DECEMBER MEETING, 1906
A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Thursday, 27 December, 1906, 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 Corresponding Secretary reported that letters had been received from the Rev. Dr. Edward Everett Hale and Mr. Arthur Lord accepting Resident Membership.
Mr. Caleb Benjamin Tillinghast of Boston, and the Rev. Thomas Franklin Waters of Ipswich, were elected Resident Members.
The Treasurer reported that he had received one hundred dollars from Mr. Robert Hallowell Gardiner, a Corresponding Member; and on the motion of the Treasurer it was voted that the thanks of the Society be sent to Mr. Gardiner for his acceptable gift.
MEMOIR OF DR. THOMAS YOUNG, 1731–1777.
A few weeks ago the Rev. William Ladd Ropes (H. C. 1816) put into my hands a letter written by Dr. Thomas Young in September, 1769. The letter is badly mutilated, parts of it having been destroyed by mice and dampness. With great difficulty the faded portions which remain have been deciphered, and both the original and the copy are now submitted to the Society.
This interesting and valuable paper belongs to the Trustees of the Andover Theological Seminary. It was received with a large collection of manuscripts from the representatives of the estate of the late Rev. Dr. Egbert Coffin Smyth, whose wife, born Elizabeth Bradford Dwight, was a descendant of Jonathan Edwards, through the Dwight branch of the family from which she inherited these documents. One or two passages in this letter suggest the probability that it was written to a clergyman; it was certainly addressed to a liberally educated man who lived at some distance from Boston, whose name was written at the bottom of the second page; but, unfortunately, this name has been almost obliterated. Who, then, was the receiver of this letter?
Miss Mary Woolsey Dwight, a sister of Mrs. Smyth, remembers that many years ago some ancient manuscripts, somewhat damaged, were found in the old residence of the Ellsworths in East Windsor, Connecticut, and added to the Edwards-Dwight collection of family papers. As Ann Edwards, born 28 April, 1699,
While mice have destroyed almost the whole of the name of the person to whom this letter was addressed, enough remains to show that his surname undoubtedly began with the letter P, and that the second letter was either o or e. Investigation showed that the Rev. Thomas Potwine (Yale, 1751), born in Boston 3 October, 1731,
It was also discovered that the Rev. Joseph Perry (H. C. 1752), born in Sherborn, Massachusetts, 15 August, 1731,
When the war of the American Revolution broke out he eagerly espoused its principles, and both in public and private threw the whole weight of his influence in favor of the patriot cause. Nay, more, for when the company from East Windsor marched to Boston early in 1776, this fearless pastor accompanied them.
It thus appears, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Dr. Young’s letter was written either to the Rev. Thomas Potwine or to the Rev. Joseph Perry. The text of the letter follows.
LETTER OF DR. THOMAS YOUNG.
[Boston, September, 1769]
Dear Sir
When an ho [cler-]
I have put Mr. Mason’s
The Doctor said he had not adverted to that and then expected a compliance he declined all further conversation on of the moves of that party they seem to nts of this town are not so hypochondriacally careful dear persons as they conceived them at first view. putations of opposition at landing in the first place de with fear. Finding no such thing and setting it all to apprehensions elated them beyond measure. When they now [be]gin to find the reach of our policy and intrepidity of the indi[vi]duals they have had to deal with, it much diminishes the conceit of their omnipotence.
Mr Winthrop
I add no more but remain
your affec, friend
and humble serv
Considering the prominent part Dr. Young took in public affairs during the years which immediately preceded the breaking out of hostilities and the early years of the Revolutionary War, it is remarkable that his name is not found in our biographical dictionaries. It is for this reason that I have attempted to gather, from widely scattered sources, the principal facts in his career.
In the spring of 1729 a company of immigrants left Ireland for America under the leadership of Charles Clinton. The following extracts from a contemporary record which he kept are of interest:
A journal
I took my journey from the County of Longford on Friday the 9th day of May: came to Dublin ye 12th ditto. Entered on shipboard the ship call’d the George and Ann ye 18th. Sett sail the 20th. . .
Discovered land on ye Continent of America ye 4th day of October 1729.
A paper
James Clinton, Esquire, who lived near Belfast, in the north of Ireland, had a sister named Margaret; and one son named Charles, and two daughters, viz: Christiana and Mary. Margaret, the sister of James, was married to my great-grandfather, John Parks, and had a son named John (who was the grandfather of Arthur Parks), and two daughters, Jane and Barbara. About the year 1700, the whole connexion removed to the county of Longford, and lived nearly continguous to each other near Edgeworthstown, where Jane Parks was married to my grandfather, John Young, and had [a son named John, and] a daughter, Mary; and my grand-aunt, Barbara Parks (sister to Jane and daughter of Margaret Clinton), was married to John Crawford
For several days previous to their landing, their allowance had been a half biscuit, and half a pint of water for twenty-four hours. In consequence of this cruel treatment many of the passengers died, and amongst this number who perished with famine, was Thomas Armstrong. He was a very valuable man. His son William and his daughter Margery, shared the same fate. They arrived at Cape Cod in the fall, and remained there until spring, and then sailed for New Windsor in Ulster county, where Colonel Charles Clinton, Alexander Denniston, and my father, John Young,
The Cols, two sisters, Christina and Mary, lived some years contiguous to their brother and then removed to New York. Sometime in the year 1729 or ’30 my father married his cousin, Mary Craivford, daughter of Barbara and sister to Jane Parks. By this means the descendants of John Young have derived a double portion of Clinton blood, from their grandmothers, which they prize much more than to have been related to the assuming, family of Livingston. My father had four sons, to wit: Thomas, Joseph, John and Isaac; and three daughters, viz: Jane, Mary and Barbara. Thomas was born the 19th of Feby. 1731. He exhibited very early signs of a fertile genius, and surprizing memory. Our grandmother, Jane, was a good English scholar and learned us to read, and by the time Thomas was six years old he could read any English book correctly and fluently. As there were but few children in their new settlement, they had no schoolmaster. But my father, who was a tolerable arithmetician, undertook to teach him with the assistance of Cocker’s Arithmetic. My father found little more necessary than to explain the reasons of each operation, in the first questions in each of the first rules, when he took up the business himself and went through the book without any further instruction. This uncommon rapid progress in the acquisition of useful knowledge, by a person so young, excited the admiration of many. Sometime after Mr. John Wilson, a famous mathematician, opened a school about four miles distant, to which the young self-taught student was sent. The neighbors who knew the strength of his genius, told the master that he would acquire great credit by teaching him; but it appears that the genius of our young student was not confined to one track — he was extremely sprightly and playful and his invention quite equal to his other talents, which he did not fail to exercise in a pretty full school, by diverting the attention of the scholars from their studies. The master called at the house of one who had said so much in praise of Tommy’s great genius, who asked him how Tommy improved? The master replied, “I have as yet suspended my judgment concerning him, but if his other talents are equal to his invention of means to excite laughter and merriment, he is surely a most surprising lad.”
Tommy went on in his thoughtless career, until he one day chanced to displease a pompous young man, who had made considerable progress in figures, who insultingly told him, “since Providence has denied you the capacity or talents to acquire any useful knowledge, you should not interrupt those who have both the inclination and capacity to learn; besides I shall have a great estate to manage, which will require all the knowledge I can gain to manage it, and support my rank. But if you can gain a knowledge of pounds, shillings and pence, it is all you will ever have occasion for.” Tommy, viewing him with the most sovreign contempt, replied: “Sir, you talk very exultingly of your talents and capacity; but I will convince you before the end of six weeks I will be qualified to teach you, and from that period as long as you and I shall live.” From that hour he quit his wild pranks and commenced the attentive student, and fairly verified his promise to the satisfaction and gratification of the whole school. Mr. Wilson’s fame as a Mathematical teacher soon procured him an invitation to open a school in New York, where he removed.
Thomas had from infancy an invincible propensity to the study of physic, and often declared to me, when we were very young, that if it should be proposed by those who possessed the power to confer it, to make him Emperor of the whole earth, on condition that he would relinquish the study of physic, he would spurn the proposal. But as he knew a knowledge of the Languages would be a necessary acquirement, he now turned all his attention to effect this purpose. But as there was no Latin master in the place at that time, he resolved to learn it from books. He accordingly borrowed a Vocabulary and a Concordi from Col. Clinton, who observed that he would find it much more difficult to learn Latin without the help of a Master, than to go through Cocker without assistance. He returned the books in about six weeks. The Col. naturally concluded that Thomas had been convinced of the impracticability of his design; he however examined him to find out what progress he had made, and soon discovered that every word of both books was perfectly imprinted in the memory of his student. The Col. laid by the books and told Tommy that he wished to see his father on business. Our father soon waited on the Col. who told him that it would be almost criminal to let such a promising genius sink in obscurity for want of an education, that could be so easily acquired, and added, “I am going to New York and if you wish to give him the means of improvement, in any degree adequate to the merit of his uncommon diligence and surprising talents, if you will give me the money I will bring him a set of the Classics; and after he has perused them sufficiently, I am confident that, by the assistance of a good tutor, for a few months, will give him a good knowledge of the Latin language.” The plan was executed and when the young student got his books he retired every fair day to a pleasant arbor, composed of young trees interwoven with grape vines so as to render it impervious to the rays of the sun, and was rarely seen except at meal time. But the effect of such intense application became so visible in his conduct that his parents were alarmed with apprehensions, that if he could not be immediately diverted from his studies, his mental faculties might be much injured. Matters were so arranged that one of the Col’s sons called and coaxed him to go home with him, where they would have a variety of books to read; but matters were so contrived that the key of the Col’s library was mislaid and could not be found. He remained in this friendly assylum until he resumed his cheerful sprightly humor. This happened in the golden age when friendship was a reality and not an empty name. He assumed his studies again with more prudence and much better success, for now everything which he learned was indellibly impressed in his memory, and from this period I do candidly believe that he never forgot anything, unless past the power of recollection, that was worth retaining. After he had obtained a very considerable knowledge of his Grammar and other Latin authors, there fortunately came a minister
With these preparatory qualifications he commenced his apprenticeship, probably about the age of 17, and remained about two years, but before the expiration of that time, many of the patients reposed more confidence in the skill of the apprentice than in that of the tutor (Dr. Kitterman). During this period he gained a facility of conversing in both High and Low Dutch. He then took lodgings at the house of Captain [Garret] Winegar
It is not known whether Dr. Young’s epic poem, entitled The Conquest of Quebec, was written during his residence in Amenia or later; nor has a copy of it been found. In a memoir on the names of places in Dutch New York, read 31 December, 1816, before the New York Historical Society, the Hon. Egbert Benson says:
Vermont, Green Mountain, and the town of Amenia, in Dutchess county, Pleasant, . . . owe their names to the fancy of Young, the poet; he had a peculiar facility in making English words from Latin ones. In his Poem, the Conquest of Quebec, in describing the portents which he feigned to have preceded the battle of the Plains of Abraham, and which, according to his fiction, appalled the stout heart of Wolfe not a little, the first line of one of the couplets, [was] “vulpine ululations, ursine growls,” and the two concluding words of the next, “predicting owls,” those which preceded have escaped my memory, and it is not now in my power to recover them; sad fate for an epic! “scarce twice five lustres past and out of print.”
It was during his residence in Amenia that Dr. Young’s friendship with Ethan Allen, then living in the adjacent town of Salisbury, Connecticut, began.
They were often together, and they were also in sympathy in the violence of their patriotism and in their religious unbelief (p. 46).
In his Life of Ethan Allen, Henry Hall writes:
We are told that Allen in his early life was very intimate with Dr. Thomas Young. . . . One of the most noted characteristics of Ethan, his fondness for the society of able men, is illustrated in his association with Young (p. 20).
The following extracts are from “The Allen Family — an unpublished lecture, delivered at Burlington, by Rev. Zadock Thompson, March 16, 1852,” printed in the Vermont Historical Gazetteer, 1867:
I was told by the late Mr. Jehial Johns, who died in Huntington in 1840, aged 85 years, and who knew Ethan Allen in Connecticut,. . .that Allen was about that time on very intimate terms with that noted infidel and historical writer Dr. Thomas Young, and that from him he derived his own infidel notions, and the principal arguments by which he defended them (i. 563).
Mention is made in this letter, you will perceive, of his book on theology. This work was none other than that generally known as Ethan Allen’s Bible. As this was the most remarkable, and most considerable of his works, it being an octavo volume of 477 pages, I will say a few words respecting it . . . .
At the time of Ethan Allen’s youth there were in Litchfield co., Ct., and in Dutchess co., N. Y., which lies adjacent, a number of professed infidels, among whom a Dr. Thomas Young was prominent, both on account of his education and abilities, and also on account of his daring profaneness, amounting sometimes to blasphemy, for which he was once prosecuted, convicted and punished. Young was living on what was called the Oblong in Dutchess co., and very near the line of Connecticut. At the time Pres’t Edwards proposed his famous theological questions, Young engaged in their discussion, and boldly espoused the infidel side, and argued in opposition to the necessity of a Divine Revelation. Ethan Allen had previous to this time been on very intimate terms with Young, had spent much time at his house, and fully imbibed all of his infidel notions. Allen, therefore, entered at once upon this discussion, supporting the same views with Young, and spending a large share of his time in writing. Mrs. Wadhams,
The substance of Allen’s theology may be expressed in few words. It consisted in a belief in the existence of a Supreme Creator and Governor of the Universe; in a belief that man would be rewarded or punished in a future state in accordance with his doings in this life; that reason is a sufficient guide for man, and that a revelation is unnecessary; and, being unnecessary, has never been made, and is not to be expected. Whether the Oracles of Reason was the sole production of Ethan Allen, or the joint production of him and Dr. Young, may never, perhaps, be certainly known. I am very confident, however, that no person who is familiar with Allen’s other writings, can read the Oracles of Reason without suspicion that some other person beside himself was concerned in its composition (i. 569).
To anticipate a little our story of Dr. Young’s life in Boston, the following correspondence will be read with interest in this connection. The first letter, written by Aaron Davis, Jr., appeared in the Boston News-Letter of Thursday, 26 November, 1772 (p. 2/1). Dr. Young’s cause was instantly espoused by Samuel Adams
I AARON DAVIS, JR. 40 TO DR. THOMAS YOUNG.
To Dr. Young
Sir,
I Perceive the manner in which I spoke of you in a late Town-Meeting has given you offence: If you are so vain as to think yourself of so much importance that a man who expresses a dislike of your character, wounds his Country through your Sides, I believe you are the only man in the world that has so high an opinion of your own importance: for my own part, I believe their is no person with whose character the Interest of the Country is less connected than with your’s.
If you think by giving us your CREED to deceive the vulgar; and palm yourself on them for a Christian, let me tell you, you are much mistaken, there are none, unless whose Eyes party zeal hath blinded, but sees there is nothing in your Creed to distinguish you from the most thorough paced infidels, and virulent opposers of our holy Religion. — Let me ask you plainly, do you believe the scriptures of the Old and New-Testament, or any part of them, to be truely a Revelation from Ood; — or that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, and the appointed Saviour of the world? Do you believe that Jesus is risen from the Dead, or that he is the appointed Judge of the world? — that by him God will judge the world in righteousness, and every man will be rewarded or punished in another world according to the deeds done in the body? — let us have plain, positive, unavasive answers to the foregoing plain questions? — Do you believe it of a whit more consequence to be acquainted with the genealogy of Christ than with those of Paul, or Cephas, Luther, Calvin, or even Mahomet himself? — Have you not freely professed years ago that you tho’t it your indispensible duty to undeceive mankind, and discredit the writings of the bible? — has not your zeal in the Cause of infidelity led you to speak of Jesus Christ; and the Virgin Mary in terms of reproach and contempt too bad to be repeated after you, and too shocking to be published to the world in a common News-Paper?
You seem to complain of it, Sir, that I censured your moral character and set that in an odious light, but let me ask you, and ask the impartial world, whether, or no the man that accustoms himself to curse and swear, and take God’s name in vain and damn his fellow creatures, can be said to be a moral man? — do your acquaintance know and can they witness for you that you are free from such a use of your tongue? — perhaps I am better acquainted with your conversation than you are aware, and let me tell you, to say the least, — if you are the gentleman that keeps that unruly member, the Tongue in due subjection then I will acknowledge my ears have deceived me.
Now, Sir, I do not deny, that I did fully and openly declare in our late Town-Meeting that I did not chuse to have any thing to do with measures, wherein I must follow the lead of such men as Dr. Young, or in words of like import, — and I believe I might further say that if I had any thing of my own private affairs of importance to be transacted I should chuse to commit it to men of virtuous lives and conversations and this is still my opinion, & I hope ever will be so to my dying day: and let me tell you plainly, I do not chuse to put confidence in any man that makes it his business to disparage the religion and dishonour the person of our glorious Redeemer, or that has no more regard for the name of God, or the good of mankind, than to curse and damn his fellow creatures, and take the awful name of God in vain: — such men, I take, with all their pretences to patriotism and benevolence, to have no solid principles of goodness, and are quite unworthy of any special trust and confidence.
The Town of Boston, is not I am perswaded straitned for persons of spirit and capacity, and I may add of solidity and exemplary religion to serve them in all their important trusts: — and it has always been astonishing to the world how any important trust come to be committed to you the best account that can be given for it, I believe, is that you appeared ready to lead in such bold and exceptionable measures, as to most of the wise and discerning part of the Gentlemen of the Town appeared to be quite imprudent and dangerous, and rather savoured of faction, than boded any good to the public, — and to tell the truth it has given no small offence, to the more solid, judicious part of Town and Country, and not a little disserved the noble Cause of public liberty that you should have been held up in the light of a zealous Patriot, and been put to lead in measures of public importance: — But let your character be what it may, I don’t think, that a set of Athiests or Deists, men of profligate manners and profane tongues are fit persons to be intrusted suffered to lead in the interesting concerns of public liberty and happiness; — and don’t it look quite ridiculous for a Set of Puritans, deeply concerned for their religious as well as civil privileges, as the generality of the good people of this Country are, to set up such men, as I have just mentioned, to be the leaders, guiders and managers in public affairs: — For my part I wish our eyes may be on the faithful of the land, men of Exemplary Religion, united with us in the Faith and fellowship of the Gospel.
What end you designed to answer by the pompous accounts of your reputable Parentage and your comfortable fortune, I know not. — Your account of the early impressions you had of religion, and your concern to be saved, taken with your solemn appeal to God, seems to me to savour of prophanity: — however it agrees well enough with the other parts of your conduct. If you ever had such a serious turn of mind, I wish you had carried it through life, — that of an apostate is a dreadful character, read Heb. 6. 4 to the 8th verse, in a serious hour. — Perhaps, dear Sir, the Gospel is not a cunningly devised fable — and if there were only a perhaps such a text should make an apostate tremble.
It is not impossible that you might be helpful in encouraging Recruits for carrying on the war; but I don’t find you had courage enough to venture your head: — and since the detestable Stamp-Act you may have vapoured away in talk; — Words are but wind — whether your view was to be admired, applauded and promoted, or anything better, you know best.
I now am, and ever have been as steady a friend to the rights and privileges of my country as any man whatsoever, though perhaps not so fond of sounding my own praise as some, and in my humble station shall do all in my power to promote good Government and secure our invaluable liberties, but in this glorious Cause I shall think myself very unhappy to be obliged to consult with, or follow measures dictated by other than men of probity, piety and real Christianity.
I retract nothing that I said about you in the Meeting referred to: — I wish myself and you better men. I have neither leisure nor learning to pursue controversy — I wish my Country men of abler heads and better lives than either of us to lead in public measures.
As I ever did so I now wish you well.
Roxbury Nov. 23 1772
A. Davis, jun.
II SAMUEL ADAMS TO AARON DAVIS, JR.
Dr. Young’s Letter to Mr. Aaron Davis, Jun should have had a Place in this Day’s paper, had we not been pre-engaged with the following.
Mr. A—n D—s.
Sir,
THE weakness of an adversary, with a man of understanding, will frequently disarm him of his resentment: Who would chuse to enter the lists, when even victory is attended with disgrace? A—n D—s as a Huckster of small Wares, within the Bar-room, or laudably vending Milk and Water, might have grubbed on unnoticed, and not superlatively contemptible; but when he so far mistakes his proper department, as to blunder into the field of politicks, and assume a dictatorial and offensive part, we are compelled with reluctance to scourge the insect, tho’ convinced ’tis but an insect still. We are informed by your fellow townsman, whom we presume must know you well, that you are destitute of feeling; your unexampled effrontery in the publick transaction which has unhappily brought you into notice, added to the consummate assurance evidenced in the stupid composition to which you have tacked your name, are strong circumstances in favour of the position: But is your modesty truly impregnable? Cannot the weapon of stern rebuke arouse your sensibility? Must honest indignation mourn a defeat? I intend to try the doubtful experiment, tho’ you should analize a satyr to be a proof of your general consequence, and extract incense to your vanity from the blackest record of your shame.
In your outrageous zeal for the cause of Christianity, and the Virgin Mary, permit me to question your sincerity: It is evident from your notable performance, that you have been acquainted with the religious principles and immoral practices of the gentleman so very exceptionable to you; for some years past: That he was then as thorough-paced an infidel, as virulent an opposer of our holy religion, as he is now: That he was doing discredit to the Bible then, or to adopt your own phrase, was undeceiving mankind as actively as at any time since: That you was acquainted with the open profanity of his conversation, and if we may take your word for it, was an ear-witness to his oaths and execrations: Why did you not commence a champion in the cause of Christianity some months earlier? It would have had a better appearance, if in your ebullient zeal you had endeavoured to prevent his desseminating such mischievous principles, and seasonably entered your caveat against the pernicious effects of his example: But the cause of Christianity abstracted from political concerns, was not sufficient to awaken your resentment: Will not this my dear sir! occasion suspicions, that all your flaming professions of patriotism will neither discredit nor remove?
Doctor Young (I dare you to contradict me) has ever been an un unwearied assertor of the rights of his countrymen: has taken the post of hazard, and acted vigorously in the cause of American freedom: Such endeavours and exertions, have justly entitled him to the notice, to the confidence of the people; they, from a thorough conviction of his political integrity, have united him with several gentlemen, against whom we presume you can have no just exception, to explain their rights and state their grievances; was not your conscience so delicately offensible, I would ask such an immaculate christian, whether your ideas of reprobation extended not only to the whole committee, but to every transaction in which they could possibly be employed? If not, are you not ashamed of your capricious folly, in rejecting a cause which you profess to have at heart, for the sake of an individual, against whom, your spotless purity has matter of objection.
Shall I be arraigned of want of charity, if I here express my doubt of your veracity in this matter? The cloak of Christianity is the threadbare garb of hypocrisy; and novel cover for political apostates: I suspect ’tis the cause that renders the man obnoxious; the infidel might have perverted the world, and your zeal been smothered in its native bosom of sanctity; in short, had not the cause of liberty found a busy advocate in the man you brand with irreligion, your abhorrence would probably never have found a tongue.
You do not chuse to have any thing to do with measures wherein you must follow the lead of such men as Dr. Young: I apprehend you confine yourself here to political matters; if so, what must those rejected measures be? if just, right and reasonable, the man must be an incorrigible blockhead to reject them, let them originate where they will: if on the contrary, they are improper and exceptionable; you might have discountenanced the measure, without villifying the man.
Inconsiderable and weak as I esteem you, you have still an interest in the constitutional claims of an English subject, equal to a nobleman, equal to an intelligent being: these you have no right to sacrifice even to your own predominant folly. You assert that you are, and ever have been as steady a friend to the rights and privileges of your country, as any man whatsoever, &c. what then is that exact point of discretion, that chaste line of decorum, to which your love of your country will carry you, and no further? All those concerned in consulting and labouring for the redemption of their country, must be very examplary christians, or your patriotism hangs so loosely about you, that your country may perish rather than you will unite for it’s salvation, with a man not com-pleatly orthodox: For no political measures can possibly be reasonable or just, which are not dictated by men of piety and real Christianity: The truth of this observation will appear with peculiar lustre, when we consider what a paultry figure, those antient heathenish states of Greece and Rome made in the primitive ages. You elsewhere shrewdly remark, that it has always been astonishing in the world; how any important trusts came to be committed to Dr. Young; the best account that can be given for it, YOU BELIEVE is, that he appeared ready to lead in such bold and exceptionable measures, as rather savoured of faction than boded any good to the public: which is in plain English, that because the measures he proposed, were dangerous and exceptionable, Therefore the town approved and confided in him. To wave the illiberal slander upon the town; I question most christian sir, whether any article of Dr. Young’s CREED will shock decency and common sense more than this.
The present crisis is truly an alarming one to your country; the few friends of the people have abundant necessity to have their hands strength’ned: the man who deserts now, is the worst enemy of his country: You sir! have done this, with the aggravated guilt of endeavouring to load with obloquy the cause you abandon — I scorn to keep terms with a man I esteem so base — You have provided yourself a Retreat, being assured of the smiles of power; nay more, you are entitled to their favour, for the rank injury you meant to the oppressed people; and we shall probably see such baseness distinguished in the commissioned scroll of SCOUNDRELS and RESCINDERS.
Vindex.
III DR. THOMAS YOUNG TO AARON DAVIS, JR.
To Mr. Aaron Davis, jun.
Sir,
However distant I may be from supposing you the contriver of any one sentence of the abusive thing, ushered into the world under the auspices of your name and character, I must at least consider it as a child of your adoption, and thereupon address you as the ostensible author. And even with this provision I am really sorry to find myself necessitated to impute to you more artifice and disingenuous design than any one of your acquaintance believes you capable of; and hitherto have thought beneath your native honesty even to countenance.
The town of Boston alarmed at a recent attack upon their happy constitution and constantly observing that acquiesence under one imposition invited another, concluded to present their fellow subjects in this province especially with a state of their Rights and the infringements of those Rights which have been made in the past ten years.
But be this matter as it may, the town of Roxbury equally uneasy at the inroads making on their birthrights called a meeting, in which mention was made of the measure planning by Boston. How did you behave on this occasion? You could not espouse a measure in the concertion of which such men as Dr. Young had been employed. Had Machiavel himself concerted the measure, were it apparently good and salutary, and as such adopted by a body of gentlemen, whose capacities you, for some cause, seem disposed to complement, I take it you would have had nothing to do with its origin. The town of Boston have long had that single point in view, to preserve inviolably the right of appointing and rewarding at their discretion their public servants. They may in some instances have appeared somewhat exceptionable to your new connections, by their tenacity of these Rights, but notwithstanding the impudent insinuation of your dictator they still conceive the odious epithet, faction, to be chargeable only to your side. Government, according to that glorious plan concerted by the wisdom, and established by the virtue of their renowned ancestors, they revere; but cannot so readily be convinced that the present system of usurpation, imposition and incessant innovation is that government which any honest man can countenance, much less wish to support. Your professions of readiness to do all in your power for the security of our invaluable Liberties are rendered quite suspicious by the conditions with which you clog them; they are no more than the hacknied rant of the most inveterate enemies of our constitution; and your cloke of Christianity is at this time prostituted with as glaring indiscretion, absurdity and impiety as it ever was done by man.
Were you on board an armed vessel and on the point of being boarded by a pirate, would you refuse acting for the common defence till you had catechized all the sailors and rendered every one of them as orthodox as yourself and as chaste in their expressions?
If we are not to resist the invasions of tyranny till we have incorporated a band of Moseses, Jobs and Samuels for the expedition, I question whether your new party would wish a more flattering condition. To be quite free with you Mr. Davis, your designs are very apparent, and your behaviour very absurd and ridiculous, as well as unjust, and most studiously calculated to take injurious advantages, but I have long since bade defiance to the united force of your cabal. They may flourish and fulminate under the signature of Aaron Davis, jun., Chromes, True Patriot, Freeholder or Landlord, or whatever other guise of patriotism, virtue, or religion they are pleased to assume. But seeing you have been pleased to revive a most detestable falshood, long since abandon’d, I now again bid defiance to you and all your associates to prove that I ever spoke one reproachful word of Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary in this province. This I think is the third time I have published a challenge of this import; and if it be not now answered, let the public determine what manner of zeal inspires our tory advocates for Christianity.
Your interrogatories seem better calculated for the meridian of Madrid than Roxbury or Boston, and the consideration of them will therefore be suspended till we have advice of your receiving all the appendages of commission necessary to convene a free man before your awful inquisitorial tribunal.
I am Sir, with much meekness of spirit,
Your humble servant,
Tho. Young.
We resume our extracts from Dr. Joseph Young’s narrative:
As his [Dr. Thomas Young’s] practise in the country was very extensive and fatiguing, I urged him to remove to some populous city, where the toil would be less and the profits greater. He at length consented and resolved to remove to Albany, as he and a number of wealthy men were agreeing with Col. John Henry Lydius of the city of Albany for several townships of land of six miles square, which lies in the now State of Vermont. But the great land-jobbers in New York, by endeavoring to defeat Lydius’ title, that they might share in the profits, retarded the settlement of the country, and by their eagerness to grasp the shadow they lost the substance.
We removed to Albany
Let us briefly review Dr. Young’s career in Boston. As early as 6 June, 1768, with Benjamin Kent, Benjamin Church, Jr., John Adams and Joseph Warren, he signed an Address of the Sons of Liberty of Boston to John Wilkes, which is preserved in England among Wilkes’s papers and correspondence.
This afternoon “The Body” [of merchants] as they are called met & just before some of them Proceeded through the streets with Dr Young at their head with Three Flags Flying, Drums Beating & a french Horn — Thos Baker carried one of them for which he is much Blamed by me — The meeting today will I believe prove very Prejudicial to the Merchants & Trade of the Town of Boston (pp. 204, 205).
Writing to Governor Bernard, 28 August, 1770, Hutchinson says:
The infamous Molineux and Young with Cooper, Adams, and two or three more, still influence the mob, who threaten all who import; but it seems impossible that it should hold out much longer.
In January, 1771, Hutchinson wrote to a correspondent in England:
We have not been so quiet these five years. Our incendiaries of the lower order have quite disappeared. A Doctor Young, whose name has often appeared in the newspapers, has taken passage for North Carolina. He may have a chance among the “Regulators” there. I hope many of the most flaming zealots, who have been at the head of affairs, see their mistake.
Dr. Young’s stay in the South was brief, since he returned to Boston in season to deliver at the Manufactory House,
I cannot boast the ignorance of Hancock, the insolence of Adams, the absurdity of Rowe, the arrogance of Lee, the vicious life and untimely death of Mollineaux, the turgid bombast of Warren, the treasons of Quincy, the hypocrisy of Cooper, nor the principles of Young. Nor can I with propriety pass over the characters of these modern heroes, (or, to use their own phrase, Indians,) without a few observations on their late conduct
The eighth of these heroes is Y-g, whose character cannot be drawn by any pen with the consistency that becomes a true limner. Could we raise up the spirit of one of the murderers of St. Stephen, to tell us what a figure Paul cut, when he breathed out threatening and slaughter against his Saviour, then might we form an idea of Dr. Y-g; but since that is impossible, I can only refer you to-his own countenance, wherein you may read his true and genuine disposition. Suffice it to say, this man stands accused of rebellion, not only against his Sovereign, but against his God;— he makes a mock at the merits of his Redeemer, and uses his God only to swear by.
On 12 March, 1771, Dr. Young was appointed by the Town on a committee to consider the following article in the warrant:
That some steps may be taken to vindicate the Character of the Inhabitants grosly injured by some partial and false publications relative to the tryals of Capt Preston &c.
This committee reported at an adjournment of the Town Meeting on 19 March, 1771, and recommended “the appointment of another committee to prepare and draw up a true and full account of those Tryals and what preceded them;” and Dr. Young was of the committee appointed for this purpose.
Dr. Thos Young apply’d in behalf of Mrs. Wells & Mrs. Wright for liberty to exhibit the likeness of the late Mr. Whiteneld &c. in Wax Work at Concert Hall.
On 18 August, 1772, Thomas Young, of Boston, physician, for £216.6.8 purchased of John Newell of Boston, cooper, a dwelling house and land on the southerly side of Wing’s Lane, now Elm Street, only a few rods distant from Faneuil Hall and from the house of his friend Dr. Joseph Warren in Hanover Street.
When, on 2 November, 1772, the Town of Boston adopted Samuel Adams’s proposal to create a Committee of Correspondence to consist of twenty-one persons, Dr. Young was appointed a member of it. The names of Otis, who was named as chairman, Adams, Warren, Quincy, Oliver Wendell, and other prominent citizens also appear in the list.
The North End Caucus, a powerful factor in public affairs in Boston at this period, was organized as early as 1767 in the old Salutation Tavern which stood at the upper end of Salutation Alley, now Salutation Street. Later its meetings were held in the Green Dragon Tavern in Union Street.
In the matter of the tea, Dr. Young had a prominent part. At a meeting of the Caucus, held at the Green Dragon, 2 November, 1773, it was —
Voted — That a committee be chosen to draw a resolution to be read to the Tea Consignees to-morrow 12 O’Clock, noon, at Liberty Tree: and that Dr. Thos Young and Church, and Warren be a committee for that purpose, and make a report as soon as may be.
As the Consignees did not appear at Liberty Tree to hear the Resolution read, the Sons of Liberty appointed a committee of which William Molineux was Chairman, to “wait on them to know their determination.”
The principal People that accompanied Mr Mollineux [to the store of Richard Clark and Sons in King, now State, Street] were as Follows — Mr Saml Adams, Mr Wra Dennie, Mr John Pitts, Colo. Heath of Roxbury, Dr Church, Dr Warren, Dr Young, Cap’ Jno Matchet, Cap’ Hopkins, Nat Barker, Gabriel Joh[o]nnot, Ezekl Cheever & about five hundred more as near as I could guess.
Of the great meeting in Faneuil Hall and the Old South on 29 November to take measures to prevent the landing of the tea, Young was one of the leaders,
The persons who principally proposed the questions on which the above resolutions and proceedings were founded were Mr. Adams, Mr. Molineux, Dr. Young and Dr. Warren; and they used many arguments to induce the people to concur in these resolutions.
On the night of 16 December, when the tea was destroyed, Dr. Young made one of the Tea Party.
Tea is really a slow poison . . . [and is] said to be possessed of a corrosive quality, strong enough to injure the hands of the workmen almost intolerably. . . . I have my self been rheumatically affected from my infancy, and in special at the annual changes of spring and autumn had defluxions on the jaws, teeth or other parts, till the Tea became politically poisoned, and then, however much I admired it, leaving it totally off I have gained a firmness of constitution unexperienced before from my infancy. My substitute is chamomile flowers.
At the Town Meeting on 10 May, 1774, Dr. Young was named on a committee to instruct the Town’s Representatives in the General Court, which had been selected by the Caucus the night before at the Green Dragon.
Young’s friendship with Ethan Allen, already mentioned, may account for his selection at this time as the financial agent of Charles Phelps of Marlborough, Vermont, who was actively engaged (1770–1777) “in prosecuting petitions to prevent New York patenting those lands west of Connecticut River and east of New York east line:”
1774, July 27, sent £6, Lawful money, to Deacon Barrett
In addition to his professional and public duties, Dr. Young found time to conduct a vigorous correspondence with prominent men in other places
I was in Boston the other day, and flattered myself with the hope of seeing you, but Dr. Young informed me you had removed to Salem. However, the deficiency of your good company was in a great measure made up by my being honored with the company of Messrs. Cushing, Adams, and Dr. Young, patriots of renown, whose zeal in their country’s cause will hand down their names to posterity, with universal applause.
A letter written by Dr. Young to Samuel Adams, 4 September, 1774, describes the scene in Harvard Square, Cambridge, two days before, when Judge Danforth publicly, in the presence of four thousand people, resigned his office as a Mandamus Councillor, which Dr. Young and his friend Dr. Joseph Warren witnessed.
This morning Doctor Young left the town, to settle at Providence, being apprehensive from the measures that are taking that he may be taken up, and therefore thinks it his duty to defeat their purposes, in regard to himself, while it’s in his power.
That Dr. Young’s apprehensions were not without substantial foundation is apparent from the following document which appeared in a Boston newspaper within a week of his flight:
The following is an authentic Copy of a Letter which was lately thrown into the Camps, directed,
“To the Officers and Soldiers of his Majesty’s Troops in Boston.”
IT being more than probable that the Kings standard will soon be erected, from rebellion breaking out in this province, its proper that you soldiers, should be acquainted with the authors thereof, and of all the Misfortunes brought upon the province, the following is a list of them, viz: Mess. Samuel Adams, James Bowdoin, Dr. Thomas Young, Dr. Benjamin Church, Capt. John Bradford, Josiah Quincey, Major Nathaniel Barber, William Molleneux, John Hancock, Wm. Cooper, Dr. Chancy, Dr. Cooper, Thomas Cushing, Joseph Greenleaf, and William Denning. — The friends of your King and Country, and of America hope and expect it from you soldiers, the instant rebellion happens, that you will put the above persons immediately to the sword, destroy their houses and plunder their effects; it is just that they should be the first victims to the mischeifs they have br’t upon us.
A Friend to Gr. Brit. & America.
N. B. — Don’t forget those trumpeters of sedition, the printers Edes and Gill, and Thomas.
Dr. Franklin B. Dexter says that Dr. Young “took refuge in Newport after the battle of Lexington.”
Oct 1774.
3. Conversing with Dr. Young on philosophy. Dined at Mr. Channings
10. Dr. Young one of the Committee at Bo [Boston] being here, ventured to open Mr. Adams Letter and copied the Affidavit and sent it to Mr. Adams at the Congress Philada (i. 463).
December 13, 1774. Last Evening I read a Letter dated Boston yesterday and sent by Dr. Young to Mr. Sec’ry. Ward with this Information, viz. last Evening Dr. Warren desired me to inform you & the rest of our Friends in Newport that, 300 Soldiers more or less are embarked for Newport (i. 501).
December 23, 1774. It is certain that Application has been made to the French Canadians & to the Six Nations of Indians, to joyn the Kings Troops against the Colonies — but as to both without Success, as I see in the New York, N Haven & Boston prints. Dr. Young just from Boston brings the same Acco who conversed with a Gentleman just from Canada. The Tories begin to say that no such Application has been made (i. 503).
Dr. Joseph Young gives the following interesting account of his brother’s experience at Newport:
He accordingly removed there [Newport], and remained until the British concerted their design to seize those who they called the ringleaders of the rebellion and send them in irons to England. But as it would be necessary to seize them all at one time, a particular day was appointed and Wallace of the Rose man-of-war, was deputed to go to Newport and seize Doctor Young, but lest he should have a long passage, I think they allowed him three or four days. He however had a very short passage
The fugitive hired a house in Philadelphia and fell into some private practice until the General Hospital was established, when he was appointed a senior physician, and with the celebrated Doctor Rush, had the chief care of the Hospital until his death.
In the Pennsylvania Gazette of Wednesday, 26 July, 1775 (p. 3/1), there appeared a paper by Dr. Young on putrid bilious fever. It is dated 17 July, is addressed to Hall and Sellers, the proprietors of the Gazette, and fills almost a column. In this connection it is interesting to quote Dr. Benjamin Rush:
I derived great pleasure from hearing, after the fever had left the city, that calomel had been given with success as a purge in bilious fevers in other parts of the Union besides Philadelphia. Dr. Lawrence
On 5 August, 1775, Dr. Young wrote from Philadelphia to John Adams a letter which seems to have been in reply to questions of Mr. Adams as to the proper person to be employed to search for minerals, especially lead, “much needed under present circumstances.”
1775, Oct. 10. Dr. Young called at my house, requesting me to endeavor to collect a small supply for Mrs. Cleamuns,
1775 December 23. Lent Dr. Young an octavo volume (p. 54).
1776 March 13. After dinner, went to Dr. Young’s. Stayed there hearing him read a piece as answer to Common Sense, called Plain Truth, but very far from coming up to the title (p. 62).
1776 May 30. After dinner went to James Cannon’s . . . Dr. Young being returned from Yorktown, came there to see me . . . Heard of his declaration of his expedition, read his letters from the Committee
In the summer of 1776 Dr. Young was attached to the Philadelphia Rifle Battalion.
The letter-book of Edmund Quincy (1703–1788) contains the draught of an interesting letter dated Lancaster, Massachusetts, 25 March, 1776, to his son-in-law John Hancock, then in Philadelphia in attendance on Congress, in which there are allusions to Dr. Young: “I thank you for your hint to Dr. Y. of writing to me, under cover, the political news of the day.” In a postscript he adds:
Wrote at same time, and enclosed, a letter to daughter Hancock, in which I acquainted her as follows: . . . Refer her to Dr. Y’s letter . . . To send me newspapers or other publications; and to put Dr. Y upon writing frequently of occurrences, especially what relates to French proceedings, either from F[rance] or W[est] Indies.
Notwithstanding his residence in Philadelphia, Dr. Young appears to have been again in Albany in May, 1776, where he was a member of the Committee of Correspondence as late as the following November.
Again we have recourse to Marshall:
1776, July 3. Near nine [P. M.] went to meet the Committee of Privates with others at Thorne’s school-room,
1776, July 10. To James Cannon’s; drank coffee there; stayed till past nine. There were John Adams, Paul Fooks, Dr. Young, Timothy Matlack (p. 83).
1776, Oct. 21. To the State House Yard, where it’s thought about fifteen hundred people assembled, in order to deliberate on the change of sundry matters contained in Form of Government, settled in the late Convention . . . Chief speakers, against [the] Convention, were Col. McKean and Col. Dickinson; for the Convention, James Cannon, Timothy Matlack, Dr. Young and Col. Smith of York County (p. 98).
In a letter to Samuel Perley dated. 19 June, 1809, John Adams wrote:
In 1775 and 1776 there had been great disputes, in Congress and in the several States, concerning a proper constitution for the several States to adopt for their government. A Convention in Pennsylvania had adopted a government in one representative assembly and Dr. Franklin was the President of that Convention. The Doctor, when he went to France in 1776, carried with him the printed copy of that Constitution, and it was immediately propagated through France that it was the plan of government of Mr. Franklin. In truth it was not Franklin, but Timothy Matlack, James Cannon, Thomas Young, and Thomas Paine, who were the authors of it.
John Adams wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush, 12 April, 1809, as follows:
I call you to witness that I was the first member of Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January, 1776, in my “Thoughts on Government, in a letter from a gentleman to his friend,” that is, Mr. Wythe, in favor of a government in three branches, with an independent judiciary. This pamphlet, you know, was very unpopular. No man appeared in public to support it, but yourself. You attempted in the public papers to give it some countenance, but without much success. Franklin leaned against it. Dr. Young, Mr. Timothy Matlack, and Mr. James Cannon, and I suppose Mr. George Bryan were alarmed and displeased at it. Mr. Thomas Paine was so highly offended with it, that he came to visit me at my chamber at Mrs. Yard’s to remonstrate and even scold at me for it, which he did in very ungeuteel terms . . . Paine’s wrath was excited because my plan of government was essentially different from the silly projects that he had published in his “Common Sense.” By this means I became suspected and unpopular with the leading demagogues and the whole constitutional party in Pennsylvania.
In a paper entitled The Council of Censors,
The Constitution of Pennsylvania was launched upon a stormy sea . . . The Whigs divided: some wanted to revise the Constitution, while others wanted it kept as it was framed. The laws were disregarded. The trouble “brought the dregs to the top.”
The influence of Cannon, Matlack, and Dr. Young was still felt. In the opinion of their opponents they held “back the strength of the State by urging the execution of their rascally Government in preference to supporting measures for repelling the common enemy.”
The two chief points of attack in the constitution were the Legislature, with its single House, and the method of amending (p. 285).
Dr. Young’s active interest in public affairs, however, did not preclude the exercise of his profession. At a meeting of the Council of Safety, 14 December, 1776, it was —
Resolved, that Doct’r Thomas Young be appointed to assist Doct’r Potts in taking care of sick soldiers of the army, for which he shall have the rank and pay of Senior Surgeon in the Continental Hospital.
In the following January he had charge of one of the wards in the “Bettering House,” as it was called, where two smallpox patients were committed to his care.
Under date of Tuesday, 4 February, 1777, the Journal of Congress records that —
A memorial from Dr. Thomas Young was read:
Ordered, That it be referred to the medical committee.
Unfortunately, however, neither the subject of the memorial nor the action upon it appears; and the memorial itself is not on file.
That Dr. Young and his household had not forgotten their Boston friends is shown by a letter written at Philadelphia 29 April, 1777, by Dr. J. B. Cutting
Reference has already been made to Dr. Young’s friendship with Ethan Allen and to his having coined the word Vermont. His unfortunate and ill-judged attempt to secure the independence of the New Hampshire Grants and its recognition by Congress, — one of his last and most important public acts, — remains to be mentioned. The facts appear in the following Address, which, preceded by a Resolution of Congress of 15 May, 1776, was printed in the form of a handbill:
To the Inhabitants of
VERMONT
A Free and Independent State, bounding on the River Connecticut and Lake Champlain.
Philadelphia, April 11, 1777.
Gentlemen, — Numbers of you are knowing to the zeal with which I have exerted myself in your behalf from the beginning of your struggle with the New York Monopolizers. As the Supreme Arbiter of right has smiled on the just cause of North America at large, you, in a peculiar manner, have been highly favoured. God has done by you the best thing commonly done for our species. He has put it fairly in your power to help yourselves.
I have taken the minds of several leading Members in the Honourable the Continental Congress, and can assure you that you have nothing to do but send attested copies of the Recommendation to take up government to every township in your district, and invite all your freeholders and inhabitants to meet in their respective townships and choose members for a General Convention, to meet at an early day, to choose Delegates for the General Congress, a Committee of Safety, and to form a Constitution for your State.
Your friends here tell me that some are in doubt whether Delegates from your district would be admitted into Congress. I tell you to organize fairly, and make the experiment, and I will ensure your success at the risk of my reputation as a man of honour or common sense. Indeed, they can by no means refuse you! You have as good a right to choose how you will be governed, and by whom, as they had.
I have recommended to your Committee the Constitution of Pennsylvania for a model, which, with a very little alteration, will, in my opinion, come as near perfection as anything yet concerted by mankind. This Constitution has been sifted with all the criticism that a band of despots were masters of and has bid defiance to their united powers.
The alteration I would recommend is, that all the Bills intended to be passed into Laws should be laid before the Executive Board for their perusal and proposals of amendment. All the difference then between such a Constitution and those of Connecticut and Rhode-Island, in the grand outlines is, that in one case the Executive power can advise and in the other compel. For my own part, I esteem the people at large the true proprietors of governmental power. They are the supreme constituent power, and of course their immediate Representatives are the supreme Delegate power; and as soon as the delegate power gets too far out of the hands of the constituent power, a tyranny is in some degree established.
Happy are you that in laying the foundation of a new government, you have a digest drawn from the purest fountain of antiquity, and improved by the readings and observations of the great Doctor Franklin, David Rittenhouse, Esq., and others. I am certain you may build on such a basis a system which will transmit liberty and happiness to posterity.
Let the scandalous practice of bribing men by places, commissions, &c, be held in abhorrence among you. By entrusting only men of capacity and integrity in public affairs, and by obliging even the best men to fall into the common mass of the people every year, and be sensible of their need of the popular good will to sustain their political importance, are your liberties well secured. These plans effectually promise this security.
May Almighty God smile upon your arduous and important undertaking, and inspire you with that wisdom, virtue, public spirit and unanimity, which ensures success in the most hazardous enterprizes! I am, Gentlemen, Your sincere friend and humble servant,
Thomas Young.
April 12, 1777.
Your committee have obtained for you a copy of the Recommendation of Congress to all such bodies of men as looked upon themselves returned to a state of nature, to adopt such government as should, 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.
You may perhaps think strange that nothing further is done for you at this time than to send you this extract. But if you consider that till you incorporate and actually announce to Congress your having become a body politic, they cannot treat with you as a free State. While New-York claims you as subjects of that government, my humble opinion is, your own good sense will suggest to you, that no time is to be lost in availing yourselves of the same opportunity your assuming mistress is improving to establish a dominion for herself and you too.
A WORD TO THE WISE IS SUFFICIENT.
As might have been foreseen, the Council of Safety of New York vigorously opposed the action of Vermont in a letter to the President of Congress.
MONDAY, June 23, 1777.
A delegate from the State of New-York laid before Congress a printed paper, signed “A word to the wise is sufficient,” containing an extract from the minutes of Congress, and a letter signed Thomas Young, to the inhabitants of Vermont, dated “Philadelphia, April 11, 1777,” which was read:
Ordered, That the letter from P. Van Cortlandt, and the foregoing printed paper, and the papers formerly received from the convention of New-York, respecting the difference likely to arise between that state and the inhabitants of the place called the New-Hampshire Grants, and also the papers received from the said inhabitants, be referred to a committee of the whole.
On Wednesday, 25 June, the committee of the whole considered the various papers in the case and postponed the further consideration of it.
MONDAY, June 30, 1777.
Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole, to consider farther the letters and papers from the state of New-York, the petition from Jonas Fay, &c.
Ordered, That the report be now received.
The report from the committee of the whole Congress being read, was agreed to, as follows:
Resolved, That Congress is composed of delegates chosen by, and representing the communities respectively inhabiting the territories of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, as they respectively stood at the time of its first institution; that it was instituted for the purposes of securing and defending the communities aforesaid against the usurpations, oppressions, and hostile invasions of Great-Britain; and that, therefore, it cannot be intended that Congress, by any of its proceedings, would do or recommend or countenance any thing injurious to the rights and jurisdictions of the several communities which it represents.
Resolved, That the independent government attempted to be established by the people styling themselves inhabitants of the New-Hampshire Grants, can derive no countenance or justification fron the act of Congress declaring the United Colonies to be independent of the crown of Great-Britain, nor from any other act or resolution of Congress.
Resolved, That the petition of Jonas Fay, Thomas Chittenden, Heman Allen and Reuben Jones, in the name and behalf of the people styling themselves as aforesaid, praying that “their declaration, that they would consider themselves as a free and independent state may be received; that the district in the said petition described may be ranked among the free and independent states, and that delegates there from may be admitted to seats in Congress,” be dismissed.
Resolved, That Congress, by raising and officering the regiment commanded by col. Warner, never meant to give any encouragement to the claim of the people aforesaid, to be considered as an independent state; but that the reason which induced Congress to form that corps was, that many officers of different states, who had served in Canada, and alleged that they could soon raise a regiment, but were then unprovided for, might be reinstated in the service of the United States.
Whereas, a printed paper, addressed to the inhabitants of the district aforesaid, dated Philadelphia, April 11, 1777, and subscribed Thomas Young, was laid before Congress by one of the delegates of New-York, to which address is prefixed the resolution of Congress of the 15th May, 1770, and in which are contained the following paragraphs: “I have taken the minds of several of the leading members of the honorable the Continental Congress, and can assure you, that you have nothing to do, but to send attested copies of the recommendation to take up government, to every township in your district, and invite all the freeholders and inhabitants to meet and choose members for a general convention, to meet at an early day to choose delegates for the general Congress and committee of safety, and to form a constitution for yourselves. Your friends here tell me that some are in doubt whether delegates from your district would be admitted into Congress. I tell you to organize fairly, and make the experiment, and I will ensure you success at the risque of my reputation, as a man of honor or common sense. Indeed, they can by no means, refuse you: you have as good a right to choose how you will be governed, and by whom, as they had.”
Resolved, That the contents of the said paragraphs are derogatory to the honor of Congress, are a gross misrepresentation of the resolutions of Congress therein referred to, and tend to deceive and mislead the people to whom they are addressed.
The death of Dr. Young was announced in the newspapers as follows:
Philadelphia, June 28 [Saturday, 1777]. . . . Last Tuesday died of a fever in this city, Doctor Thomas Young, one of the Senior Surgeons of the Military Hospital. He has left a sickly widow and six children wholly unprovided for.
Another announcement reads:
[Died] At Philadelphia, the 24th of June, Dr. Thomas Young, one of the senior surgeons of the military hospital; formerly of this town. He has left a sickly widow and six children wholly unprovided for.
Dr. Young’s death and burial occurred on the same day, doubtless on account of the contagious nature of the fever of which he died. In a letter to Governor Jonathan Trumbull, dated Philadelphia, 5 July, 1777, William Williams writes:
We did not arrive here till Tuesday ye 24th ulto. Dr. Young died lately of a Fever caught in attending ye Congress Hospitals in ye City, & was buried the day we came into town, poor man He now knows the reality of things he lately disputed & disbelieved, can find out very little of his last Ideas but believe he died just as he lived, expecting if there was a future State that a man of his Benevolence must be happy.
Dr. Joseph Young’s account of his brother concludes in these words:
He died in June, 1777, of a most virulent putrid fever, which appeared to be almost as fatal as the plague. His very valuable library, which he had collected with great care and cost, was sold for Continental money, and was in a great measure lost to his family. These are a few of the incidents which occurred in the life of a man of superior talents, and, as far as I am capable of judging, of the most consumate physician I ever knew. He married Mary, the daughter of Captain [Garret] Winegar, of Sharon, Conn.,
Miss Mary Hoes Reed, formerly of Amenia and well informed as to its history and families, but now of Rutherford, New Jersey, writes:
I have here a copy of Rev. Ebenezer Knibloe’s Church Records and find the following:
- Nov. 19, 1761 Joseph Young119 married Sarah Brown.
- July 17, 1774 Josiah Strong and his wife admitted to the church.
- June 25, 1776 Mr. Josiah Strong & wife had Lydia baptized.
- Feb. 21, 1779 Josiah Strong had a child baptized by Dr. John Rodgers.
- April 19, 1781 Mr. Merrit Clerk of Oyster River at West Haven [New Haven County, Connecticut] has son Nicholas (born April 17, 1781) baptized.120
- Sep. 16, 1781 Daniel Castle & his wife, daughter of Doct. Thomas Young deceased, had son James baptized by Rev. David Rose.121
- May 12, 1782 Susannah Nase, daughter of Doct. Thos. Young deceased, had her son John baptized by Rev. David Rose.
- May 25, 1783 Daniel Castle and his wife had a child baptized by Rev. David Rose.
The Hon. Lawrence Van Alstyne, Judge of Probate of the Sharon District, Connecticut, sends me the following inscription, copied from a stone in the graveyard at Amenia Union:
Mrs. Susanna Knies, relict of Michael Knies, Esq. and daughter of the late Dr. Thomas Young, died Oct. 14, 1801, aged 44.
The care taken in these baptismal and burial records to connect children and grandchildren with Dr.Young testifies the respect in which his memory was held, long after his decease, by clergy and kinsfolk.
In Christopher Marshall’s Diary, we get a final glimpse of Dr. Young’s family in Philadelphia, after his decease:
1777, July 14. I went this morning and visited several of our Philadelphia friends, and at the same time in company with our friend George Schlosser, reminded them, as well as some of our Lancaster friends, whom we visited, of the distress poor Dr. Young (deceased)’s family was left in, most of whom, to their honor be it remembered, gave me what they thought proper, in order for me to remit it for their relief, the which I accepted and kindly thanked them on the family’s behalf (pp. 119, 120).
1777, August 20. I gave to James Cannon, to carry to the Widow Young, the donations I collected in this place [Lancaster, Penn.], which, with my own, amounted to Seventeen Pounds, six shillings (p. 122).
Although evidently an advanced thinker in religion and politics whose views failed of the approval of conservative minds, Dr. Young appears to have been a devoted husband and father and a sincere, ardent and unselfish lover of his country, who scorned to take advantage of his position of leadership to enrich himself or his family. It is probable that the only property he left was the equity in the before-mentioned real estate in Wing’s Lane, Boston. Administration on his estate was not granted till 5 May, 1779, when letters were issued by the Probate Court for the District of Sharon, County of Litchfield, Connecticut, to Lieutenant David Doty of Amenia, New York,
A paper hitherto unpublished testifies that Dr. Young’s ill-starred efforts in behalf of Vermont, and the straitened financial condition in which he had left his family, were not forgotten by some of the most prominent men in the State.
To the Honbl General Assembly of the State of Vermont convened at Rutland. The petition of the subscribers Humbly sheweth, that your petitioners with many others in this State Retain the highest feelings of gratitude to all those persons who have stood forth in early period and in time of utmost uncertainty & Distress to assist & promote the interest of this State. And we feel a more particular Gratitude to such persons who have exerted themselves & pointed out a system to be pursued to Bring this government into existence & who have acted from the most disinterested motives any farther than respected Humanity & who has in consequence thereof suffered Great Injury in personal character & private property, We beg leave to represent our former worthy friend Docr Thomas Young, Decd as coming completely under this description from the decided part which he took in our favour in the most critical Moments as Respected the existence of this State, having pointed out the system to be pursued to establish Government by a separate jurisdiction & to whom we stand indebted for the Name of (Vermont) We now beg leave to Recom[mend] his family who are left in low and indigent circumstances [to your] Notice & patronage & pray in their Behalf that [your honors] consider the merit due to our Decd friend & [that an] Honbl Compensation be made to them by a Gra[nt of] some land in such part of the State as shall be vacant which after a determination your petitioners will point out. Your petitioners pray that [a] committee may be appointed hereon that the circumstances may be more fully Represented [& a] Report made to your honors as in Duty bound your petitioners ever pray.
ThoS Chit[tenden]
Ethan Alle[n]
Joseph Fay
Rutland 20 Oct 1786
[Filed]
Petition of Et Allen & Jos Fay
Oct 24, 1786 referred to next session. Attest Rosl Hopkins Clk,
Filed 24 Oct 1786.
This tribute to a forgotten patriot may be fitly closed by the following passage from Ira Allen’s History:
Dr. Thomas Young, of Philadelphia, who greatly interested himself in behalf of the settlers of Vermont; by several publications, he was highly distinguished as a philosopher, philanthropist, and patriot, and for his erudition and brilliancy of imagination. His death was universally regretted by the friends of American Independence, as one of her warm supporters, and by the republic of letters as a brilliant ornament.
Mr. Thomas Minns presented to the Society four photographs of portraits by Copley of Thomas Hancock, the noted Boston merchant, of his wife Lydia (Henchman) Hancock, and of their nephew John Hancock. The original portraits were recently sold in Boston to settle the estate of the late Washington Hancock of London.
Mr. Minns also stated that there had recently been placed in the First Church in Boston a life-size recumbent statue by Bela L. Pratt of the Rev. John Cotton, the likeness of which had been taken from an original portrait of Cotton in the possession of his descendant Miss Adele G. Thayer of Boston.
Dr. James B. Ayer exhibited some large photographs — showing both the exterior and the interior of the Consistoire, Church of St. Pierre, Geneva — and some printed books
Mr. Albert Matthews spoke of the destruction by fire of the second Harvard College on 24 January, 1764, and of the laying of the foundation of the present Harvard Hall on 26 June following;
The following POEM, written by a young Gentleman who lately receiv’d his first Degree at Harvard College, we doubt not will be acceptable to our Readers.
Harvardinum restauratum.
WHILE some in politics are deep immers’d,
And liberty’s just cause with patriot fire
Defend, nor fear oppressive acts t’ oppose;
Acts, only fit for those ignoble souls,
To whom the ratling of a slavish chain
Is grateful music; O! permit a muse
Unvers’d in state affairs, tho’ freedom’s friend,
To sing of diff’rent themes, soft to the ear —
Parnassian heights, the pure Castalian fount,
And seats to the muses sacred, where the foes
Of science, free from ev’ry anxious care,
With intellectual food may feast their minds.
In Cambridge’ happy plains, behold the piles
Of lofty venerable buildings rise,
The pride, the glory of New Albion’s shore!
To our fore fathers’ memories, what praise
From us their offspring, for their care, is due;
Who, when their strength was small, nor fortune smil’d,
Nor affluence crown’d their labours, strongly urg’d
By love of liberty and virtue’s cause (Sure indication of a noble mind)
Couvinc’d that where dark ignorance prevails,
There superstition reigns, and slavery
Is easily impos’d; fell En’mies both
To noble sentiments, to manly thought,
Laid firm the basis of these happy seats,
From whence the beams of science issuing forth,
Enlighten far and wide this western world!
Nor is the present generation void
Of their great grand sires’ gen’rous sentiments;
A love of lib’ral arts, not to few breasts
Appears confin’d: Our noble senators,
Whose words and actions, when in council met,
The gen’ral voice must ever be esteem’d,
Thro’ our provincial tract (not least in worth
Among her sister colonies confess’d)
Bespeak this love extensively diffus’d.
Nor needs our retrospective view extend,
For such a proof, to times long since elaps’d;
A recent instance of their ardent Zeal,
True learning’s cause, by gen’rous aid, t’ advance,
Each one must recollect, when he surveys
That lofty Edifice, which to the Pray’r
Of those whose skilful hand our tender youth,
In their pursuit of letters wisely guides,
They bade arise, nor grudg’d to sacrifice
The golden store to such a gen’ral good.
But now, behold! a scene diversify’d
Opes to my busy thoughts. In that dread night
When Hyperborean blasts rush’d o’er the Plain,
When all within their walls, by driving snows,
Were close pent up, what pen the deep distress
And heart-felt pangs can paint, when wak’d from sleep
By cry of fire up-starting in amaze,
From venerable Harvard’s sacred roofs,
Where learning’s treasures lay, the spiral flame
Forth bursting we beheld! Our senators,
By fell contagion, from the Capital
Driv’n out, then took their lodging round these walls:
Quick they rush’d forth amid huge banks of snow,
With resolution arm’d; each active hand,
Obedient to the heart, in learning’s cause Engag’d,
was full employ’d, with force to oppose
The stanch devourer, but alas! in vain!
Down rush precipitate, with thund’ring crash,
The roofs, the walls, and in one ruinous heap,
The ancient dome, and all it’s treasures lie!
The tear forth gushing and the deep fetch’d sigh
Who cou’d restrain, when godlike science felt
A wound so near her heart? But soon our tears
Begin t’ assuage; the fathers of our laud
Command another edifice t’ ascend,
From the same spot where ancient Harvard stood;
But O! how diff’rent, from that antique pile!
In room of Gothic structure, erst the taste
Of Britain’s sons, now Grecian elegance
And Roman Grandeur rising to the view,
Here strike the modern eye. — But thou my muse
No longer hover round these new-built walls;
For what are walls unfurnish’d? empty things;
Fit treasures give them worth, be these thy theme.
In our distressful thoughts, when Harvard fell
To flames a sacrifice, the second place
The ruin’d fabric held; our anxious minds
For loss of books and philosophic aids
Felt far severer pangs: But from our breasts
The heart felt grief, which like a Vulture gnaws
The vitals, soon was banish’d. straight appears
Of Massachusetts’ sons a godlike band.
With hearts engag’d in learning’s glorious cause,
(Full well the worth they knew) nor spar’d their wealth,
When wounded science ask’d it’s pow’rful aid.
Many, with lib’ral hand, bestow’d large gifts;
But like some lofty tow’r, whose rev’rend head,
Erected high, o’ertops the neighbouring roofs;
One, whose beneficence and pious care
Confer’d the means, by which the sacred Page,
In the original, by Harvard’s sons
Might be explor’d, rose far above the rest
In noble purposes to this fam’d seat.
Tho’ death prevented, by a sudden shaft,
His hand from off’ ring what his heart design’d,
His nephew, who inherits with his wealth,
His gen’rous spirit, gave the purpos’d sum.
Nor was this noble spirit here confin’d;
A sister colony, that oft has sent
Her tender sons to drink at Harvard’s fount,
Mov’d by her fall, reach’d out a helping hand.
To Britain, patroness of lib’ral arts,
O’er the Atlantic flies the dismal news
Of our calamity. The many hands,
Op’d by the gen’rous heart, to send
Relief From that fam’d isle, my muse could now recount;
But chief to thee, known by a name enrlear’d
To Harvard’s sons; to thee, whose noble breast
Blind bigotry, offspring of narrow minds,
Fell party zeal, the bane of all that’s good
Ne’er felt, belongs the tribute of her song.
But sure, a Panegyrist’s pen to raise
A monument to thy munificence
Thou need’st not; Harvard’s new built walls contain
Fairest memorials of thy lib’ral soul.
From that grand alcove, destin’d to receive
The learned treasures by thy bounteous hand
Presented, we behold, with wond’ring eyes,
The splendid tomes, throughout the spacious room,
Like orient sol diffuse their beamy glories!
The marble column, the triumphal arch,
Let haughty monarchs raise, with vast expence,
T’ immortalize their name; when these are fallen
To time’s devouring hand a sacrifice,
Treasures like thine, surviving shall record
The lib’ral donor’s worth — How chang’d the scene!
That blow which seem’d to give a deadly stab
To science, proves her friend,’tis that has serv’d
To raise her glory. As the skilful hands
Of those vers’d in the cesculapian art,
T’ a mortal frame, by bloody wounds depress’d,
More than it’s pristine vigor oft restore;
So Harvard’s gen’rous friends her wounds have heal’d;
Nor ceas’d they here, their rich restoratives
Have rais’d her to a height unknown before.
Philosophy again erects it’s head,
And universal science now puts on
It’s wonted smiles. — O sons of Harvard! say,
Where can be found a lot so blest as your’s!
Fast by your side flows the Pierian spring
Exhaustless, in a thousand diff’rent streams
Courting your lips, ne’er let it court in vain:
Here slake your thirst, the copious draught imbibe,
Slight sips intoxicate, these shun as pests.
Fell envy, child of dæmons, from your breasts
Exterminate; but let your youthful minds
Be fir’d with emulation, diffrent guest;
That gnaws upon the vitals, this inspires
To arduous attempts, “attempts in which
Tis glorious ev’n to fall”! — O’er the fam’d page,
Wrote by the learned sages who adorn’d
Old Greece and Rome, O trim the midnight lamp!
From ev’ry fragrant flow’r in learning’s field
Extract the treasur’d sweets: Let ev’ry thought
Be elevated high: Let deathless young,
And fam’d Longinus all be made your own;
Then take the pen and ease your teeming minds,
Success can never fail. Where am I rapt!
A Genius seems to whisper in my ear, —
Soon shall be seen fair Harvard’s rising glory;
’Tis yet in embryo; lo! her future sons,
Blest with new aids, shall mount the steeps of fame;
Remotest fields of science shall appear
Plain to their view. Some, with sagacious minds
Searching the depths of nature, various truths,
Which even to that bright genius Newton’s self
Lay hid, as if enwrap’d in sev’nfold night,
Shall quick investigate: While others, fir’d
By all the tuneful nine, shall emulate
The Greek and Roman bards; nor shall success
Be wanting: Some, inspir’d with noblest fire,
With Pindar’s impetus shall rush along,
Whose ev’ry verse, with rapid vehemence,
Like to the victors’ car (of which he sings)
By fiery steeds along the Stadium whirl’d,
Or like some torrent, from the mountain’s side
Rolling amain; flows on without control,
In freest measures, emblem of his mind,
Daring, unbounded: Some to Epic song
Shall rise, nor shall their strains discover less
Of grand description, sentiment sublime,
Imagination’s force and fancy’s flight,
Than those of Maro, the fam’d Mantuan bard,
Or Greek Mœonides, still more renown’d,
Or British Milton much surpassing both!
Others to gayer themes shall tune the lyre,
And in their song, display the elegance
And courtly wit of Horace’ polish’d strains,
Or charms of old Anacreon’s gentle lays,
Where native beauties strike th’ admiring mind
Beyond the studied ornaments of dress.
Some form’d for public speakers, here shall rise,
With eloquence array’d: Some, from the desk
(In virtue’s cause engag’d) with sacred fire
Shall melt th’ admiring audience: Some, employ’d
To plead the cause of justice at the bar,
Shall gain th’ attentive ear: While others plac’d
In that grand council, where the public weal
Is sought, with zeal inspir’d to serve the state;
Furnish’d with Ciceronian rhetoric;
The soft, the smooth persuasives, from their tongue
Mellifluent shall insinuate; or fill’d
With Grecian energy, with Attic fire,
Shall wield the thunder of Demosthenes,
Rousing such torpid souls as motionless
Could see the state enslav’d. — But cease my muse,
These strains give o’er; the heav’nly form that deign’d
These pleasing futures to disclose, is fled.
O Massachusetts! with a Parent’s care
Protect these happy seats; your genial smiles‡
Let these enjoy, smiles that must serve to raise
Fair Harvard to that pitch the muse has sung.
Let Cam and Isis then unite and flow
In harmony; the single stream that laves
The banks where Harvard stands shall equal both!
The Rev. Henry A. Parker read the following paper on —
THE ENGLISH WENTWORTH FAMILY.
The ancient Yorkshire family of Wentworth is interesting to the student of New England history both on account of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, and the other royalist Wentworths of the seventeenth century, and on account of the distinguished American branch of the Wentworths who early settled in New Hampshire.
The family has received rather an unusual amount of attention from a series of eminent genealogists. There is no doubt of its antiquity or of its historical importance, but, as we easily discover, there are great differences of opinion as to details of the pedigree.
Wentworth pedigrees were recorded by Tonge in 1530, the first known visitation of Yorkshire, and probably in every subsequent visitation; and besides the very elaborate study of the Wentworth family by Richard Gascoigne and by his friend Dugdale, the Rev. Joseph Hunter and Colonel Chester — two of the most eminent of the nineteenth century genealogists — devoted special attention to the study of the history of this family. Several of the Yorkshire visitations, all containing Wentworth pedigrees, have been edited by distinguished scholars — Mr. Longstaffe, Mr. Metcalfe, Mr. Foster, and Mr. Clay.
The family was probably settled not long after the Norman conquest at Wentworth in the parish of Wath, in the wapentake of Strafford, Yorkshire. The family was not by any means of the rank of the great feudatories of those parts, Percy, Warren, and the like, nor did it rank in the same class with the great families of the second rank, subinfeudatories such as Vavasour, FitzWilliam, and Fleming. But it maintained itself, grew stronger, and spread abroad in numerous cadet branches by marriage with heiresses, until before the Civil War it had become one of the greatest of English families. In England, however, all are now gone, and the surname is borne there, so far as appears, by persons of position, only as adopted by descendants of female branches.
Writing in 1831, the Rev. Joseph Hunter, after noting the end of the regular male succession of the senior line, the Wentworths of Wentworth-Woodhouse, by the death of William the second Earl Strafford in 1695, said, “the extinction of the other principal branches of the family took place in rapid succession after that of the eldest branch.” Two had already become extinct: 1631, Wentworth of Gosfield, by the death of Sir John Wentworth; 1667, Wentworth of Nettlestead, by the death of Thomas, Earl of Cleveland; 1695, Wentworth of Wentworth-Woodhouse, by the death of the second Earl of Strafford; 1741, Wentworth of Elmsall, by the death of Sir Butler Cavendish Wentworth, Bart.; 1787, Wentworth of South Elmsall, by the death of Hugh Wentworth, Esq.; 1789, Wentworth of Wooley and Hickelton, by the death of Godfrey Wentworth, Esq.; 1792, Wentworth of Bretton, by the death of Sir Thomas Blackett, Bart.; 1799, the Earls of Strafford of the second creation, by the death of Frederick Thomas, Earl of Strafford; 1800, “a younger branch of Wentworth of Wooley, by the death of Peregrine Wentworth, Esq., the last male who can on sufficient evidence be attached to the stock of this noble family.”
It is likely that Hunter had him especially in mind in writing as above of Peregrine Wentworth, and with good reason; for the descent of the American family was only proved a generation later by Colonel Chester. Yet the heralds had assigned to Governor Wentworth, the first baronet of this line, arms which were but slightly differenced from the Wentworths of Wentworth-Woodhouse,
It may be noticed that three branches of the family had attained to earldoms and that four other branches had obtained baronetcies. These honors came rather late. The first peerage in the family was obtained by Sir Thomas Wentworth of the cadet branch of Nettlestead, Suffolk, who was created a baron in 1529 by Henry VIII, who was then engaged in packing the House of Lords with a view to the suppression of the monasteries and the confiscation of their property. After passing through the hands of the Baroness Wentworth, a mistress of the Duke of Monmouth, this barony passed by her sister to Lovelace, to Noel, to Milbanke, to Gordon, to King, which last family now holds it. The fourth Lord Wentworth of this creation was created Earl of Cleveland and distinguished himself as did his son fighting for the King in the Civil War.
This Nettlestead family was founded by the marriage of a Wentworth with the heiress of the Despencers; he came from the cadet house of Elmsall, founded by the marriage of a Wentworth with the heiress of the Bissets.
The main stem, the Wentworths of Wentworth-Woodhouse, only reached the peerage nearly a century later, though William Wentworth, who inherited a Large accession of property from his mother, the heiress of the Gascoignes, was created a baronet in 1611. His second son, Thomas Wentworth, the most distinguished of all the family, may be said to have promptly made up for lost time, for, 22 July, 1628, be was created Baron Wentworth of Wentworth Woodhouse and at the same time Baron of Newmarch and Oversley, while less than five months later, 13 December, 1628, he was created Viscount Wentworth. On 12 January, 1639–40, he was created Baron of Raby, and also Earl of Strafford; so that when he was attainted early in the following year he had three baronies, a viscounty, and an earldom. And it has been said that it was the acquisition of one of these rather superfluous baronies, the Barony of Raby, that lost him his head. One branch of the great family of the Nevils had been Barons of Raby; from them he was descended; but Raby had come into the possession of Sir Harry Vane, the elder, whose intense hatred of Strafford is said to have been caused by Wentworth’s taking from his estate a title which Vane desired for himself, and in revenge pursued him to his death.
The famous Earl of Strafford was, however, a younger son, and the eldest line of Wentworth of Wentworth-Woodhouse only came to a peerage when Sir Thomas Wentworth, Bart., in 1695 inherited the Barony of Raby. He was in 1711 created Viscount Wentworth and Earl of Strafford.
The most elaborate pedigree of the English Wentworths is that to be found in the first volume of Mr. John Wentworth’s Wentworth Genealogy, a part of which was printed before by Colonel Chester in the Heraldic Journal (IV. 125–129) and in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register (XII. 120–139). Joseph Foster published in 1874 Pedigrees of County Families of Yorkshire, and the next year, 1875, Mr. Foster edited Glover’s Visitation of Yorkshire (1584–85). Since then Mr. Clay has been publishing in the Genealogist, with many valuable additions, Dugdale’s Visitation of Yorkshire. In various particulars these pedigrees by no means agree among themselves nor with the earlier Wentworth pedigrees.
The line of Matthew Wentworth of Bretton contains a number of the most important points of difference, and furnishes a sample of the difficulties and uncertainties not uncommonly met with in English pedigrees. Matthew Wentworth of Bretton,
Richard Wentworth, the father of Matthew last mentioned, married Isabel FitzWilliam of Sprotsborough; she was his executrix. His will, made 3 October, 1488, and proved in January following, shows that he left six sons and three daughters. Tonge’s visitation omits one son and the three daughters. Flower’s visitation, 1563–64, gives to him the four daughters of his son Richard, mentioning their husbands, and omits two at least of his own daughters.
Richard Wentworth of Bretton, the father of the last named, married Cecilia, daughter and heir of John Tansley of Everton. His will was dated 20 December, 1447, named his wife executrix, and was probated 29 May, 1449. This Richard was a younger son of John Wentworth of Elmsall, who married one of the heiresses of Dronsfield from whom Richard inherited his Bretton estate. Richard is interesting genealogically because of an extraordinary mistake, or misrepresentation, concerning his marriage. Mr. Clay gives it as above and makes no mention of any other statement.
In some of the accounts of the family he is said to have married Matilda, daughter of Thomas Lord Clifford, and relict of Richard Plantagenet, Earl of Cambridge; but the present writer can find no evidence of it, nor in fact that any such person ever existed. On the contrary his son William Wentworth, in his will distinctly mentions “John Tansley and Dame Alice his wife and their daughter Cecilia my mother.”
This, however, might have been compatible with Mr. Foster’s arrangement of two wives. But that excellent and careful antiquary, Mr. Hunter, had long ago shown that Richard Wentworth married Cecilia before Lord Latimer died, and that Cecilia was his wife after the Countess’s death.
The earliest portion of the Wentworth Pedigree rests upon the authority of William Flower, Norroy King of arms, one of the most careful and accurate genealogists ever connected with the College of Arms, who compiled it in the year 1588, and it has ever since remained upon the records of the college, and been accepted not only by that body but by all genealogists as authentic.
Flower’s visitation as we have it in print certainly shows the most, extraoidinary inaccuracy so far as the Wentworths were concerned, as well in times more remote as in these which fell within a century of his own time. The earlier generations are not by any means the same as those which Mr. Wentworth gives as from Flower’s pedigree of Wentworth in the College of Arms, which would appear to be veiy much worse. And it is only right to say that while there have been many honorable, careful, and learned men in the College of Arms, there have been also heralds who, like many other needy and avaricious professional genealogists outside the College, have been more or less unscrupulous in their efforts to please the vanity of their employers.
The father of this Richard who did not marry the Countess was John of North Elmsall, who married Agnes, one of the coheirs of the Dronsfield family, according to the two best authorities, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Clay, as also Mr. Foster and Mr. Wentworth, but the visitation pedigrees as we have them of Flower and of Glover insert another John between — namely, he who married a Beaumont and who is, according to better authorities, the brother, not the father, of Richard. We may note by the way that it was Roger, brother of Richard, who founded the family of Nettlestead by marrying the widow of Lord Ros, who became heiress of the Despencers, for which marriage he was in trouble with the Privy Council.
All the authorities agree that the John Wentworth who married the Dronsfield was son of another John and either the son or the grandson of the John who married Joan (or Jane) Tyas: Foster and the Wentworth Genealogy make him the son; the Glover and Flower visitations make him the grandson, of that John, and the son of the Bisset heiress whose name Flower gives as Elizabeth; Glover omits her name; and Hunter, who agrees to the line of descent with some hesitation, calls her Alice.
All agree that John Wentworth and Jane Tyas are in the line and that this John’s father was William. Flower’s visitation makes John the son of William and Isabel Pollington, the Pollington heiress, and to this agree Foster, Hunter, and the Wentworth Genealogy; but Glover’s visitation inserts two Williams whom the other authorities assert to have been not the father and grandfather, but the brother and the nephew of John who married the Tyas heiress. This William Wentworth who married the Pollington heiress was Wentworth of Wentworth-Woodhouse.
The father of William who married the Pollington heiress was also William of Wentworth-Woodhouse, according to all the authorities, except the Glover visitation, which gives the father’s name as Roger, and does not mention his mother. Flower’s visitation gives Lucy Newmarch as his mother (Newmarch was a great family). Foster, Hunter and the Wentworth Genealogy agree in thinking her to have been Dionisia or Dionysia Rotherfield. Back of this, it would seem that although there is good reason to believe that the same family had owned Wentworth-Woodhouse for a considerable time, the pedigrees are clearly entirely worthless, and may be best shown by parallel columns. Hunter says the pedigree he gives is an old one, but entirely discredits it.
Of the pedigrees which follow, one can take his choice. There seems no reason to believe that either is of any value, or anything like correct.
II
III
IV
V
