Engraved for The Colonial Society of Massachusetts from a portrait from life


    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 [1718], “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.

    Increase Mather

    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.