Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts from a portrait from life
DECEMBER MEETING, 1902.
A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Friday, 26 December, 1902, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, George Lyman Kittredge, LL.D., in the chair.
The Records of the Annual Meeting in November were read and approved.
The President announced the death on the fourth instant at Bath, Maine, of the Hon. Joseph Williamson, a Corresponding Member.
Mr. Henry H. Edes paid a tribute to Judge Williamson, speaking in part as follows:
The Hon. Joseph Williamson, a son of Joseph and Caroline (Cross) Williamson, was born at Belfast, Maine, on the fifth of October, 1828. Graduating at Bowdoin College in 1849, he studied law with his father and was admitted to the bar in 1852. At once he entered upon a distinguished legal and judicial career, and from 1853 until the end of his life held many political and official positions. His literary and historical investigations, which gained for him membership in various learned societies, began just half a century ago by the publication in 1852 of his Maine Register and Reference Book. His two most important historical works were his History of Belfast1 and his Bibliography of the State of Maine, the latter published in 1896. Mr. Williamson was elected a Corresponding Member of this Society in March, 1898, and to him the Society is indebted for one paper and for information in regard to many Indian names and localities in Maine.2
Mr. Albert Matthews read a paper on the term State House, speaking in substance as follows:1
Not until 1859 does any one seem to have commented upon our familiar term State House. In that year Lowell said: “State-House. This seems an Americanism. Did we invent it, or borrow it from the Stadhuys (town-hall) of New Amsterdam?”2 In 1860 the term found its way into a dictionary. In 1872 De Vere remarked that State House is “a term either specially made to serve the purpose or possibly derived from the Dutch Stadhuys, but in either case peculiar to this country.”3 In 1899 Professor Brander Matthews observed:
These American contributions to the English language are not a few. . . . Some of them are taken from foreign tongues, either translated, like statehouse (from the Dutch), or unchanged, like prairie (from the French), adobe (from the Spanish), and stoop (from the Dutch).4
As these statements are somewhat conflicting, as some of them are incorrect, and as no attempt has hitherto been made to trace the history of the term, it will perhaps not be without interest to show exactly what that history has been.
The word State, meaning the body politic, was in common use in the American Colonies, as of course it was in England, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and towards the close of the Colonial period the expressions “the American States” or “the States of America” were occasionally employed;5 but it was not until after the fourth of July, 1776, that what had hitherto been a Colony or Province was officially styled a State. There can be no doubt that in certain instances the adoption of the term State House was due to, or at least influenced by, the change in style from Colony or Province to State. Thus, in Rhode Island what had previously been known as the Colony House was, soon after the Declaration of Independence, termed the State House. Again, in Georgia, where various terms had been employed before 1786, State House did not appear until 1791. Neither in New Jersey nor in North Carolina was there a fixed seat of government until Trenton became the capital of the former in 1790 and Raleigh was laid out in the latter in 1792; and not until or after those dates did the term State House appear in those two States. But the facts that, for several years before the Declaration of Independence, the term State House had been in daily use in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina; that it had been in vogue in Virginia between 1638 and 1699; and that it had occasionally been employed in New York in the seventeenth century,—prove that the origin of the term could not have been due to the change in style from Colony or Province to State.
Let us now briefly take up the history of the term in those nine Colonies.
The first meeting of the Virginia Assembly was held in 1619 in the choir of the church at Jamestown, but in less than twenty years the need was felt for better accommodations. On 10 April, 1638, Richard Kemp, Secretary of Virginia, wrote:
A levy has been raised, according to instructions, upon all tobacco in the colony for the repair of the Fort at Point Comfort and building a state house at James City, part of which tobacco is sent to England by the bearer George Menefie to sell, and with the proceeds to send over workmen to accomplish those public works.1
This is the first appearance of the term in this country. A State House was not actually erected by the Colony until about 1663, though previous to that time a building was rented for the use of the Colony and went by the name of the State House. The Virginians were unfortunate in the seventeenth century, and one of their State Houses was destroyed by fire about 1655, another was burned down in 1676 “by that arch rebell and tratour Nathaniell Bacon, junr.,” while a third was also destroyed by fire in October, 1698. Up to that time Jamestown had been the capital of the Colony, but in 1699 we read:
WHEREAS the state house of this his majesties colony and dominion in which the generall assemblyes and general courts have been kept and held hath been unhappily destroyed and burnt downe, and it being absolutely necessary that a capitoll should be built with all expedition, . . . Be it enacted, . . . That four hundred seventy-five foot square of land, lying and being at the said Middle Plantation, . . . be the ground appropriated to the only and sole use of a building for the general assemblies and courts to be held and kept in: And that the said building shall forever hereafter be called and known by the name of the Capitol.1
Beverley, writing in 1705, declared that soon after the accession of Francis Nicholson to the government, he—
caused the Assembly and Courts of Judicature, to be remov’d from James-Town, where there were good Accomodations for People, to Middle-Plantation, where there were none. There he flatter’d himself with the fond Imagination, of being the Founder of a new City. He mark’d out the Streets in many Places so as they might represent the figure W, in Memory of his Majesty King William, after whose Name the Town was call’d Williamsburg. There he procur’d a stately Fabrick to be erected, which he placed opposite to the College, and grac’d with the magnificent Name of the Capitol.2
It is curious that the only two names now employed in this country—State House and Capitol—should both have originated in the Old Dominion.3 From 1638 to 1699, State House was the only term employed in Virginia. Though ousted in 1699 by the word Capitol, State House was occasionally employed in the eighteenth century, but its further history need not detain us. The essential fact is that the term was applied to a building which was either owned or rented by the Colony and in which the meetings of the Assembly were held.
In 1639 an act was passed in Maryland providing that “at such time and place as the Leiutent. Generall & Councell shall think fitt there shall be a Towne house built.”4 Nothing, however, appears to have been done until 1662, when there—
came from the lower howse this following paper. It is voted in this howse necessary that some howse be built or purchased to keepe Courts in, or Assemblyes for the benefitt of the Country . . . Whereupon the Vpper howse took into Consideracōn the place for the Seateing of the State howse.1
The building was erected at St. Mary’s in 1674. In 1695 Annapolis became the capital, the State House there built was burned in 1704, but was at once rebuilt, and the new building was occupied until 1769, when it was demolished and still another State House erected. It was in this last building that Washington laid down his sword at the close of the Revolution.
Writing in 1655, a Dutchman who visited New Amsterdam in 1642 said:
As I was daily with Commander Kieft, generally dining with him when I went to the fort, he told me that he had now a fine inn, built of stone, in order to accomodate the English who daily passed with their vessels from New England to Virginia, from whom he suffered great annoyance, and who might now lodge in the tavern.2
The building referred to, which stood in Pearl street, facing Coenties Slip, was owned by the Dutch West India Company, in 1653 became the Stad Huis of New Amsterdam, and in 1654 was granted by the Directors of the Company to the City of New Amsterdam. In 1664 New York came into the possession of the English, a few years later was recaptured by the Dutch, and in 1674 was restored to the English. In 1655 we read of “a Court holden uppon the Citty Hall of N. Yorke;” in the same year of “a Court held uppon the Citty howse off New York;” in 1670 of the “Towne howse of this citty;” and in 1671 that—
Hans Dyckman Imprisoned uppon Suspition of being accessory to setting the Windowes of the State House on fire, . . . denyed all and every thing what was Laid to his Charge.3
In 1699 the old Dutch building was sold, and a new building, almost always called City Hall, erected in Wall street. It was in this new building, its name changed to Federal Hall, that Washington was inaugurated President of the United States.
The old Dutch building facing Coenties Slip was variously called City Hall, City House, Stadt House, State House, Town Hall, and Town House. The building was owned by the City, the meetings of the Colonial Assembly seem never to have been held in it, it was used wholly for municipal purposes, and the only connection between it and the Colony appears to have been that, after the passage of laws by the Assembly, those laws were proclaimed from the City Hall. In short, that building is completely differentiated from all other buildings in America to which the name State House was given.
In South Carolina an “Act for building a convenient State-House for the holding of the General Assemblies, Courts of Justice, and other Publick Uses,” was passed in 1712;1 but it was not until several years later that a State House was actually erected at Charleston.
In Connecticut, according to President Clap of Yale,—
The General Assembly in October , “in Order to quiet the Minds of People, and introduce a general Harmony in the Public Affairs, ordered that a State House should be built at Hartford to compensate for the College at New-Haven.”2
This building was at once erected, and in 1762 a State House was also built at New Haven.
Though proposals to build a State House at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, were made as early as 1718, no building was erected until about 1758.
In 1729 a proposal was made in Pennsylvania to build a State House at Philadelphia, but the building was not begun until 1732 and not occupied until 1736. It is needless to add that this was the famous Independence Hall, still standing.
In 1768 the Delaware Representatives, at a meeting held in their State House at New Castle, petitioned George III.
In a will made in 1653, Robert Keayne gave three hundred pounds “to the Towne of Boston to build a Condit, a Market House & Towne house.” On the death of Keayne an additional sum was raised by subscription, and on 9 March, 1657, a committee was chosen “to consider of the modell of the towne house, to be built.”1 Later the Colony was appealed to, and on 19 May, 1658,—
In answer to the request of the select men of Boston, the Court judgeth it meete to allow vnto Boston, for and towards the charges of theire toune house, Bostons proportion of one single country rate for this yeare ensuing, provided that sufficijent roomes in the sajd house shall be for euer free, for the keeping of all Courts.2
When repairs became necessary, it was ordered by the General Court on 9 October, 1667, that the expense was “to be borne & defrajed the one clere halfe by the Tresurer of the country, one fowerth part thereof by the Tresurer of ye county of Suffolke, & the other fourth part by the Tresurer of the toune of Boston.”3 This building, usually called either Court House or Town House4 by the people of Boston, was destroyed by fire 2 October, 1711; but a new edifice—the present Old State House—was erected on the same site. The new building, until about 1768 almost invariably called Court House or Town House, was injured by fire in 1747 and again in 1760; but the original walls still remain, and the building is doubtless the oldest now standing in this country which has ever been used for the purposes of a State House.
Between 1768 and 1776 various names were applied to the building, as will appear from the following extracts.
The Committee appointed . . . reported, That they had conferred with a Committee of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace for the County of Suffolk, and also with the Selectmen of the Town of Boston, and that they were consenting to part with their respective Shares in the Town-House (so called) in Boston, upon such Terms as shall be agreed upon by the Parties interested therein.1
At six o’Clock they return’d to Town; and passing in slow and orderly Procession thro’ the principal streets, and round the State-House, they retired to their respective Dwellings.2
Is it not then astonishing that the City Hall and even the Senate House should be for more than a week put to an use, so abhorrent from the original and true intent of them, when the Barracks at the Castle . . . are ready for the purpose!3
The King’s Troops are encamp’d on what is usually called the Common.—Our Parliament House, the Court House and Faneuil Hall are still occupied by Soldiers.4
We are therefore constrained thus early to Remonstrate to your Excellency, that an Armament by Sea and Land, investing this Metropolis, and a military Guard with Cannon pointed at the very Door of the State-House, where this Assembly is held, is inconsistent with that Dignity, as well as that Freedom, with which we have a Right to deliberate, consult and determine.5
I OBSERVE that the State-House in Boston, is commonly called the Town-House, which appears to many an impropriety, and different from the practice of all the other colonies.—It is therefore proposed, (if no objection shall be made to it) that the house where our Legislature meets, be in future time called the STATE-HOUSE.6
Upon a Motion, Ordered, That the Committee appointed to see the necessary Repairs of the State-House, provide Cushions for the several Seats in this Room.1
After the lapse of more than a century, during which the terms Court House and Town House had proved amply sufficient for the purpose, why should there have been a sudden change in nomenclature about 1768? Almost at once we find, in addition to the two familiar old terms, instances of Parliament House, Senate House, and State House. Writing about 1780 Governor Hutchinson, alluding to events which occurred in 1773 and to Samuel Adams, said:
Mr. Adams’s attention to the cause in which he was engaged would not suffer him to neglect even small circumstances, which could be made subservient to it. From this attention, in four or five years, a great change had been made in the language of the general assembly. That which used to be called the “court house,” or “town house,” had acquired the name of the “state house.”2
There can be little doubt that the change was due partly to political causes, but the fact, pointed out in 1773, that State House was a common term in many (though by no means in all) of the Colonies, must also have had its influence.
From the evidence thus far given it is seen that the term State House appeared in Virginia in 1638, in Maryland in 1662, in South Carolina in 1712, in Connecticut in 1717, in New Hampshire in 1718, in Pennsylvania in 1729, in Massachusetts in 1768, in Delaware in 1768; and that in all of these Colonies the term had a definite and specific meaning, being applied to a building which was owned (either in whole or in part) or was rented by the Colony, and in which the meetings of the Colonial Assemblies were held. It is also seen that in New York State House occurs only two or three times in designation of the Dutch building which, erected in 1642 as a tavern, from 1653 to 1699 was used as a City Hall. Thus the Stad Huis of New Amsterdam served a quite different purpose from the State Houses which, previous to 1776, existed in no fewer than eight of the Colonies.
Having shown what the American usage has been with respect to State House, let us now turn to England and see whether the term has ever been employed there also. In 1568 Sir T. Gresham wrote from Antwerp that “the Prince . . . came forthwith 100 horsemen and proclaimed the articles, . . . before the town house.”1 In 1576 another writer, from the same town, wrote that “the Spaniards then sallied forth between 11 and 12 o’clock, and because the Town Hall and the neighbouring houses offered a determined resistance they were set on fire and burnt down.”2 In 1609 a writer relates of Utrecht that “at break of Day they appointed two Deputies to go to the Burgomaster and the other Magistrates, to summon them . . . to present themselves in the Town-House.”3 In 1611 Tom Coryat wrote:
The Praetorium [at Nimmigen] or rather Stadthouse (for so in all the Cities & townes of the Netherlands doe they call a Senate house, the word being cōpounded of Stadt, which in the Dutch tongue signifieth a towne and house) is a very ancient & stately place.4
In 1617 Sir Dudley Carleton alluded to the “stadt-house” at Leyden, and in 1619 to the “stadt-house” at The Hague.5 In 1622 James Howell spoke of the burning by the Spanish of the “Stadthouse” at Amsterdam.6 In 1627 Bishop Hall referred to the “State-house” of a Dutch town.7 In 1634 Sir William Brereton said that “in the west side [of Delph] stands the state-house, the finest state-house said to be in all the seventeen provinces.”8 In 1641 John Evelyn alluded to the “State or Senate-house” of The Hague and to the “stadt-house” of Brussels.9 In 1657 Governor Bradford stated that Edward Winslow had been married “in Holand, by ye magistrats in their statt-house.”1 In 1660 Samuel Pepys spoke of the “Stadthouse” at Delft.2 In 1756 Mrs. Calderwood alluded to the “State-house” at Amsterdam.3
It is obvious that the term Stadt House originated with Coryat, that it at once found favor, that it has had an existence in the literary language of England for nearly three centuries, and that it has been applied—as one would naturally expect—only to a City Hall, Town Hall, or Town House in Holland or Germany. It is also obvious that the term State House, as employed by English writers and travellers, is synonymous in meaning with Stadt House. In short, the special meaning which everywhere in America (except in New York between 1664 and 1699) has always attached to the term State House, is unknown in England.
The history of the State House having now been traced on both sides of the Atlantic, we are in a position to ask how the term arose in this country. There seem to be three ways in which this could have come about. First, as has been suggested, State House may have been borrowed from the Stad Huis of New Amsterdam. The evidence given in this paper proves that the term State House was in vogue in both Virginia and Maryland before New Amsterdam came into the possession of the English; that the State Houses of Virginia and of Maryland served quite a different purpose from the Stad Huis of New Amsterdam; that a State House was in existence at Jamestown in 1643, or ten years before the tavern built in 1642 became the Stad Huis of New Amsterdam; and that the term State House was employed in Virginia as early as 1638, or six years before the erection of the tavern. Obviously, therefore, State House could not have been borrowed from the Stad Huis of New Amsterdam.
Secondly, it may be held that as the term State House appeared in England in 1627 and not in Virginia until 1638, the term was introduced from England into Virginia, where it was given a different meaning. But in England State House has been purely a literary term, employed only by writers or travellers describing Dutch or German towns; and it is difficult to believe that a term used in so restricted a field could have found its way across the Atlantic at so early a period.
Thirdly, another explanation seems possible. It was asserted at the beginning of this paper that the word State, meaning the body politic, was in common use in this country throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Some extracts in support of this assertion may be given.
Governor and council to appoint proper times for administration of justice; and provide for the entertainment of the council during their session, to be together one whole month about state affairs, and law suits.1
I doe solemnely bynde myselfe, in the sight of God, that when I shalbe called to giue my voice touching any such matter of this state, wherein ffreemen are to deale, I will giue my vote & suffrage, as I shall iudge in myne ovvne conscience may best conduce & tend to the publique weale of the body.2
I feare your tye or obligation to this state [Massachusetts], & in speciall to this towne [Ipswich], is more then yow [J. Winthrop, Jr.] did well consider when you ingaged your self another way.3
I am confident you [the Governor of Massachusetts] desire their [the Indians’] good, with the safety of your own state.4
If the State & the Elders thinke that the matters I treate on are not tanti or that they are just occasion of Disturbance, I shall be content they will advise of them 12. moneths or more, wth silence on my parte During that space.5
Now if you & the Deputie thincke meete to send to the Gouvernor & State there [Virginia] to send him [N. Eaton] back, . . . Mr. Younge his shippe is like to stay thise 2 or 3 dayes yet, who is bound for Virginea.6
It pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr. Harvard . . . to give the one half of his estate . . . towards the erecting of a Colledge, and his Library: after him another gave 300 1. others after them cast in more, and the publique hand of the State added the rest.7
I have forborne to write vnto you [J. Winthrop] a long tyme, by reason of your greate and continuall imployments in your State affayres, but now, hearing your assembly is dissolved, I make bould to trouble you with my grievances.1
It is thus seen that in the early days here it was common to speak of “the State” and of “State affairs.” Is it unreasonable to maintain that when the need was felt in Virginia for a building devoted to the public business, that building was called a State House because in it the affairs of State—that is, the body politic—were transacted? Attention may be called to three passages which are pertinent to the discussion. In 1654 Edward Johnson, referring to certain Indians, wrote: “They having thus nobly feasted them, afterward gave them Audience, in a State-house, round, about fifty foot wide, made of long poles stuck in the ground, like your Summer-houses in England.”2 In 1666 Robert Sandford, also alluding to Indians, observed:
Being entered the Towne wee were conducted into a large house of a circular forme (their generall house of State) right against the entrance was a high seate of sufficient breadth for halfe a dozen persons on which sate the Cassique himselfe . . . the Towne . . . hath a large Prospect over Meadows very spatious and delightfull, before the Doore of their Statehouse is a spacious walk rowed with trees on all sides tall and full branched.3
And in 1709 John Lawson, likewise referring to Indians, remarked:
These Revels are carried on in a House made for that purpose, it being done round with white Benches of fine Canes, joining along the Wall; . . . In these State-Houses is transacted all Publick and Private Business, relating to the Affairs of the Government, as the Audience of Foreign Ambassadors from other Indian Rulers, Consultations of waging and making War, Proposals of their Trade with neighbouring Indians or the English, who happen to come amongst them.4
Here we seem to have precisely the same idea that, if my interpretation is correct, was present in the minds of the Virginians. If it is objected that it is absurd to speak of “the State” in connection with the affairs of an Indian tribe, the reply is that precisely this absurdity and similar absurdities were committed again and again. In 1643 Roger Williams wrote: “These expressions they [Indians] use, because, they abhorre to mention the dead by name, . . . and if any stranger accidently name him, he is checkt, and if any wilfully name him he is fined; and amongst States, the naming of their dead Sachims, is one ground of their warres.”1 In addition it may be pointed out that half-naked and miserable chiefs and head-men of petty tribes were dignified with the splendid titles of “emperors,” “kings,” “dukes,” “lords,” “princes,” and “nobles.” In short, the early colonists and writers attributed to the Indians the only political and social system with which they were familiar,—that of Europe; and the absurdities which arose therefrom have been perpetuated even to the present time.
The conclusion reached by the present writer is that State House, as Lowell suggested might be the case, was “an invention of our own.”
The reading of this paper was followed by a long discussion, in which the President and Messrs. William C. Lane, George V. Leverett, Charles A. Snow, William T. Piper, Lindsay Swift, and George Wigglesworth participated.
In the absence of Mr. John Noble, Mr. Henry W. Cunningham presented on his behalf the following communication:
A paper of interest has lately been met with in the Chamberlain Collection in the Boston Public Library,—a collection of original papers of great value and remarkable in many respects. The paper is connected with the trial of Samuel Gibson of Cambridge, in 1685, for “frequenting the College contrary to law,” which was made the subject of a communication to this Society in April, 1897.2 It is an original letter of Increase Mather, then Acting President of the College, addressed to Lieutenant Jonathan Remington. It seems to have been occasioned by a fear that the case might lag in its progress through the Appellate Court, or by some anxiety to have the interests of the College duly looked out for. The fear was apparently groundless, as in those days, or at least in this case, justice appears to have been absolved of its proverbial characteristics,—the conviction in the County Court being in April, the appeal entered in August, and the determination of the case at the sitting of the Court of Assistants begun on the first of September.
This paper together with a large number of others, two hundred or more, was apparently at one time a part of the early files of the Court in Suffolk County, a collection which has lately been arranged and bound up, and of which a description has been given in a previous communication.1 Like so many others of its original and long-time associates, it had in the vicissitudes of years somehow, before the Court took in hand the arrangement of papers above referred to, escaped or been withdrawn from its legitimate home, to find itself sheltered amid alien surroundings.
I must here express my satisfaction that these numerous Court papers, though they have become estranged from the protecting care of the Court of whose records they once formed a part, and in whose custody they would seem to belong, have at least found a refuge safe and secure; and at the same time I express my obligations for the courtesy and help of the officials of the Public Library in affording me every facility for the examination and use of documents confided to their care.
The letter of President Mather is now presented as an appendix to my former communication, and runs as follows:
Lt. Jonathan Remington
There is a case brought by Samuel Gibson of yor. Towne to the Hond. Court of Assisttr. by Appeale from the Judgmt of Cambridge Court; wherein the Colledge is concerned, his disorderly practises with his companions having been very prejudiciall to the students, by drawing them from their studyes, debauching their manners & putting them ^ unnecessary expences at the cost of their Parents. And not understanding any care taken by the Court to make Answer to his reasons of Appeale; These on behalf of that Society, are to request yourselfe to draw some Answer to his Reasons and to appeare in Court, and to make Answer to such pleas as said Gibson shall further make for the defence of his disorderly practises of this nature. And what you shall do herein shall be accepted as your well wishers and endeavours for the good of said Society, please to appeare to morrow morning early, which is all at present from
yor. affectionate friend
Boston, Sept: 1. 1685.
Mr. Henry W. Cunningham spoke as follows:
The Jonathan Remington to whom Mather addressed the above letter was a well-known citizen of Cambridge. Though only a carpenter by trade, he was from an early period much engaged in public affairs, and often appeared at court, where he served many times upon juries and grand juries and repeatedly as foreman.1 He does not seem to have been on the jury in the year 1685, but his familiarity with the business of the court may have induced Mather to select him as a suitable person to watch the progress of the case.
Jonathan Remington, son of John and Elizabeth Remington, Avas born at Rowley 12 February, 1639–40, but when quite young removed to Cambridge, where he married 13 July, 1664, Martha, daughter of the first Andrew Belcher and aunt of Governor Jonathan Belcher. Paige says that he lived at the corner of Brattle and Ash Streets from 1665 to 1682,2 when he exchanged that estate for the original Blue Anchor Tavern on the northeast corner of Brighton and Mt. Auburn Streets. This tavern had been kept by his father-in-law Belcher from 1654 until his death in 1673, and then by Belcher’s widow probably till her death in 1680, when she was succeeded by her son Andrew. Evidently the latter exchanged a year or two later with Remington, who was his brother-in-law.
Remington was Corporal, and later Captain, of local military companies and served in King Philip’s War3 at Groton, at Wells, and further to the eastward, and received a grant of land in Narragansett Township Number Two, now Westminster, Massachusetts, which was claimed by his son. He was a Selectman of Cambridge nine years between 1688 and 1700, Town Clerk in 1693, 1698, 1699, 1700, and the Town and Selectmen’s Records are filled with references to him.1 He died 21 April, 1700, aged sixty-one, and his wife Martha died 16 July, 1711, aged sixty-seven.
Jonathan Remington (1677–1745), son of Lieutenant Jonathan Remington, was a distinguished man, graduating from Harvard College in 1696 and being Tutor and Fellow of the College. He was later Selectman, Representative, Councillor, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Judge of Probate and Judge of the Superiour Court. He was a cousin and intimate associate of Governor Belcher, and Paige says that in accordance with their common wish they were buried in the same tomb.
The case about which Mather wrote the note to Lieutenant Remington came to trial very soon, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Gibson, reversing the action of the lower Court.2
Mr. Ezra Ripley Thayer of Boston was elected a Resident Member.
On behalf of the Hon. Joseph Hodges Choate, an Honorary Member, Mr. Henry H. Edes communicated a Memoir of William Crowninshield Endicott, which Mr. Choate had been requested to prepare for publication in the Transactions.
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 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 Messrs. 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. Honble Joseph Lee, Esqr 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 5th.of Novr. 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.
Ipswich, October 3, 1774.
I am free the said Committee should make what Use of the above Declaration as they think proper.
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.
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
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:
an IMPORTER; at the
North Side of the TOWN-HOUSE,
and Opposite the Town-Pump, in
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.
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.
2 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxci, 139413: 42.
1 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxci. 139413: 41.
1 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxxii, 139469: 32.
3 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxciii. 139532: 37.
1 Suffolk Court Files, Cumberland and Lincoln, July, 1770, dcccxci. 13941 3: 52.
3 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxciii. 13498: 29.
1 Suffolk Court Files, dcccxci. 139413: 48.
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
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 wth 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 2d day of Novembr Anno Jacobi Anglia &ca 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 yt are in ye Duke of Brandenburg’s Service”—“Articles 6th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, 32th.” 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 4th 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. Adjt.
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 ye worshipful Richard Saltonstall Esqr. . . . I wrote out 2 letters for ye worshipful Richard Saltonstall Esqr. to be sent to ye 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, Mr. 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 yt Mr knowles should haue twenty pounds for his qts 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 Mr. 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 sd Master, by means of wch 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 Genll Assembly (then sitting) who voted the surviving remnant of ’em a charity of £200, and directed Mr 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 Saml 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 ye Records thus Speak. “Mr. William Pole, that sage, Reved. Pious man of God, departed this life Febr. 24th, 1674.” He was Clerk of ye 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 ye Reader.
Ho Passenger, ’t is worth thy Pains to stay
And take a Dead mans Lesson by ye 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 ye Door.
Death is ye Door, ye 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,
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 Compy 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 Decr. 1st 1773, signifying his resignation of the Office of President of this College. Voted, that the Revd 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.
15th. 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.
16th. 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 Comtee. to be lent to the Members of the Club, as the Committee think proper.
17th. 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 Novembr 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 ‘Ds.’; in English ‘Sir,’ contracted ‘Sr.’). (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.
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.
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;
MAN of SIN;
delivered in the
Chapel of HARVARD COLLEGE,
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.
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 . 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 Lieut. 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.