble: Jn^o. Menzeis Esq^r: Nov^r. 10^th: 1721.

1721 Nov. 8^th John Valentine Esq^r. Adv^te: Gen^ll. Exhibited a Lybell or In formation in Behalf of y^e: King, the Gov^r: of s^d: Province & John Jekyl Esq^r: Collector of y^e: Customs for y^e: Port of Boston in said Province Whereas in the month of May last past there was Seized @ Barnstable & other Places within the same province Two Negroes, Four Cask of Brown Sugar two Casks of Cocoa & two Pateraroes not being entered according to y^e: direction of y^e: Statute of ye: 14^th: Car^o: 2^d Wherefore the Same is Forfeited And it is Pray’d on behalfe of His Maj^ty: &c that y^e: p^rmisses be decreed & adjucated as Confiscate by y^e: Hon^ble: Court to be divided according to Law, as in Such Cases is Usuall W^ch: was allowed to be heard on the 10^th: Curr^t: & Notifications were Issued out accordingly but nobody appearing upon Proclamation being made—

The Judge Decreed Conformable to y^e: Libel, and y^e: Effects were sold by Publick Vendue for £99 „ 11 „ 0 as per Acc^a: thereof on file Vido Case Lechmere vs Wines & Brandy But y^e: Charges arising there on are very Considerable as may be Seen ꝓ s^d. Account

Att~. John Boydell Reg^r1

There appears in the Records a receipt signed by Samuel Shute for the Governor’s share, for “⅓ of the Neat proceeds Arising upon 2 Negros” and the groceries sold at public vendue, and the receipt of John Jekyll, the Collector, of his two-thirds of the proceeds of the sale.2

Another record shows the mode of appointment of the Deputy-Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court.

VII.

Province of the Massach. Bay New England

Thomas Steel Esq: Deputation

At a Court of Admiralty holden at Boston on the 22^d: day of September 1722. The Deputation appointing Thomas Steel Esq^r. Deputy Judge of Vice Admiralty for the Province aforesaid was read & is hereafter Recorded

To all People unto whom these Presents shall come John Menzeis of Leister, in the County of Middle-Admiralty in the Provinces & Colonys of the Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire, Rhoad Island Providence Plantation & the Naragansett Country or Kings Province in America & the Territories thereon Depending Sendeth Greeting. Whereas His Sacred Majesty George by the Grace of God of Great Brittain France & Ireland King Def^r. of the Faith &c. By His Royal Commission under the Great Seal of the High Court of Admiralty of England bearing date the Twenty Sixth day of August One Thousand and Seven hundred and fifteen and in the Second Year of His Majestys Reign, Hath Constituted and Ordained me the said John Menzeis His Majestys Commissioner and Judge of the Admiralty in His Majestys Provinces & Colouys before Mentioned. Together with power of Deputing & Substituting in my Stead in the Premisses one or more Deputy or Deputies as I shall think fitt with all Fees &c thereto belonging According to the Custom of the said Court of Admiralty of Old Used & Accustomed Commanding & Strictly enjoyning all and Singular Lords Peers Barrens Governours Knights Mayors Justices of the Peace Sheriffs Stewards Keepers of Goals & Prisons Bayliffs Constables & other Officers & Ministers and all other His Majestys Liege People in and through His Majestys Provinces and Colonys &c & maritime Parts thereof & thereunto adjoyning to beaiding & assisting and Obedient in all things as is becoming upon pain & Perill as shall follow thereon, as by the said Commission relation thereunto being had more fully plainly & particularly Appears. Now know ye That I the said John Menzeis Having Sufficient knowledge of the Ability & good Qualifications of Thomas Steel of Boston Esq^r any great trust & Confidence in his Integrety to Discharge that Trust. By vertue of the said Commission to me Granted as aforesaid Have Appointed Constituted & Surrogated and Do hereby for and during the time that I shall think fitt Appoint Constitute & Surrogate the said Thomas Steel my Deputy as aforesaid in & through the said Province of the Massachusetts Bay & Maritime Parts of the Same and thereunto adjoyning Together with all and Singular Powers authorities Sallarys Fees Profits advantages & Commodities to the said office within the said Province of Massachusetts Bay & Maritime Parts of the Same in any manner belonging and acording to the Custom of the said Court of Admiralty from of Old Used & Accustomed In Witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and Seal the Thirty first day of August in the Ninth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George by the Grace of God of Great Brittain &c King And in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred Twenty & two.

j. menzeis & a Seal.

21. September 1722. Cap^t. Thomas Steel took and Subscribed the Oaths appointed to be taken Instead of the Oaths of Allegiance & Supremacy and Declaration.

Coram
Thomas Fitch		of the council1
Jona: Belcher

The Records also show the appointments and Commissions of various other officers and the mode of procedure in each case. There is the Commission of the Marshal, Arthur Savage, recorded at length at the Court, 13 October, 1724.1 It is given in the name of his Majesty at London 1 July 1724, in the tenth year of George I., under “Sigillum Magnum Supremse Curiae Admiralitatis Nostras Anglise.” It is in sonorous though somewhat difficult Latin, wherein the combination of the classic and the vernacular relieves the monotony and gives a certain jerky animation of its own.

Not long after follows the Commission of the Deputy Marshal, Daniel Goffe, dated 6 November, 1724, and read at the Court 13 November; it is under the hand and seal of the Marshal; but deriving his authority from an humbler and provincial source, it finds the simple English tongue sufficient to invest him with all the duties and powers of his subordinate office.

There is also the Deputation of Arthur Savage as Deputy Register, under the hand and seal of John Boydell, Register, presented at a Court of Vice-Admiralty before the Honorable John Menzeis, Judge of said Court, 30 October, 1722.2

At a Court held 1 November, 1723,—

Archibald Cumings, Esq., produces a Commission appointing him Agent to Receive the Rights and Perquisites of Admiralty, which was read: Thereafter the Judge tendered the Oath De fideli as appears by the Minute Book, and ordered the Commission with the Instructions Annexed to be Recorded, which are as follows viz^t

The Commission is in Latin from his Majesty, with four folio pages of instructions annexed in English.3

These records show the formalities observed, and also prove the existence of Minute Books, now no longer extant, corresponding to the Dockets of the present day.

The extracts which have been given have been taken from the earliest book of Admiralty records now in the Supreme Judicial Court. The later books of record contain matter of like character. These volumes are full of interest and cover the field of Admiralty proceedings. They are unique in character; they have a tinge of the formalities of the Civil Law. There is an elaboration, a minuteness, a formality, wholly unlike the concise and terse records of the Common Law Courts, while the fulness of detail turns the dry record of legal proceedings into an entertaining story of human action and interest.

To treat with any approach to completeness or thoroughness the history of Admiralty Jurisdiction in the earlier days of Massachusetts would require much research and careful study and a comprehensive survey of the whole field; for the subject is not wholly clear in the earlier years, the time of the Colony, and somewhat obscure and more or less complicated in the times of the Province. It would need a thorough and minute examination of all the Massachusetts Archives, of the records of the Admiralty Court, of official records and documents, contemporaneous writings, the accounts of the newspapers of the day, after they began to be issued and to supply so much material for history, and all kindred sources of original and authentic information with a discriminating review of the many histories;—also a study of the relations of the Dependency to the Mother Country, and likewise of the political conditions and relations subsisting at the different times, and all sorts of questions springing out of them; as well as of the facts and causes of the legislation affecting Admiralty Jurisdiction and maritime matters in general.

From the original and the trustworthy material thus secured might be worked out an authentic and satisfactory history of Admiralty Jurisdiction in the Colony and in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay.

This paper is merely what its title purports,—a few Notes.1

Mr. Henry H. Edes communicated some memoranda concerning Joseph Boucher de Niverville, the commander of the French and Indians in their attack in 1747 on Charlestown, New Hampshire, and his great estates in Canada, which had recently been received from Mr. Benjamin Suite of Ottawa. Mr. Suite is not only the highest authority upon all matters of Canadian history and genealogy, but on more than one occasion has evinced great interest in this Society and its work.1

The Hon. John Hay of Washington, D. C., was elected an Honorary Member, the Hon. William Babcock Weeden of Providence a Corresponding Member, and Mr. Winthrop Howland Wade of Dedham a Resident Member.

1 See Publications, vii. 319, 320.

1 For these and other details of Mr. Shattuck’s life the writer is indebted to the very complete and interesting Memoir by Chief-Justice Holmes in 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for November, 1900, xiv. 361–368.

1 George Putnam, before the Suffolk Bar.

2 Causten Browne, before the Suffolk Bar.

3 James Bradley Thayer, before the Massachusetts Historical Society, 11 March, 1897, printed in its Proceedings (Second Series), xi. 269, 270.

1 Chief-Justice Holmes, before the Suffolk Bar.

1 The first volume was published in 1877. A second volume was completed by Mr. Williamson shortly before his death.

2 See Publications of this Society, vii. 399–403, and Preface to vol. v. A sketch of Judge Williamson will be found in the Republican Journal of Belfast of 4 December, 1902.

1 Mr. Matthews’s paper was printed in full in Dialect Notes, ii. 199–224.

2 Atlantic Monthly, iv. 641; Poetical Works, ii. 197.

3 Americanisms, p. 254.

4 Parts of Speech (1901), p. 110.

5 For examples, ranging from 1773 to 1776, see the Nation, 1 May, 1902, lxxiv. 343, 344.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1000, p. 208.

1 Virginia Statutes, iii. 193, 419, 420.

2 History of Virginia (1705), i. 99.

3 For the history of the word Capitol, unknown in the Colonies except in Virginia, see the Nation, 9 May, 1895, lx. 361.

4 Archives of Maryland, i. 36.

1 Archives of Maryland, i. 434.

2 Collections of the New York Historical Society, Second Series, i. 101.

3 Records of New Amsterdam, v, 267, 268, 287; Journal of the Legislative Council of New York, vol. i. p. vii i.

1 South Carolina Statutes, ii. 378.

2 Annals of Yale-College (1766), p. 28.

1 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, x. 13, ii. 134.

2 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (i.) 327.

3 Ibid. iv. (ii.) 351.

4 Several times, however, we find the building called State House. In 1660 Samuel Maverick wrote:

It hath two handsome Churches in it, a handsome market place, and in the midest of it a Statehouse. . . . Boston [is] now a great Towne, two Churches, a Gallant Statehouse & more to make it compleate, then can he expected in a place so late a wilderness (2 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, i. 238, 247).

In 1671 some unknown person remarked:

Boston [hath] a State-house newly erected in the middle of the great Street (L. Roberts’s Merchants Map of Commerce, second edition, p. 53).

In his Sermon Preached After the Terrible Fire, in 1711, Cotton Mather, as Mr. Kittredge points out to me, wrote:

Among these Ruines, there were Two Spacious Edifices, which until now, made a most Considerable Figure, because of the Publick Relation to our greatest Solemnities, in which they had stood from the Dayes of our Fathers. The One was, the TOWNHOUSE: the Other, the OLD MEETING-HOUSE. . . . The Ruines brought upon us, are very Dreadful ones, and not Easily or Speedily to be repaired. That among these awful Ruines, both our State House. and the first born of our Meeting House, are made a Desolation; Verily, it looks awfully enough, to make one cry out, God Avert the Omen! (Advice from Taberah, 1711, pp. ii, iii, 19, 20).

This application of the term State House is rare, and indicates that the writers were employing it as synonymous with Town House. As will be shown later, this is the only sense in which the term has ever been used in England. See pp. 22, 23, below.

1 1767, February 17, Massachusetts House Journals, p. 292.

2 1768, August 22, Boston Post-Boy, No. 575, p. 1/2.

3 1768, October 10, Boston Gazette, Supplement, p. 1/1.

4 1768, October 10, Boston Evening-Post, No. 1724, p. 3/1.

5 1769, May 31, Massachusetts House Journals, p. 5.

6 1773, June 3, Massachusetts Spy, No. 122, p. 3/2.

1 1773, June 29, Massachusetts House Journals, p. 96. Referring to this extract, the late Dr. George H. Moore remarked: “On this occasion also the name of ‘State House’ first appears, although it did not come immediately into common use” (Old State House Memorial, 1885, p. 198). The extracts given in the text show that the term had already been in use for five years.

2 History of Massachusetts, iii. 413 note.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, 1569–1571, p. 588.

2 Ibid. 1575–1577, p. 413.

3 In Sir R. Winwood’s Memorials and Affairs of State (1725), iii. 108.

4 Crudities (1611), p. 635.

5 Letters (1775), pp. 184, 349.

6 Familiar Letters (1892), i. 123.

7 Apologie against Brownists, § 9, Works (1628), p. 578.

8 Travels (1844), p. 19.

9 Diary (1889), i. 24, 37.

1 History of Plimouth Plantation (1896), p. 206.

2 Diary (1893), i. 137.

3 Letters and Journals (1881), p. 111.

1 1621, Virginia Statutes, i. 116.

2 1634, Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 117.

3 1635, N. Ward, 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vii. 25.

4 1638, R. Williams, Letters (1874), p. 119.

5 1639, T. Lechford, Note-Book (1885), p. 89.

6 1639, J. Endecott, 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 136.

7 1643, New England’s First Fruits, 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 242.

1 1645, R. Vines, 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vii. 352.

2 Wonder-working Providence, p. 109.

3 Colonial Records of North Carolina, i. 125.

4 New Account of Carolina (1709), pp. 36, 37.

1 Key into the Language of America (1643), p. 194.

2 Publications, iii. 448–470.

1 Publications, iii. 317–327.

1 See Records of the Court of Assistants, vol. i., passim.

2 History of Cambridge, p. 639.

3 g. m. Bodge, Soldiers in King Philip’s War (1896), pp. 278, 417.

1 See Records of the Town and Selectmen of Cambridge (1901), passim. Facing p. 323 is a facsimile page of Remington’s handwriting as Town Clerk.

2 Records of the Court of Assistants, i. 275.

1 Attorney-General Knowlton.

1 Hon. Richard Olney.

2 Mr. Solomon Lincoln.

3 Mr. Lewis S. Dabney.

1 Hon. Charles Allen.

2 Mr. Causten Browne.

3 Attorney-General Knowlton.

1 Hon. Oliver Wendell Holmes.

1 Hon, John D. Long.

1 The legislation considered in this paper is that which applied to refugees like John Chandler and to their property. The following Acts which readied the cases of Loyalists who remained in Massachusetts, are not discussed. Perhaps reference to them is necessary to round out the subject:—

The Act for disarming persons notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, passed 1 May, 1776 (Province Laws, v. 479);

The Act for taking up and restraining persons dangerous to this Slate, passed 9 May, 1777 (Ibid. v. 641);

The Act for securing this and the other United States against the danger to which they are exposed by the internal enemies thereof, passed 10 May, 1777 (Ibid. y. 648);

The Act for prescribing and establishing an oath of fidelity and allegiance, passed 3 February, 1778 (Ibid. v. 770); together with the several amendments, additions, and explanations of these acts subsequently passed.

1 An Act to indemnify, and to secure from prosecution in law, persons who by their laudable exertions under the late government of the king of Great Britain, have exposed themselves to actions of damage, and other prosecutions, in certain cases, passed 10 April, 1780 (Province Laws, v. 1169).

1 Province Laws, v. 706; and The Journals of each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, in 1774 and 1775, and of the Committee of Safety, etc., p. 534.

In the note to Chapter 38, Laws of 1776–77 (Province Laws, v. 706–713), Mr. Goodell has collected not only the legislation on this point but also much material bearing upon it. In a similar way he has performed for us the same service in connection with Chapters 24, 48 and 49, Laws of 1778–79 in the same volume (pp. 1001–1009, 1052–1057, 1061), which deal with the same general subject at a later date. There is more of detail in these notes than can be produced here, but their examination will disclose how exhaustive they are and how little is left for the student of the subject to do.

2 Province Laws, v. 706; Journals of the Provincial Congress, etc., p. 249.

1 Province Laws, v. 706; Journals of the Provincial Congress, etc., p. 563.

2 Province Laws, v. 707; Journals of the Provincial Congress, etc., p. 322.

3 Province Laws, v. 707; Journals of the Provincial Congress, etc., p. 337, and Report of Committee, 17 June, p. 348.

1 Province Laws, v. 707; Journals of the Provincial Congress, etc., pp. 368, 369.

2 Province Laws, v. 415.

1 Province Laws, v. 707; Journals of the Provincial Congress, etc., p. 4.76.

2 Province Laws, v. 707; House Journal, p. 73.

1 Province Laws, v. 707; House Journal, p. 254; Massachusetts Archives, ccvii. 270.

2 Province Laws, v. 708, where Mr. Goodell adds:—

By the minutes upon the original resolve in the Archives as well as by the recorded doings of the Council and the House upon this resolve on the 18th and 27th, it does not appear to have been passed, notwithstanding an entry to that effect in the so called records of the General Court.

3 House Journal, p. 119.

4 Ibid. pp. 127, 128.

5 For this amendment, see House Journal, 11 January, 1776, p. 141.

1 Province Laws, v. 708, 709; House Journal, p. 293.

2 Province Laws, v. 1052; House Journal, p. 18.

1 Province Laws, v. 709, 1064; House Journal, pp. 37, 40, 41.

2 Province Laws, v. 709; House Journal, p. 75; Massachusetts Archives, ccviii. 328.

3 House Journal, pp. 88, 89.

4 Ibid. p. 96.

5 Province Laws, v. 1052; Massachusetts Archives, ccviii. 357; House Journal, p. 104.

1 Province Laws, v. 710; House Journal, pp. 153, 154.

1 Province Laws, v. 710; Massachusetts Archives, ccix. 107. The resolve of 19 April, as it is generally cited, is the one that was concurred in by the Council April twenty-third.

2 Province Laws, v. 711; House Journal, p. 127.

1 Province Laws, v. 711; Court Records, xxxv. 77; printed Resolves, chap. cix.

2 See supplementary note to chap. 38 of the Acts of 1776–77, Province Laws, v. 725.

1 Province Laws, v. 711; printed Resolves, chap. cxxxi.; Massachusetts Archives, ccxii. 213.

2 Province Laws, v. 629 et sea.

1 Printed Resolves, September Session, 1778, Resolve xi. p. 38.

2 Province Laws, v, 910, 911.

3 Ibid. v. 931.

4 Ibid. v. 1053.

5 Ibid. v. 1052 et seq.

6 Ibid. v. 912.

1 Province Laws, v. 1000.

2 Ibid. v. 1000.

3 Ibid. v. 1000, 1001.

4 Ibid. v. 1002.

5 Ibid. v. 1002.

6 Resolves of Massachusetts, 1780, Resolve lxxxiii.

1 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1780–81, chap. 95, p. 183.

2 Ibid. 1780–81. An act in addition to and for the alteration of some of the provisions of an act, etc., chap. 48, p. 113. I have used for my citations of subsequent legislation the reprints of the laws now in progress, the title given being the binder’s title. This is sometimes misleading since the years which govern it are session years and the fall sessions overlapped the calendar year.

3 Ibid. 1780–81, chap. 49, p. 114.

4 Ibid. 1780–81, chap. 65, p. 254; Resolves of Massachusetts, 1781, Resolve lxv. p. 79.

5 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1780–81, chap. 196, p. 335; Resolves of Massachusetts, 1781, Resolve cxcvi. p. 129.

1 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1780–81, chap. 52, p. 122.

2 Ibid. 1780–81, chap. 50, pp. 115 et seq.

3 Ibid. 1780–81, chap. 176, p. 400.

4 Ibid. 1780–81, chap. 53, pp. 123–125.

1 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1780–81, chap. 403, p. 846.

2 Ibid. 1780–81, chap. 524, p. 925.

3 Ibid. 1780–81, chap. 514, pp. 919–921.

4 Ibid. 1782–83, chap. 69, pp. 177–179.

1 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1782–83, chap. 70, p. 179

1 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1782–83, p. 499.

2 Ibid. 1782–83, chap. 175, p. 458.

3 Ibid. 1782–83, chap. 10, p. 680.

4 Ibid. 1782–83, chap. 14, p. 783.

1 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1782–83, chap. 132, p. 873.

2 Ibid. 1782–83, p. 661.

1 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1784–85, chap. 58, p. 234.

2 Ibid. 1784–85, chap. 25, p. 272.

1 Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1784–85, chap. 31 (1784), p. 105.

2 Ibid. 1784–85, pp. 300–301.

3 Ibid. 1784–85, p. 338.

1 For notices of Holder, see Austin, Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island, p. 102; Austin, 160 Allied Families, pp. 2, 9, 31, 58; Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (i.) 391; Rhode Island Colonial Records, ii. 482, 537; 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xviii. 394; Besse, Sufferings of the Quakers, ii. 177; Bishop, New England Judged (1885), pp. 3, 9, 37, 45, 75, 76, 98, 113, 123, 137; C. F. Holder, The Holders of Holderness (1902), passim.

2 History of New England, ii. 467, 468.

3 See pp. 26–28, above.

4 Publications, iii. 450.

1 Publications, vi. 109–123.

2 Hart’s Army List (1900), p. 130.

1 Richard Clarke, son of William and Hannah (Appleton) Clarke, was born in Boston 1 May, 1711, graduated at Harvard College in 1729, and died in London at the residence of his son-in-law Copley, the artist, 27 February, 1795 (Gentlemen’s Magazine, lxv, 349; manuscript letter of H. Bromfield, Jr., dated London, 26 March, 1795). His mother married (2) Josiah Willard, long Secretary of the Province. See the Publications of this Society, v. 197 note, 198, 200 note, 202, 203, 205, 208 note, 209 note, 214 note, vi. 77 note, 128, 246; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv.74, xxviii. 135, xxx, 302.

1 George Bethune was born in Boston 7 December, 1720, the son of George and Mary (Waters) Bethune, and was baptized at the Old South Church four days later. He graduated at Harvard College in 1740. On 13 October, 1754, he married, at Trinity Church, Mary Faneuil, daughter of Benjamin and Mary (Cutler) Faneuil, who died in Little Cambridge (now Brighton) aged 63 and was buried 2 November, 1797. She was sister of Benjamin Faneuil, Jr., one of the consignees of the tea. Mr. Bethune died in Little Cambridge, aged 64, and was buried 14 April, 1785. He was of a younger branch of the Bethunes of Balfour, a distinguished Scotch family. (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 148, xxviii. 92, xxx. 12, 394; Records of the Old South Church; Registers of Trinity Church, Boston; Heraldic Journal, iv. 178.) See Sargent, Dealings with the Dead, ii. 495–549; Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists in the American Revolution, i. 227; Memorial History of Boston, ii. 555.

1 Isaac Winslow Clarke was born in Boston 26 October, 1746, and died at sea in 1822. See the Publications of this Society, v. 197, 199, 200, 201, vi. 129.

1 A long letter from Richard Clarke and Sons to Abraham Dupuis, written in November, 1773, will be found in F. S. Drake’s Tea Leaves (1884), pp. 279–291. See also 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xiii. 151–216.

2 This document is neither dated nor signed, but it is unquestionably the rough draft of a Petition presented by the tea consignees. The following extract is taken from the Council Records of 19 November, 1773:

Whilst the Council were debating on the subject, a Petition from Richard Clarke, Benjamin Faneuil, and Mess^rs. Thomas and Elisha Hutchinson to the Governor and Council was presented (Massachusetts Archives, Council Records, xvi. 741).

The Petition referred to in this extract is not recorded in the Council Records, but it was printed, together with the Proceedings of the Council relative thereto from 19 November to 21 December (taken from the Council Records, xvi. 741–749), in the Boston News-Letter of 30 December, 1773, No. 3665, pp. 1, 2. The Petition and Proceedings have also been printed in Drake’s Tea Leaves (pp. 309–320).

The rough draft differs materially from the Petition actually presented. With it should be compared the proceedings in the Boston Town Records for 5, 11, and 18 November, and the Selectmen’s Minutes for 27, 28 November and 8 December, 1773. These are printed in the Boston Records Commissioners’ Reports, xviii. 141–148, xxiii. 202–205, where also will be found the votes and answers referred to but not given in the rough draft.

1 There is here a break in the manuscript.

1 Thomas Hutchinson, Jr. Thomas and Elisha Hutchinson were sons of Gov. Hutchinson.

2 Jonathan Clarke came in the Hayley, Capt. James Scott, as appears from a notice in the Boston News-Letter of 18 November, 1773, No. 3659, p. 2/2. A letter written by Jonathan Clarke on the day of his arrival is printed in Drake’s Tea Leaves (p. 278), where also will be found three letters written by him in London 1, 2 July, and 5 August, 1773 (pp. 209–211, 224, 243). For a notice of Capt. Scott, who later married Dorothy (Quincy) Hancock, the widow of John Hancock, see the Publications of this Society, vi. 318 note.

3 The following account of this affair is taken from the Boston News-Letter of 18 November, 1773, No. 3659:

Last Evening a number of Persons assembled in School-Street, they broke the Windows and did other considerable Damage by throwing large Stones into the House of the late Middlecot Cook, Esq; near King’s Chappel, now belonging to Dr. Saltonstall of Haverhill, and occupied by Richard Clarke, Esq; (p. 2/3).

A still longer account was printed in the Boston News-Letter of 26 November, 1773, No. 3660, p. 2/3; and the attack was referred to in the Boston Gazette of 29 November, 1773, No. 973, p. 2/3.

This house stood on the northerly side of School Street, on the lot contiguous on the west to that on which King’s Chapel stands and the Burial Ground. This lot, having a frontage of 56 feet on School Street and extending back 130 feet, embraced about one third of the present City Hall yard beside an area nearly fifty feet square covered by the westerly portion of the City Hall. The Franklin Statue stands near the front of the lot. This estate, in whole or in part, belonged to Dr. Elisha Cooke (H. C. 1657) as early as 1705, and descended to his son the Hon. Elisha Cooke (H. C. 1697) and his grandson the Hon. Middlecott Cooke (H. C. 1723), who died seized 1 May, 1771, at the age of 66. By his will he devised it to his nephew Dr. Nathaniel Saltonstall (H. C. 1766) of Haverhill, who sold it in 1795 to John Lowell, Jr. (H. C. 1786), for his residence. He in turn sold it in 1822 to Asa Richardson, and George Morey, as Trustee under Richardson’s will, sold it in 1839 for $37,500 to the City of Boston.

The house was built of stone, two stories in height with a pitched roof with balustrade and dormer windows, and faced the east. The front door, in the centre of the house, was arched and was approached from the left by a flight of winding stone steps, the broad landing being covered by a porch supported by Corinthian columns. A view of this house is in the Polyanthos for September, 1813. It was here that Governor Burnet sojourned on his arrival in Boston, in the summer of 1728, as the guest of the Hon. Elisha Cooke, while the Province House was being made ready for his occupancy. It has been erroneously stated (New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xlvi. 15, 16) that Richard Clarke’s house, in 1773, stood in School Street opposite King’s Chapel. The Cookes owned much land on the southerly side of School Street, but it was devised by Middlecott Cooke to his nephew Leverett Saltonstall, a brother of Dr. Nathaniel Saltonstall, and it was not until Leverett’s death, in New York, 20 December, 1782, that Nathaniel became seized of any estate on that side of the street (Suffolk Probate Files, nos. 3700, 7042, 14923; Suffolk Deeds, xxii. 315, clxviii. 205, 206, clxxx. 161, cclxxv. 262, ccccxlvi. 81; New England Weekly Journal of 22 July, 1728, No. 70, p. 2/1; Boston Town Record of Deaths; Boston Directory, 1796, 1810; Ancestry and Descendants of Sir Richard Saltonstall, p. 23).

A few extracts will show the strong popular feeling against the tea consignees. In the Boston Gazette of 8 November, 1773, No. 970, p. 3/1, was printed this appeal, signed “A Poor Old Man:”

Messieurs Edes & Gill,

A Poor man’s wisdom saved a city. I am indeed a friend to Mr. Clarke and his sons, to the two sons of Gov. Hutchinson, and more especially to Mr. Faneuil, whose generous uncle gave us our hall of liberty. And I would earnestly intreat them all to yield without delay to their fellow townsmen.—It may easily be done in a letter to the selectmen.

In the Boston Gazette of 22 November, 1773, No. 972, appeared the following:

One of the Sons of Richard Clarke, a Tea Factor, having some Time since been in Bargain with Mr. Benjamin Jepson for a Quantity of Oil, came on Friday last [19 November] to Mr. Jepson and desired him to take a Man with them to turn out the Oil that he might see it: But Mr. Jepson like a true Friend of his Country told Mr. Clerke with Indignation that he could not have any Thing further to say to him, as he had given the Town so much Trouble and Danger, he would not let him have it for twice what he offered. A notable Example this of Uniformity in public and private Conduct. These Persons having been unanimously voted public Enemies in Case they persist in their Resolution to dispose of the East-India Company’s Teas (p. 2/3).

The following is taken from the Boston Gazette of 17 January, 1774, No.980:

One of the Tea Commissioners it is said narrowly escaped a Tarring and Feathering one Day last Week—Presumptuous Men to think of gaining a footing in this Town again—so says every Man high and low, rich and poor (p. 3/3).

In the Boston Gazette of 24 January, 1774, No. 981, will be found the following:

Last Monday evening [17 January] Elisha Hutchinson one of the consignees arrived at the house of Col. Watson of Plymouth, his father-in-law. The people obtaining knowledge of it, they tolled the bells in a solemn manner, and there was speedily a great appearance of them before the house, demanding Mr. Hutchinson’s instant departure from the town; but through the interposition of the committee of correspondence, so much traduced, because so much dreaded by the tories, he was suffered to tarry until the next morning. In the morning the young gentleman, either over sleeping himself, or perhaps disposed to make an. experiment on the temper of the people, tarried beyond the limited time; but was fully convinced that his safety depended on his departure and he decamped in a snow storm; making the best of his way to Cheesemetuck to relate the melancholy adventure to the very sympathetic Chief Justice Hazelrod (p. 3/1).

Peter Oliver was then Chief-Justice, but why the sobriquet of “Hazelrod” should have been applied to him does not appear. He married Mary Clarke, the sister of Richard Clarke (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxviii. 186). For a notice of him, see the Publications of this Society, v. 70–74.

The Boston Gazette of 3 February, 1774, No. 983, contained a long extract from a letter dated Plymouth, 1 February, in which it is stated that “a Tribe of Indians met at Col. Watson’s and Boot-cap’d Mr. Hutchinson’s Sley” (p. 3/1). Since the famous Boston Tea Party of December sixteenth, 1773, it had become the customary thing for men to disguise themselves as Indians.

In the Boston Gazette of 28 March, 1774, No. 990, appeared the following:

Last Saturday [26 March] Richard Clark, one of the Tea Consignees was seen stroling on the Road between Milton and Roxbury; he was on horseback and alone. There are various conjectures as to the Reason of this Excursion. Some say it was to secure an Interest for a Seat in the Superior Court lately vacant; for which it is confidently affirm’d he is (exclusive of the Character of a Friend of Government) as well qualified in all Respects as Chief Justice Oliver. Others think his only Design was to feel the Pulse of the true-born Sons of Liberty in the neighboring Towns (p. 2/2).

1 There is here a break in the manuscript.

1 This is the rough draught of the “answer” referred to in the Petition to the Governor and Council printed in the text.

1 Joseph Lee, son of Thomas and Deborah (Flint) Lee, was born in Boston 23 March, 1710–11, and graduated at Harvard College in 1729. He was a classmate and lifelong friend of Richard Clarke, and for many years was a merchant in Boston, and engaged with Mr. Clarke in various enterprises. He was also one of Prince’s Subscribers. Removing to Cambridge, he was chosen Representative, and became a founder and Warden of Christ Church. He married in 1755 Rebecca Phips, daughter of Lieut.-Gov. Spencer Phips, but had no children. His mansion-house in Tory Row is now numbered 159 Brattle Street, and makes the easterly corner of Kennedy Avenue. He held commissions of the Peace and Quorum in Suffolk and Middlesex, as Judge of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas, and as Special Justice of the Superiour Court of Judicature. Appointed a Mandamus Councillor, he resigned his seat, addressing the people, who filled Harvard Square, from the steps of the Court House, which occupied the present site of Lyceum Hall. He dwelt in Boston during the siege,—“a Loyalist, but being a quiet man and moderate in his opinions, remained unmolested” on his return to Cambridge, where he resided, respected and beloved, till his death, 5 December, 1802. The Burial Register of Trinity Church, Boston, contains this entry:

1802 December 8. Hon^ble Joseph Lee, Esq^r at Cambridge 93.

(Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 76; John Andrews’s Letters in 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, viii. 353; John Leigh of Agawam and his Descendants, Albany, 1888, pp. 46–48; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxv. 240; Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 151, 153, 168, 169, 175, 176, 307, 308, 310, 375, 461, 627; Whitmore’s Massachusetts Civil List, pp. 64, 73, 74, 88, 89, 129, 130, 138; Memorial History of Boston, ii. 561, iii. 113, 153; Publications of this Society, vii. 89–93.)

1 Boston Gazette, 17 January, 1774, No. 980, p. 3/3. The handbill was printed in this issue of the Boston Gazette, p. 3/3; in the Essex Gazette, 11–18 January, 1774, vi. 99/2; and in the Boston News-Letter, 20 January, 1774, No. 3668, p. 1/2.

1 Boston Daily Advertiser, 9 November, 1821, p. 2/3. The paragraph will also be found in Niles’s Principles and Acts of the Revolution (1822), p. 490, but wrongly attributed to the Boston Gazette.

2 In 1740 the Selectmen of Boston—

Voted, That mr. Savell be directed to Send a Watch into the Common this Evening to prevent any Damage to the Rails & Trees there—it being the 5^th.of Nov^r. when large Numbers of Persons meet there (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xv. 259).

Similar precautions had been taken in 1737 and 1738 (Ibid. xv. 81, 141).

3 Boston Daily Advertiser, 30 October, 1821, p. 2/2.

1 Columbian Centinel, 10 November, 1821, p. 1/4.

2 This refers to the mall along Common Street, now Tremont Street.

3 Columbian Centinel, 17 November, 1821, p. 1/4.

4 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, viii. 192, xii. 58, 59, xxv. 248. The history of the trees on the Common was given in an article in the Boston Evening Transcript, 20 March, 1902, pp. 1/7, 3/4. Permission to plant a third row was granted by the Selectmen 26 July, 1784. From the Massachusetts Centinel of 7 August, 1784, we learn that—

By the present plan the mall is to consist of three ranges of elm trees, fenced in on the inner and outer sides (p. 3/2).

In the same paper of 18 August, 1784, we are told:

As trees are the primary objects, they will command the first attention; the two rows already in the mall will be immediately compleated: a third row will follow (p. 3/1).

See also the Massachusetts Centinel, 1 September, 1784, P: 3/2; 15 September, p. 3/3; 18 September, p. 5/3; 22 September, p. 3/2.

1 Boston Gazette, No. 982, p. 3/2. This was also printed in the Essex Gazette, 25 January–1 February, 1774, vi. 107/2; in the Boston News-Letter, 3 February, No. 3670, p. 2/3; and in the Massachusetts Spy, 3 February, 1774, No. 157, P: 2/3. It was not often that the same man was tarred and feathered more than once, but this unhappy experience twice befell Malcom. He was “genteely Tarr’d and Feather’d” at Pownalborough (now Dresden, Maine) on November first, 1773, and on January twenty-fifth, 1774, a mob in Boston “tore his Cloaths off, and tarr’d his Head and Body, and feathered him, then set him in a Chair in the Cart, and carried him through the main Street into King-Street, from thence they proceeded to Liberty-Tree, and then to the Neck as far as the Gallows, where they whipped him, beat him with Sticks and threatened to hang him.” See the Boston Gazette, 15 November, 1773, No. 971, p. 3/2; Boston News-Letter, 27 January, 1774, No. 3669, p. 2/3, 3 February, 1774, No. 3670, p. 2/3; Massachusetts Spy, 27 January, 1774, No. 156, p. 3/3.

1 Boston Gazette, No. 990, p. 2/2.

2 Ibid., No. 1175, p. 3/2. In the same paper of 24 March, 1777, No. 1176, p. 3/2, is the following:

☞JOYCE jun. must be omitted this Week.

1 By the somewhat enigmatical sobriquet of “the Rescinding Calf” is meant Dr. John Calef of Ipswich. Whether “Calf” was an intentional insult or merely a misprint, does not appear. The explanation of the satire takes us back to 1768. On the fourth of February in that year, in the House of Representatives,—

It was moved that a Committee of this House be appointed to prepare a letter to be transmitted to the several Houses of Representatives and Burgesses on the Continent, to inform them of the Measures which this House have taken with regard to the Difficulties they are apprehensive will arise from the operation of several Acts of Parliament for levying Duties and Taxes on the American Colonies and report. And the Question being put, Whether a Committee shall, be appointed for the Purpose aforesaid? It pass’d in the Affirmative (Massachusetts House Journals, p. 148).

On the eleventh of February—

The Committee for that purpose appointed, Reported a Letter to the several Houses of Representatives and Burgesses on the Continent (Ibid. p. 157).

The Appendix to the House Journals contains A circulatory Letter, directed to the Speakers of the respective Houses of Representatives and Burgesses on this Continent (pp. 20–23). When this Letter reached England, it aroused the ire of the Government. The next House met in May, 1768, and on the twenty-first of June Gov. Bernard, in pursuance of instructions he had received, sent a Message to the House requiring it, “in his majesty’s name, to rescind the resolution of the last house of representatives, in consequence of which a circular letter had been sent to the several assemblies upon the continent” (Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, iii. 195). The matter at once engaged the attention of the House, and on the thirtieth of June—

Then it was mov’d, that the Question be put, Whether this House will Rescind the Resolution of the last House which gave Birth to their circular Letter to the several Houses of Representatives and Burgesses in the other Colonies on this Continent?

Thereupon a Motion was made, and the House passed an Order that the Question be decided by Yeas and Nays.

The Question was then put, and the Members severally giving their Voice Yea or Nay, it pass’d in the Negative by a Division of 92 to 17 (House Journals, p. 89).

At that time Ipswich had two Representatives, Capt. Michael Farley and Dr. John Calef. Among the seventeen Teas was the name of Dr. Calef. Hutchinson’s comment is as follows:

Many who voted against the resolution would not rescind it, because they would not be subject even to royal direction, in the character of members. The seventeen rescinded were against the resolution when it passed.1 If there had been no requisition, they would willingly have rescinded. They did not think they could justify a refusal to rescind, merely because the king required it. But though they could justify their conduct to their own consciences, they could not excuse it to the satisfaction of the people. The house ordered that the names, on both sides of the question, should be printed. One list was handed about with every expression of honour and applause; the other, like the list of the Straffordians in the last century, was hung up, in contempt and derision. The number 92 was auspicious, and 17 of ill omen, for many months after, not only in Massachusetts Bay, but in most of the colonies on the continent (History of Massachusetts, iii. 197).

Hutchinson’s language as to the popular effect of the vote is not exaggerated. For a while the number 92 became as famous as Wilkes’s number 45, and the two were often coupled together. In the Boston Evening-Post of 1 August, 1768, No. 1714, appeared the following:

Last Monday se’ennight [18 July], the Tower of Trinity Church, in Newport, was raised by 45 Sons of Liberty who, we are told, the ensuing Evening, supped together on 45 different Dishes.—The same Evening a considerable Number of Gentlemen met at Mr. Potter’s, where they drank many loyal Healths, and concluded with toasting the Massachusetts Ninety-Two Anti-Rescinders (p. 3/1).

The anniversary of the repeal of the Stamp Act soon came, and in the same paper of 22 August, No. 1717, we read:

Boston, August 22. 1768.

ON Monday the 15th Inst, the Anniversary of the ever memorable Fourteenth of August, was celebrated by the SONS OF LIBERTY in this Town, with extraordinary Festivity. At the Dawn, the British Flag was displayed on the Tree of Liberty, and a Discharge of fourteen Cannon, ranged under the venerable Elm, saluted the joyous Day. . . . The Musick began at high Noon, performed on various Instruments, joined with Voices; and concluding with the universally admired American Song of Liberty, . . . The Song was clos’d with the Discharge of Cannon and a Shout of joy; . . . The following Toasts succeeded, viz. . . .

14. The glorious Ninety-Two, who defended the Rights of AMERICA, uninfluenced by the Mandates of a Minister, and undaunted by the Threats of a Governor.

Which being finished, the French Horns sounded; and after another Discharge of Cannon, compleating the Number Ninety-two, the Gentlemen in their Carriages, repair’d to the Greyhound Tavern in Roxbury, where a frugal and elegant Entertainment was provided (pp. 2/3, 3/1).

At this “frugal” entertainment 45 more toasts were “given out,” among them being the following:

17. The MASSACHUSETTS Ninety-Two!

It is sometimes said at the present day that Americans have short political memories. However this may be, the reproach cannot with justice be brought against our ancestors of the last half of the eighteenth century. John Adams, complained that for years after the Boston Massacre the people of Boston did not forget or forgive his share in the defence of the accused soldiers (Works, ix. 617, x. 162, 166). More than six years after the refusal of the Massachusetts House to rescind, Dr. Calef’s share in that matter was well remembered. In the Essex Gazette of 11–18 October, 1774, No. 325, p. 3/2, appeared the following:

INASMUCH as a great Number of Persons are about the House of the Subscriber, who say they have heard I am an Enemy to my Country, &c. and have sent a large Committee to examine me respecting my Principles—In Compliance with the Request, do declare,

First. I hope and believe I fear God, honour the King, and love my Country.

Secondly. I believe the Constitution of Civil Government, as held forth in the Charter of Massachusetts-Bay Province, to be the best in the whole World, and that the Rights and Privileges thereof ought to be highly esteemed, greatly valued and seriously contended for, and that the late Acts of Parliament made against this Province are unconstitutional and unjust, and that I will use all lawful Means to get the same removed; and that I never have and never will act bv a Commission under the new Constitution of Government, and if ever I have said or done any Thing to enforce said Act, I am heartily sorry for it; and as I gave mv Vote in the General Assembly on the 30th of June, 1768, contrary to the Minds of the People, I beg their Forgiveness, and that the good People of the Province would restore me to their Esteem and Friendship, again.

JOHN CALEF.

Ipswich, October 3, 1774.

I am free the said Committee should make what Use of the above Declaration as they think proper.

John Calef.

After he had read the above Declaration, it was put to Vote, and the Company voted Acceptance.

The passage in the text shows that even as late as 1777, Dr. Calef’s unpopular act of nine years before had not been allowed to pass into oblivion.

2 Dr. Jonathan Porter had long been a prominent inhabitant of Malden, and why his patriotism should have been suspected does not appear. The following notice is taken from the Independent Chronicle of 22 May, 1777, No. 457, p. 3/2:

At a Meeting of the Town of Malden, voted, nem. con. That the Piece signed JOYCE, jun. published in the Paper of the 17th of March last, so far as it respects the Character of Doctor Porter, late an Inhabitant of this Town, is false and groundless.

SAMUEL MERRITT, Town-Clerk.

Attest.

Malden, May 19, 1777.

My attention was called to this notice in D. P. Corey’s History of Malden (p. 773), where also will be found much information about Dr. Porter.

3 See p. 98 note 5, below.

4 This was Joshua Upham (H. C. 1763) of Brookfield, Massachusetts. He was an Addresser of Gage 1 July, 1774, removed to Canada, and later became Justice of the Superior Court of the Province of New Brunswick. See Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution, ii. 372, 373.

1 William Jackson was a well-known merchant of Boston. In the Boston Evening-Post of 17 October, 1708, No. 1725, Jackson advertised that he “is just arrived . . . from London” (p. 3/3); and in the same paper of 16 January, 1769, No. 1738, p. 3/1, was printed a long advertisement, in part as follows:

Imported in the last Ships from London & Bristol, by

William Jackson

And sold at his Variety Store,1 at the Brazen-Head,

next the Town House, Wholesale or Retail, at the lowest Prices,

A good Assortment of English and Hard Ware GOODS.

The name of William Jackson appears in “A LIST of the Names of those who audaciously continue to counteract the united Sentiments of the Body of Merchants throughout North America, by importing British Goods contrary to the agreement” (Boston Evening-Post of 26 February, 1770, No. 1796, p. 1/1). It must have been about the same time that the following handbill was printed, of which a facsimile is given in the Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 80:

WILLIAM JACKSON,

an IMPORTER; at the

BRAZEN-HEAD,

North Side of the TOWN-HOUSE,

and Opposite the Town-Pump, in

Cornhill, BOSTON.

It is desired that the Sons and

Daughters of LIBERTY,

would not buy any one thing of

him, for in so doing they will bring

Disgrace upon themselves, and their

Posterity, for ewer and ever, AMEN.

Jackson was an Addresser of Hutchinson 28 May, 1774, and of Gage 8 June, 1774, and 6 October, 1775. In the Boston Gazette of 8 April, 1776, No. 1090, appeared the following:

Last Wednesday [3 April] Capt. Manley took and sent into Beverly, a large brig, after some resistance. This vessel was purchased by William Jackson, at the brazen head, who with Crean Brush, and a number of others, women and children, were on board, besides a serjeant and 12 privates of the king’s own regiment, who are made prisoners. She was bound for Halifax, and has on board a variety of articles; she is estimated to be worth 35,000 l. sterling (p. 2/2).

For notices of Crean Brush, Capt. John Manly, and William Jackson, see the Publications of this Society, v. 261, 264, 272–275; and Sabine, i. 568.

2 Nathaniel Cary was an Addresser of Hutchinson 28 May, 1774, and of Gage 8 June, 1774, and 6 October, 1775. See Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution, ii. 494.

3 James Perkins was an Addresser of Hutchinson 28 May, 1774, and of Gage 8 June, 1774, and 6 October, 1775. See Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution, ii. 177.

4 Richard Green was an Addresser of Gage 6 October, 1775. For the following information in regard to him, I am indebted to Mr. Henry H. Edes.

Richard Green, son of Samuel and Mary (Briggs) Green, was born in Boston 13 December, 1730. The Registers of King’s Chapel record the burial of his mother on the tenth of April, 1755, at the age of 45, and of his father, a “chaize maker,” on the second of October following, at the age of 47. Mr. Green became a prosperous merchant and the owner of valuable real estate on the northwesterly side of Newbury (now Washington) Street, midway between Temple Place and West Street. He was the senior member of the firm of Green and Cleverly, hardware merchants. On 21 February, 1754, he married, at King’s Chapel, Hannah, daughter of Martin and Susanna (Sigourney) Brimmer, and sister of Martin Brimmer who married Sarah Watson, daughter of Col. George Watson of Plymouth and his wife Eliza, daughter of Chief-Justice Peter Oliver. Although an Addresser of Gage, he appears to have remained in Massachusetts during the War. His partner, Stephen Cleverly, was one of the Sons of Liberty, and owned and occupied the estate in Newbury Street contiguous on the east to that of Mr. Green. Mrs. Hannah Green was buried 24 January, 1794, her age being recorded as 61 in the Burial Register of Trinity Church. On the fourteenth of December following, the Trinity Church Register records the marriage of Richard Green and Ann Briggs. She was the daughter of George and Ann (Wing) Briggs, and at her baptism in King’s Chapel, 19 September, 1755, her future husband and his first wife, with Jehosabeth Wing, were sponsors. Mr. Green died childless, 26 November, 1817, aged 87, and his widow died 24 October, 1839, aged 84. Both were buried in the Brimmer tomb (No. 17) under King’s Chapel. (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxii. 361, 370, xxiv. 197, xxviii. 167, 291, 337, xxx. 10, 135, 354; Suffolk Deeds, cxxvi. 146, ccxvii. 6, ccclxi. 39; Suffolk Probate Files, nos. 22670, 25391, 32310; Boston Town and City Records of Deaths; King’s Chapel Registers; Trinity Church Registers; Boston Directory, 1796; 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xi. 140; Sabine’s Loyalists in the American Revolution, i. 498; Journal and Letters of Samuel Cur wen, 1864, p. 475; Memorial History of Boston, ii. 555; Publications of this Society, iii. 198, 199, viii. 86 note).

5 Epes Sargent (1721–1779) was the son of Col. Epes Sargent (1690–1762) and the father of Epes Sargent (1748–1822), who graduated at Harvard College in 1766. See J. H. Sheppard, Reminiscences of Lucius Manlius Sargent (1871), pp. 6, 26, 29; Babson, History of Gloucester (1860), pp. 151–153.

1 Boston Gazette, 21 April, 1777, No. 1180, p. 2/3.

2 Familiar Letters of John Adams and his Wife Abigail Adams, during the Revolution (1876), p. 262.

3 Ibid., p. 263.

4 Boston Gazette, 21 April, 1777, No. 1180, p. 2/3.

1 The heads of the Amory family at that time were the three brothers, Thomas Amory (1722–1784) who graduated at Harvard College in 1741, Jonathan Amory (1726–1707), and John Amory (1728–1803). The two younger brothers formed the firm of Jonathan and John Amory. From the regularity with which the brothers took their afternoon walk along Orange Street, they earned the nickname of “the Three Cocked Hats” (Gertrude E. Meredith, Descendants of Hugh Amory, 1901, p. 109). Thomas Amory was an Addresser of Gage 8 June, 1774, and 6 October, 1775.

2 Independent Chronicle, 24 April, 1777, No. 453, p. 3/3.

1 Boston Gazette, 12 May, 1777, No. 1183, p. 2/3.

2 Publications of this Society, vi. 11–70.

1 Naomi Annis. See the Publications of this Society, vi. 33–35.

1 With the Petition were filed certified copies of—(1) Deposition of George Pearce, 7 February, 1720–21; (2) Deposition of John Pearce, 7 February, 1720–21; (3) Deposition of Morrice Champney, 29 November, 1717; (4) Deposition of Richard Pearce, Sr., and John Pearce, 29 November, 1717, all recorded with Essex Deeds, libro 37, folio 257, ff.

2 Massachusetts Archives, cxviii. 458–463.

1 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxci. 139413:48.

2 Ibid. dcccxciii. 139405: 13.

1 Interlined in the original.

2 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxci, 139413: 42.

1 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxci. 139413: 41.

1 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxxii, 139469: 32.

2 Interlined.

3 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxciii. 139532: 37.

1 1745.

1 Suffolk Court Files, Cumberland and Lincoln, July, 1770, dcccxci. 13941 3: 52.

2 Cancelled in the original.

1 Interlined in the original.

2 Cancelled in the original.

3 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxciii. 13498: 29.

1 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxci. 139413: 48.

2 Cancelled in the original.

3 Belcher Noyes, son of Oliver and Anne (Belcher) Noyes, was born in Boston 10 October, 1709, graduated at Harvard College in 1727, held a commission of the Peace and Quorum, married Ann Williams 3 March, 1736, and died in Boston in November, 1785, aged 76. His widow died in Boston 3 April, 1790, aged 82. Mr. Noyes’s mother was a sister of Governor Belcher (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 63, xxviii. 5, 198; Boston Town Record of Deaths; Paige’s History of Cambridge, p. 486; Whitmore’s Massachusetts Civil List, pp. 129, 130, 131).

1 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxciii: 13953: 12.

1 Suffolk Court Files, Cumberland and Lincoln, July, 1770, dcccxci. 139, 413: 13.

1 The parchment is owned by Mr. Charles J. Means of Boston, a son of the late Rev. James H. Means of Dorchester. The document will be printed in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1906.

2 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1600, pp. 424–426. For references to William Franklin, who died in London in 1658, see Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 68, 79, 84, 86, 89, 97, 98, 99, 104, 105, 110, 115, 117, 153, 165, 170, 181, 187, 210; Suffolk Deeds, iii. 290; Suffolk Probate Files, no. 188; Felt, History of Ipswich, p. 11; Coffin, History of Newbury, p. 302; Savage, Genealogical Dictionary of New England, ii. 201.

3 The only town in Virginia at that time named Liberty was in Bedford County. It is now Bedford City. Mr. Stanard writes:

I should say that the letter was certainly not written from Liberty, Bedford County, but from some farm named Liberty close to Leeds on the Rappahannock River in Westmoreland County. If a lot in Leeds was sold one day, it certainly could not have been known on the next day in Bedford County.

Mr. Stanard’s conjecture is doubtless correct, and perhaps the Liberty from which the letter in the text was written was identical with the Liberty Hall, Westmoreland County, whither John Augustine Washington addressed a letter dated 1 June, 1776 (see p. 269, below). It may be added that “Liberty Hall” was then a favorite name in Virginia for an estate, as there were at that time no fewer than three estates so called: the Liberty Hall in Westmoreland County, just mentioned; a Liberty Hall in King William County, which belonged to the Claiborne family (Virginia Magazine, i. 320); and a Liberty Hall in Essex County, which belonged to the Garnett family (William and Mary College Quarterly, viii. 253).

1 In 1782 John Washington owned twenty-eight slaves (Virginia Magazine, x. 235). His will was dated 3 July, 1785, and proved 26 June, 1787. He had at least seven children: (i) William Henry, (ii) Thomas Lund, (iii) Sarah, who married Robert Harper, (iv) Robert Townshend, (v) Louisa Ffossaker, (vi) John Territt, (vii) Mary Constantine. The executors of the will were Henry Washington, a nephew of the testator, and William Fitzhugh of Chatham, a grandfather of Mrs. Robert E. Lee. For this information about John. Washington and his children, we are indebted to the courtesy of Mr. William G. Stanard of the Virginia Historical Society.

2 Robert Washington died 13 May, 1765 (William and Mary College Quarterly, v. 209, 210). His will, Mr. Stanard writes, was proved 24 September, 1765.

1 Perhaps the Thomas Hungerford who in 1782 owned twelve slaves (Virginia Magazine, x. 231).

2 Four lines have here been crossed out.

3 The present Leedstown, on the Rappahannock River, Westmoreland County, Virginia. In his Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, Bishop Meade writes:

Leeds was once a place of note in this part of Virginia. It was doubtless named, either by the Fairfaxes or Washingtons, after the town of Leeds, in Yorkshire, near which both of their ancestral families lived. . . . For one thing it deserves to retain a lasting place in the history of the American Revolution. As Boston was the Northern, so Leeds may be called the Southern cradle of American Independence. This was the place where, with Richard Henry Lee as their leader, the patriots of Westmoreland met, before any and all others, to enter their protest against the incipient steps of English usurpation. At this place did they resolve to oppose the Stamp Act, nor allow any citizen of Westmoreland to deal in stamps (ii. 164).

4 Perhaps the Thomas Jett who in 1782 was County-Lieutenant of Westmoreland, and who owned fifty-three slaves (Calendar of Virginia State Papers, iii. 252, 273, 330, 302, 365, 463; Virginia Magazine, x. 231).

5 Perhaps the William Holland who in 1782 owned thirty-one slaves (Virginia Magazine, x. 231).

6 Perhaps the Andrew Crawford who in 1782 owned ten slaves (Ibid. x. 230).

1 The report was premature, as Rochambeau did not anchor in Newport Harbor, Rhode-Island, until July twelfth (Narrative and Critical History of America, vi. 499).

1 David Briant became Captain-Lieutenant in the Third Continental Artillery 1 January, 1777, and Captain 10 May. He died 12 September, 1777.

2 John Gridley was Captain-Lieutenant of the Third Continental Artillery.

3 See these Publications, v. 283, 281.

4 Lieut. Joseph Andrews was born at Hingham 5 August, 1757. His father of the same name served the town as Selectman from 1775 to 1777, and as Treasurer in 1769. The soldier’s brother Loring was one of the original proprietors of the Charleston (South Carolina) News and Courier; and a nephew of the soldier was Joseph Andrews, the Boston engraver. (History of the Town of Hingham, ii. 13.) According to Heitman’s Historical Register, Andrews became First Lieutenant of the Third Continental Artillery 1 February, 1777, and died 22 November of the same year.

1 Diman or Dimond Morton was a brother of Perez Morton. Jeremiah Niles was Captain-Lieutenant of the Third Continental Artillery.

1 Levi Bicknell of Weymouth served in Capt. Joseph Trufant’s Independent Company in 1775, and in Col. Crane’s Regiment in 1777. In September of that year he was reported killed.

1 The originals of these letters are in the Brookline Public Library.

1 The blotting of the second figure unfortunately makes the date undecipherable. The Andros government was overturned on Thursday, April 18th. Hence Sundays occurred in that month on the 7th, the 14th, and the 21st. Cotton Mather, writing about 1699, said:

The salvages began to renew their hostilities at Saco falls, in the beginning of April, on a Lord’s day morning, some while before the revolution (Magnalia, 1853, ii. 589, 590).

Folsom, writing in 1837, said:

In April, 1689, “the savages began to renew hostilities at Saco falls, on a Lord’s day morning,” says Mather; but no lives appear to have been lost (History of Saco and Biddeford, p. 192).

Later still, Willis wrote:

In April, 1689, the Indians renewed their hostilities at Saco, but without doing much damage (1 Collections Maine Historical Society, i. 291).

The document in the text tells a somewhat different story.

1 Publications, i. 271—303.

2 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ix. 312.

3 Bourne, History of Wells and Kennebunk, p. 187; 1 Collections Maine Historical Society, i. 269

4 Bourne, History of Wells and Kennebunk, p. 187.

5 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ii. 180; Bond, Genealogies of Watertown, i. 364; Pope, Pioneers of Massachusetts, p. 305.

6 Sibley, Harvard Graduates, iii. 179.

1 Publications, iii. 448–470.

2 1 Collections Maine Historical Society, i. 347.

3 Bourne, History of Wells and Kennebunk, p. 187

4 Massachusetts Archives, General Court Records, vi. 89, 90, 91.

1 See Sarah L. Bailey, Historical Sketches of Andover, pp. 102, 103.

2 See Ibid. pp. 417–420; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxxii. 292; Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society for October, 1884, pp. 268–275, 286.

1 The word “desiring” has here been crossed out.

2 The Rev. Benjamin Woodbridge, a brother of the Rev. John Woodbridge, graduated at Harvard College in 1642. See Sibley, Harvard Graduates, i. 20–27; Bailey, Historical Sketches of Andover, pp. 89, 90.

3 The date “26” has been crossed out and “2” substituted for it.

4 Presumably 1648 or 1649.

1 For many letters written by Dr. Martineau to the Rev. Joseph H. Allen, see the Publications of this Society, vi. 417–454.

1 The Rev. Dr. Furness was born in Boston 20 April, 1802, graduated at Harvard College in 1820, and died in Philadelphia 30 January, 1896.

1 This was Lowell’s second wife, Frances (Dunlap) Lowell, who died 19 February, 1885.

2 The celebration of the centennial of the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It was held in Philadelphia, 15–17 September, 1887. Dr. Furness was a member of the committee in charge of the arrangements for the exercises on the seventeenth, when an Address was delivered by President Cleveland and an Oration by Mr. Justice Miller of the Supreme Court of the United States. Lowell’s letter, doubtless, was in reply to a request from Dr. Furness to write an Ode for the occasion.

1 Miss Agnes Repplier, of Philadelphia.

1 The writer’s sister, Harriet Martineau.

2 Mrs. Pierce Butler, better known as Fanny Kemble. See her Records of later Life (1882), i. 70–75.

3 Remarks on the Four Gospels (1836).

1 The Rev. Dr. Edmund H. Sears of Weston, Massachusetts.

2 The Rev. Dr. Henry W. Bellows. He was a classmate of Dr. Sears at the Harvard Divinity School in 1837.

1 Basil Martineau and Russell Martineau.

1 Eliza Scudder was born in 1821 and died in 1896. For a sketch of her, written by Horace E. Scudder, see her Hymns and Songs (1896), pp. xi–xxiii.

1 William Cullen Bryant.

1 For a notice of William Rathbone Greg, see the Dictionary of National Biography, xxiii. 88.

1 The Rev. William H. Channing (H. C. 1829).

1 The Seat of Authority in Religion (1890).

1 The allusion is to the Rev. Dr. Frederick Augustus Farley (H. C. 1818), then the senior surviving alumnus of Harvard College. He was born in Boston 25 June, 1800, and died in Brooklyn, New York, 24 March, 1892.

1 Joseph Henry Allen.

1 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 151; Records of the Court of Assistants, ii. 54.

2 Preface to Records of the Court of Assistants, vol. i. p. xi.

3 Records of the Court of Assistants, vol. ii. part iii., now in preparation, attempts to fill these gaps, as far as possible. See Preface, vol. i. p. xii.

1 Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts, p. 68.

2 History of New England (1853), ii. 192, 196, 198–201. Some later reference to the case is to be found in the Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 49.

3 Capt. Nathaniel Duncan of Dorchester and later of Boston was the only incumbent of this office, which was created in 1645 and abolished in 1657.

4 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 193; iv. (i.) 10, but in the latter less full and without the preamble.

5 Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. 252; iv, (i.) 69.

1 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (ii.) 345.

1 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (ii.) 388; Colonial Laws, 1660 (Whitmore’s edition), p. 251.

2 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 101.

Somewhat illustrating this is a case tried in the County Court in April, 1663, with ar air of piracy about it, in spite of the result the jury arrived at:

John Woodmansey vs.		Monsieur Labourne and
		Monsieur Laremit

for forceible seazing and takeing away in a way of Piracy the vessell called the Progresse, whereof William Russell was master, being upon lawfull imploiment and laden with fish upon the confines of Nova Scotia or thereabouts which said vessell together with the fish, the one third part of both belongeth to the said Woodmansey, &c. &c.

They were placed in prison in the care of the keeper by John Pease, constable.

Copy of County Court Record at Boston 28 April 1663, states that “nothing appearing against Laremitt, the action proceeded,” etc. Jury brought in verdict for the plaintiff £280–6–0 damage and costs of Court £0–44–8. “The jury affermed they medled not w^th that of Piracie.”1

Still earlier will be found cases where the Court of Assistants took jurisdiction, pure cases of Admiralty, and where, when in doubt, they referred the matter to the High Court of Admiralty in England.

Many cases of this sort will appear in the Records of the Court of Assistants, volume ii.—now in course of preparation and to be issued in the near future.

1 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (ii.) 575; Colonial Laws, 1672–1686 (Whitmore’s edition), p. 213.

2 Records of the Court of Assistants, i. 298, 300, 301.

1 Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 131.

2 Province Laws, i. 19.

3 The Commissions of the Governors of the Province as Vice-Admirals will appear in Volume ii. of the Publications of this Society.

4 Passed 17 August, 1695, Province Laws, i. 220.

1 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1695–1700, ii. 81. This volume, backed 1686–1700, contains also the record of four special Courts of like character, 1686 and 1687, and one 1698.

2 Suffolk Court Files, no. 3, 407.

3 Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts, p. 172.

4 Province Laws, vii. 514.

5 Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts, p. 175; Douglass, Summary, i. 483.

1 Province Laws, ii. 68.

2 Douglass, Summary, i. 483;

3 Boston Weekly News-Letter of Thursday, 19–26 September, 1728, No. 91, p. 2/2, which contained the following notice:

On Friday Morning last the 20th Instant, died here the Honourable John Menzies Esq; Judge of the Court of Vice-Admiralty for the Provinces of the Massachusetts-Bay, New Hampshire, and the Colony of Rhode-Island, in the 78 Year of his Age, and was decently Inter’d on Tuesday last the 24th Currant.

1 The Boston Gazette of Tuesday, 1 May, 1750, No. 1572, p. 1/3, contains the following notice:

Last Saturday Morning about 4 o’clock died here the Hon. Robert Auchmuty, Esq; an eminent Attorney at Law; and for several Years Judge of the Court of Vice-Admiralty, also an Agent for this Province at the Court of Great Britain.

Auchmuty’s death is also noticed in the Boston Evening-Post of Monday, 30 April, 1750, No. 768, p. 1/2.

2 The Massachusetts Gazette of Monday, 1 July, 1771, No. 3/2, contains this notice:

Wednesday morning last died here, the Honourable George Craddock, Esq; aged 87 Years. A Gentleman of unblemished Character. His Funeral is to be attended this afternoon.

The King’s Chapel Burial Register records his burial on the first day of July.

For this information I am indebted to Mr. Julius Herbert Tuttle, the obliging assistant librarian of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

1 Washburn, Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts, P: 175.

2 Summary, i. 484.

1 Summary, i. 483.

2 Publications, iii. 71.

3 Province Laws, viii. 386–398. See also Sewall’s Diary, ii. 104–111, for a. full and graphic story of the expedition after the pirates, the trial, execution, etc.

4 Province Laws, viii. 386.

1 Province Laws, viii. 397.

2 Ibid. viii. 386. See also Sewall’s Diary, ii. 3, 4, as to the vote in Council and the grounds of his action.

3 Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts, p. 173 et seq.

1 J. Adams, Works, ii. 221–220, ix. 317–319, x. 204–210; Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, iii. 232 and note.

2 Province Laws, ix. 078.

3 Ibid. ix. 601.

4 Ibid. x. 437.

1 Province Laws, x. 626.

2 From the Records of the “Last court of Appeales, Grand Assize, & generall Goale delivery holden (ut antea) at Boston the 2^d day of Novemb^r Anno Jacobi Anglia &c^a secundo Annoq Domini 1686,” fol. 13.

3 Case of Benjamin Blackleich, in 1694, late of Boston, mariner, charged with piratically seizing ship Good Hope, Jer. Tay, Master, off the Cape Verde Islands. There are seven papers—list of men aboard both ships, depositions, etc. (Suffolk Court Files, no. 3033). The jury found no bill, and Tay was “Cleared by Proclamation” in Court and in like manner subsequently discharged. The case is recorded. (Records of Superiour Court of Judicature, 1092–1695, i. 86, 142.) There is also much pertaining to the famous John Baptist, with variations of name: nos. 19,755; 19,554; 28,868. See also no. 26,283. There are also other cases: nos. 10,923; 11,945; vol. mlviii,’no. 98. Besides these there are others related in different ways to Admiralty matters; as for instance a copy of “Articles of Warr for Admirall, Vice Admirall & other Officers y^t are in y^e Duke of Brandenburg’s Service”—“Articles 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 14^th, 15^th, 32^th.” The paper (no. 28,540) is without date. Some of such papers have been cited in this communication.

A case in which the Duke, “the Great Prince of Brandenburgh,” is concerned is Paul Sharrot v. Marcellus Cocke, “Att a Court of Assistants or Admiralty . . . the 4^th of August, 1681” (Second Booke of Records, fol. 126; Records of the Court of Assistants, i. 179). The original papers in the case, ten in number, are in Suffolk Court Files, no. 2,031. This case is illustrative of the jurisdiction of the Court of Assistants in Admiralty Matters, and its mode of handling them, already adverted to, so many instances of which appear in the first volume of its records, lately issued. It shows, too, the preservation of the original files of these early cases, not infrequently to be found in the miscellaneous collection entitled Early Court Files of Suffolk.

1 Province Laws, i. 245, viii. 386–398.

2 Ibid, viii., Index and Notes.

3 Ibid. v. 436–441, 462–468, 474, 503, 806–808, 930, 931, 1077, 1173–1175.

1 Cited in Washburn’s Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts, p. 159.

2 Defence of the New England Charters, p. 26; Quincy’s Massachusetts Reports, p. 82.

3 Quincy’s Massachusetts Reports, pp. 74–83. The record of the case is found in Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1763–64, vol. xxiv. fol. 107.

1 Diary, iii. 118.

2 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1715–1721, vol. iv. fol. 169.

3 Ibid. fol. 142. To these cases I had recourse in framing a writ some twenty-five years ago. The writ had several times been ordered in the Supreme Judicial Court to issue, as appeared from the Reports, but seemed never to have been actually drawn up and issued, the order for it being at once respected and fulfilling all purposes. No precedent was found within the days of the Commonwealth. The forms found in those old cases of more than one hundred and fifty years before furnished concise models to work upon, which avoided the prolixity and cumbrousuess of the English writs, too unwieldy in cases of emergency and stress.

4 Ibid. fol. 259.

5 Ibid. fol. 338.

6 Diary, iii. 369.

7 Book No. 2, fol. 188, 30 January, 1724.

1 Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1721–25, vol. v. fol. 117; Suffolk Court Files, no. 16,953.

2 Sewall’s Letter-Book, ii. 210.

1 Suffolk Court Files, no. 30,398.

1 Commentaries, Book i. ch. iv., citing Bracton, Britton, Fleta and Prynne.

2 Blackstone, Book i. ch. viii. § 10.

3 Deplorable State of New England, 5 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 39.

1 Records of Admiralty, 1718–1726, Book No. 2, fols. 32, 33.

1 Records of Admiralty, 1718–1726, Book No. 2, fol. 50.

1 Records of Admiralty, 1718–1726, Book No. 2, fols. 26, 27.

1 Records of Admiralty, 1718–1726, Book No. 2, fols. 67, 68.

2 Ibid. fol. 57.

3 The Captain had an affair of honor with John Boydell, the Register of Court of Admiralty, as appears by the Records of the Superiour Court of Judicature, 1718, fol. 259, Dec. Ad^jt.

Capt. Thomas Smart and John Boydell “fought a Duil upon Boston Com̃on”—in the middle of the forenoon—each drawing his sword and Boy dell receiving a slight wound in his arm. As a result of which they were sentenced to “pay a fine to his Majesty of Tenn pounds each, suffer four and Twenty hours Imprisonment” and both bound over till next Court in May, the Captain in one hundred pounds and Boydell in fifty.

1 Records of Admiralty, 1718–1726, Book No. 2, fol. 60.

1 Records of Admiralty, 1718–1720, Book No. 2, fols. 12–15.

2 Ibid. fols. 5, 6.

1 Records of Admiralty, 1718–1726, Book No. 2, fol. 96.

2 Ibid. fol. 83.

1 Records of Admiralty, 1718–1726, Book No. 2, fol. 109

1 Records of Admiralty, 1718–1726, Book No. 2, fol. 182.

2 Ibid. fol. 116.

3 Ibid. fol. 159.

1 The exercise of Admiralty Jurisdiction by the Court of Assistants has been touched upon in this paper, and cases recorded in Volume i. mentioned. Many original papers in such cases are among the Suffolk Court Files: nos. 1,279; 1,417; 1,425; 1,514; 1,587; 1,672; 1,819; 1,887; 1,909; 1,932; 1,934; 1,935; 1,939; 1,940: 1,941; 1,942; 1,943; 2,031; 2,055; 28,540 (without date); 2,087; 2,102; 2,152; 2,398. There are some later files, in the Superiour Court of Judicature, before 1700: nos. 3,123; 4,188; 98,533; 3,564; 26,145; 26,283; 26,572; and others also incidentally touching on such matters: nos. 26,660; 26,661; 28,225; 28,409; 28,437; 28,550; 28,808; 28,831. There are also numerous files relating to Piracy previous to or in 1700, except such as are undated: nos. 514; 817; 826; 1,238; 1,287; 1,288; 1,390; 2,251; 2,516; 2,539; 2,520; 2,537; 2,538; 2,540; 3,010; 3,033; 3,765; 4,576; 4,682; 4,860. These are undated: nos. 24,464; 25,973; 26,283; 26,627; 27,230; 27,989; 28,808; 10,923 (1716); 162,286 (fragment); vol. mlviii. no. 99 (fragment). There are besides these, the noted cases of John Baptist, Jean Baptiste: nos. 19,554 (2 papers); 19,755 (12 papers); 28,868; 26,283; and of Van Vorst: nos. 11,945 (8 papers); 26,283 (7 papers), cited above.

These citations, of course, taken, with a few casual exceptions, from the Calendar Index, 1629 to 1700, are. not intended to be exhaustive.

1 See the Publications of this Society, iii. 220, vi. 259–265.

1 Publications, iii. 415–430, v. 322–339.

2 Chauncy died 19 February, 1671–72.

3 It is not necessary to give a full account of a man so well known as Richard Saltonstall. He was the eldest son of Sir Richard, was born in 1610, and was educated but not graduated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, the Alma Mater of so many of the founders of New England. He came over with his father in 1630, settled at Watertown, then at Ipswich after his return from a visit to England, and held various important positions here. He married Muriel Gurdon, daughter of Brampton Gurdon, and died at Hulme, Lancashire, 29 April, 1094. (See L. Saltonstall, Ancestry and Descendants of Sir Richard Saltonstall, pp. 12, 86–97.)

An error of long standing may properly be corrected. In 1862 Savage wrote:

For many yrs. he was not chos. Assist, but in 1664 in hope of his com. again, the honor was renew, and it was erron. assert, that he had been aft. in the country, bee. in 1672 he gave £ 50. to relief of Goffe and Whalfey, the regicides (Genealogical Dictionary, iv. 8).

To the documents printed in the text, which prove that Saltonstall was in this country in 1672, two more may be added,—one showing that he was here in 1671, and the other giving an approximate date for his departure for England in 1672. Under dates of 19 and 26 May, 1671, the Rev. William Adams wrote:

I came to Cambr. attending on y^e worshipful Richard Saltonstall Esqr. . . . I wrote out 2 letters for y^e worshipful Richard Saltonstall Esqr. to be sent to y^e first and third churches of Boston endeavoring to procure a reconciliation between them. Deus Hoc Coeptum secundet (4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 13).

In a letter dated Charlestown, 1 June, 1672, Edward Collins, writing to Goffe and Wh alley, said:

These are to lett you know, that God hath moued the heart of that worthy & gracious gentleman, M^r. Ritchard Saltonstall, who cals himself your brother, who is now gon for England, whom the Lord prosper in his voiage: hatli left behiud him for your use, the sum of fivty poounds (4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 134, 135).

Finally, there is in the Massachusetts Archives (Iviii. 72) a document which shows that Saltonstall was here on 21 August, 1671.

1 Genealogical Dictionary, iii. 41, 42.

2 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 16. Adams refers to the Rev. Thomas Cobbet of Lynn and Ipswich.

3 For notices of Knowles, see Mather, Magnalia (1853), i. 589–591; Calamy, Nonconformist’s Memorial (1775), ii. 349–351; Bond, Genealogies and History of Watertown, pp. 329, 1047; C. Francis, History of Watertown, pp. 28–31; Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 118–120; Winthrop, History of New England (1853), ii. 22, 94, 116; Johnson, Wonder-working Providence (1867), pp. xxvii, lxxxv, 137, 178, 227; 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society, xvii. 352. The date of Knowles’s death is variously given as April tenth or November tenth, 1684.

1 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 584.

2 Bishop Browne of Bristol says that Knowles “was elected a Fellow of St. Catharine’s 1627” (St. Catharine’s College, p. 119); and E. K. Purnell states that Knowles “had become Fellow of Catharine Hall” (Magdalene College, p. 98).

3 History of New England (1853), ii. 21, 22.

4 Watertown Records, i. 9, 16. The last allusion to Knowles is under date of 8 October, 1651:

Ordered y^t M^r knowles should haue twenty pounds for his q^ts imployment (i. 23).

Presumably, therefore, Knowles did not return to England before late in 1651.

1 Suffolk Court Files, no. 1093. There is apparently nothing either in the Massachusetts Archives or in the Harvard College Records that throws light on this document.

1 The Rev. Ichabod Wis wall, in whose hand the deed is written, studied at Harvard College between 1651 and 1654 but did not graduate, and was the minister of Duxbury from 1676 to his death on 23 July, 1700. See Winsor, History of Duxbury, pp. 180–184; Sibley, Harvard Graduates, i. 16 note, 560, 561; Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, iv. 615; Palfrey, History of New England, iii. 424, 554, iv. 87, 88.

2 David Alden was a son of John Alden. See Winsor, History of Duxbury, p. 214; Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, i. 23.

3 William Bradford was the son of Gov. William Bradford. See Winsor, History of Duxbury, pp. 230, 231; Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, i. 232.

1 The original deed is still in the possession of Mr. Barker, a descendant of John Alden. Mr. Barker owns a portion of the land, lying in Duxbury and Kingston.

1 This was Muriel (Gurdon) Saltonstall, the wife of Richard Saltonstall.

2 Perhaps there is here a covert allusion to Charles Chauncy, who, in February of the year in which the letter was written, signed a promise of submission and conformity, as given (not with verbal accuracy) by Sprague in his Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 110–114.

1 Brampton Gurdon was then about seventy, while his wife was fifty-two.

2 Of Edmund Gurdon, who was born in 1616, little is known, though apparently he did not live long. He was the Edmund Gordon mentioned by Savage (Genealogical Dictionary, ii. 280), who came over in 1635 with his sister and brother-in-law, Richard Saltonstall. See pp. 193–198, above.

1 The word palatine is adapted from the French palatin, an adaptation of the Latin palatinus; and has been employed in England since at least as early as 1436. See the Oxford Dictionary.

2 In his County Palatine of Durham (Harvard Historical Studies), Prof. G. T. Lapsley does not mention these American charters.

3 In J. T. Scharf’s History of Maryland, i. 35.

4 North Carolina Colonial Records, i. 7.

5 George Calvert was created Baron Baltimore in 1625 and died 15 April. 1632, shortly before the Charter of Maryland was issued.

1 In E. Hazard, Historical Collections (1792), i. 329 An English translation is given by Scharf, History of Maryland, i. 54. Cf. the Archives of Maryland, iii. 18.

2 Pennsylvania Magazine (1883), vii. 57. An English translation is given by Hazard, Historical Collections, i. 160–109, taken from a pamphlet issued in 1784 by Charles Varlo. In the nineteenth century this Patent was generally regarded as a forgery, and as late as 1899 Sir Edmund Clarke asserted that the papers which Varlo brought to this country “were probably forgeries” (Dictionary of National Biography, lviii. 154). In 1881 Mr. G. D. Scull stated that “in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, there is a MS. copy in Latin of the Letters Patent granted to Sir Edmund Plowden in Dublin” (The Evelyns in America, p. 361). Already, however, in 1880 “it had occurred to Mr. Brinton Coxe, of Philadelphia, to have a search instituted in the proper office at Dublin for the same letters patent, said by Varlo to be on record in that city, and almost by return mail had been received the certificated copy of the paper, which we take satisfaction in reproducing literatim” (Pennsylvania Magazine, vii. 54, 55).

3 Documentary History of the State of Maine, vii. 208. Cf. J. W. Dean, Captain John Mason (Prince Society), p. 363.

1 Hazard, Historical Collections, i. 444. Cf. Documentary History of the State of Maine, vii. 225, 344–346, 351–355; Collections Maine Historical Society, i. 400

2 South Carolina Statutes, i. 23. Cf. North Carolina Colonial Records, i. 22.

3 South Carolina Statutes, i. 32; North Carolina Colonia! Records, i. 103.

4 Capt. Thorne George, in Notes and Queries, 11 July, 1903, Ninth Series, xii, 23. See also pp. 347, 417, 496.

5 Hazard, Historical Collections, i. 458.

6 Ibid. i. 470, 480.

1 Documentary History of the State of Maine, vii. 301, 302.

2 In the Dedication to his Collection of Several Pieces of M^r. John Locke, Never before printed, or not extant An his Works, published in 1720, Pierre Desmaizeaux wrote:

My Lord Ashley, afterwards so well known by the title of Earl of Shaftesbury, was distinguished by an exquisite judgment, an uncommon penetration, and a deep insight into civil affairs. The other Proprietors desir’d him to draw up the Laws necessary for the establishment of their new Colony: to which he the more readily consented, because he relied on the assistance of Mr. Locke, who had the good fortune to gain his confidence and friendship.

See also Locke’s Works (1823), x. 175–199; H. Williamson, History of North Carolina, i. 104–111; Dictionary of National Biography, xii. 117, xxxiv. 29.

3 North Carolina Colonial Records, i. 29, 110, 111.

4 See Mr. Toppan’s paper on The Failure to Establish an Hereditary Political Aristocracy in the Colonies, read before this Society in March, 1897 (Publications, iii. 407–415).

1 Thirty-third Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (1872), pp. 258, 262.

2 North Carolina Colonial Records, i. 179.

3 Ibid. i. 180.

4 Ibid. i. 194.

5 Ibid. i. 181

6 S. Wilson, Account of the Province of Carolina, in B. R. Carroll, Historical Collections of South Carolina, ii. 20.

1 J. Archdale, Description of Carolina, p. 12.

2 F. Yonge, Narrative of the Proceedings of the People of South Carolina in the Year 1719, in B. R. Carroll, Historical Collections of South Carolina, ii. 144.

3 In his sketch of Locke, Sir Leslie Stephen falls into the singular error of alluding to the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina as “a piece of constitution-mongering which never came into operation” (Dictionary of National Biography, xxxiv. 29). The Charter of 30 June, 1665, was surrendered to the Crown on 25 June, 1729 (South Carolina Statutes, i. 40, 41).

4 Collections of the New York Historical Society for 1869, p. 214. The document is without date, but in the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, p. 154, it is assigned to “June?”

1 Strafford’s Letters and Dispatches (1739), i. 72; Collections of the New York Historical Society for 1869, p. 219.

2 See p. 205, above.

3 History of New England (1853), ii. 396. Other references to New Albion and to Plowden will be found in the Collections of the New York Historical Society, iii. 379; Collections of the New York Historical Society, Second Series, i. 334, 335, ii. 279, 323–326; Collections of the New York Historical Society for 1869, pp. 3, 221, 222; New York Colonial Documents, i. 289, ii. 82, 92, xii. 51 and note, xiii. 486, xiv. 57; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, p. 336; Ibid., 1675–1676, p. 85; Archives of Maryland, iii. 373; S. Smith, History of New Jersey (1765), pp. 24, 24–32 notes; J. Penington, in Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, iv. (i.) 132–165; T. F. Gordon, History of New Jersey, pp. 17, 18, 333; Gentleman’s Magazine, August, 1840, pp. 163–167; I. Mickle, Reminiscences of Old Gloucester (1845), p. 95; Collections of the New Jersey Historical Society, i. 8; Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, vi. 25; S. Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, pp. 36–38. 109–112; Notes and Queries, First Series, iv. 58, 165, 319–322, ix. 301, 302; J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, i. 140 note, 381, 484, 485, 754,755; E. D. Neill, Founders of Maryland, p. 57 note; E. D. Neill, in Pennsylvania Magazine, v. 200–216, 424, 425; Pennsylvania Magazine, vii. 346–349; F. B. Lee, New Jersey as Colony and State, i. 75–84; E. Hazard, Historical Collections, i. 170–174; I. S. Mulford, Civil and Political History of New Jersey, pp. 67–75; W. Nelson, Fifty Years of Historical Work in New Jersey, pp. 10, 11 and note. The only full and accurate account of “this curious episode in the history of English colonization in America” will be found in G. B. Keen’s Note on New Albion in the Narrative and Critical History of America, iii. 455–468.

1 Hazard, Historical Collections, i. 172, 173.

2 R. Evelin, in B. Plantagenet, Description of the Province of New Albion (1837), pp. 21, 23. (Force’s Tracts and Other Papers, ii.)

3 B. Plantagenet, Ibid. p. 13. Who Beauchamp Plantagenet was, has never been discovered. Plantagenet’s pamphlet was reprinted at Oxford, England, in 1881 by G. D. Scull in his Evelyns in America, pp. 67–115, and at Rochester, New York, in 1898 by G. P. Humphrey in his American Colonial Tracts.

4 Pennsylvania Magazine, vii. 51.

1 Is it possible that we have here the origin of the joke about New Jersey’s not being within the United States?

2 Massachusetts Centinel, 14 August, 1784, p. 2/3. The extract in the text is preceded by the following:

As a paper in the style of a Proclamation, and signed Albion, has lately made its appearance in Philadelphia, and excited the curiosity of the publick—ice may perhaps stand excused for inserting the following advertisement, copied from the London Evening Post of the 22d of January last.

These extracts, together with others from Varlo’s writings, were printed by Mr. William Kelby in the Pennsylvania Magazine, vii. 346–349; but the words “directed for E. P.” are wrongly given as “directed for E. F.” Presumably the initials “E. P.” stand for “Earl Palatine.”

3 Pennsylva nia Magnzine, vii. 348.

4 The following extract from the Massachusetts Centinel of 14 August, 1784, has not, so far as I am aware, been reprinted:

PHILADELPHIA, July 28.

Saturday last the brigantine Bloodhound, Capt. Rawbottom, arrived here in eight weeks from Loudon. . . .

In the above vessels arrived a number of respectable passengers, among which Charles Varlo, Esq; Governor, and Proprietor (agreeable to charter) of New Albion, which province includes Long Island and forty leagues square in the Jerseys.

It is very remarkable that tin’s is only the third Governor since King Charles the Pirst granted the charter.—Earl of Albion, the second Governor, being killed by the Indians, the copy of the charter was lost, and even the name of the province forgot, until the present heir, being a Peer in Ireland, found the original charter registered among the records of that kingdom.

The present Governor, we are told, is a natural genius, and a literary man—having invented many improvements in agriculture; and is also the author of a valuable work, called, “The Xcw System of husbandry;” and has also employed his pen in defence of the Americans in the late contest (p. 2/2).

1 The pamphlet is rare, but there is a copy (lacking the title-page) in the Washington Collection in the Boston Athenaeum.

2 Since this sentence was written, the section of the Oxford Dictionary containing the word Palatine has been published. Dr. Murray gives one earlier citation (dated 1708) than those in the text for the word Palatine in this sense. He also shows that the word Palatinate has occasionally been employed in the same sense and quotes examples from the London Gazette (1709) and the Critic (1890). The same word is also found in H. F. Reddall’s Fact, Fancy, and Fable (1889):

Palatinates. Persecuted Protestantes who emigrated from the Upper and Lower Palatinate in Germany, in the seventeenth century, to Pennsylvania (p. 396).

3 See, besides the references in the text, Burnet, History of His Own Times (1809), iv. 280, 281, 314, 315; H. Williamson, History of North Carolina, i. 178–186, 275–281; S. Earl, The Palatines and their Settlement in the Valley of the Upper Mohawk, in Transactions of the Oneida Historical Society (1831), pp. 31–51; A. D. Mellick, German Emigration to the American Colonies, in the Pennsylvania Magazine, x. 241–250, 375–391; T. F. Chambers, The Early Germans of New Jersey (1895); S. H. Cobb, Story of the Palatines (1897); C. B. Todd, Story of the Palatines, in Lippincott’s Magazine (1883), xxxi. 242–252.

4 N. Luttrell, Brief Relation of State Affairs (1857), vi. 454.

1 N. Luttrell, Brief Relation of State Affairs (1857) vi. 467.

2 Ibid. vi. 474. Cf. vi. 413, 472, 473.

3 New York Colonial Documents, v. 87. Cf. v. 44.

4 North Carolina Colonial Records, i. 718.

5 R. Hunter, New York Colonial Documents, v. 165. This early attributive use of Palatine may be noted.

6 Journal of the Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony of New York (1764), i. 284.

7 R. Hunter, in Journals of the Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony of New York, i. 284.

8 A. Spotswood, Official Letters (1882), i. 116. It was in this massacre that John Lawson, the surveyor, lost his life. His New Account of Carolina was published in 1709.

1 Journal of the Legislative Council of the Colony of New York (1861), i. 323.

2 Pennsylvania Colonial Records, iii. 29.

3 H. Jones, Present State of Virginia, p. 59.

4 Pennsylvania Colonial Records, iii. 283. For other references to the Palatine emigrants into Pennsylvania, see Ibid. iii. 241, 282, 284, 285, 287, 288, 290, 322, 323, 327–329, 331, 332, 367, 368, 385, 386, 413, 414, 416, 417, 431, 452–458, 465, 466, 515–519, 524, 568, 570, 593, 597; iv. 58, 59, 72, 99, 315; v. 112, 140; vi. 170–175.

5 Pennsylvania Gazette, 13–20 June, 1734, in New Jersey Archives, xi. 347.

6 South Carolina Gazette, in E. McCrady’s History of. South Carolina under Royal Government (1899), p. 129.

1 American Weekly Mercury, 31 May–7 June, 1739, in New Jersey Archives, xi. 569.

2 Pennsylvania Colonial Records, vi. 169.

3 S. Niles, 4 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 332. See p. 214, above.

4 W. H. Browne, Maryland, p. 181.

5 E. McCrady, History of South Carolina under Royal Government, p. 129.

6 Lucy F. Bittinger, The Germans in Colonial Times, p. 6.

7 O. Kuhns, The German and Swiss Settlements of Colonial Pennsylvania, p. 71.

1 N. D. Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province p. 122.

2 For allusions to the Palatines in Ireland, under dates of 1756, 1776, and 1778, see J. Wesley, Works (1826), ii. 342–344, iv. 14; A. Young, Tour in Ireland (1780), ii. 123, 138, 151; L. Tyerman, Life and Times of J. Wesley, ii. 146, 238, 354.

3 The Buccaneer, Poems (1827), pp. 1–42. In his Preface, Dana says:

I shall not name the island off our New England coast upon which these events happened and these strange appearances were seen; for islanders are the most sensitive creatures in the world in all that relates to their places of abode (p. vi).

In spite of this reticence, there can be no doubt that Dana had Block Island in mind, though there is no allusion to the Palatines. Cf. stanzas, i, li, iii, lviii, lxix, lxxi, xc, xci, cxi, cxv–cxvii.

4 The Palatine, Atlantic Monthly for January, 1867, xix. 51–53; Poetical Works (1888), iv. 274–278. Mr. Pickard says: “In a note to Mrs. Fields he [Whittier] gives the first hint of his ballad ‘The Palatine,’ August 18, 1867” (Life and Letters of Whittier, ii. 526, 527). As the poem was printed in January, 1867, it is evident that Mr. Pickard has made a slight error in dating the letter.

5 The Last Palatine Light, in The Afternoon Landscape (1889), pp. 59–63. I am indebted to Mr. Andrew McF. Davis for this reference.

6 Christmas in Narragansett (1884), pp. 284–293. Again I am indebted to Mr. Davis for the reference.

1 Medical Repository for February, March, and April, 1811, Third Hexade, ii. 387, 389.

1 Medical Repository (1813), New Series, i. 408–410. Dr. Willey’s letter is printed in Arnold’s History of Rhode Island (1860). ii. 88–91, from the Rhode Island Republican of 16 March, 1836, taken from the Parthenon. This last, I suppose, was a magazine of that name published in New York in 1827, but of which I have found no copy. Dr. Willey’s letter is also printed in several of the books referred to in a note on p. 220, below. It was addressed to Dr. S. L. Mitchill (not Mitchell, as usually given).

1 In Picard’s Life and Letters of Whittier, ii. 527, 528.

2 For other references to the Palatine Light and the Palatine Ship, see W. P. Sheffield, Historical Sketch of Block Island (1876), pp. 37–46; S. T. Livermore, History of Block Island (1877), pp. 112–126; S. G. Arnold, History of Rhode Island, ii. 68, 69; O. Kuhns, The German and Swiss Settlements of Colonial Pennsylvania (1901), p. 72; H. T. Beckwith, in Historical Magazine (1858), ii. 98–106; C. Lanman, in Harper’s Magazine (1870), liii. 168178; C. Lanman, Recollections of Curious Characters and Pleasant Places (1881), pp. 296–304; C. B. Todd, in Harper’s Magazine (1882), xxx. 537, 541543; Block Island, R. I., A Summer at Sea (1883), pp. 1, 6; E. E. Pettee, Block Island, R. I. (1884), pp. 96–104; A. W. Brown, in New England Magazine (1888), vi. 107–125; The American (1890), xx. 368–369; S. W. Mendum, in New England Magazine (1897), New Series, xvi. 738–751. Prof. Henry W. Haynes has kindly sent me several references.

3 See p. 214, above.

4 New York Colonial Documents, v. 166.

1 Pennsylvania Magazine, xi. 244. Elsewhere Mr. Davis writes:

In looking over the Colman papers, I found a reference to a contribution collected by Colman in behalf of some shipwrecked Palatines on Block Island (Publications of this Society, i. 12).

2 Publications, i. 114.

3 In L. M. Sargent’s Dealings with the Dead, ii. 519. Other instances of the conveying of Palatines from Boston to Philadelphia are known. Under date of 30 November, 1730, we read:

A List was presented of the names of Twenty four Palatines, who with their Families, making in all about Fifty two Persons, were imported here in the Ship Joyce, William Ford, Master, from Boston (Pennsylvania Colonial Records, iii. 389).

Again, under date of 15 May, 1732, we read:

Thirteen Palatines, who with their Families, making in all—Persons, were imported here in the Ship Norris, Thomas Lloyd, Mar., from Boston, did this day take & Subscribe the Effect of the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy & Abjuration; and likewise did repeat and Sign the Declaration inserted in the Minute of the 21st September, 1727 (Ibid. iii. 429).

4 Pennsylvania Magazine, xi. 248.

1 Under date of 29 December, 1731, we read in the Massachusetts House Journals:

A Petition sign’d Philip Bongarden, in the Name and behalf of sundry poor distressed Palatines, now at Martha’s Vineyard, within this Province, setting forth, That they were lately brought into said Martha’s Vineyard from Rotterdam, in the Ship Loving Unity, Jacob Lobb Commander, with whom they entred into a written Agreement at Rotterdam aforesaid, for their Passage from thence to Philadelphia (a Copy of which said Agreement was therewith exhibited, translated into English) That the said Captain had in a most barbarous manner dealt with the Petitioners in their Voyage; praying, that the Court would Order, that the said Capt. Lobb may be obliged to answer for the Injuries, Wrongs and Abuses by him done and offered as therein mentioned; as also, that he may be obliged to comply with his Contract, for the transporting the Petitioners and their Goods to Philadelphia, and that they may meet with such other Belief as shall be agreeable to Justice (p. 42).1

In the Province Laws we get a somewhat more detailed account:

A Petition of Philip Bongarden in behalf of divers distressed Palatines lately arrived at Martha’s Vineyard from Holland in the Ship loving Unity of Falmouth Jacob Lobb master, complaining of the cruel & Inhuman Usage they have had from the s^d Master, by means of w^ch One Hundred of their Company are already dead & the survivors in a very sick & languishing Condition, wanting all the necessaries of Life but what they receive from the Charity of the People of Martha’s Vineyard; praying that the Master may be obliged to fulfill his Contract by carrying them to Philadelphia where they were bound, & that they may have such other Beleif as this Court in their Goodness shall judge fitt (xi. 631).

From still another source we learn that on 28 March, 1732, the agents for the Palatines presented to the Council—

A Memorial . . . further complaining of great hardships brought upon those People at Martha’s Vineyard by Captⁿ Lobb, who is bound to save the Town of Edgartown from any charge by reason of their being there, but now refuses to pay the charge of their subsistance, by which means they are threaten’d by the People there to be imprisoned and sold to satisfie for that charge, complaining also of Payn and Zaccheus Mayhew Esq’s two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace at Martha’s Vineyard for their encouraging and abetting Captⁿ Lobb in his Cruelty (Massachusetts Archives, Council Records, ix. 356).

For further information in regard to these Palatines at Martha’s Vineyard, see the Massachusetts House Journals, 6 January, 1735–36, p. 200; Massachusetts Province Laws, xi. 671, 778, 784, xii. 250; Massachusetts Archives, Council Records, ix. 352, 353, 357, 369, 399, 403, 404, 482, 485, 486.

1 On 20 March, 1731–32, Gov. Belcher wrote in a letter to Gov. Gordon of Pennsylvania:

I recommended the matter to the Gen^ll Assembly (then sitting) who voted the surviving remnant of ’em a charity of £200, and directed M^r Shirley (one of our councellors at law) to prosecute Lahb, which he has done in the Court of Admiralty, and inclos’d is the Judge’s decree thereon; and upon receipt of your letter I communicated it to his Majesty’s Council, who referr’d it (with a new complaint) to the Superiour Justices of this Province, who have directed him to appear (by the inclos’d order) at their next Court. I am afraid this wicked monster will escape a halter, which I shou’d think too easy a punishment for so many murders as he seems to me justly chargeable with (6 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 109).

In 1859 Joseph Willard wrote:

Two indictments were found against Lobb at the April Term of the Superior Court in Barnstable. . . . Lobb was charged with occasioning the death of Johannes Young-man, about two years of age, son of John Didrick Youngman; and Jacob Comes, jun., about the age of nine years, a Palatiue, son of Jacob Comes,—by detaining them on board the vessel after she reached Holmes’s Hole; that the child Youngman was infirm and sickly, and languished and died by reason of not being furnished by Lobb with sufficient food to sustain life; and that Comes also died of hunger. According to the allegations in the indictment, Lobb was under contract to supply the passengers with provisions for the voyage. The jury returned verdicts in favor of the captain (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, iv. 355).

It may not be without interest to conclude this account of the Palatines with an instance of improper conduct on the part not of the officers of the vessel but of the Palatines themselves. The following appeared in the Boston News-Letter of 27 October—2 November, 1732:

Philadelphia, Octob. 19. Last Sunday arrived here Capt. Tymberten, in 17 Weeks from Rotterdam, with 220 Palatines, 44 died in the Passage. About 3 Weeks ago, the Passengers dissatisfied with the length of the Voyage, were so imprudent as to make a Mutiny, and being the stronger Party have ever since had the Government of the Vessel, giving Orders among themselves to the Captain and Sailors, who were threatned with Death in case of Disobedience. Thus having Sight of Land, they carried the Vessel twice backwards and forwards between our Capes and Virginia, looking for a Place to go ashore they knew not where. At length they compelled the Sailors to cast Anchor near Cape May, and eight of them took the Boat by force and went ashore, from whence they have been five Days coming up by Land to this Place, where they found the Ship arriv’d. Those concern’d in taking the Boat are committed to Prison (New Jersey Archives, xi. 300).

It is possible that this account throws some light on a tradition set forth by a writer in the Pennsylvania Magazine, xi. 506, 507.

1 Boston Evening Transcript, 15 December, 1903, p. 2/5. From her name, Mrs. Hazard was presumably a Sands, a family long connected with Block Island.

2 These verses were found in a small manuscript volume in the Boston Public Library. On the inside of the cover are written the words:

Lemuel Clap His Book 1754

In a different hand is written the following:

This book was the account & memorandum book of Elder Sam^l Clap, the oldest child of Capt. Roger Clap

Eben Clapp Jr

On the first page it is stated that “Samuel Clap: (the sone of Rogar Clap) was borne the. 11. of octobar: (1634.);” and on the second page is the following entry:

my father. Cap’ Roger Clap aged 82 years died the. 2: febary: 1690. or. 91.

1 Increase Nowell, long the Secretary of the Colony, came to this country in 1630, and died 1 November, 1655 (Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, iii. 295; Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 710).

2 Born in England in 1609, Roger Clap came to this country in 1630, settled at Dorchester, was made Captain of the Castle at Boston in 1665, and died 2 February, 1690–91. The Memoirs of Capt. Roger Clap, written by himself, were published by Prince in 1731, and have since been reprinted several times. Savage (Genealogical Dictionary, i. 390) erroneously gives the date of Capt. Clap’s death as 2 February, 1692.

3 Governor Winthrop died 26 March, 1649.

4 Presumably Governor Thomas Dudley, who died 31 July, 1653.

1 William Hibbins of Boston died 23 July, 1654 (Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, ii. 409).

2 Thomas Flint of Concord died 8 November, 1653 (Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, ii. 174). He was a leading citizen of Concord, a Representative and an Assistant.

3 John Glover of Dorchester died in 1654 (Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, ii. 261).

1 Henry Withington of Dorchester (Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, iv. 618; Records of the First Church at Dorchester, 1891, p. 9; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxi. 27).

2 This word is obscure.

1 In 1662 Henry Withington married, for his second wife, Margaret, the widow of Richard Paul. She died 20 May, 1676.

1 See Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, iii. 455; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxi. 28. A somewhat different version of this epitaph is given by James Blake in his Annals of the Town of Dorchester (pp. 26, 27), written about 1750, where we read:

This year Died Mr. William Pole, of whom y^e Records thus Speak. “Mr. William Pole, that sage, Reved. Pious man of God, departed this life Febr. 24th, 1674.” He was Clerk of y^e Writs & Regester of Births, Deaths & Marriages in Dorchester about 10 years; and often Schoolmaster in Dorchester. Upon his Tomb it is thus written.

The Epitaph of William Pole, which he himself made while he was yet living, in Remembrance of his own Death, and left it to be Engraven on his Tomb, so that being Dead he might warn Posterity. Or a Resemblance of a Dead man bespeaking y^e Reader.

Ho Passenger, ’t is worth thy Pains to stay

And take a Dead mans Lesson by y^e Way.

I was what now thou art, & thou shalt be

What I am now, what odds ’twixt me & thee!

Now go thy way; but stay, take one word more,

Thy Staff for ought thou know’st Stands next y^e Door.

Death is y^e Door, y^e Door of Heaven or Hell:

Be warn’d, be arm’d, Belieue, Repent, Farewell.

He Died Pebr. 24th, 1674; Aged 81 years.

The epitaph cut on the gravestone differs from both of the above versions, and gives the date of death as 25 February, 1674 (Annual Report of the Boston Cemetery Department for 1901–1905, p. 230).

1 Miss Mercy Scollay was a daughter of John Scollay and a sister of Col. William Scollay. The original of Arnold’s letter is owned by Miss Mary A. Bigelow, a daughter of the late Dr. Jacob Bigelow. In 1817 Dr. Bigelow married Mary Scollay, daughter of Col. William Scollay. See Publications of this Society, v. 209 note, 210 note, 213 note; 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xvii. 417; Memoir of Henry J. Bigelow (1900), p. 5.

2 For a notice of David Townsend, who graduated at Harvard College in 1770, see Memorials of the Massachusetts Society of the Cincinnati (1890), pp. 480, 481.

3 Warren left four children: (i) Elizabeth, who was born in 1765, married Arnold Welles in 1785, and died in 1804; (ii) Joseph, who was born in 1768, graduated at Harvard College in 1786, and died in 1790; (iii) Mary, who married (1) Samuel Lyman of Northampton and (2) Richard E. Newcomb of Greenfield, and died in 1826; and (iv) Richard, who was born about 1772 and died in 1793. For information about these children, see R. Frothingham, Life and Times of J. Warren, pp. 542–546; I. N. Arnold, Life of B. Arnold, pp. 210–220; J. Sparks, Life and Treason of B. Arnold, pp. 126–128; A. H. Everett, Life of J. Warren (Sparks’s Library of American Biography, 1856), pp. 93–183; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xi. 122; E. Warren, Life of J. C. Warren, ii. 56; E. Warren, Life of John Warren, pp. 84–90; F. M. Thompson, History of Greenfield, ii. 1036; Genealogical Memoir of the Newcomb Family, 1874, pp. 309, 310.

4 John Hancock.

1 Part of this letter was printed, but not altogether correctly, by Sparks in his Life and Treason of B. Arnold, p. 127.

2 Publications, vi. 277.

3 Literary Diary, ii. 349. President Stiles (Y. C. 1746) was the son of the Rev. Isaac Stiles, who graduated at Yale in 1722. The titles of the books referred to by Stiles are: Clap’s Essay on the Nature and Foundation of Moral Virtue and Obligation; being a Short Introduction to the Study of Ethics; for the Use of the Students of Yale-College (1765); Edwards’s Careful and Strict Enquiry into the modern prevailing Notions of that Freedom of the Will, which is supposed to be essential to Moral Agency, Vertue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (1754); and W. Wollaston’s Religion of Nature Delineated (1724). One of the compositors who set up the last mentioned work was Franklin.

1 Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, ii. 145, 146.

1 Mr. Sedgwick died at Rome, Italy, and was buried at Stockbridge, Massachusetts, on the twenty-third of January, 1904.

2 See Benjamin W. Dwight’s History of the Descendants of John Dwight of Dedham, New York, 1874; and Erastus Worthington’s History of Dedham, Boston, 1827.

1 Life and Letters of Miss Sedgwick, p. 52.

2 It was by his advice that William Cullen Bryant moved to New York City, and began there his remarkable career. (Miss Sedgwick’s Life and Letters, p. 441.) There is an admirable notice of Henry Dwight Sedgwick, the elder, in the Democratic Review for February, 1840, in an article entitled Political Portraits, Theodore Sedgwick,—the latter being the elder brother of Henry.

1 Publications, iii. 156–173. 16

1 It was given by Henry Stevens 22 August, 1861.

2 Presumably William Shirley, Governor of Massachusetts.

3 The second of December, 1694, was Sunday. As the fourth of February, 1694–95, fell on a Monday, it may be inferred that this entry was written during that month.

4 William Basset (1644–1695) was presented by the Salters’ Company to the Rectory of St. Swithin’s in London in July, 1683. He was a graduate of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the author of several books. See the Dictionary of National Biography, iii. 386.

5 John Shirley, brother of the Governor, died in infancy. See Stemmata Shirleiana, p. 305.

6 The Rev. John Clark was the successor of the Rev. William Basset as Rector of St. Swithin’s.

1 Perhaps John Godman of Ote Hall, Sussex, whose daughter Elizabeth married William Shirley, the father of Governor Shirley. See Burke’s Landed Gentry (1871), i. 514; Stemmata Shirleiana, p. 319.

2 To this point the Memorandum may be in the handwriting of William Shirley, the father of Governor Shirley.

3 From this point the handwriting appears to be that of Governor Shirley. Elizabeth or Betty Shirley married Eliakim Hutchinson.

4 The first wife of Governor Shirley was Frances, daughter of Francis Barker of London. See Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 129–133, 142, 225, 226

5 The following is taken from the Boston Evening-Post of Monday, 12 July, 1736, No. 48:

His Majesty’s Ship Scarborough, Capt. Durell Commander, will sail for Great Britain with the first fair Wind. Madam Cosby and her Family, with several other Persons who go Passengers, went on board on Saturday last.

Madam Cosby was the widow of Governor William Cosby of New York, who had recently died.

6 The Rev. Thomas Harwood of King’s Chapel.

7 William Shirley, baptized 3 October, 1721, was Secretary to Braddock and was killed in 1755. Besides the children mentioned in the Memorandum, Governor Shirley had one son and four daughters: Sir Thomas; Judith; Frances, the wife of William Bollan; Harriet, the wife of Robert Temple; and Maria Catharine, the wife of John Erving.

8 Eliakim Hutchinson (H. C. 1730).

9 The Rev. Roger Price, Rector of King’s Chapel.

1 An imperfect copy of this letter, but undated, is given by Bigelow in his edition of Franklin’s Works, ii. 154, 155. The original letter is owned by the Boston Athenaeum.

2 William Franklin, later Governor of New Jersey, was brought up in his father’s family, and had been an officer in the Pennsylvania forces raised for an expedition against Canada.

3 Franklin’s daughter Sarah married Richard Bache.

4 Franklin’s sister Jane married Edward Mecom.

1 The allusion is to Franklin’s nephew, Josiah Davenport, and his wife Sarah Billings, who had been recently married in Boston.

2 Edward and Jane (Franklin) Mecom.

3 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, v. 00, vi. 20. See Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, ii. 2–12, iii. 73, 172; Sewall’s Diary, i. 118. 119 notes, iii. 27, 49, 80; Dictionary of National Biography, xxxii. 378; Records of the Church in Brattle Square, Boston (1902), pp. 5, 95, 102.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, p. 261.

2 See the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1635, p. 286; Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1635–1636, p. 175.

3 The will was printed in The Edward Jackson Family of Newton, Massachusetts, compiled by F. F. Starr and J. J. Goodwin and privately printed in a limited edition at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1895. As, however, this book, not having been published, is not easily procurable, and as there have been many inquiries in regard to the will, it seems justifiable to print it in full in our Transactions.

1 Christopher Jackson of London had two sons, John Jackson (baptized 6 June, 1002) and Edward Jackson (baptized 3 February, 1604–05), who emigrated to this country. John Jackson was the first permanent settler of Cambridge Village (now Newton), where he was in 1639, while Edward Jackson came over in 1643. Edward Jackson was a leading citizen, holding various official positions of honor and trust, always active in public affairs, and foremost in all movements affecting the interests of the town. After a long and useful life, he died 17 July, 1681.

Edward Jackson was twice married. By his first wife, Frances, he had the following children: (i) Israel; (ii) Margaret; (iii) Hannah, who married John Ward; (iv) Rebecca, who married Thomas Prentice; (v) Caleb; (vi) Joseph; (vii) Frances;1 (viii) Jonathan, who married Elizabeth Baker; (ix) Sebas, who married Sarah Baker. On 14 March, 1648–49, Edward Jackson married (2) Elizabeth (Newgate) Oliver, the widow of John Oliver (II. C. 1645) and the daughter of John Newgate (or Newdigate) of Boston. By her he had the following children: (i) Sarah, who married the Rev. Nehemiah Hobart; (ii) Edward; (iii) Lydia, who married Joseph Fuller; (iv) Elizabeth, who married (1) John Prentice and (2) Jonas Bond; (v) Hannah, who married Nathaniel Wilson; (vi) Ruth.

The will of Edward Jackson shows the large number of his grandchildren living in 1681, and over forty of his descendants are said to have served in the Revolutionary War. The Civil War showed brilliantly that the fighting spirit and the love of country still remained in his later descendants. Collaterally, too, through his older brother John, the Jackson blood asserted itself, as his grandniece was the mother of Col. Ephraim Williams, the founder of Williams College, and of his brother Dr. Thomas Williams, both of whom took part in the Old French War.

The genealogies in these notes are taken from The Edward Jackson Family of Newton, Massachusetts, from F. Jackson’s History of Newton, from Paige’s History of Cambridge, and from Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary; to all of which the reader is referred for full particulars.

1 John Newgate was born in England and died in Boston in 1065. His will is printed in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xiii. 333–335.

2 In 1634 W. Wood wrote:

Called Pullin-point, because that is the usuall Channell Boats used to passe thorow into the Bay; and the Tyde being very strong, they are constrayned to goe ashore and hale their Boates by the sealing, or roades, whereupon it is called Pullin-point (New England’s Prospect, 1865, p. 45).

The name was subsequently changed to Point Shirley in honor of Governor Shirley. It is now in the town of Winthrop. See Shurtleff, Topographical and Historical Description of Boston, p. 437; Memorial History of Boston, ii. 61; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xiii. 111; Boston News-Letter, 13 September, 1753; Manual of the General Court.

1 Edward Jackson, son of the testator, was born 15 December, 1652, and married (1) Grace—, by whom he had one son who died in infancy, and (2) Abigail Wilson, by whom he had the following children: (i) Elizabeth, who married Capt. Thomas Prentice, grandson of Capt. Thomas Prentice the Trooper; (ii) Abigail, who apparently died young; (iii) Hannah, who married Joshua Loring of Roxbury, father of Commodore Loring of the British Navy; (iv) Samuel; (v) Alice; (vi) Edward; (vii) Abigail, who married Daniel Bobbins.

2 Jonathan Jackson, son of the testator, was born in England, settled in Boston, and died 28 August, 1693. By his wife Elizabeth Baker, he had the following children: (i) Elizabeth; (ii) Mary; (iii) Jonathan, born 28 December, 1672; (iv) Edward; (v) Sarah.

Jonathan Jackson, son of Jonathan and Elizabeth (Baker) Jackson, was born 28 December, 1672, and died in 1736. By his wife Mary, daughter of Jabez Salter, he had the following children: (i) Jonathan, born 28 April, 1701; (ii) Mary; (iii) Jonathan, born 14 June, 1704; (iv) Elizabeth; (v) Edward, born 3 January, 1706–07; (vi) Edward, born 26 February, 1707–08; (vii) Jabez.

Edward Jackson, son of Jonathan and Mary (Salter) Jackson, was born 26 February, 1707–08, graduated at Harvard College in 1726, and died in 1757. By his wife Dorothy Quincy, the “Dorothy Q.” of Dr. Holmes, he had two children: (i) Jonathan, born 14 June, 1743; (ii) Mary, who married Oliver Wendell. Oliver and Mary (Jackson) Wendell had a daughter Sarah, who married the Rev. Abiel Holmes and so became the mother of Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Jonathan Jackson, son of Edward and Dorothy (Quincy) Jackson, was born 14 June, 1743, graduated at Harvard College in 1701, and died in 1810. By his wife Hannah, daughter of Patrick Tracy, he had the following children: (i) Robert; (ii) Henry; (iii) Charles, born 31 May, 1775, graduated at Harvard College in 1775, became Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and died in 1855; (iv) Hannah, who married Francis Cabot Lowell; (v) James, born 3 October, 1777, graduated at Harvard College in 1796, became the distinguished Professor and Doctor, and died in 1867; (vi) Sarah; (vii) Patrick Tracy, born 14 August, 1780, became a noted merchant in Boston, and died in 1847; (viii) Harriet; (ix) Mary, who married Henry Lee.

Of three sons of Jonathan and Hannah (Tracy) Jackson, it has been said, that “Judge Charles Jackson, Dr. James Jackson, and Mr. Patrick Tracy Jackson, . . . occupied as large and as high a position in their respective professions and in the esteem of their neighbors as any three men who ever lived in Boston” (Memorial History of Boston, iv. 155 note).

1 John Ward, who married Hannah, the daughter of Edward and Frances Jackson, was a son of William Ward of Sudbury. He settled in Cambridge Village, where he was prominent, and died 1 July, 1704. His wife Hannah died 24 April, 1704.

2 Thomas Prentice married Edward Jackson’s daughter Rebecca. See F. Jackson, History of Newton, pp. 392, 393; Paige, History of Cambridge, p. 029; Binney, History and Genealogy of the Prentice or Prentiss Family in New England (1883), pp. 249, 250.

3 Sebas Jackson, born in England or perhaps on the passage to this country, married Sarah, daughter of Thomas Baker of Roxbury, and died 6 December, 1690. His children were: (i) Edward, born 12 September, 1672; (ii) Sebas;1 (iii) John; (iv) Sarah, who married Jonathan Draper; (v) Elizabeth, who married (1) Caleb Grant, and (2) John Taylor; (vi) John; (vii) Jonathan; (viii) Mary; (ix) Joseph.

1 See p. 251 note, above.

2 See p. 251 note, above.

3 Thomas Hammond, an early settler in Hingham, later removed to Cambridge Village.

4 This was probably Zechariah Hicks of Cambridge, referred to in a former communication to this Society (Publications, iii. 451; and see Paige, History of Cambridge, p. 580).

5 John Clark was born in Watertown in 1641, then lived in Muddy River (now Brookline), and was in Cambridge Village as early as 1681.

6 For this and many other localities named in the will, see the map in Jackson’s History of Newton.

7 Jonathan Hyde was born in 1626 and came to Cambridge Village in 1647.

8 Vincent Druce, an early inhabitant of Hingham, removed to Cambridge Village.

9 The Rev. Nehemiah Hobart, who married Edward Jackson’s daughter Sarah, was born at Hingham 21 November, 1618, graduated at Harvard College in 1667, for forty years preached at Cambridge Village, and died 25 August, 1725.

1 Joseph Fuller of Newton married Edward Jackson’s daughter Lydia, and died in 1740.

2 John Fuller, Sr., an early settler of Cambridge Village, was the father of Joseph Fuller, who married Edward Jackson’s daughter Lydia.

3 Capt. Isaac Williams, a son of Robert Williams of Roxbury, removed to Cambridge Village about 1660. He married Martha, daughter of William Park, and was the father of Ephraim Williams, who was the father of Col. Ephraim Williams (the founder of Williams College) and of Dr. Thomas Williams.

4 John Prentice, son of Capt. Thomas Prentice the Trooper, was born in 1655, married Edward Jackson’s daughter Elizabeth, and died 4 March, 1688–89.

5 Thomas Greenwood, an early settler, came into Cambridge Village about 1607, held various offices, and died 1 September, 1693. He married Hannah, daughter of John Ward and granddaughter of Edward Jackson.

1 In his History of Newton (p. 445), Jackson says that Nathaniel Wilson married Hannah, daughter of John and Elizabeth (Newgate) Oliver. John and Elizabeth (Newgate) Oliver did have a daughter Hannah, but she died in 1053 aged about eleven. Nathaniel Wilson’s wife was Hannah, daughter of Edward and Elizabeth (Newgate) Oliver Jackson. She was born in 1660.

2 The four grandchildren of the testator named Edward were: Edward Jackson, son of Jonathan and Elizabeth (Baker) Jackson; Edward Jackson, son of Sebas and Sarah (Baker) Jackson; Edward Ward, son of John and Hannah (Jackson) Ward; and Edward Prentice, son of John and Elizabeth. (Jackson) Prentice.

1 John and Thomas Oliver were the sons of John and Elizabeth (Newgate) Oliver, and hence were the step-sons of Edward Jackson. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the terms “father-in-law,” “mother-in-law,” “son-in-law,” and “daughter-in-law,” frequently meant step-father, step-mother, step-son, and step-daughter, respectively.

2 Elizabeth Wiswall, the daughter of John and Elizabeth (Newgate) Oliver, married Enoch Wiswall of Dorchester, a son of Elder Thomas Wiswall. She died 31 May, 1712, and her husband 28 November, 1736. See the Publications of this Society, vi. 334 note.

3 In reply to a request for information, our associate Mr. William C. Lane writes me that “Quincy (History of Harvard University, i. 513) mentions it in his list of gifts, but there is no trace of it at the present day, and it was no doubt lost in the fire of 1764. I suppose the author is Hugh Broughton, the distinguished Biblical and Jewish scholar.” For a notice of Broughton (1549–1612), see the Dictionary of National Biography, vi. 459–462, where we read:

Of Broughton’s manuscripts the British Museum possesses a quarto volume (Sloane MS. 3088), containing thirty-five pieces, mam’ referring to the new translation of the Bible; and his ‘Harmonie of the Bible,’ a chronological work (Harl. MS. 1525). Neither of these volumes is in autograph, with the exception of a small part of the ‘Harmonie.’

4 Edward Jackson was one of the proprietors of Cambridge, at different times receiving allotments in the division of the common lands, and also a large proprietor in the Billerica lands, a tract of eight thousand acres granted to Cambridge by the General Court, receiving in the allotment of 1652 four hundred acres, the tract given in his will to Harvard College. Quincy says that this land was “never obtained” (History of Harvard University, i. 512).

1 Capt. Thomas Prentice, the noted Trooper, was born in England in 1621 and died 6 July, 1710. See Jackson, History of Newton, pp. 389, 469–475.

1 Abraham Jackson (1655–1740) was the son of Edward Jackson’s brother John Jackson, and the grandfather of Col. Ephraim Williams, the founder of Williams College.

2 John Mirick died 11 July, 1706.

3 John Mason, a tanner, was a Constable and Selectman in Cambridge Village.

4 Isaac Bacon (1650–1684) was a son of David Bacon.

5 Suffolk County Court Files, no. 2005.

1 It need scarcely be pointed out that “Little Boston’s” historical knowledge was not always accurate. Sewall did not become Chief-Justice until 1718.

1 See Irving, Life of Washington (1855), i. 224–228.

2 See p. 244 note 7, above.

1 Irving, Life of Washington, i. 227 note. See also Memorial History of Boston, ii. 127 note.

2 Between the evacuation of Boston on March seventeenth and April fourth, when he left for New York, Washington was in Boston several times. See W. S. Baker, Itinerary of General Washington, 1775–1783 (1892), pp. 32–36.

3 See the Publications of this Society, vii. 321–329.

4 See Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxvii. 124, xxxi. 207–213; Massachusetts Magazine (1790), ii. 3; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, viii. 190, 191, xiv. 161–166; Loring, Hundred Boston Orators, pp. 114–116; E. Everett, Mount Vernon Papers, pp. 106–114. Washington’s portrait was taken at Portsmouth by Christian Gullager and this eventually came into the possession of the Rev. Dr. Belknap (1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, iii. 309, 310). At this time, also, the portrait of him by Edward Savage, now in Memorial Hall at Harvard College, was taken (W. S. Baker, Engraved Portraits of Washington, pp. 73–77; C. H. Hart, Catalogue of the Engraved Portraits of Washington, p. 101). Washington Street, Boston, first received its name 4 July, 1788. (See Record of Streets, 1902, p. 378; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxi. 164, 178,180, xxvii. 59.

1 In a letter written to Sir Isaac Heard 2 May, 1792, George Washington said that his brother “died in February, 1787, at his estate on Nomony, in Westmoreland County, and was there buried” (Writings, Sparks’s edition, i. 550). February was doubtless a slip for January, as on 10 January, 1787, George Washington wrote a letter of condolence to Bushrod Washington on the death of the latter’s father (Washington’s Writings, Ford’s edition, xi. 107, 108). On 18 May, 1776, John Augustine Washington wrote a letter from Williamsburg to George Washington, to which the latter replied 31 May (Force, American Archives, Fourth Series, vi. 631, 632).

2 The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776, were printed at Williamsburg in 1776, again at Richmond in 1816, and once more in Force’s American Archives, Fourth Series, vi. 1509–1015. The three delegates from Westmoreland County were Richard Lee, Richard Henry Lee, and John A. Washington. In his elaborate discourse on The Virginia Convention of 1776, written and published in 1855, Hugh B. Grigsby merely mentions Washington by name (p. 189) and says that “John A. Washington was probably the alternate of R. H. Lee” (p. 206).

3 Grigsby says:

From the twenty-seventh of May to the eleventh of June, the Declaration of Rights was discussed at intervals in committee of the whole; and on the latter day it was ordered that the declaration with the amendments be fairly transcribed, and read a third time; and the day after, the fifteenth of June, it was passed unanimously (The Virginia Convention of 1776, p. 19).

The “fifteenth” is of course a slip for the twelfth. Under date of 12 June, 1776, is the following:

The declaration of rights having been fairly transcribed, was read a third time, and passed as follows, nem. con. (Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, 1776, p. 100).

1 John Augustine and Hannah (Bushrod) Washington had several children, among them: (i) Bushrod, (ii) Corbin, who married Hannah, daughter of Richard Henry Lee, (iii) Mildred, who married Thomas Lee, son of Richard Henry Lee, (iv) Jane, who married William Washington, a son of Augustine Washington, the half-brother of John Augustine Washington.

2 Two newspapers, each called the Virginia Gazette, were then published at Williamsburg, one by Alexander Burdie, the other by John Dixon and William Hunter (Virginia Magazine, ix. 10).

1 Doubtless the writer’s son-in-law, William Washington.

2 See p. 118 note 3, above.

3 In 1782 Robert Carter owned two hundred and seventy-eight slaves (Virginia Magazine, x. 230).

4 For notices of Bushrod Washington, see H. Binney, Bushrod Washington (1858); J. Story, Miscellaneous Writings, pp. 808–811; William and Mary College Quarterly, iv. 252; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, vi. 384, 385.

1 Probably William Washington, who, as stated in a previous note, married Bushrod Washington’s sister Jane.

2 Probably the writer’s uncle, Samuel Washington, who was born 16 November, 1734, died in 1781, and married five times: (1) Jane Champe, (2) Mildred Thornton, (3) Lucy Chapman, (4) Anne Steptoe, and (5) Susannah Perrin, a widow.

1 The Bible and Heart was the sign of Thomas and John Fleet, publishers of the Boston Evening Post, printers and booksellers. Their shop stood on the northerly corner of Pudding Lane (now Water Street) and Cornhill (now Washington Street), – on the site now covered by the Journal Building.

1 Daniel Shays, the leader of Shays’s Rebellion, 1786–1787.

2 Luke Day, a leader of the insurgents in Shays’s Rebellion. See G. R. Minot, History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts (1788), p. 164.

1 Annalium Reliquiae, ix. vii. 313–315, in Vahlen, Ennianae Poesis Reliquiae (1851), p. 47.

1 Æneid, vi. 846.

2 De Officiis, i. 24 (1710), p. 89.

3 New English Canaan, p. 119. It can scarcely be doubted that allusions to Fabius must frequently have occurred in the writings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

4 Examen, iii. vii. § xlvii. p. 537. Quoted in the Stanford Dictionary.

5 Works (1869), p. 605. Quoted in the Stanford Dictionary, where no example is given between Swift and Macaulay (1855).

6 Letters (1866), iii. 255.

7 Works, ix. 369.

1 Letters from America (1792), p. 336.

2 Remembrancer for the Year 1776 (1777), iv. 170.

3 In the Oxford Dictionary Dr. Murray’s earliest example of Fabian is from Joel Barlow’s Columbiad (1809)—where it is also applied to Washington. The extracts in the text show that for a generation the word had been in familiar use in this country.

4 Works (1866), vii. 503.

1 Familiar Letters of John Adams and his Wife Abigail Adams during the Revolution (1876), pp. 304, 305.

2 In T. Sedgwick, Jr.’s Memoir of the Life of William Livingston (1833), pp. 325, 326.

3 M’Fingal, iv. (1782), p. 74.

1 Voyages dans l’Amerique Septentrionale (1786), i, 170.

2 Works, vii. 27.

3 Writings (1895), iii. 249.

1 View of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution, p. xxxv note.

2 1 Henry VI., iii. i. 98.

3 These examples are taken from that storehouse of knowledge, the Oxford Dictionary. It may be noted that pater patriae was applied to Marius, to Cicero, to Trajan, and others. See Harper’s Latin Dictionary, under pater, D.

4 Early Records of Providence, viii. 17.

1 Massachusetts House Journals, p. 2.

2 History of Massachusetts, i. 151.

3 Massachusetts House Journals, p. 93. Everything depends on the point of view. After the outbreak of the Revolution, George the Third was depicted by the American patriots as a fiend incarnate who delighted in their massacre. Not in these colors did the same monarch appear in the eyes of a certain maid of honor to Queen Caroline. The contrast presented by the letters of John Adams and the diary of Fanny Burney, is amusing. It may be added that in 1787 Sir George Bromley dedicated his Collection of Original Royal Letters—

the father of his people,

the pattern of virtuous conduct,

and

the protector

liberal arts,

GEORGE THE THIRD,

King of Great Britain, &c.

4 Mention may be made of the employment of the word Father among the Indians. Apparently the English colonists borrowed this from the French of Canada. In 1684 the Governor of Canada having made complaints to Governor Dongan of New York of the conduct of the Senecas, the latter on August fifth of that year gave an answer to Governor Dongan in which they said:

When the Governor of Canada speaks to us of the Chain, he calls us Children, and saith, I am your Father, you must hold fast the Chain, and I will do the same. I will protect you as a Father doth his Children. Is this Protection, to speak thus with his Lips, and at the same time to knock us on the head, by assisting our Enemies with Ammunition?

He always says, I am your Father, and you are my Children, and yet he is angry with his Children for taking these goods. (In C. Colden’s History of the Five Indian Nations, 1727, p. 75.)

Referring to events that occurred in 1761, Alexander Henry said:

The Indians now gravely smoked their pipes, while I inwardly endured the tortures of suspense.—At length, the pipes being finished, as well as a long pause, by which they were succeeded, Minavavana, taking a few strings of wampum in his hand, began the following speech:

“Englishmen, it is to you that I speak, and I demand your attention!

“Englishmen, you know that the French king is our father. He promised to be such; and we, in return, promised to be his children. . . .

“Englishmen, we are informed, that our father, the king of France, is old and infirm; and that being fatigued, with making war upon your nation, he is fallen asleep. During his sleep, you have taken advantage of him, and possessed yourselves of Canada. But, his nap is almost at an end. I think I hear him already stirring, and inquiring for his children, the Indians;—and, when he does awake, what will become of you? He will destroy you utterly!” (Travels and Adventures in Canada, 1809, pp. 42, 43.)

Under date of 29 April, 1764, we read:

This Afternoon eight Huron Chiefs & two or three young Men came to speak to the Commandant. . . . Another Chief got up with a string of Wampum and said:

. . . Brother, when you first came here you told us you had conqner’d our Pather and sent him over the Great Lake, & that all that belong’d to him was yours. (In F. B. Hough’s Diary of the Siege of Detroit, 1860, p. 90.)

In 1766 William Smith wrote:

There is something remarkable in the appellation they gave to the English on this occasion, calling them Fathers instead of Brethren.

Lawaughqua, the Shawanese speaker, delivered himself in the following terms.—

“Fathers, for so we will call you henceforward; listen to what we are going to say to you.

“It gave us great pleasure yesterday to be called the children of the great King of England; and convinces us your intentions towards us are upright, as we know a Father will be tender of his children, and they are more ready to obey him than a Brother. Therefore we hope our Father will now take better care of his Children, than has heretofore been done. . . .

“Here is a belt with the figure of our Father the King of Great-Britain at one end, and the Chief of our nation at the other. It represents them holding the chain of friendship; and we hope neither side will slip their hands from it, so long as the Sun and Moon give light.” (Historical Account of the Expedition against the Ohio Indians under the Command of Henry Bouquet, pp. 34, 35.)

In a letter dated 19 November, 1779, George Rogers Clark said:

The Treaty was concluded to the satisfaction of both parties: they were much pleased at what they heard, and begged me to favour them the next day with my Comp^y at a Council of theirs. I accordingly Attended; greatest part of the time spent in Ceremony, they at last told me that they had been meditating on what I bad said the day before: that all the Nations would be rejoiced to have me always in their Country as their great Father and Protector. (Campaign in the Illinois, 1869, p. 79.)

On 21 August, 1805, Major Pike wrote:

All the chief men of the village came over to my encampment; where I spoke to them to the following purport:

“That their great father, the president of the United States, wishing to become more intimately acquainted with the situation, wants, &c. of the different nations of the red people, in our newly acquired territory of Louisiana, had ordered the general to send a number of his young warriors, in different directions, to take them by the hand, and make such enquiries as might afford the satisfaction required.” (Sources of the Mississippi, 1810, p. 5.)

Thus, as these extracts show, the expression was transferred from the French Governor of Canada to the King of France, from the King of France to the King of Great Britain, and from the King of Great Britain to the President of the United States.

1 Writings (Ford’s edition), xi. 101.

1 Washington’s Writings, xi. 123 note.

2 Thomas Mifflin.

3 Thomas M’Kean.

4 Richard Peters.

5 William Bradford, Jr.

6 George Read.

7 Charles Thomson.

8 Pennsylvania Packet, 21 April, 1789, p. 3/1.

1 Pennsylvania Packet, 24 April, 1789, p. 3/1.

2 Ibid. p. 3/1.

3 Ibid., 9 July, 1789, p. 2/3.

4 Ninth edition, p. 445.

1 Life of Washington, v. 763.

2 Ibid. v. 765.

3 Ibid. v. 765 note. Whether Marshall wrote from rough but inaccurate notes, or whether he trusted entirely to memory, it is impossible to determine; but certain it is that his version of the resolutions is inaccurate. In order that the difference may be made clear, Marshall’s account follows:

The resolutions, after a preamble stating the death of general Washington, were in the following terms.

“Resolved, that this house will wait on the president in condolence of this mournful event.

“Resolved, that the speaker’s chair be shrouded with black, and that the members and officers of the house wear black during the session.

“Resolved, that a committee, in conjunction with one from the senate, be appointed to consider on the most suitable manner of paying honour to the memory of the MAN, first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his fellow citizens.” (Ibid. v. 765, 766.)

1 Journal of the House of Representatives (1800), pp. 44, 45.

2 Funeral Oration, in Eulogies and Orations on the Life and Death of General George Washington, Boston (1800), p. 17.

3 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1863, vii. 163, 164. See also the Publications of this Society, i. 85–112.

1 Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts (1866), pp. 107, 108.

2 Tracts relating to the Currency of the Massachusetts Bay, edited by Andrew McF. Davis (1902), pp. 179, 180.

1 Appleton married Sarah Greenleaf 21 May, 1780, and had seven children. After his death, his widow married Joseph Haven of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and died 2 January, 1838. See W. S. Appleton, Genealogy of the Appleton Family (1874), p. 22; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxiv. 285, xxx. 446.

2 For a letter written 19 March, 1800, by Samuel Cary, relating to Dr. Pearson’s resignation, see the Publications of this Society, iii. 177–179.

3 The daughter married the Rev. Ephraim Abbot of Greenland, New Hampshire (Sarah L. Bailey, Historical Sketches of Andover, p. 537). Dr. Pearson married for his second wife, in 1785, Sarah Bromfield, daughter of Henry Bromfield.

4 For a notice of, and allusions to, the Rev. Dr. Pearson, see the Publications of this Society, v. 205–214 and notes, vi. 221.

1 A classmate, Thomas Farrington, of Amesbury.

2 The Boston Gazette, as is evident from a later reference to the publishers, Edes and Gill, p. 307, below.

3 All the College records preserve a discreet silence in regard to the reasons for President Samuel Locke’s resignation. At the meeting of the Corporation on 7 December, 1773:

Dr. Appleton communicated a Letter from President Locke dated Dec^r. 1^st 1773, signifying his resignation of the Office of President of this College. Voted, that the Rev^d Dr. Appleton, Professor Winthrop and Mr. Eliot be a Committee to receive and take into their Care the Books Papers and other Things in the President’s house, that belong to the College and to receive the Keys as soon as the late President has removed his Family & Effects.

The cause of President Locke’s resignation and of the considerate silence generally observed in regard to it, is disclosed in President Stiles’s Literary Diary, i. 426.

4 I am indebted to Mr. Albert Matthews and to the Rev. Dr. Edward Everett Hale for the suggestion that the letters “S. C.” stand for the Speaking Club of Harvard College, the predecessor of the Institute of 1770. The records of the Speaking Club, comprising Journal, Laws and Orders, signatures of members, and accounts, are still preserved, almost intact, in the College Library. The Club was founded in 1770, with Samuel Phillips, President; Joseph Pearse Palmer, Vice-President; and Israel Keith, Secretary—all of the Class of 1771.

Pearson and Appleton were received as members 18 June, 1771, at the close of their Sophomore year. Appleton was elected Secretary in June, 1772, and seems to have so remained while in College. As a resident graduate, he evidently continued to take a lively interest in the Society. The object of the Society was to provide an opportunity for practice in public speaking and declamation. Despite the secrecy which attended the Society at the time, and which would have concealed its very existence, it may be permissible at this late day to quote three orders which were adopted 16 November, 1773, in order to show the serious way in which the work of the Society was taken.

15^th. That a Committee consisting of 5 be chosen for the purpose of remarking upon the exhibitions in the Club; and that this Committee shall be chosen 3 Mouths at least before they begin to act in the Club; and, in order, to qualify themselves for their office, shall study the best treatises upon Elocution; and continue to execute their office 6 Mouths, unless the Club think fit to remove them for misbehaviour or insufficiency.

16^th. That some of the best treatises shall be bought at the expence of the Club, and read thro’ in course in the Club by the Members each in his turn (a suitable part being read at each meeting) and that these books be left with the Com^tee. to be lent to the Members of the Club, as the Committee think proper.

17^th. That the Committee be authorised to direct any Member of the Club to read the piece he has just spoke, or any other piece they think proper, that they may have an opportunity of pointing out his faults more particularly, and he of correcting them by repeated trials.

On 28 December, 1801, the name of the Society was changed to “Patriotic Association,” in order that the object of the Society’s endeavors, which apparently was its sole secret, might not be betrayed by a casual mention of its name. The entry in its record on this occasion is as follows:

Preamble of the revising Committee, recommending an alteration of the name of this Society.

As this Society has become venerable for its antiquity, and respectable for the virtue, merit, and dignity, of its members, from its first institution, it is with the greatest caution and diffidence that we propose any alteration, affecting its consti[tu]tion. But, duly considering the wise design and prudent measures of our predecessors, to preserve the object of this Society an inviolable secret, and being actuated by the same benevolent motives, to transmit it unimpaired, as a blessing to posterity, and perceiving the danger, which now threatens it from those who use every possible exertion to make it known, and that its present name, if inadvertently uttered, must betray its most important secret, a secret which deeply [affects] the interest of this Society, and the peace and happiness of its members, we propose, and recommend, that this Society hence forth he denominated the “Patriotic Association.”

For additional facts in regard to the history of the Speaking Club, and the other societies afterward incorporated with it, see the account of the Institute of 1770, by Francis Greenwood Peabody, in The Harvard Book (1875), ii. 341, 312, and an earlier brief account in the Harvard Magazine (1864), x. 236–239.

5 Caleb Gannett, of the Class of 1763, was Tutor from 1773 to 1780, Fellow from 1778 to 1780, and Steward from 1779 to 1818. He lived in the house that stood just west of the present site of the Harvard Law School. A water-color view of the College made about 1805, now in the College Library, was taken “from the Seat of Caleb Gannett Esq.” Cf. Publications of this Society, vii. 202.

1 Nahum Cutler, the first member of the class to die. His name is starred in the Triennial Catalogue of 1776, but the date of his death is unknown. He is frequently referred to in the following letters. See, in particular, the mention of his death on p. 316, below.

2 Probably Stephen Crosby of Cambridge, a classmate. He was born 8 August, 1752, according to the Records of the College Faculty, iii. 168.

1 After months of heated discussion and protest stirred up by the duty laid upon tea, the Dartmouth, bringing the first cargo of the “detested plant,” had arrived in Boston Harbor on 28 November, 1773. On the following day a public meeting was called in Faneuil Hall which later adjourned to the Old South Church. Votes were passed declaring that the tea must be returned in the same bottoms in which it came, and that no duty shall be paid thereon. Adjourned meetings on the afternoon of the same day and on the next day (30 November), held for the purpose of hearing what propositions the consignees had to make, exacted promises from the owner and master of the Dartmouth and from the owners of the other vessels expected that they would comply with the requirements of the people. A letter from the consignees, and in the afternoon a message from them brought by John Singleton Copley the artist, stated that it was out of their power to reship the teas, but that they were ready to store the teas under inspection until they were able to hear further from their constituents. This offer was voted to be not “in the least degree satisfactory to this body,” and the watch which had been appointed the previous day “for the security of Capt. Hall’s ship and cargo” was continued and instructed to take charge of other ships which might arrive later. Resolutions were passed denouncing as enemies to their country any persons who should import tea from Great Britain, and declaring that they would prevent its landing and sale and the payment of any duty thereon, and it was voted “That it is the determination of this body to carry their votes and resolutions into execution at the risque of their lives and property.” (“Proceedings of the town of Boston on the 20th and 30th Novemb^r 1773,” as printed in the Boston Gazette of 6 December, 1773, and in F. S. Drake’s Tea Leaves, 1884, pp. 320–331.) The guard appointed at this meeting was continued until December sixteenth, the day of the “tea-party.”

As the time passed, and the twenty days were nearly expired at the conclusion of which the vessel was liable to seizure for non-payment of duties, the Committee of Safety began to put pressure again upon Mr. Rotch, the owner of the vessel, to fulfil his promise to send her back, yet she could not be legally cleared until her whole cargo had been discharged. At first he refused, but on December fourteenth (the date of Appleton’s letter) a public meeting was again held called by handbills as follows:

Friends! Brethren! Countrymen! The perfidious act of your reckless enemies to render ineffectual the late resolves of the body of the people, demands your assembling at the Old South Meeting House, precisely at ten o’clock this day, at which time the bells will ring (Drake’s Tea Leaves, p. lvii).

Mr. Rotch being again present, was inquired of as before, and a motion was made and seconded that Mr. Rotch be enjoined forthwith to repair to the collectors and demand a clearance for his ship, and ten gentlemen were appointed to accompany him as witnesses of the demand.

Mr. Rotch and the Committee proceeded to the Collector’s (Mr. Harrison), but were put off till the next day with an evasive answer. On Thursday morning (16 December) the people met again, and having learned that Mr. Rotch had been refused a clearance by the Collector they required him to enter a protest against the Custom House and demand a pass for his ship from the Governor who was then at his country house in Milton, and adjourned till the afternoon. Meeting again at three (almost 2000 men were present) they waited impatiently till about six o’clock when Mr. Rotch returned with word that the Governor could not be persuaded to give a pass till the ship were cleared by the Custom House. The result was not unexpected; the meeting immediately dissolved, and the same evening the “tea-party” took place on board the three vessels, two ships and a brig, which were lying at Griffin’s Wharf. See the account in the Boston Gazette of 27 December, 1773, and in Drake’s Tea Leaves, pp. 334–336, from which part of the above is quoted. Gov. Hutchinson’s account of the same proceedings is given in his History of Massachusetts, iii. 429–438.

On 14 December, the same day on which Appleton was writing to Pearson, Thomas Hutchinson, Jr., one of the consignees, wrote to his brother from Castle William (whither most of the consignees had retired on 29 November and where they stayed some six weeks):

I hear there is a meeting of the mobility today but don’t know the result. I hardly think they will attempt sending the tea back, but am more sure it will not go many leagues (Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson, 1884, i. 96).

Several papers relating to the difficulties in which the consignees of the tea found themselves, and accounts of the riotous proceedings resulting therefrom, were communicated to this Society at its February meeting, 1903. See pp. 78–102, above.

1 Bachelors of Arts, continuing their residence at the College, were called Sir until they had taken the Master’s degree. The use of the term goes back to the very earliest days of the College, when its equivalent Dominus is also found in the records. Mr. Albert Matthews has noted instances of the use of Sir in connection with Harvard College from 1649 to 1790, and calls my attention to the following passage by the Rev. Andrew Clark:

So soon as the candidate had been admitted to the degree he was by courtesy styled ‘Bachelor of Arts,’ and his name appeared in the University and College books with the prefix for that degree (in Latin ‘Dominus’ contracted ‘D^s.’; in English ‘Sir,’ contracted ‘S^r.’). (Register of the University of Oxford, 1887, ii. i. 50.)

See also B. H. Hall’s College Words and Customs (1851), p. 279; Sibley, Harvard Graduates, i. 17 note, ii. 2 note; Sewall’s Diary, i. 51; R. N. Toppan, in Publications of this Society, iii. 411.

1 Samuel Phillips, who a few years later was chiefly instrumental in the foundation of Phillips Academy, graduated from Harvard College in 1771. He married in 1773 Miss Phoebe Foxcroft, youngest daughter of the Hon. Francis Foxcroft of Cambridge, whom he had known while in College. Pearson and Appleton were doubtless well acquainted with her also, for all had been parishioners of Appleton’s grandfather, the Rev. Dr. Nathaniel Appleton. Phillips’s grandfather was the Rev. Samuel Phillips of Andover, pastor of the church there for almost sixty years, who had died 5 June, 1771, at the age of 81.

2 This was the Andover Grammar School, first established in 1700. Of forty-five masters of this school before 1792, all but five were Harvard graduates. See Sarah L. Bailey’s Historical Sketches of Andover (1880), p. 522.

3 Theodore Parsons, son of the Rev. Moses Parsons of Byfield, and younger brother of Theophilus Parsons, Chief-Justice of Massachusetts. Prof. Theophilus Parsons says of him:

From my earliest childhood I was accustomed to hear my uncle Theodore spoken of as having been the star of the family. I am quite sure that as much was expected from him as from my father, if not more. He studied medicine [in Newburyport], and was with the army in Rhode Island in 1778, and wrote many letters home. Immediately afterward he went to sea as surgeon of a privateer, and after one letter was never heard of more. (Memoir of Theophilus Parsons, by his Son, p. 26.)

1 The account of this Council meeting in the Boston Gazette of 27 December, 1773, is as follows:

At a Council held at the House of the hon’ble William Brattle, Esq; in Cambridge on Tuesday the 21st day of December 1773.

PRESENT.

His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Esq; Governor.

Samuel Danforth, Willm. Brattle, James Pitts,

Isaac Royal, Esq’rs James Bowdoin John Winthrop,

John Ervino, James Russell (Esq’rs.

His Excellency acquainted the Council that the reason he had summoned them to meet at this time was that he might have their advice relating to the high handed Riot on the evening of the 16th Instant between the hours of six and nine o’Clock, committed by persons disguised and unknown, on board three Vessels lately arrived from Loudon theu lying at a Wharfe in the Southerly part of the Town of Boston known by the name of Griffin’s Wharfe,—After long debate it was—

Advised, That the Attorney General be directed to make diligent inquiry into the offence aforesaid in order to discover the offenders, and that he lay his discoveries before the Grand Jury for his Majesty’s Superior Court of Judicature &c. for the County of Suffolk, at their next Term, in order for prosecution (p. 3/1).

2 The Attorney General at that time was Jonathan Sewall (Whitmore’s Massachusetts Civil List, p. 124).

1 The example of the Boston “tea-party” was imitated on a smaller scale on several occasions, and the accounts of such proceedings are found in the papers of the day and were evidently relished by their readers. The Boston Gazette of 3 January, 1774, notices two such cases:

Whereas it was reported that one Withington, of Dorchester, had taken up and partly disposed of a Chest of the East-India Company’s Tea: a Number of the Cape or Narragansett-Indians, went to the Houses of Capt. Ebenezer Withington, and his Brother Philip Withington, (both living upon the lower Road from Boston to Milton) last Friday Evening [31 December], and with their consent thoroughly searched their Houses, without offering the least offence to any one. But finding no Tea they proceeded to the House of old Ebenezer Withington, at a place called Sodom, below Dorchester Meeting-House, where they found part of a half chest which had floated, and was cast up on Dorchester point. This they seized and brought to Boston Common where they committed it to the flames (p. 3/1).

The Vessel which bro’t up the Goods (last Saturday) saved out of Capt. Boring’s Brig, was the same Evening thoroughly searched by Indians, and no TEA found on board. Such a good Look-out being kept, What occasion is there for Tide-Waiter’s, Pimps, or Informers? (p. 3/2).

Sodom was a name applied to the low lands east of Meeting House Hill bounded, practically, by East, Freeport, High, and Church Streets.

2 Vacations at this time (under vote of 6 June, 1766) were four each year, one of four weeks following Commencement, one of two weeks from the third Wednesday in October, one of five weeks from the first Wednesday in January, and one of two weeks from the second Wednesday in April. The vacations in spring and autumn were provided expressly that the students might visit their homes and get their summer or winter clothing in order.

3 This is explained by the Faculty vote of 3 January, 1774: “Voted that Sir Parsons have the whole care of the Colleges this Vacation.” The term was evidently in common use, and was accepted by Faculty as well as students, for it occurs at least once in the Faculty Records—as the marginal note against a similar vote, 14 August, 1776.

1 The Boston Gazette (Supplement) of 27 December, 1773, reports that on 25 December, the dealers in Charlestown resolved and agreed—

That we will not after this Day, directly or indirectly, by Ourselves or any for or under Us, buy or sell or suffer to be used in our Families, any TEA, until the Duty is repealed.

And whereas some of us may have more Tea on hand than others, in order that the Loss may fall equally, Voted, That the same be bought at the joint Expence of this Company and destroyed (p. 1/3).

The Boston Gazette of 3 January, 1774, gives the further proceedings of the people of Charlestown in respect to the use of tea:

At a legal and very full Meeting, of the Freeholders, and other Inhabitants of the Town of Charlestown, December 28, 1773.

The following Votes were Unanimously passed.

1. Considering the Advantages that will result to this Community (in every Point of Light) from the Disuse of India Tea; We will not by ourselves, or any from or under us, buy or sell, or suffer to be us’d in ou[r] Families, any such Tea, till the British Act of Parliament, imposing a Duty on the same shall be repealed.

2. That a Committee be chosen to collect from all the Inhabitants of this Town, all the Tea. they may have by them; and that such Persons, as shall deliver up the same to said Committee, be paid by the Town the Price it cost them. And that the Tea so collected, be destroyed by Fire, on Friday next at Noon-Day, in the Market Place.

3. That Messrs. Isaiah Edes, Samuel Conant, Caleb Call, Benjamin Hnrd, Samuel Wait, Battry Powars and David Wood, jun. be the committee for the Purposes above-mentioned.

4. That the above named Persons, he a Committee of Inspection, to see that all the aforegoing Votes be fully complved with.

5. That if any of the Inhabitants of this Town, shall do any thing to counteract, or render ineffectual the foregoing Votes, they are not only inimical to the Liberty of America in general, but also show a daring Disrespect to this Town in particular.

6. That the Committee of Correspondence, for this Town confer with the Committee of Correspondence for the Town of Boston, and desire their Influence, that similar Measures may be taken in their Town.

7. That the above Proceedings of this Town, be published in the News-Papers.

A Copy,

Attest. Seth Sweetser, Town Clerk (p. 3/1).

The same issue of the same paper reports the carrying out of the vote to destroy the tea on hand:

The Inhabitants of Charlestown, agreeable to a unanimous Vote of said Town the Tuesday proceeding, on Friday last voluntarily bro’t all their TEA into the public Market Square, where it was committed to the Flames at high Noon-Day.—An Example well worthy Imitation!! (p. 3/2).

1 Sheafe, Clarke, Rogers, Emerson, and Barnard were members of the Senior Class (1774); Macclintock and Osgood graduated in 1775; Penhallow, King, and Evans graduated in 1777; Poor is more likely to have been Daniel Noyes Poor of West Newbury, of the Class of 1777, rather than John Poor of 1775, who came from New Hampshire. Joseph Evans’s home was in Dover. Thomas Fenton was a Freshman, but left College before completing the course. The Faculty Records (iii. 243) state that he was born 17 January, 1757, and give Charlestown as his residence. He was doubtless the son of Capt. John Fenton of Boston, who, with wife Elizabeth, lived in Charlestown, where the father, sometimes described as of Boston, was taxed, 1770–1773, as a landed proprietor (Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 343). John Fentou and Elizabeth Temple published their marriage intentions 29 September, 1755 (Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxx. 16). Elizabeth Temple was doubtless the daughter of Robert Temple of Ten Hills by his wife Mehitable, daughter of John Nelson, and was baptized at Christ Church, Boston, 9 April, 1727. Capt. John Fenton was of the British Army and died in Dublin, Ireland, in March, 1785, leaving issue. See T. Prime, Some Account of the Temple Family, Second edition (1894), p. 34 and note. For this information about Fenton, I am indebted to Mr. Henry H. Edes.

1 Despite what Appleton says of the use of tea in the Hall (in Harvard Hall), its use was revived to some extent and it came to be a source of trouble, as is shown by the following extract from the Faculty Records of 1 March, 1775:

A Disorder having arisen this morning in the Hall at breakfast, between some of the Students, respecting the drinking of India Tea; & some of the Utensils for breakfasting having been broke: & the Parties having been heard—

Resolved 1. We disapprove of the conduct on both sides as imprudent.

Resolved 2. That the regulation of the Hall belongs exclusively to the Government of the College, & consequently that no Students have a right to interpose with regard thereunto, & that those Students who have thus interposed have conducted disorderly in this respect, & ought to make restitution for the Property of their fellow Students, by such interposition destroyed.

Resolved 3. Since the carrying India Teas into the Hall is found to be a Source of uneasiness & grief to many of the Students, and as the use of it is disagreable to the People of this Country in general; & as those who have carried Tea into the Hall declare that the drinking of it in the Hall is a matter of trifling consequence with them; that they be advised not to carry it in for the future, & in this way that they, as well as the other Students in all ways, discover a disposition to promote harmony, mutual affection, & confidence, so well becoming Members of the same Society: that so peace & happiness may be preserved within the Walls of the College whatever convulsions may unhappily distract the State abroad (iv. 4, 5).

A similar state of feeling against the use of tea at Princeton is shown by the following paragraph in the Boston Gazette of 14 February, 1774:

By a Gentleman just arrived from Princetown, in New-Jersey, we are informed, that the Students of Nassau College, being determined to contribute their Assistance towards discountenancing the Use of the detested Tea, collected all that was in the College, and voluntarily made a burnt Sacrifice of the same. They also burnt the Effigies of Governor H—n, amidst the repeated Acclamations of a large Crowd of Spectators (p. 3/2).

1 In the Boston Gazette of 20 December appeared a “Notification,” dated 18 December, 1773, as follows:

At a Meeting of some of the principal Venders of TEAS in Boston, on Friday Evening the 17th Instant, for consulting and determining on suitable Measures to be adopted, and to cooperate with a Number of respectable Inhabitants of this Province, express’d by a Vote of their late Assembly to suppress the Use of that detested Article; the more fully to execute this Purpose, it was agreed that a general and full Meeting should be convened on Tuesday the 21st Instant, 5 o’Clock, P. M. at the Royal Exchange Tavern in King-Street; where it is desired and expected that all the Dealers in, and Venders of Teas will punctually attend.

N. B. It is earnestly desired that those concern’d would not fail of giving attendance at the Time fix’d (p. 3/2).

The resolutions passed at the meeting are given in the Boston Gazette (Supplement) of 27 December, 1773:

At a Meeting of a large Number of the principal Dealers in Teas in Boston, the 20th, and continued by Adjournment to the 23d of December, 1773.

[A preamble rehearses the dangerous character of the ministerial movement in favor of the East India Company, and laments the interruption of that reciprocal affection which had formerly subsisted between the parent state and the Colonies, and continues:]

Apprehending it may be in some degree in our power, to facilitate this wish’d for State, by our late Connections, as sellers of the article thus burthen’d, and the consequent influence we must have in suppressing its use: This consideration, hath begot an expectation in many of our fellow-citizens, and countrymen, that we do unite our endeavors with theirs in exterminating this destructive herb from the province—

It must be evident to our Friends and Countrymen, in the Seaports and other Towns, that a congruity of action at this important crisis, is as necessary, as a unanimity of sentiment; and that this instance of disinterestedness we are about to exhibit, by a voluntary surrender of an advantageous article of commerce, when oppos’d to the public good, will stimulate them to adopt similar measures to ours; in this confidence, supported by a recollection of their inflexible virtue, frequently, and recently manifested,—We chearfully enter into the following Resolves;

1. That from and after the 20th January 1774, we will totally suspend the sale of all Teas, until the sense, and determination of the Inhabitants of the Sea-Ports and other Towns, can be known, with respect to its total expulsion; or until a repeal of the Revenue Act may take place.

2. That we will not in the mean time, purchase on our own account, or receive on commissions, or otherwise, any Tea whatever.

3. That the Tea we have by us unsold, which cost us 5s shall be sold at no more than 4d. advance, until the time limitted for suspending the sale.

4. That a Committee be appointed to apply to all the Dealers in Tea, in this Town, to obtain their compliance to these Resolves, and make report of the same, with the Names of those who decline, (if any there may be) at our next meeting.

5. That if from the change of circumstances, or the intervention of other causes, any Ten of our number shall judge it necessary to call a Meeting, to make any alterations, or to adopt other measures to affect the aforesaid purpose, they have our Consent to do it.

N. B. It is desired that all persons concern’d would consider the importance of a just determination, and be prepared to give answer to the Committee, who will apply to them in a few days.

The result of the labors of the committee appointed in accordance with the fourth resolution was reported as follows in the Boston Gazette of 24 January, 1774:

Boston, January 20.—The Committee appointed at the late Meeting of the Dealers in Tea in this Town, joined by a Gentleman from the Committee of Correspondence in this Place, to repair to the Persons concerned in the Sale of that Article to obtain their Assent, and Subscription to the Resolves passed at said Meeting; have in Conformity, applied to the principal Dealers, and find the Numbers to stand thus,

79 against the Sale and Use of all Tea,

9 for the Sale and Use only of such as may not be subjected to Duty.

This being the Day fixed when the Sale of Tea will cease, it is desired and expected that such who have agreed to, as well as those who have subscribed the Resolves offered to them by the Committee, will strictly adhere thereto; and it is wished that the Few who have not, will on a Reconsideration, perceive the Utility and Necessity of the Measure, and immediately join their disinterested Fellow-Citizens in the same Resolutions (p. 3/1).

1 On 7 December, 1773, the citizens of Plymouth passed resolutions supporting and approving the action of the Boston patriots. These were published in Draper’s Gazette of 23 December. On 13 December a protest against the resolutions and reflecting severely on the course taken by the Old South meeting was signed by 39 persons (see Boston Gazette, Supplement, of 27 December). Several of the signers afterward withdrew their adherence to the protest. Barnabas Hedge did so in a card published in the Boston Gazette of 27 December; thirteen others “who were inadvertently seduced into an error by artifice and misrepresentation” recanted in the Boston Gazette of 24 January, 1774.

The papers of December, 1773, and January, 1774, are full of accounts of meetings held in the surrounding towns to uphold the act of 16 December and the agreement to give up the use of India tea. The action of the other Colonies in regard to the same matter was also set forth at length, and accounts of the burning of tea are frequent. For example, in the Boston Gazette of 24 January, 1774, we read:

Last Thursday a large Quantity of Bohea Tea given up by some Gentlemen was committed to the Flames in King-Street (p. 3/1).

1 On 31 January, 1774, the Hon. John Winthrop was chosen President in place of Samuel Locke. On 7 February, “Dr. Winthrop having declined accepting the Office of President,” the Rev. Dr. Cooper of Boston was chosen. Dr. Cooper also declined, and the Corporation on 15 July chose Dr. Eliot, but he also, a Fellow of the Corporation and present at the meeting at which he was elected, declined immediately. On 18 July the Rev. Dr. Samuel Langdon of Portsmouth was chosen and accepted the office.

2 The following is the title-page of Dr. Cooper’s Discourse;

DISCOURSE

on the

MAN of SIN;

delivered in the

Chapel of HARVARD COLLEGE,

CAMBRIDGE, New-England,

September 1, 1773:

At the LECTURE, Founded

By the Honorable

PAUL DUDLEY, esq.

By SAMUEL COOPER, D. D.

Pastor of the Church in Brattle-Street, Boston.

BOSTON: Printed and Sold at Greenleaf’s

Printing-Office, in Hanover-Street.

M,DCC,LXXIV.

1 See the Publications of this Society, v. 71–74 and notes.

2 See p. 324 note, below.

1 Appleton took up the study of medicine in Salem with Dr. Edward Augustus Holyoke (born 1 August, 1728, H. C. 1746), son of President Holyoke by his second wife Margaret Appleton, a sister of the Rev. Nathaniel Appleton for so many years minister in Cambridge. Dr. Holyoke was therefore the cousin of Appleton’s father. He had settled in Salem in 1749 and continued to practise there until his death in 1829. He was the first President of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and was President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Harvard conferred on him the honorary degree of M.D. in 1783 (the first instance of the degree’s being so conferred by the College), and that of LL.D. in 1815. For sketches of Dr. Holyoke, see Massachusetts Medical Society, Medical Dissertations (1829), iv. 186–260; Essex Institute Historical Collections, iii. 59, 60, iv. 273, 274.

Edward Barnard and Francis Borland, who graduated in the year after Appleton (1774), entered upon the study of medicine under Dr. Holyoke at the same time.

Appleton seems to have been living in Salem with another cousin of his father’s, a sister of Dr. Holyoke, Margaret (Holyoke) Mascarene, the wife of John Mascarene, comptroller of the customs in 1760. William Pynchon’s Diary shows continual references to Dr. Holyoke and Mrs. Mascarene. John Mascarene died 24 September, 1779. See Heraldic Journal, ii. 125, 126; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, ix. 239–247, x. 143–148; Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xxviii. 294.

1 This was of course Joseph Warren, whose Oration was delivered on March sixth because the fifth fell on Sunday.

1 At this time the College was still in exile from Cambridge. Early in May, 1775, the library and philosophical apparatus had been removed to Andover by direction of the Provincial Congress. In September the Overseers directed that the College be removed to Concord and a part, if not the whole, of the library and apparatus was installed in the same place in a private house. They did not return to Cambridge until 21 June, 1776. During this period Pearson naturally returned to his friends the Phillipses in Andover, and seems to have continued his theological studies.

2 The Act passed 1 May, 1776 (Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 479–484), required all persons to subscribe to a declaration that they sympathized with the Colonies and would not assist in any way the British forces, on pain of disarming, and being disqualified from holding office, voting, etc.

3 Priscilla, daughter of President Holyoke by his second wife Margaret Appleton, born 29 July, 1739, later became Pearson’s wife. Does this passage-imply that Pearson and Appleton had both become engaged about this time? President Holyoke married for his third wife Mary (Whipple) Epes, the widow of Major Symonds Epes. See Hammatt Papers (1854), p. 94. Mrs. Holyoke lived to an extreme age and died at Cambridge 20 March, 1790. The following notice appeared in the Massachusetts Centinel of Wednesday, 24 March, 1790:

DIED]—At Cambridge, last Saturday evening, Madam Mary Holyoke, widow of the late Rev. President Holyoke, aged 91. Her funeral procession will move from the house of Mrs. Elizabeth Kneeland, this afternoon, precisely at 4 o’clock (p. 11/2).

1 This was no doubt Mrs. Mascarene’s sister Elizabeth Holyoke, a daughter of President Edward and Margaret (Appleton) Holyoke. She was born 25 April, 1732, married William Kneeland of Boston, and died 15 September, 1821.

2 John Low and Joshua Plummer were both classmates of Appleton and Pearson.

3 It is not easy to identify this place. Township Number Five was granted by Massachusetts 16 January, 1735–36, to men from Hopkinton, and was called New Hopkinton until its incorporation on 10 January, 1765, as Hopkinton, New Hampshire (New Hampshire Town Papers, xii. 255–272). There was also in Berkshire and Hampshire Counties, Massachusetts, a large plantation called Number Five (Massachusetts Province Laws, v. 911, 1072). But it is difficult to see why any one should have gone to such remote places for inoculation.

4 Arnold’s unsuccessful expedition through the wilderness to attack Quebec, after a useless siege bad finally retreated in May.

5 Phillips and Pearson at this time had been occupied in learning how to make gunpowder, of which the Continental army during the winter of 1775–1776 had been in desperate need. Samuel Phillips, then a member of the Provincial Congress sitting at Watertown, proposed to the House to erect a powder-mill at Andover with their concurrence, and the House accepted his proposition. (See Massachusetts House Journals, 2, 3, 6, 8 January, 1776, pp. 105, 107, 122, 124.) Phillips obtained the ready co-operation of his townsmen in cutting a canal and building the mill (Taylor’s Memoir of Samuel Phillips, 1856, p. 70), and Pearson threw himself with ardor into the necessary chemical experiments. William E. Park writes:

The whole difficulty lay in procuring saltpetre. He ransacked libraries for treatises on chemistry, corresponded with the few persons in our country who were then acquainted with the subject, compared the different theories of the day, constructed his own formula, and a manuscript still existing records the minute details of the thirteen successive experiments which he made. The last trial was successful, and Pearson declared in his old age that lie never felt such a moment of enthusiastic joy as when, after twenty-four hours of unintermitted labor and watching, the crystals appeared at last. Those crystals meant that he could get gunpowder, if that could be procured the British could be beaten, if they could be beaten, America would be free. For several days the problem of American liberty was working out, not only on the floor of the Continental Congress, but in the pans and kettles of the indefatigable Pearson. There is still extant a letter from an aged lady pupil of Dr. Pearson, stating that she well remembered going to school as usual one morning almost ninety years before, seeing the desks covered with pans of the bleaching saltpetre, and hearing to her childish joy, from the preoccupied teacher, that there would be no school that day. The cellars and barnyards of the neighbors were dug up for the sake of the nitrous earth, by the shovels of the energetic Pearson and his patriotic chemists, the experiment was completely successful, nor did our army ever afterwards suffer from the lack of ammunition (Earlier Annals of Phillips Academy, 1882, pp. 22, 23).

The book referred to in the text is Andrew Reid’s translation of Macquer’s Elements of the Theory and Practice of Chymistry, London, 1758. A second edition was published in 1764. Macquer’s Chymistry, published shortly before Lavoisier’s discoveries revolutionized the chemical theory of combustion, is based on the Phlogiston theory. Of this supposed elemental substance, the author says:

It differs from elementary Fire in the following particulars. 1. When united to a body, it communicates to it neither heat nor light. 2. It produces no change in its state, whether of solidity or fluidity; so that a solid body does not become fluid by the accession of the Phlogiston, and vice versa; the solid bodies to which it is joined being only rendered thereby more apt to be fused by the force of the culinary fire. 3. We can convey it from the body with which it is joined, into another body, so that it shall enter into the composition thereof, and remain fixed in it.

1 The vote referred to was apparently the Resolve passed 10 May:

Resolved, that it be recommended to the respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs hath been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general (Journals of Congress, 1823, i. 339).

This vote was published 15 May with a preamble which began:

Whereas . . . it appears absolutely irreconcileable to reason and good conscience, for the people of these colonies now to take the oaths and affirmations necessary for the support of any government under the crown of Great-Britain, and it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed, etc. (Ibid. i. 345).

2 See Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xviii, 236–238.

1 The degree of Master of Arts was conferred in due course three years after graduation upon payment of a fee. This custom continued down to 1872, the Class of 1869 being the last class whose members enjoyed the right to claim an A.M. on these easy conditions. Down to 1774 the law (Law 5 of Chapter X.) had been in regard to degrees:

Each Candidate for his first or second Degree, shall pay to the President twenty Shillings; and to the Steward five Shillings & four pence for the Catalogues, & eighteen Shillings for the public Dinner & other Commencement Charges. (From an official manuscript copy of the Laws in the Harvard College Library made in 1766 [?].)

At a Meeting of the Corporation, 31 May, 1774, it was—

Voted that Law 5. of Chap X. be amended as follows, viz.

Each Candidate for his first or second degree, shall pay to the President twenty Shillings, & to the Steward eighteen Shillings for the public Dinner & other commencement charges. And every Candidate for his first degree shall also pay to the Steward five shillings & four pence for printing the Catalogues. (College Book No. 7, p. 272.)

1 The Triennial Catalogue of 1776 was the first to be printed in pamphlet form. Previous catalogues, extending back to 1643, had been issued as broadsides. See the Publications of this Society, v. 334, 335.

The precise date of Cutler’s death is not known, and is not recorded in the Quinquennial Catalogue. The latest reference to him in these letters is under date of 22 November, 1774 (p. 308, above).

2 See Force, American Archives, Fifth Series, i. 987, 988.

3 On 16 June, 1776, the Rev. Manasseh Cutler “Preached to the people at Sandy Bay [Gloucester], who were disconsolate on account of the fourteen men lately taken from them in a man-of-war. They were in the Yankee hero” (Life, Journals and Correspondence, i. 55). See also Force, American Archives, Fifth Series, i. 380, 727. The Yankee Hero was owned by Jackson, Tracey, and Tracey of Newburyport, of which firm Nathaniel Tracey (H. C. 1769) was a member. For a notice of him, see Mrs. E. Vale Smith’s History of Newburyport, pp. 106, 107, 348, 349.

1 The elder brother of Lord Howe and of Sir William Howe was George Augustus, Viscount Howe, who was killed near Ticonderoga 6 July, 1758. See the Publications of this Society, vii. 250 note.

2 See Journals of Congress (1823), i. 375, 403–406; Force, American

1 See Franklin’s Works (Bigelow’s edition), vi. 21–33; Force, American Archives, Fifth Series, i. 482, 483, 727, 785, 980, 981, ii. 234, 274, 324.

1 John Wadsworth (H. C. 1762) was Tutor from 1770 till his death in 1777. In 1774 he was chosen a Fellow of the Corporation, of which body he was therefore a member at this time when he was re-elected Tutor. The other members of the Corporation were Samuel Langdon, President, John Hancock, Treasurer, and Nathaniel Appleton, John Winthrop, Andrew Eliot, and Samuel Cooper. John Hancock’s “Croney Jimmy W—” was doubtless James Winthrop (H. C. 1769), who was Librarian from 1772 to 1787.

1 An explosion at Judge Phillips’s powdermill in June, 1778, blew up the building and killed three men.

1 This was Timothy Pickering, father of the statesman of the same name.

2 President Langdon married Elizabeth Brown, daughter of the Rev. Richard Brown (H. C. 1607) of Reading, Massachusetts (New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxx. 33, 34).

1 Mrs. Pearson died six days later, 29 March, 1782.

2 John Clarke, at this time Junior Pastor of the First Church in Boston, being the Rev. Dr. Chauncy’s colleague. He was of the Class of 1774, and has already been alluded to as a grandson of Deacon Pickering (pp. 321, 322) and as the minister who later delivered the funeral discourse on Appleton himself (p. 290).

3 The “Boston Magazine, Printed and Published by Norman & White, at their Office in Marshall’s Lane, near the Boston Stone.” The first number was that for November, 1783. The January, 1784, number contains letters from “Fenelon” and “Susanna” approving the inclusion of enigmas and in opposition to an earlier letter by “Observator,” who had objected to them. “Fenelon” declares that “the enigmatical lists are mostly written by the Ladies, and they are not only a necessary relaxation from the fatigue of attending to domestic concerns, but an amusement for leisure hours” (i. 47, 98, 99).

1 The character of Osgood and Farrington’s shop (pp. 295, 298), its situation, and the situation of their “distill-house,” are uncertain. A deed in the Middlesex Registry (lxxvii. 32) shows that a piece of land passed on 9 August, 1774, from Elizabeth Clark to Peter Osgood and Thomas Farrington. The boundaries are not given in such fashion as to determine precisely the situation of the lot; but in 1751 Elizabeth Clark inherited from her father, James Clark, an “old homestead and an acre of land” which is described as “Bounded on townsway, north, Daniel Barrett, Andrew Boardman, and Francis Foxcroft, west; Francis Foxcroft, south; and rangeway east” (Middlesex Probate Files, no. 3042). This must have been on the southwest corner of what are now Holyoke and South Streets, and it was doubtless part of this land that passed to Osgood and Farrington in 1774.

Thomas Farrington served with honor in the Revolution, and was Selectman of Cambridge in 1778–79, Assessor in 1779, Town Clerk in 1780–82, and Representative in 1780 (Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 429, 461, 465, 467, 468). Later he moved to Boston, and at his death, 19 January, 1807, was living in Green Street (Columbian Centinel, 21 January, 1807). From a notice of Dr. Bedford Webster, a Boston druggist, in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society (i. 490), it appears that Dr. Webster sold out his business to Thomas Farrington soon after April, 1804, and this suggests that Farrington’s business in Cambridge had likewise been that of a druggist.

For the reference to James Clark’s will and to Osgood and Farrington’s deed, and for the identification of the lots of land concerned, I am indebted to the kindness of Mrs. S. M. Gozzaldi, of Cambridge.

1 Benjamin Faneuil, the elder, married Anne Bureau in 1699, settled at New Rochelle, New York, and had eleven children, of whom the following survived: (i) Peter, died unmarried in 1743; (ii) Benjamin, married Mary Cutler, daughter of the Rev. Timothy Cutler (H. C. 1701), and died in 1783; (iii) Anne, who married the Rev. Addington Davenport; (iv) Mary, who married Gillam Phillips; (v) Susanna, who married James Boutineau; (vi) Mary Anne, who married John Jones. See these Publications, i. 307, 368.

Benjamin and Mary (Cutler) Faneuil had three children: (i) Benjamin; (ii) Peter; (iii) Mary, who married George Bethune (see p. 79 note, above).

2 In the manuscript, a footnote has the word “Irish.”

1 Suffolk Court Files, no. 20241.

2 Reason of Church Government urged against Prelacy, book i. chap. vii.

1 Neal, History of the Puritans, i. 126, 488

2 Ibid. i. 149, 204, 242

3 Dexter, Story of the Pilgrims, p. 145

4 Neal. History of the Puritans, i. 122.

1 Reason of Church Government urged against Prelacy, book i. chap. vi.

2 History of Congregationalism, iii. 359

3 Neal, History of the Puritans, i. 489.

4 Young, Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers, p. 21.

1 History of New England (1853), ii. 165.

1 Mather, Magnalia (1853), ii. 213. See the original Cambridge Platform in the American Antiquarian Society’s Library.

1 Way of Congregational Churches Cleared (1647), i. 10, 11.

2 History of New England, ii. 91.

3 Young, Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers, p. 397.

1 History of Massachusetts (1765), i. 419.

2 Congregationalism, as contained in the Scriptures, explained by the Cambridge Platform, p. 5.

1 See Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, ii. 262; Pope, Pioneers of Massachusetts, p. 189; Young, Chronicles of Massachusetts, p. 553 note; Sibley, Harvard Graduates, i. 208, 209; Glover Memorials, p. 564; J. H. Trumbull, in T. Lechford’s Plain Dealing (1807), p. 123 note; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxiii. 135–137, xxx. 26–28, xlvii. 499–504; Waters, Genealogical Gleanings in England, i. 33; Paige, History of Cambridge, pp. 559, 560; Publications of this Society, iii. 419 note.

2 Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 28 April, 1875, pp. 5–10. My attention was called to this article by Mr. Albert Matthews.

1 So far the document is in the hand of Darcey or his agent. What follows, down to Land’s signature, is in a different hand, doubtless that of Land’s clerk.

1 This is, of course, Land’s own signature.

2 Vol. cclxxviii., no. 45. The endorsement is in the same hand that wrote the second part of the document. The error of “Jesse” for “Josse” was noted in a recent visit to the Public Record Office by Mr. Albert Matthews, to whom I am indebted for a copy of the original document.

3 Historical Collections (1680), ii. 193–196.

4 Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ et Hiberniae (1737), iv. 483, 484.

5 History of Crime in England, ii. 143.

6 Cyprianus Anglicus: or, the History of the Life and Death of William Laud. Editions were printed in 1668 and 1671.

1 The title-pages are alike for James’s and Charles’s Declarations, except that James’s reads:

Printed by Bonham Norton, and Iohn Bill, Deputie Printers for the Kings most Excellent Maiestie. M. DC. XVIII.

The back of the title in each edition is occupied by the royal arms. The Boston Public Library has a good copy of both the Declarations.

1 This introduction by Charles is divided from the reprint of his father’s Declaration by an ornamental engraving, heading the next page, representing between two thistles, an altar, before the centre of which, kneeling towards the left, is a crowned figure of a man holding a harp. The reprint of the Declaration of 1618 following differs from the original excepting occasionally in spelling and capitalization, only in the two words hereafter noticed, and of course the omission of “God save the King” at the end.

2 In James’s Declaration this word is “infested.”

1 In James’s Declaration this word is “Countrey.”

1 The following order written by Laud and signed by the King is still among the English State papers: “Charles R. Canterbury, See that our declaration concerning recreations on the Lord’s Day, after evening prayer, be printed” (H. Gee and W. J. Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History, p. 522).

2 History of England, iii. 251.

1 D. Wilkins, Concilia, iv, 484.

2 Thomas Morton is generally highly spoken of. His daughter Ann was married to Theophilus Eaton, and one of her brothers-in-law, the Rev. Nathaniel Eaton, a pupil of the famous William Ames and first master of the College in our Cambridge, published in 1633 a work eutitled: Inquisitio in variantes Theologorum quorundarn Sententias de Sabbato et Die Dominico, quam . . . proponit, sub prresidio D.D. Guilielmi Amesii, Nathanael Eatonius, Anglus, ad diem Martij hora prima pomeridiana loco consueto. Th ere is in the Harvard College Library a copy of a second edition of this, published in 1638 at Amsterdam under the title of Guilielmi Amesi Sententia de Origine Sabbati & Die Dominico, Quam ex ipsius mente Coucepit scripto & publice Disputavit.

1 Hargrave, State Trials (1776), i. 812.

1 History of Great Britain (1653), pp. 105, 106.

2 In 1852 Lyman Coleman wrote:

The Divine authority of the Sabbath neither was recognized by the ancient fathers nor by Luther or Calvin or by the early Reformers. It was reserved for the Puritans to their immortal honour, first to expound and enforce the law of the Christian Sabbath based on the authority of God’s word (Ancient Christianity, p. 532).

3 Mr. Robert Cox, in his Literature of the Sabbath Question (1865), gives a very complete critical bibliography of this question. The first work he mentions (i. 139) advocating the Christian Sabbath is a sermon preached in 1577 by the Rev. Thomas White. This sermon was referred to in 1590 by Stephen Gosson in his Playes Confuted in fine Actions, and was quoted in 1831 by J. P. Collier in his History of English Dramatic Poetry (1879), i. 220 note. There are in the British Museum two copies of the sermon. The text is identical in both copies, but the title-pages differ. That of one copy reads as follows: “A Sermon Preached at Pawles Crosse on Sunday the ninth of December. 1576. by T. W. Imprinted at London by Francis Coldock. 1578.” That of the other copy reads thus: “A Sermõ Preached at Pawles Crosse on Sunday the thirde of Nouember 1577. in the time of the Plague, by T. W. Imprinted at London by Francis Coldock. 1578.” In the British Museum Catalogue is the statement: “A duplicate of the sermon preached on Nov. 3, 1577: probably the title-page does not belong to the book.” In each copy the colophon (p. 98) reads: “Imprinted at London by Francis Coldocke. Anno Dom. 1578. Februarij. 10.” For a notice of Thomas White, who was the founder of Sion College, London, see the Dictionary of National Biography, lxi. 78. The book which really marked and occasioned a common change in the method of keeping the Sunday, was the work of the Rev. Nicholas Bownde or Bound first published in 1595 under the title of The Doctrine of the Sabbath, afterwards in an abridgment, and again in an enlarged edition in 1600 under the title of Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti: Or the true doctrine of the Sabbath. The other most important book on this subject is Peter Heylyn’s History of the Sabbath (1630), a presentation copy of which to Lord Strafford, afterwards owned by Charles Sumner, is in the Harvard College Library. For the information in regard to Thomas White’s sermon, I am again indebted to Mr. Matthews.

1 For information about Myerscough Lodge, which appears under various spellings, and Houghton Tower, see the notes to Assheton’s Journal, pp. 33, 34, 40, 41, and J. Nichols’s Progresses of King James the First, iii. 396 note, 398 note.

2 Not the rushbearing of the Book of Sports, which was decorating the church with garlands and the like on the eve of the day of the parish yearly festival—amongst other things the floor was strewn with rushes. The use of the wprd here may be illustrated by the rushbearing in a Masque at Preston the next day when “a man was enclosed in a dendrological foliage of fronds” (Assheton’s Journal, p. 46 note).

3 Journal (1818), pp. 40–45 (Chetham Society, xiv.).

4 Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, appointed 17 June, 1577, First Commissioner for Ecclesiastical Causes in the Province of York. The Earl of Derby’s appointment was of the same date.

1 The Rev. F. R. Raines, in Assheton’s Journal, p. 41 note.

2 1625, 1627, Statutes of the Realm (1819), v. 1, 25.

1 The Order made by Richardson and Denham—

was to this purpose, that whereas divers Orders have been made heretofore by the Judges of Assize, for the suppression of all Ales and Revels, the same order is now confirmed at the Assizes, and again ordered by the Court in regard of the Infinite Number of Inconveniences, daily arising by means of Revels, that such Revels, Church Ales, Clerk-Ales, and all other Publick Ales be henceforth utterly suppressed, and to the end this may be observed, it is further Ordered that the Clerk of the Assizes shall leave Copies thereof, with the Minister of Parish within his several Hundred, and shall give a Note uuder his Hand, that he shall publish it yearly within the Parish the first Sunday in February, and likewise the two Sundays before Easter yearly (Rushworth, Historical Collections, ii. 191).

1 Under date of 2 May, 1633, occurs the following:

The King to Sir Robert Phelipps, Sir Henry Berkeley, and Dr. Goodwin, Justices of Peace for co. Somerset. The King understands it has been an ancient custom in that county, and in other parts, to hold feasts of dedications of churches, commonly called the “Walkes” [Wakes], and that the custom has been of late interrupted. They are to certify what has been given in charge by the judges of assize who now ride that circuit, or by any others concerning the suppressing of the same, and whether any judge made an order and sent it to the clergy to publish; and especially what order Lord Chief Justice Richardson made at the last assizes, for recalling a former order against those feasts, as the King’s express command twice signified to him by the Lord Keeper was he should do. The King’s intention is not to give liberty to the profanation of the Lord’s Day, but that the people after evening prayer may use decent and sober recreations. (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1633–1634, p. 41.)

The then Lord Keeper was Thomas Coventry, Baron Coventry.

2 Cyprianus Anglicus (1671), pp. 241, 242. See also pp. 243, 214, 278–280.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1633–1634, p. 231.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1633–1634, pp. 275, 276.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1633–1634, p. 350.

2 They sent with their petition copies of three similar orders formerly issued: (1) by the Justices of the Peace of Devon for suppressing church-ales and revels dated 10 January, 1599; (2) by Sir Laurence Tanfield and Sergeant Montagu, Justices of Assize for Devon, ordering its publication in parish churches, dated 24 July, 1615; (3) by Sir John Walter, Lord Chief Baron, and Sir John Denham, Justices of Assize for Devon, ordering the parish clergy to publish it yearly on the first Sunday in February, dated 23 July, 1627 (Ibid. pp. 350, 351).

3 Ibid. p. 351.

1 A collection of all publicke orders ordinances and Declarations of both Houses of Parliament from the Ninth of March 1642 until December 1646, pp. 156, 157.

2 The original letter belongs to the Rev. Anson Titus, who has kindly permitted a copy to be taken for publication in our Transactions.

3 Henry Berry.

4 Harrison Gray. He was the last Treasurer of the Province under the Crown (1753–1774). See 1 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, viii. 354.

5 The Rev. Samuel Cooper (H. C. 1743).

6 The Rev. Charles Chauncy (H. C. 1721).

1 The Rev. Joseph Sewall (H. C. 1707).

2 The Rev. Thomas Prince (H. C. 1707).

3 The Rev. John Webb (H. C. 1708). 23

1 Nummi Britannici Historia: or an Historical Account of English Money, from the Conquest to the uniting of the two kingdoms by King James I. and of Great-Britain to the Present Time. London, M.DC.XXVI. The date undoubtedly should be 1726.

1 Diary, ii. 413.

2 Ibid. iii. 28.

3 Ibid. iii. 66.

4 Ibid. iii. 233.

5 Ibid. iii. 129.

6 Massachusetts Province Laws, i. 740.

7 Ibid. i. 902.

8 Ibid. i. 740.

9 See the lower left hand corner of Plate 3, facing p. 32, vol. i., Currency and Banking in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay

1 The potent aid of our President in the solution of this riddle is acknowledged in “Occult Methods of Protecting the Currency; Sewall’s Mnemonic Lines and their Interpretation”—a paper read at the meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society, December, 1899 (2 Proceedings, xiii. 315–327).

1 The documents are printed in the American Historical Review for April, 1905, x. 574–606. See articles by Professor Turner on The Diplomatic Contest for the Mississippi Valley, in the Atlantic Monthly for May and June, 1901, xciii. 676–691, 807–817, and on The Policy of France towards the Mississippi Valley in the Period of Washington and Adams, in the American Historical Review for January, 1905, x. 249–279.

2 A. H. Quint, Historical Memoranda, i. 25. Palfrey says, “Whether he was then [at Salem] playing a part, or whether he afterwards changed his mind, is not altogether certain; but he turned out at last to be a spy of Laud” (History of New England, i. 517).

1 He was not an Oxford man, nor was he of Gonville and Caius, Cambridge; neither do I And his name in the printed lists of Cambridge, Dublin, or the Scotch Universities.

2 See the entry under date of 5 February, 1634–35, p. 367, below.

3 History and Antiquities of Great Yarmouth (1772), p. 838 et seq.

4 Ibid. p. 851. Doubtless Mr. Vincent was the Rev. Philip Vincent, who was here at the time of the Pequot War, and Mr. Norton, the Rev. John Norton who came in 1634.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1631–1633, p. 432.

2 Ibid. p. 507.

3 Swinden, History and Antiquities of Great Yarmouth, p. 853.

1 In reply to a request for information, Mr. Albert Matthews writes me as follows:

The term “scar let days” is apparently not recognized in the dictionaries. At first I thought that a “scarlet day” might be what later was known as a “red-letter day,”—“a saint’s day or church festival indicated in the calendar by red letters” (Oxford Dictionary). This interpretation was strengthened on finding that Palmer, the historian of Yarmouth, apparently took a similar view. In 1874 he wrote:

When the Presbyterians had fully established their power they proceeded to abolish the festival of Christmas, which had been a “red-letter day” at Yarmouth, the corporation always going in state to church (Perlustration of Great Yarmouth, ii. 291).

There are, however, two difficulties in this interpretation. First, no earlier instance of “red-letter day” is recorded in the Oxford Dictionary than 1776. Secondly, any saint’s day or church festival was a red-letter day, while the agreement quoted in the text seems to indicate that only the days there specified were “scarlet days,”—and among these were at least two secular days. Further investigation conclusively shows that the above interpretation is incorrect. In 1541 it was ordered that “the bailiffs and all such that had been bailiffs, should wear and use, as well on every feast of St. Michael as all other principal festivals, gowns of Scarlett, furred with typpetts.” In 1545 the bailiffs were to wear—

as well on every fest of Seynt Michall th’archangel as on all other principall and festyvall daies, gownes of skarlett furryd with foyner typpetts, and dubletts of velvet, after th’ auncyent honorable custome of the towne aforesaid, without tyme of memory used.

Fines were inflicted on those who disobeyed this order. In 1612 it was voted that—

such aldermen as had been bailiffs, should wear scarlet gowns with tippetts; and such as had not, without tippetts; under pain of 40 s.

It thus appears that “scarlet days” was a local term peculiar to Yarmouth and meant those days on which the aldermen or bailiffs or mayor of Yarmouth attended chnrch in their scarlet gowns. See H. Manship, History of Great Yarmouth, edited by C. J. Palmer (1854), pp. 364, 365; C. J. Palmer, History of Great Yarmouth (1856), pp. 59, 65, 164, 169.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1631–1633, pp. 577, 578.

1 Swinden, History and Antiquities of Great Yarmouth, pp. 853, 854.

2 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1633–1634, p. 481.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1633–1634, p. 582.

2 Ibid. 1634–1635, p. 50.

3 Ibid. pp. 113, 115.

4 It is to be noticed that, as in the case of Mr. Cheshire mentioned belowt personal appearance might be waived by the Court for good cause.

5 In the present case at least there was no secrecy, as appears below.

1 See John Bruce’s account of Procedure in Preface to Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1635–1636, pp. xxix–xxxi.

2 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1634–1635, p. 115.

3 Ibid. p. 119.

4 Ibid. p. 125.

5 Ibid. p. 261.

6 Ibid. p. 267.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1634–1635, p. 267.

2 Ibid. p. 271.

3 Ibid. p. 271.

4 Ibid. p. 273.

5 Ibid. p. 275.

6 Ibid. p. 276.

7 Ibid. p. 315.

8 Ibid. p. 318.

9 Ibid. p. 324.

10 Ibid. p. 328.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1634–1635, p. 328.

2 Ibid. p. 336.

3 Ibid. p. 490.

4 Ibid. p. 495.

5 Ibid. p. 496.

6 Ibid. p. 532.

7 Ibid. p. 535.

8 Presumably an error for “months.”

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1634–1635, pp. 537–539.

2 Ibid. p. 543.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1634–1635, p. 547.

2 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, p. 197.

3 Ibid. p. 199. There could not be stronger testimony to Mr. Burdett’s standing, at the time, as a thorough-going Puritan, than this proposal from the Providence Island Company. The chief men of the company were the most important Puritan leaders in England.

4 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1635, p. 184.

5 Ibid. p. 186.

6 Ibid. p. 192.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1635, p. 198.

2 Ibid. p. 201. At some time in this month the town of Yarmouth was inquiring for another lecturer to supply the vacancy caused by Mr. Burdett’s suspension (Swinden, History and Antiquities of Great Yarmouth, p. 855).

3 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1635, p. 207.

4 Ibid. p. 231.

5 Swinden, History and Antiquities of Great Yarmouth, p. 855.

6 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, p. 218. There seem to have been in all three letters from Burdett, and one from Laud, unless the correspondence was continued after November, 1638.

1 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1635–1636, p. 507.

2 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, pp. 283, 284.

3 History of New England (1858), i. 519 note.

1 Dover Historical Memoranda, i. 25.

2 In Major Hiram M. Chittenden’s book on the Yellowstone National Park (1895), will be found full information on this point. See also a letter by Major Chittenden in the Nation, 28 May, 1896, lxii. 415. Doubtless the first white man to visit the Yellowstone region was John Colter in 1807.

1 For a sketch of James Bridger, who was a noted character in his day, see Chittenden’s Yellowstone National Park, pp. 51–57, 327–329.

2 Report on the Exploration of the Yellowstone River (1868), p. 77.

3 See The Folsom-Cook Exploration of the Upper Yellowstone in the Year 1869, reprinted, with a Preface by Mr. Langford, at Saint Paul in 1891 from the Chicago Western Monthly for July, 1870, and again in 1904 in Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana, v. 349–369. I am indebted to Mr. Langford for a copy of this pamphlet. In his Preface Mr. Langford says:

The office of the Western Monthly, of Chicago, was destroyed by fire soon after the publication of Mr. Folsom’s account of his discoveries, and the only copy of that magazine which he possessed, and which he presented to the Historical Society of Montana, met a like fate in the great Helena fire. The copy which I possess is perhaps the only one to be found (p. 8).

The Boston Public Library owns a copy of the Western Monthly, The article in question, entitled The Valley of the Upper Yellowstone, will be found in vol. iv. pp. 60–67. In Mr. Langford’s reprints, the article is attributed to Mr. Folsom, but the original states that it was written by Mr. Cook. From letters received by me from Mr. Folsom, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Langford, it would appear that the article, with the exception of a brief portion, was written by Mr. Folsom, that a copy of the article was sent by Mr. Cook to a friend in Chicago, that this friend turned the article over to the editor of the Western Monthly, and that hence its authorship was credited to Mr. Cook. See also Twelfth Annual Report of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories: A Report of Progress of the Exploration of Wyoming and Idaho for the Year 1878 (1883), part ii. pp. 66, 67, 427.

1 The question is discussed at length by Major Chittenden in his Yellowstone National Park, pp. 87–97. To the facts there given, some new ones can be added. The first person to suggest the creation of a national park was unquestionably George Catlin, who, in “some contemplations on the probable extinction of buffaloes and Indians,” and alluding to the “strip of country, which extends from the province of Mexico to lake Winnepeg on the North,” in 1841 remarked:

And what a splendid contemplation too, when one (who has travelled these realms, and can duly appreciate them) imagines them as they might in future be seen, (by some great protecting policy of government) preserved in their pristine beauty and wildness, in a magnificent park, where the world could see for ages to come, the native Indian in his classic attire, galloping his wild horse, with sinewy bow, and shield and lance, amid the fleeting herds of elks and buffaloes. What a beautiful and thrilling specimen for America to preserve and hold up to the view of her refined citizens and the world, in future ages! A nation’s Parle, containing man and beast, in all the wild and freshness of their nature’s beauty!

I would ask no other monument to my memory, nor any other enrolment of my name amongst the famous dead, than the reputation of having been the founder of such an institution.

Such scenes might easily have been preserved, and still could be cherished on the great plains of the West, without detriment to the country or its border; for the tracts of country on which the buffaloes have assembled, are uniformly sterile, and of no available use to cultivating man. (Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Condition of the North American Indians, 1841, i. 262.)

When, in January, 1872, Prof. Joseph Henry wrote that Catlin made a proposition to the government in 1832 “to reserve the country around these [the Yellowstone] geysers as a public park” (Annual Report of Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for 1871, p. 28), it seems probable that he had in mind the above passage imperfectly remembered. At all events, Catlin had no precise locality in mind when he wrote that passage, and he distinctly refers to the plains, not to the mountains. The first specific use of the term “national park,” as will presently be shown at length (p. 385, below), occurred in 1868, when Prof. Josiah D. Whitney applied it to the Yosemite Valley. As regards the Yellowstone region, the park idea was of course an outcome of the expedition in 1870 mentioned in the text. Major Chittenden writes:

As soon as the party reached Helena, a series of articles appeared in the daily papers of that city describing the late expedition, and in one of these, written by Mr. Hedges and published in the Helena Herald November 9, 1870, occurs what is believed to be the first public reference to the Park project (Yellowstone National Park, p. 91).

It is to be regretted that Major Chittenden does not quote Mr. Hedges’s exact words. On 19 January, 1871, Mr. Langford delivered in Washington, D. C., a lecture on the Yellowstone region. This lecture was reported in the Washington Daily Morning Chronicle of 20 January, but the account there given (p. 4/4) contains no mention of the park idea. In the same paper of 20 January, there appeared an editorial which reads in part as follows:

A NATIONAL PARK FOR WASHINGTON.

Baltimore, although at present pretty well provided with public parks, proposes still another within the city limits, which is an additional evidence of the value set upon these institutions by the people. Washington is sorely in need of a grand national park. The plan for such park has received the indorsement not only of General Michler, Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds, but of scores of other liberal-minded public men who take a just pride in the beautification of the nation’s capital. The supervising architect of the Treasury has also urged the erection of a national park or boulevard. . . . Once established in Washington, a national park, if properly conducted, would be an object of national interest. It could easily be made a garden of acclimation, and might contain specimens of almost every plant and animal found on the globe.

For such a national park Washington possesses the advantage, first, of location; second, of soil; and third, of climate . . . Will some of our public-spirited citizens move in the matter? (p. 2/3).

In the same paper of 21 January, under the heading of “A Public Park,” it is stated that “Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, yesterday submitted in the Senate” a resolution about a certain tract of land in Washington “to be so improved as to form a public park” (p. 4/2). On 21 January Mr. Langford repeated his lecture in New York. Major Chittenden asserts that “The New York Tribune of January 23, 1871, thus quotes Mr. Langford:”

This is probably the most remarkable region of natural attractions in the world; and while we already have our Niagara and Yosemite, this new field of wonders should be at once withdrawn from occupancy, and set apart as a public National Park for the enjoyment of the American people for all time (Yellowstone National Park, p. 92).

The New York Tribune of 23 January, under the heading of “The Wonders of Montana,” gives an account of the lecture (p. 5/5), but the words quoted by Major Chittenden do not occur in the account; nor do such words occur in the accounts of the lecture printed in the Herald of 22 January (p. 7/4) or in the Times of 22 January (p. 8/3). The lecture was not reported in the World of 22 January nor in the Evening Post of 23 January. On the other hand, through Dr. Murray, I learn that Prof. Francis A. March of Lafayette College sent him the extract quoted by Major Chittenden as from the Tribune of 28 January; but I have been unable to find it in the Tribune of that date. In the two articles on “The Wonders of the Yellowstone” which Mr. Langford contributed to Scribner’s Monthly for May and June, 1871 (ii. 1–17, 113–128), there is no mention of the park idea. On 18 December, 1871, Samuel C. Pomeroy of Kansas asked “leave to introduce” into the Senate “a bill to set apart a certain tract of land lying near the headwaters of the Yellowstone as a public park,” and on the same day William H. Clagett of Montana introduced into the House a bill “to set apart a certain tract of land lying near the headwaters of the Yellowstone as a public park” (Congressional Globe, pp. 159, 199), On 23 January, 1872, Mr. Pomeroy said in the Senate:

This bill originated as a result of the exploration, made by Professor Hayden, under an appropriation of Congress last year [1871]. With a party he explored the headwaters of the Yellowstone and found it to be a great natural curiosity, great geysers, as they are termed, water-spouts, and hot springs, and having platted the ground himself, and having given me the dimensions of it, the bill was drawn up, as it was thought best to consecrate and set apart this great place of national resort, as it might be in the future, for the purposes of public enjoyment (Ibid. p. 520).

In the same month Dr. Hayden made a report in which he said:

The bill now before Congress has for its object the withdrawal from settlement, occupancy, or sale, under the laws of the United States, a tract of land fifty-five by sixty-five miles, about the sources of the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, and dedicates and sets it apart as a great national park or pleasure-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people (Fifth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories, 1872, p. 163).

In an article called “More about the Yellowstone,” published in Scribner’s Monthly for February, 1872, Dr. Hayden asked:

Why will not Congress at once pass a law setting it apart as a great public park for all time to come, as has been done with that not more remarkable wonder, the Yosemite? (iii. 396).

The fortunes of the bill can be followed in the Congressional Globe, pp. 484, 520, 697, 718, 1228, 1243, 1244, 1279, 1282, 1416. See also p. 383 note 4, below.

Through the kindness of Major Chittenden and Mr. Langford, I am able to add to our information in regard to the extract quoted above as from the New York Tribune of 23 January, 1871. Major Chittenden writes me:

I saw the clipping in question and copied it myself from Mr. Langford’s scrap-book and on the border of it was noted, as is frequently done in such cases, the date and the paper from which it was taken.

Mr. Langford writes:

It is a matter of great surprise to me, that the quotation from my lecture referred to, cannot be found in the New York Tribune report of the lecture. I have in my scrapbook a report of the lecture, which I have always supposed was published in the New York Tribune of 23 January, 1871, and which contains the words quoted. The caption “New York Daily Tribune, Monday, January 23, 1871,” was cut from the top of the Tribune, and is pasted in my scrap-book at the head of the report of my lecture. It seems almost incredible that I could have placed the Tribune caption over a report taken from a nother paper,—but if I made such a blunder, then what other paper was it? I cannot tell. Yet such a blunder might have been possible, considering the amount of matter which the various papers at that time contained in their eagerness to publish something concerning our discoveries, so marvellous and new to them.

Mr. Langford also gives some interesting facts relating to the early development of the park idea with respect to the Yellowstone. He says:

Let us trace this matter from the beginning. While: Mr. Hedges’s proposition, made in the camp at the junction of the Fire-hole and Gibbon rivers, met with enthusiastic favorable response at the time, yet little more was thought of it by any of our party, except Hedges, for many months. . . . I do not think that my enthusiasm over the park project was roused to the working point until Hedges stirred me up. My lecture, as first prepared, was delivered both in Helena and Virginia City before I left Montana for the East, and contained no reference to the park project. After its delivery in these two places I modified it somewhat, interpolating many new paragraphs, of which the quotation in question is one:—and with all these changes the lecture was delivered in Washington and then in New York City. . . . Whatever reports of my lecture have been made,—whether complete or incomplete,—the fact remains that I advocated the park scheme, in these few words, both in Washington and New York City. Beyond a mere statement of this fact, in answer to interrogatories on the subject, I never claimed any credit for the advocacy. This belonged to Hedges. My real interest in the scheme was not roused to the working point till my return to Helena in the summer of 1871. when Hedges communicated his enthusiasm to me, and we joined with Clagett, our newly elected delegate to Congress, in preparing a bill.

Finally, Mr. Langford writes me:

I find among my old papers a fragment (about two columns) of the Helena Herald of that date [9 November, 1870], containing the letter of Mr. Hedges, descriptive of the region embraced in the field of our exploration in the year 1810. In that letter Mr. Hedges writes that while the region we explored is situated in Wyoming Territory, the approach is cut off from that Territory by the impassable Wind River range of mountains, and he adds:

Hence the propriety that the territorial lines be so readjusted that Montana should embrace all that lake region west of the Wind River range;—a matter in which we hope our citizens will soon move, to accomplish it, as well as to secure its further appropriation to the public use.

I do not know that there was any more particular reference to the Park project in any of her part of this paper of November 9th which has been destroyed, or in any other issue of that paper. It is my opinion that the above quotation is all that ever appeared in the Herald of that day, relative to the creation of a Park.

In a letter to Mr. Langford, Mr. Hedges says:

There is one chapter that you might have included. Our Legislature was in session the winter following our expedition, and Seth Bullock was councilman for our County. I drew a memorial to congress asking the creation of the park, and Bullock got it passed and it was sent to Congress.

When the corner stone of the entrance of the park was laid by the president and the masons two years ago [24 April, 1903], Bullock called my attention to the fact, and said he had the memorial still, in my hand writing, and gave it to me, and I gave it to the Historical Society [of Montana].

The Council Joint Memorial to Congress, referred to by Mr. Hedges, was approved 12 January, 1872, and reads in part as follows:

Your memorialists would further urge, that the above described district of country, with so much more of the present territory of Montana as may be necessary to include the Lake, Great Falls, and Canon of the Yellowstone, the Great Basin of the Madison, with its associated boiling, mineral, and mud springs, as may be determined from the surveys made by Prof. Hayden and party the past season, or to be determined by surveys hereafter to be made, be dedicated and devoted to public use, resort, and recreation for all time to come as a g reat national park, under such care and restrictions as to your honorable bodies may seem best calculated to secure the ends proposed (Laws, Memorial s, and Resolutions, of the Territory of Montana, passed at the Seventh Session of the Legislative Assembly, 1872, pp. 648, 649).

See Postscript, P: 397, below.

1 United States Statutes at Large, xvii. 32. The Act reads in part as follows:

An Act to set apart a certain Tract of Land lying near the Head-waters of the Yellowstone River as a public Park.

Be it enacted . . . That the tract of land in the Territories of Montana and Wyoming, lying near the head-waters of the Yellowstone river, . . . is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people; . . .

Sec. 2. That said public park shall be under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior.

It will be observed that the title National Park does not occur in the Act. On 10 May, 1872, B. R. Cowen, Acting Secretary of the Interior, wrote to Mr. Langford, who had been made Superintendent of the Park, as follows:

Congress, by an act approved March 1, 1872, has set apart a tract of land near the head-waters of the Yellowstone River, in the Territories of Montana and Wyoming, as a public park or pleasure-ground “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” The reservation so set apart is to be known as the “Yellowstone National Park,” and is placed under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior (Report of the Superintendent of the Yellowstone National Park for the Year 1872, p. 1).

The Yellowstone National Park is chiefly in Wyoming, but partly in Montana and Idaho.

2 United States Statutes at Large, xxvi. 478.

3 Ibid. xxvi. 478.

4 Ibid. xxvi. 650.

5 Ibid. xxx. 993.

6 Ibid. xxxi. 202.

7 Ibid. xxxi. 765.

1 It is proper, in passing, to speak of Forest Reservations or Reserves. On 3 March, 1891, it was enacted by Congress—

That the President of the United States may, from time to time, set apart and reserve in any State or Territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations, and the President shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof (United States Statutes at Large, xxvi. 1103).

Under this Act, many Forest Reserves (as they are now generally termed) have been created. Their number and their area are constantly changing, but we learn from the Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1902 that there were then 54 Forest Reserves, embracing 60,175,705 acres (p. 84), and from the Report for 1903 that there were then 53 Forest Reserves, embracing 02,354,905 acres (p. 31). To create a National Park requires an Act of Congress, while Forest Reserves can be established by Presidential Proclamation. In 1900 a bill was introduced into Congress “empowering the President to set apart, as national parks, tracts of public land which . . . it is desirable to protect and utilize in the interest of the public” (Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1902, p. 117); but, though the passage of such a bill has been constantly urged by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, it has hitherto failed. Nevertheless, many places of historic and prehistoric interest have been preserved. See an article by Edgar L. Hewett on “Government Supervision of Historic and Prehistoric Ruins” in Science, 25 November, 1904, New Series, xx. 722–727. By an Act of Congress approved 1 February, 1905, the Forest Reserves were transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture (United States Statutes at Large, xxxiii. 628).

1 United States Statutes at Large, xxvi. 333.

2 Ibid, xxviii. 597.

3 Ibid, xxviii. 651.

4 Ibid. xxx. 841.

1 On 2 March, 1889, Congress appropriated 8200,000 for “the establishment of a zoological park in the District of Columbia” (United States Statutes at Large, xxv. 808). On 30 April, 1890, there was passed “An act for the organization, improvement, and maintenance of the National Zoological Park” (Ibid. xxvi. 78).

1 On 28 July, 1866, Congress appropriated $50,000 “To establish national cemeteries, and to purchase sites for the same” (Ibid. xiv. 310).

2 Writing in 1880, Dr. L. H. Bunnell, who was one of the original party to enter the Valley, said: “The date of our discovery and entrance into the Yosemite Valley was about the 21st of March, 1851” (Discovery of the Yosemite, and the Indian War of 1851, p. 70).

3 Congressional Globe, p. 1310.

4 Ibid. p. 2299.

5 See the Congressional Globe, pp. 2300, 2301, 2695, 3378, 3388, 3389, 3444, Appendix, p. 240. It will not be without interest to the members of this Society to note that on 1 July “A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. Hay, his Secretary, announced that” President Lincoln had the previous day approved and signed the Act referred to in the text.

1 United States Statutes at Large, xiii. 325.

2 Statutes of California (1866), p. 710. Among the Commissioners were Prof. J. D. Whitney, F. L. Olmsted, E. S. Holden, and Galen W. Clark. Mr. Clark first entered the Yosemite in 1855, discovered the Mariposa Big Tree Grove in 1857, and was for many years Guardian of the Yosemite Valley. He is still living, having recently attained his ninetieth year, and has just published a little book, to which our associate Mr. James L. Whitney calls my attention, on The Indians of the Yosemite Valley and Vicinity.

3 Ibid. pp. 710, 711.

4 The Commissioners brought action in November, 1867, in the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Mariposa County, California, where judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. In July, 1871, the Supreme Court of California reversed the judgment of the District Court and ordered judgment in favor of the Commissioners. In December, 1872, the Supreme Court of the United States sustained the judgment of the Supreme Court of California. See J. D. Whitney, Geological Survey of California (1865), Geology, i. 405; J. D. Whitney, Letter of the State Geologist relative to the Progress of the State Geological Survey during the Years 1864–65 (1866); J. D. Whitney, Report of the Commissioners to manage the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove, for the Years 1866–7 (1868), pp. 8–10; Appendix to Journals of the California Senate and Assembly (1868), ii; J. D. Whitney, Letter of the State Geologist relative to the Progress of the State Geological Survey during the Years 1866–7 (1867); Journal of the California Senate, 11, 14, 16, 22, 24 January, 20 February, 18 March, 1868, pp. 213, 220, 230, 284, 285, 417, 418, 639; Journal of the California Assembly, 22, 23, 25 January, 4, 12 February, 1868, pp. 304, 305, 321, 338, 405, 448, 449; Report of the Special Committee of the Assembly in relation to the Grant of Land in Yosemite Valley, pp. 4, 5, in Appendix to Journals of the California Senate and Assembly (1868), ii.; Veto Message (t. February, 1868) of the Governor in relation to Assembly Bill No. 238, An Act granting Land in Yosemite Valley, pp. 3, 4, in Appendix to Journals of the California Senate and Assembly (1868), ii.; Congressional Globe, 26 May, 3, 5 June, 23 July, 1868, pp. 2585, 2816, 2817, 2857, 2860, 4346; J. F. Cronelly, 15 September, 1868, Letters to Henry Burbidge (New York, 1869), p. 16; J. D. Whitney, The Yosemite Book (1868), pp. 2022; J. D. Whitney, The Yosemite Guide-Book (1869), pp. 20–23; Congressional Globe, 18 January, 8, 15 April, 3 June, 2 July, 1870, pp. 549, 2515, 2726, 4043, 5129–5134, 5144; J. M. Hutchings, Scenes of Grandeur and Curiosity in California (1870), pp. 61–171; S. Kneeland, The Wonders of the Yosemite Valley and California (1871), p. 29; J. E. Lester, The Yo-Semite (1873), p. 1; J. E. Lester, The Atlantic to the Pacific (187:3), pp. 335, 336; California Heports, July, 1871, xli. 631–640; Statutes of California, 23 March, 1874, pp. 523, 24; United States Reports, Supreme Court, December, 1372, lxxxii 77–94; United States Reports, Supreme Court, October, 1880, ciii, 575–579.

1 Congressional Globe, p. 5134.

1 In Report of the Special Committee of the Assembly in relation to Grant of Land in Yosemite Valley, p. 5, in Appendix to Journals of the California Senate and Assembly (1868), ii. Prof. Whitney’s memorial is not dated, but he speaks of “a bill having passed the Senate” (p. 4). This bill passed the Senate 16 January, 1868 (Journal of the California Senate, p. 230), and the Report which contained Prof. Whitney’s memorial was made to the Assembly 22 January (Journal of the California Assembly, p. 304). Hence Prof. Whitney’s memorial must have been written between 15 and 22 January, 1868.

2 The Yosemite Book (1868), p. 22. There is nothing to show precisely when this book was published, but it must have been after 23 July, 1868. At p. 20 Prof. Whitney refers to a resolution which “was unfavorably reported” in the United States Senate. This report was made 23 July (Congressional Globe, p 4346).

3 The New West, p. 118.

1 The Wonders of the Yosemite Valley and of California, p. 29.

2 California, P: 78.

3 James M. Hutchings was one of the settlers against whom the Commissioners brought suit in 1868. Mr. Hutchings was the author of Scenes of Grandeur and Curiosity in California, published in 1870.

4 The Atlantic to the Pacific, pp. 335, 336.

5 Discovery of the Yosemite, pp. 220,221.

1 Since this paper was written, a movement to recede the Yosemite Valley to the United States, advocated by Major John Bigelow, Jr., Superintendent of the Yosemite National Park, by the Sierra Club, and by the press of California generally, has met with success; and an absurd, anomalous, and difficult situation has ceased to exist. See the Sierra Club Bulletin, January, 1905, v. 212–253. On 3 March, 1905, “An act to recede and regrant unto the United States of America, the ‘Yosemite Valley,’ and the land embracing the ‘Mariposa Big Tree Grove,’” was approved by the Governor of California (Statutes of California, 1905, pp. 54, 55), and on the same day there passed Congress and was approved by President Roosevelt a “Joint Resolution Accepting the recession by the State of California of the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove in the Yosemite National Park” (United States Statutes at Large, xxxiii. 1286). See also, under date of 3 March, 1905, Congressional Record, xxxix. 3962, 3963, 3971, 4018, 4027, 4029. In spite of this Joint Resolution, the precise legal status of the Yosemite Valley seems still to be undetermined. See the Nation, 28 September, 1905, lxxxi. 250, and President Roosevelt’s Message to Congress of 5 December, 1905.

1 Though now known as North Park and Middle Park, the former was originally New Park and the latter Old Park.

2 Waterville in the White Mountains, New Hampshire, presents a fair imitation of a Colorado park. A peculiarity of a Colorado park is that, generally speaking, in order to get out of one it is necessary to climb a hill or mountain; for the streams usually force their way out through canons so rocky and narrow as to make roads difficult or impossible.

1 Report of the Exploring Expedition to Oregon and North California (1845), pp. 281, 282. “New Park” is plotted on the Map to illustrate an Exploration of the Country, lying between the Missouri River and the Rocky Mountains, on the line of the Nebraska or Platte River, By Lieu^t. J. C. Frémont, facing page 7 of Frémont’s Report on an Exploration of the Country lying between the Missouri River and the Rocky Mountains, on the line of the Kansas and Great Platte Rivers, published in 1843. The map is not dated, but Frémont’s tour extended from 2 July to 10 September, 1842, he reached St. Louis 17 October, 1842, and his Report is dated 1 March, 1843. Presumably, therefore, the map was plotted in 1842. “New Park,” “Old Park,” “Bayou Salade,” and “South Park,” are plotted on the Map of an Expedition to the Rocky Mountains in the Year 1842 and to Oregon & North Californ ia in the Year 1843–44, By Brevet Capt. J. C. Frémont, facing page 105 of Frémont’s Report of the Exploring Expedition to Oregon and North California, published in 1845. “North Park”, “Middle Park,” and “South Park” appear in 1848 on the Map of Oregon and Upper California From the Surveys of John Charles Frémont And other Authorities, which accompanied Fremont’s Geographical Memoir upon Upper California, published in 1849. Apparently, therefore, the name “Old Park” was displaced by that of “Middle Park” between 1842 and 1848.

1 Travels in the Great Western Prairies (1843), p. 51; cf. pp. 53, 56, 62, 63, 73. Farnham’s route is a little difficult to trace, but, though he traversed South and Middle Parks, he certainly did not enter North Park. I am indebted to Mr. Edward H. Whorf of Boston for calling my attention to this book.

Since the above paper was written, the section of the Oxford Dictionary containing the word Park has been published. Dr. Murray quotes an extract from Major Zebulon M. Pike, where, apparently, Pike uses the word in the sense under discussion. When I sent the extract to Dr. Murray, now several years ago, I was under the impression that such was the case; but a more careful examination makes it somewhat doubtful. Under date of 14 August, 1808, Pike writes:

Embarked at half past five o’clock. Passed the Park, which is ten miles round, and not more than three quarters of a mile across, bearing from S. 5° E. to due N. (Sources of the Mississippi, 1810, p. 123.)

In 1895, Dr. Elliott Coues located the place as follows:

Near the N. E. corner of St. Clair Co. and the S. E. corner of Henry Co. [Missouri]. The Park is a narrow, somewhat rectangular loop of the Osage, including some hold bluffs in its bight (Expeditions of Z. M. Pike, ii. 381 note).

A glance at a map will show the “oxbow” made by the Osage at that point, perhaps five hundred miles east of the Rocky Mountains. It is clear, then, that Pike did not use the term in connection with the Rockies. The fact that in the original edition “Park” is printed in italics seems to indicate that Pike was using an unfamiliar word,—one which perhaps he got from his guides. Compare the extract, cited later in the text (p. 392), from Gilpin.

1 Account of an Expedition from Pittsburg to the Rocky Mountains, . . . the Command of Major Stephen II. Lon g (1823), i. 463, 464.

2 The Central Gold Region (1860), p. 66. Between 1820 and 1860 a single example may be given. Under date of August, 1839, T. J. Farnham wrote:

The Arrapahoes . . . wander in the winter season over the country about the head of the Great Kenyon of the Colorado of the West, and to a considerable distance down that river; and in the summer hunt the buffalo in the New Park, or “Bull Pen,” in the “Old Park” on Grand River, and in “Bayou Salade,” on the South fork of the Platte (Travels in the Great Western Prairies, 1843, p. 63).

“Bayou Salade” was another name, in use for many years, for the South Park. It would not be without interest to give in full the history of this extraordinary appellation, but space forbids. Suffice it to say that the first word of the compound has apparently nothing to do with our familiar bayou, meaning a small stream or creek—a word not of French or Spanish, but of Indian, origin; and that “Bayou Salade” is a corruption of “Valle Salado,”—the South Park having long been noted for its salt springs. In the solution of this riddle, I have been greatly aided by the researches of Mr. Edward H. Whorf.

1 The Central Gold Region, p. 48. Throughout his book, Gilpin spells the word parc.

2 Mr. Whorf calls my attention to some documents which show that as early certainly as 1748 the French rovers down the Mississippi began to follow the route which a century later had become famous as the Santa Fé trail. See Land of Sunshine (1808), viii. 127.

3 The book, though to a certain extent interesting, is singular. When in Denver in 1887, I met Governor Gilpin, then seventy-three years of age, and I shall long remember his vivid description of the Continental Divide as “the backbone of the continent,” his infectious enthusiasm for every thing relating to Colorado, and his earnest insistence that Colorado possessed the only truly mountain climate known in the world.

4 Scenes at the Camp, in The Oregon Trail, Knickerbocker Magazine, December, 1847, xxx. 479. The passage will be found in chap. xi. of the published volume.

1 Report of Explorations, p. 37, in Pacific Railroad Reports (1855), ii. Another extract from this Report is given because it shows us the christening of a small park. The person for whom it was named was Sheppard Homans, the astronomer of Capt. Gunnison’s party. Under date of 31 August, 1853, Beckwith writes:

On the morning of the 29th instant Captain Gunnison, and Mr. Homans, accompanied by a guide and four or five men, left the main body of the party and continued up the San Luis valley for fourteen miles to its head, where a small park, into which several small streams flow and unite, forming a single creek, is nearly separated from the main valley by low hills extending from the mountains on either side, into the plain. To this park, which is ten miles in width by fourteen in length, as well as to the creek flowing from it, Captain Gunnison gave the name of his assistant, Mr. Homans, who located them (p 45).

2 Thirty Years’ View, ii. 581.

1 In Capt. J. H. Simpson’s Report of Explorations across the Great Basin of the Territory of Utah (1876), p. 133. The statement in the text, coupled with the fact that Middle Park was originally called Old Park, seems to indicate that Middle Park was first approached by the whites from the Pacific slope.

2 Life and Adventures of Kit Carson, p. 51.

3 Rambles in the Rocky Mountains, p. 135.

1 Second Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories (1873), p. 87.

2 Colorado (1867), p. 89.

3 Report on the Exploration of the Yellowstone River (1868), p. 6.

1 General Laws, Resolutions and Memorials of the Territory of Wyoming, passed at the Second Session of the Legislative Assembly (1872), pp. 138, 139.

2 Fifth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories (1872), p. 18.

3 Across America, p. 94.

1 History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, ii. 485, 486 notes.

2 It should perhaps be added that in addition to National Parks, there are in the United States various St ate Parks, City Parks, and, in Massachusett s at least, Metropolitan Parks.

1 Mr. Hedges’s Journal is printed in Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana (1904), v. 370–394. Other interesting allusions to the Yellowstone region will be found in the same Contributions, i. 113–143, 149–233, 208–284, ii. 331, 332, iii. 153–174, iv. 157, 158, 160.

1 This statement is slightly inaccurate, for Dr. Calef was not a member of the House which passed the resolution.

1 “Variety stores” had long existed in Boston, but the earliest use of that particular term known to me—a term which, singularly enough, is not recognized in the Century Dictionary—occurs in an advertisement of William Jackson’s “Variety Store” in the Boston Evening Post of 21 November, 1768, No. 1730, p. 3/3.

1 Suffolk Court Files, no. 514. See also nos. 817–826 for a full history of the case. In the last group there are thirty-three papers.

1 The Cambridge records state that “ffrances Jackson daughter of Edward died” 5 October, 1648; but there is no record of such a daughter, and possibly “daughter” is the clerk’s error for “wife.”

1 On 30 December, 1731, it was—

Ordered, That William Sherley Esq; be desired to be of Council to Mr. Philip Bongarden, and assist him in seeking Relief for the Palantines (in whose behalf he appears) in the legal and customary Way in such Cases (Massachusetts House of Journals, p. 43).

It is interesting to note the name of Shirley. He is generally said to have come to this country in or about 1733. As a matter of fact, he reached Boston 27 October, 1731 (6 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 21), and this was doubtless one of the first of his public employments. Philip Bongarden was one of the foreign Protestants naturalized 7 December, 1731 (Massachusetts Archives, Council Records, ix. 335).

1 There is some doubt about this child.