FEBRUARY MEETING, 1895.

A Stated Meeting of the Society was held in the Hall of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, on Wednesday, 20 February, 1895, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President in the chair.

After the Minutes of the last Meeting had been read and approved, the Corresponding Secretary read the following letter: —

50 West Forty-seventh Street, New York, Tuesday, 4 February, 1895.

My dear Mr. Davis, — Your very kind letter, together with the official announcement of my election as an Honorary Member of The Colonial Society of Massachusetts, and an advance copy of the Annual Report and By-laws of the Society, were duly received, and nothing but the desperate illness of one of the members of my family has prevented my acknowledging them more promptly.

I do most highly appreciate the honor done me by your Society in thus placing me on the list of its Honorary Members in such distinguished company, and I accept it with the warmest thanks. The objects of the Society as set forth in its Constitution are most interesting, and I shall take great pleasure as opportunity offers in attending its meetings.

Will you please to convey to your associates who have done me this signal honor my grateful appreciation of their kindness.

Yours very truly,

Joseph H. Choate.

Andrew McFarland Davis, Esq.,

Corresponding Secretary.

The Rev. Dr. Joseph H. Allen spoke at length upon the religious situation in the American Colonies before the Revolution. As this subject was treated without notes, except for occasional quotations from documents, only the following brief outline can be given here: —

Governor Hutchinson, in summing up the situation in 1774, says (III. 455) that “the people had been persuaded that their religion as well as their liberties was in danger,” and adds that “this was what would cause them to go all lengths and to surmount the greatest difficulties.” This language implies not only that religious passions embittered the political conflict, but that two rival parties were then contending for supremacy. A State Church of some kind was assumed to be an essential part of the body politic; but here there were two claimants contending for public support and official authority, — the Congregational body, established as part of the political system at the first founding of the Massachusetts Colony; and the Episcopal, which for nearly ninety years had existed here side by side with it.

Strictly speaking, this rivalry existed only in New England: since in the more southerly Colonies, where Episcopacy had been established from the beginning, — notably in Virginia, — it was in full harmony with the patriotic spirit of the day; while here — in Boston especially — it was identified with a small official party, mostly Loyalists. According to Hutchinson, the patriotic leaders were all (or nearly all) Congregationalists, with their clergy, who in general aimed openly at independence; while the smaller religious bodies — Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Quakers — might be reckoned neutral. In numbers, the Congregationalists counted not far from six hundred churches, while the Episcopalians did not probably much exceed two hundred churches in. all, of which we may reckon about fifty in New England. The extreme jealousy and dread felt towards so small a body remain to be accounted for by circumstances in the earlier colonial history. The speaker’s remarks were mostly a rapid review of these circumstances, which will here be briefly traced in chronological outline.

Episcopacy was established in Virginia with the founding of the Colony in 1607; and in 1632 the English law of penalties against dissent was adopted. Virginia, however, was regarded by many of its own clergy as a sort of penal colony, from which they were chiefly anxious to escape; and the Church there had in its early days neither dignity nor authority.

In the Massachusetts Colony, Congregational church membership was made essential to the political franchise in 1631, but this position was constantly threatened from the first. In 1634, an attempt of Archbishop Laud to crush the religious independence of the Colony was foiled. In 1644, a deputation was sent to the English Parliament to protest against a similar attempt of the Presbyterian party to compel a state religion under the forms of the “Solemn League and Covenant.” In 1648, the Congregational Order was defined by the “Cambridge Platform,” and became the ecclesiastical constitution of Massachusetts, maintained at public cost till 1833, — suffering some modification meanwhile. The government of the Restoration, in 1662, required the abolition of laws against Episcopalians and Quakers, also of the limiting of political rights by church membership. In England, at the same period, the laws of conformity as against Dissent, with the Test and Corporation Acts, were made so cruel that more than eight thousand Non-conformists are said to have perished in the prisons of Charles I., increasing the anger and terror felt against the Anglican Establishment here. The attempt of Sir Matthew Hale to investigate these atrocities, in 1668, was overruled by the influence of the High Church party. Suspicion was further roused by an attempt made in Virginia, in 1672, for the establishment of an American bishopric; and though, in the scheme adopted (which was not carried out), New England was expressly exempted from its jurisdiction till it should be otherwise ordained, yet the apprehension continually increased that conformity with the Church of England, to be enforced by law, was an object never lost sight of in the government policy, as a means of strengthening the political tie that bound the Colonies to the mother country. It was regarded as a part of the same scheme when, in 1684 (the last year of Charles), the Colonial Charter was declared void by the Court of Chancery; when, in 1686, the first Episcopal church was founded in Boston under official support, and was called “the Royal Chapel”; and when, a few months later, Sir Edmund Andros took forcible possession of the Old South Meeting-house for the celebration of the Episcopal service. The apprehension was at its height when, in April, 1688, Increase Mather, the most distinguished representative of Congregationalism, escaped under cover of the night32 to England, and there, in a three years’ stay, making friends of the government of William III., was able “to rescue for Massachusetts the larger part of her civil liberties, and to put her churches and her schools beyond the danger of forcible conversion to Episcopal uses by the agents of the English government.”33

But in 1692, against the opposition of Catholic and Quaker, Episcopacy was made an establishment in Maryland; and from the mission of Rev. Thomas Bray, who went to inspect its churches in 1700, there issued a religious foundation, which had a most important bearing in the later history, —the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, chartered in 1701. This was apparently meant for the simple work of evangelizing a country wide, new, poor, and largely destitute of civilizing agencies; but it soon proved to be, or was charged with being, a propaganda of Episcopacy, with a view to its getting a footing as a political establishment. It was charged with employing more of its missionaries in New England alone than in all the Colonies south of New York put together; and these, instead of being sent to remote or destitute localities, found homes in the best settled and best taught region of the western continent, — Boston, Cambridge, Newbury, Ipswich, Salem, Braintree, Portsmouth, and Marblehead being the most important “missionary” stations. In 1722, the President of Yale College and six of its officers joined the Episcopal ranks, and several of them afterwards became active Episcopalian propagandists. In 1725, Massachusetts was asserted to be within the episcopal charge of the Bishop of London. The name “Dissenters” began to be applied, opprobriously, to members of the older colonial churches other than Episcopal. King’s Chapel had its “Governor’s Pew,” where the King’s representative sat in a sort of official state among other officers and favorites of royalty. Reaction from the “Great Awakening” of 1735 led in one direction to a sudden expansion of religious liberalism, and in the other to a craving for the decencies and order of ecclesiastical formalism. The hostility and alarm thus stirred in the established Congregational body broke out, in 1747, in what is known as the “Hobart Controversy” in Connecticut, beginning with the protest against the guilt of schism incurred in the Episcopal seceders from New England orthodoxy, made in an ordination sermon at Stamford by Rev. Noah Hobart. Dr. Cutler, of Christ Church, Boston, the former President of Yale, was reported to have said that there is “ordinarily no salvation out of the communion of the Episcopal Church”; and we may take it as a retort personal when Mr. Hobart says, in his “Serious Address,” that “probably there are many immortal souls now in hell, who, had you contentedly remained in our communion, might have spent an happy eternity in heaven”!34

It was in this year, 1747, that Jonathan Mayhew, the boldest and most radical preacher of his day, was settled over the West Church in Boston. To omit what might here be told of his noble ancestry, — his descent from Thomas Mayhew, who settled at fifty in Martha’s Vineyard, and lived there close upon forty years as governor, teacher, civilizer, and missionary of the native tribes;35 or of his strikingly independent and eloquent career as preacher, — we come to the latter days of his ministry, and the outbreak of the “Mayhew Controversy,” in 1763. This controversy brought to the front the sharpest prejudices on both sides. One of the missionaries of the “Society for the Propagation of the Gospel” had just died at Braintree, and a newspaper comment following his death had charged, virtually, that he was sent there under false representations, and that his being commissioned at all was in perversion of a missionary trust-fund. This called to the defence of the Society the Rev. East Apthorp, of Cambridge, son of a Boston merchant (Charles Apthorp), a gentleman and a scholar, English bred, himself a missionary in Cambridge, and first Rector of Christ Church. Jonathan Mayhew was loudly and at once summoned by the general voice to reply; and for the two years following there ensued a battle of thick pamphlets, three of them — far the heaviest and loudest guns of the battle — being by Mayhew himself. Each party, no doubt, thought itself to have the better in the war of words; and each — to turn again to the testimony of Governor Hutchinson — found itself all the more obstinate and acrimonious in the political dispute that followed ten years later, when, in this part of the country at least, the line of division in that dispute followed so closely the line of difference between the two rival churches.

A long discussion followed, in which several of the members participated.

Professor William W. Goodwin, referring to the use by Dr. Allen of the word “Dissenter” as indicating dissent from the opinions of the Episcopalian Church, called attention to the Mary Saltonstall Scholarship at Harvard, which provides that it shall be preferably given to a “Dissenter,” there evidently meaning a member of the Congregational Church.

Mr. William G. Weld stated that the recent communication to the Society of a paper on the Land Bank of 1740 had recalled to his mind that he had in his possession, among his family papers, two documents connected with this subject. He had caused copies of these to be made, and he now submitted them to the Society.

The first of these documents is a Land Bank Mortgage,36 executed 9 September, 1740, by Joseph Weld, gentleman, and Martha Weld, his wife. The consideration is said to be “One Hundred Pounds in Bills of Credit, called Manufactory Bills,” and is acknowledged to have been received from Robert Auchmuty of Roxbury, Esq., Samuel Adams, and William Stoddard of Boston, Esqrs., (then follow six other names,) “Directors of the Manufactory Company (so called), by the said Joseph Weld for his share as a Partner in said Company.” The mortgaged premises are situated in Roxbury.

The condition of the mortgage is as follows: —

“PROVIDED nevertheless that if the said Joseph and Martha Weld their Heirs, Executors or Administrators shall at the Expiration of every Year from this Date annually, during the space of Twenty Years, pay to the said Robert Auchmuty, Samuel Adams, William Stoddard, Peter Chardon, Samuel Watts, George Leonard, Robert Hale, John Choate and Thomas Cheever, Five in the Hundred of the Principal Sum now received, and Three per cent. Interest for the Principal enjoyed, in Manufactory Bills as aforesaid, or in Merchantable Hemp, Flax, Cordage, Bar-Iron, Cast-Iron, Linens, Copper, Tann’d Leather, Flaxseed, Bees-Wax, Bayberry-Wax, Sail-Cloth, Canvas, Nails, Tallow, Lumber, viz: Shingles, Staves, Hoops, white Pine Boards, white Oak Plank, white Oak Boards, and Ship Timber; Barrel-Beef, Barrel Pork, Oil, Whale Bone, or Cord Wood, of the Manufactures or Produce of the Province aforesaid, or Logwood at such Prices as the Directors shall judge they pass for in Lawful Money at Six Shillings and eight Pence per ounce, with one per cent, advance thereon, at the respective Times of payment, then this Deed to be void: But if any one Payment above Conditioned for shall be behind in the Whole, or in Part, or unperformed, by the space of one month after the Time above set for it, then to remain in full Force and Virtue.”

In addition to the acknowledgment of the receipt of the consideration of the mortgage, which is embodied therein according to the customary phraseology of such instruments, there is attached to the mortgage a special receipt signed by Joseph Weld, “for the sum of One Hundred Pounds, being the full consideration mentioned in the foregoing instrument.”

In submitting the copy of the second document Mr. Weld stated that, although the original was executed upon a printed form, he had never met with any other copy of this supplementary agreement modifying the terms of payment of the mortgage. The principal points in this instrument appear to be: First, an agreement on the part of the Mortgagor that he will pay one half at least of his annual payments in manufactures; Second, a consent on the part of Weld that the Directors may, at their discretion, let out such bills — meaning probably the bills loaned under the mortgage — as they may have at any time on hand, such loans to be repaid in manufactures only; and Third, a consent to the Directors holding such bills in their treasury during the last two years of the mortgage.

The following is a copy of this document: —

THIS INDENTURE made the Nineteenth day of March Anno Domini One Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty and in the fourteenth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord GEORGE the Second, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. By and Between Joseph Weld of Roxbury in the County of Suffolk in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New-England, Gentleman on the one Part, and Robert Auchmuty, of Roxbury, Esq; Samuel Adams and William Stoddard, of Boston, Esqrs; Peter Chardon of Boston, Merchant, Samuel Watts, of Chelsea, Esq; all in the County of Suffolk, George Leonard, of Norton in the County of Bristol, Esq; Robert Hale of Beverly, Esq; John Choate of Ipswich, Esq; and Thomas Cheever of Lynn, Gentleman, all in the County of Essex, Directors of the Manufactory Company in Boston in the County of Suffolk aforesaid, of the other Part, WITNESSETH, That Whereas by certain Indentures between them made, bearing Date the Ninth of September, 1740, the said Joseph Weld hath undertaken for One hundred Pounds of the said Manufactory Companies Bills, according to the tenour of those Indentures, but upon more mature Consideration, for the Increase and Promoting of the Manufactures therein mentioned, and better securing the value of the said Manufactory Bills, which to us seem the most proper Means to Relieve the Misfortune and Poverty of this Country, the said Joseph Weld for himself, his Heirs, Executors and Administrators doth hereby further Covenant and Agree with the Directors aforesaid, and each of them severally, their and each of their Heirs, Executors and Administrators, that he the said Joseph Weld, his Heirs, Executors and Administrators, will annually Pay one half at least of each of the Annual Payments in those Indentures mentioned, of Five in the Hundred of the Principal Sum by him Received, with Three per cent. Interest for the Principal enjoyed in the manufactures in the said Indentures mentioned.

Also that it shall be lawful for the Directors of the said Company at their Discretion from Time to Time to Let out such Bills as shall be in their Treasury, on good Security, to be Repaid both Principal and Interest in the aforesaid Manufactures only.

And lastly, that it shall be lawful for the Directors of said Company, at their Discretion, to continue in the Treasury and not let out any of the Bills that shall happen to be in the Treasury, at any Time in the Two last of those Twenty Years mentioned in said Indentures, but to keep them there till the Expiration of the said last Two Years.

IN WITNESS of all which, the Parties aforenamed hereunto interchangeably put their Hands and Seals at Boston aforesaid, the Day and Year first above written.

Signed, Sealed, and Delivered

In Presence of

Walter Hamilton,

S. Auchmuty.

Joseph Weld. [Seal.]

Mr. Andrew McFarland Davis spoke as follows: —

The Society is under obligation to Mr. Weld for submitting these copies of instruments, which illustrate the important subject which I undertook to explain at the January meeting. The peculiar character of the payments called for by the terms of the mortgage which has just been laid before us is well worthy of your attention, and it is a very significant fact that even before the date of the first payment of interest the Directors should find it necessary to have this supplemental instrument executed, whereby they sought to prevent payments under the mortgages being made in their own bills. It is obvious from this that they found difficulty in keeping their bills afloat; and it shows, I think, that the so-called Land Bank could not long have been maintained even if the government had not undertaken to suppress it.

I quite agree with Mr. Weld as to the value and rarity of the second of these instruments. I have examined many volumes in the Archives at the State House and of the Suffolk Files at the Court House in search of information concerning the Land Bank, and this document in the possession of Mr. Weld, a copy of which is now before the Society, is the only one of the kind I have seen.

At the January meeting I stated that men of property who had been unfortunate enough to become partners in the Land-Bank were, after the intervention of Parliament, harassed by holders of the bills. Each and every partner became liable for the redemption of such bills as might be presented to him for the purpose, and those who had available means were selected as victims. It was not essential as a preliminary for the demand upon such partner that any effort should have been made to collect the value of the face of the bills from the Company. There are numerous suits on the Suffolk Files against individual partners, and, amongst others, the ancestor of our associate, Captain Joseph Weld, who executed the mortgage of which we have a copy now before us, figures as a defendant. The following note37 was addressed to him: —

Boston, 20th Decem., 1712.

Sr, — Hereby I give you notice as you are a partner of the late Manufactory Company that I am possessor of Fifty eight Manufactory Bills (so called) of the denomination of seventeen shillings and sixpence each and sixteen more of said Bills of Twenty shillings each and as your partners do not redeem ’em of me I hereby demand payment of you on the same in lawfull money with lawfull Interest from 9th Septem^r 1740 immediately.

Your compliance will oblige

Sr Yr humble Servant

Jacob Griggs

of Boston in ye County of Suffo Merchant.

To Capt. Joseph Weld

at Roxbury in the County of Suffolk.

This demand was served upon Weld by the sheriff, and return of service was duly made. At the April Term of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas,38 Griggs sued Weld and recovered judgment.39 From this judgment Weld appealed to the next term of the Superiour Court of Judicature for Suffolk County, and entered with sureties into recognizance to prosecute the appeal.

The record does not state explicitly whether this appeal was prosecuted to final judgment, but this was probably the case, for in 1744 the bills on which the suit was founded were handed over to the Commissioners to be burned. The receipt of the Commissioners is in the following language: —

Boston, April 10th, 1744.

Received of Benjamin Pemberton, Esq^r Clerk of the Superiour Court of Judicature &c the sum of Sixty five pounds fifteen shillings Manufactory Bills lodged in said Court by Mr. Jacob Griggs at his suit against Mr Joseph Weld & for which said Griggs recovered judgment & is since satisfied.

15	20/	15
58	17/6	50	15
		65	15

John Jeffries

Sam^l Danforth

The judgment referred to in the receipt was probably an affirmation of the judgment of the lower court; but if such judgment was entered, the entry was not preserved.

The surrender of the notes to the Commissioners brings before us the explanation of their scarcity. Personally, I have never seen one of them, and do not know if any are in existence. It would be very remarkable, however, if all of them were destroyed.

Mr. John Noble read the following paper: —

NOTES ON THE TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIMES IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANTS IN THE TIME OF THE COLONY, AND IN THE SUPERIOUR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE FIRST YEARS OF THE PROVINCE.

To these Courts successively, the predecessors of the Supreme Judicial Court, belonged the exclusive jurisdiction over all the graver crimes.

The Court of Assistants seems to have been as old as the Colony itself, and to have exercised full judicial functions from the very outset.

The statements that have been made that the Court was established in 1639, that “the power of establishing Courts of justice was assumed by the colonists, without any grant of authority in their Charter,” and that the Assistants “derived their judicial authority from legislative enactment,” seem to be inaccurate, and to have been made on insufficient authority. They may have arisen from confusion of dates, from confounding different courts, and from hasty inferences.

At the outset, about all the functions of government, executive, legislative, and judicial, appear to have been exercised by the Magistrates, sitting as a Court of Assistants. This appears from the records, beginning with that of the first Court of Assistants, held 23 August, 1630, and from that time on. The action of the General Court was in the early days insignificant. The first record of its sitting is under the date of 19 October, 1630, and down to May, 1634, it met only four times thereafter, according to the records, while more than thirty Courts of Assistants were held.

Down to 1660, there is no separate or specific law to be found creating or establishing the Court of Assistants, or defining its powers or the extent of its jurisdiction. During that period of thirty years it had exercised all the powers and extended its jurisdiction over every matter falling within the province of that Court specified in the Laws of 1660; and from the trial of Walter Palmer for homicide before a jury of twelve men, 9 November, 1630, it had continuously tried cases of “life, member, and banishment,” and a few of “divorce.” Its jurisdiction is indicated also by the laws establishing or defining the inferior courts. The act of 3 March, 1635–6, provides for “Foure courts kept eūy quarter,” at Ipswich, Salem, New Town, and Boston, to “trie all civill causes, whereof the debt or damage shall not exceede X^l, & all criminall causes not concerneing life, member, or banishm^t,” with a right of “appeale to the nexte greate Quarter Court.” The act of 9 September, 1639, establishes “Speciall Courts,” in consequence of the increase of “the businesses of the ordinary Court of Assistants,” to be held quarterly by “such of the Magistrate as shall reside in or near to Boston, or any 5, 4, or 3 of them, the Governo^r or Deputie to bee one,” with powers substantially the same as the County Courts last mentioned. There were also the Strangers’ Court and other small Courts established at different times. Though the Magistrates sat in the County Courts and others, these are not to be confounded, as they have sometimes been, with the regular Courts of Assistants.

The acts relating to the Court of Assistants seem to be declaratory, recognizing its existence and the extent of its jurisdiction, and merely regulating its terms.

The act of 3 March, 1635–6, provides that “There shalbe foure greate Quarter Courts kept yearely att Boston, by the Goūn^r, & the rest of the Magistrates,” fixing the terms.

By the act of 17 October, 1649, the number of terms was reduced from four to two; and this last act is embodied in the Laws of 1660, — which in the Chapter on Courts fixes the terms and states the powers of the Court of Assistants, as follows: —

“For the better administration of justice, & easing of the Country of unnecessary charges and travaile, — It is Ordered by this Court and the Authority thereof, That there be two Courts of Assistants yearely kept at Boston by the Governour, Deputie Governour, and the rest of the Magistrates, on the first Tuesday of the first month, and on the first Tuesday of the seventh Month, to heare and determine all and onely actions of appeale from inferiour Courts; all Causes of divorce, all Capital and Criminal causes, extending to life, member or banishment. And that justice be not deferred, nor the Country needlessly charged, It shall be lawful for the Governour, or in his absence the Deputie Governour (as they shall judge necessary), to call a Court of Assistants for the tryal of any Malefactour in Capital Causes.”

The exercise of these powers and this jurisdiction from the beginning of the Colony uninterruptedly appears from the records of the Court itself so far as extant, and from numerous papers found among the Early Suffolk Files now in process of arrangement. It is also repeatedly recognized in the records of the General Court.

That separation of the government into different branches, — executive, legislative, and judicial, — which resulted in the Court of Assistants becoming a purely judicial body, took place gradually.

The legislative function of that Court may be said to have been surrendered by agreement amongst the Magistrates and Freemen at the General Court in May, 1634; but the executive function continued to be exercised by it, with more or less frequency, for some years. In fact, it was as late as 1650 that the Magistrates sitting as a Council first began to have a separate record.

There was nothing for a long time that could properly be called a Criminal Code, except so far as that part of the “Body of Liberties,” so called, of 1641, which related to criminal matters, and which was founded upon the Word of God as evidenced in the Scriptures, could be so designated.

The Colonists brought with them, of course, that habit of legal practice in matters of form and detail which they had acquired as Englishmen, and in which some of them had been specially educated. There was also the limitation in the Charter that no laws should be made repugnant to the laws of England. This limitation was but little regarded, and seems to have been construed to mean simply that no such laws should be passed as would be hostile to the government of England, or subversive of those great fundamental principles of English law which were considered to be the birthright of every Englishman, — such, for instance, as the right to trial by jury. Beyond these limitations, so construed, and aside from those methods of procedure which they naturally adopted by force of English habit of mind, the Court of Assistants recognized no other source of law than such as they could find in the Holy Scriptures, as interpreted by themselves, — or as embodied in legislative enactments of the General Court, sometimes with the advice of the Elders of the churches.

From time to time, as it appears by the Colonial records, committees were appointed to make a draught of laws: 6 May, 1635, “of such lawes as they shall judge needfull for the well ordering of this plantacõn,” — 25 May, 1636, “of lawes agreeable to the word of God, w^ch may be the Fundamental of this Com̄onwealth,” — while “in the meane tyme the Magistrates and their associates shall ꝑceede in the Courts to heare & determine all causes according to the lawes nowe established, & when there is noe lawe, then as neere the lawe of God as they can,” — and so on at different times thereafter.

Meantime the Magistrates seemed inclined to the policy of letting laws “arise pro re nata upon occasions,” and “to raise up laws by practice and custom.”

Then came the Body of Liberties in 1641, and the Codes of 1649, 1660, and 1672. The punishments inflicted appear in the records of the cases tried by the Court. The penalty imposed upon adultery is rather curious in its history. At a trial in the Court of Assistants, 6 September, 1631, where the offender is sentenced to be “seuerely whipped,” “it is ꝑpounded with^r adultery . . . shall not be punished w^th death. Referred to the nexte Court to be considered of.”

At the second Court thereafter, 18 October, 1631, it is ordered that where committed “with another man’s wife, they both shalbe punished with death.”

Then at a General Court, 12 March, 1637–8, “The law against adultery made by the p̃ticuler Court in October, 1631, is confirmed;” and at a General Court, 7 October, 1640, “The first law against adultery, made by the Courte of Assistants @ 1631, is declared to bee abrogated; but the other, made the first m̊1637 or 1638, by the Generall Court, to stand in force.” The reason of this legislation is perhaps apparent enough without further explanation, — namely, to make the infliction of capital punishment for this offence rest for its validity upon an enactment of the General Court, rather than upon an enactment by the Court of Assistants. The history of this action as to the punishment for adultery is not only curious, but also most important and suggestive.

This with many other points will be more largely dealt with in the volume of the Records of the Court of Assistants, referred to below, in which the history of this Court, its functions and jurisdiction, will be considered. The list of capital crimes in the Body of Liberties is long, — heresy or idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, poisoning, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, man-stealing, perjury against life, and treason, — and it is lengthened in the Code of 1672. Certain safeguards are provided as to the trials and execution of sentence. Banishment, dismembering, and branding were prescribed and inflicted for certain offences. The wearing of a letter or other badge of ignominy does not seem to be prescribed by law, but was a penalty not unfrequently imposed by the courts.

In the early days of the Province the penalties prescribed by the laws were not essentially changed; the list of capital crimes is increased somewhat, branding and dismembering continued, and the wearing of a letter prescribed for certain offences; as in the case of adultery, after being set on the gallows and whipped, the offenders “shall forever after wear a capital A, of two inches long and proportionable bigness, cut out in cloth of a contrary colour to their cloaths, and sewed upon their upper garments, on the outside of their arm, or on their back, in open view,” &c.; and similarly the use of the letter I, in case of incestuous marriages or practices. Some of these laws were disallowed, however, by the Privy Council.

Under the Province, the successor of the Court of Assistants was the Superiour Court of Judicature, established by the act of 25 November, 1692. This act was subsequently disallowed, for certain reasons, by the Privy Council, 22 August, 1695, — a disallowance not known in Boston till 12 July, 1696.

Various acts subsequently passed were in like manner disallowed, until the act of 26 June, 1699, established the Court anew.

The records of the Superiour Court of Judicature from 1692 to the establishment of the Supreme Judicial Court, its successor under the Constitution, are full and complete, and in perfect preservation among the records of the latter Court in Suffolk County. Of the records of the Court of Assistants only the second volume, from 1673 to 1692, is extant. It is to be found in the same place also in perfect preservation.

The earlier records, so far as any complete volume is concerned, have been missing beyond the memory of man.

From the first Court held, 23 August, 1630, down to October, 1641, they are to be found in the Massachusetts Colony Records, and from the last date down to 5 March, 1643–4, in the “Barlow Copy,” now owned by the Boston Public Library.40

Much material has already been collected from various sources, mainly from the Court Files of the several Counties of the Commonwealth, which, to a certain extent, will fill this intervening gap of thirty years; and I have now in preparation a volume which is intended to contain all the Records of this Court, so far as they have been recovered or can be reproduced.41

Following is a list of cases tried by the Court of Assistants, with the punishment imposed by sentence, arranged according to the latter: —

BRANDING.

4 Sept., 1632. Richard Hopkins, “for selling peeces & powder & shott to the Indeans.” To be “seuerely whipt, & branded with a hott iron on one of his cheekes.” (M. C. R., page 99.)

“ꝑpounded if this offence should not be punished hereafter by death.” “Referred to the nexte Courte to be determined.” (Legislation, 17 May, 1637, in M. C. R., page 196.)

3 Oct., 1632. Nicholas Frost, — “for thefte,” &c., “drunkenes and fornicacõn,” — “fined,” “seuerely whipt, & branded in the hand with a hott iron, & after banished out of this pattent.” In case of return, “hee shalbe putt to death,” &c. (Page 100.)

Subsequently, 3 Nov., 1635, imprisoned till trial for breach, 1 March, 1635–6, forfeited his recognizance, 5 April, 1636, bound over “to appeare . . . upon sum̃ons.” (Pages 155, 164, 172.)

6 Oct., 1635. Roᵬite Scarlett, “a knowen theife,” “shalbe seuerely whipt & branded in the forehead with a T,” and his master enjoined to send him “out of this jurisdicõn.” (Page 163.) Subsequently, 28 Oct., 1636, on “hope of amendment, hee is admited to stay.” (Page 183.)

19 Sept., 1637. William Brumfeild, “for his stealeing, ploting to run from his m^r, lying, drunkennes & idlenes,” “censured to make double restitution, to bee branded, & bee seuerely whiped.” (Page 203.)

1681. George Fairfax. “Burglary, stealing, running away from his Master,” “to be branded in the forehead w^th the letter B & be seuerely whipt,” &c. (Rec. Ct. of A.)

12 Nov., 1683. Leonard Pomeroy. “Murder,” — “found guilty of manslaughter.” — “to be burnt in the hand & forfeit his Goods & chatted,” — “y^e executioner executed the sentence in y^e face of the Court.” (Ibid.)

Sept., 1685. Uriah Clements. Burglary, “to be branded with the letter B. on y^e forehead & have his Right eare cutt of.” For a second burglary subsequently sentenced “to be branded w^th letter B on his forehead & have his left eare cutt of.” (Ibid.)

WEARING PAPERS AND OTHER BADGES OF IGNOMINY.

3 Sept., 1633. Roᵬte Coles. “Fyned X^l, & enjoyned to stand w^th a white sheete of paꝑ on his back, wherein a drunkard shalbe written in greate ƚres, & to stand therew^th soe longe as the Court thinks meete, for abuseing himselfe shamefully w^th drinke, intising Iohn Shotwell’s wife to incontinency, & other misdemean^r.” Had been previously fined in 1631 and 1632 for drunkenness.

4 March, 1633–4, “for drunkenes,” “shalbe disfranchised, weare about his necke, & soe to hange upon his outward garm^t a D, made of redd cloath & sett upon white; to continue this for a yeare, & not to leave it of att any tyme when he comes among company, under the penalty of xl^s for the first offence & v^l the second, & after to be punished by the Court as they thinke meete; also he is to weare the D outwards & is enjoyned to appeare at the nexte Geñall Court, & to contynue there till the Court be ended.”

14 May, 1634. “The sentence . . . is nowe reversed, vpon his submission and testimony being giuen of his good behav^r.”

4 March, 1634–5. Ordered at a General Ct that he “shall not pay more of his Fyne of X^l, for drunkenes, &c., than hath bene already levyed in strong water.” (M. C. R., pages 107, 112, 118, 139.)

5 April, 1636. Wiƚƚm Perkins. “Drunkenes & other misdemean^er,” to “stand att the nexte Geñall Court one houre in publique vewe with a white sheete of paꝑ on his brest, haveing a greate D made vpon it,” &c. (Page 172.)

6 Sept., 1636. Edward Woodley, “for attempting a rape, swearing & breaking into a house,” “to be severely whiped 30 stripes, a yeares imprisonment, & kept to hard labo^r, w^th course dyot, & to weare a collar of yron.” (Page 177.)

A part of sentence subsequently remitted. (Page 193.)

5 March, 1638–9. John Davies, “for grosse offences in attempting lewdness w^th divers weomen,” “to bee severely whipped” “& to weare the letter V. vpon his breast, vpon his vppermost garment, untill the Court do discharge him.” (Page 248.)

3 Sept., 1639. “Vpon his good carriage, was discharged from wearing the V.” (Page 268.)

Richard Wilson “for stealing,” &c, “to bee put fourth to service for 3 or 4 yeares, except he can procure X^l; also hee is to have a T set vpon his vpmost garment.” (Page 268.)

3 Dec, 1639. “Elnor Peirce her husband was bound in 10^£ for her good behavio^r, & to bring her to stand in the market place the next market day w^th a paper for her light behavio^r.”

—— Quick. Same sentence for same offence. Margaret Hindersam the same. (Page 284.)

1 June, 1641. Davy Hickbourne, “for his grosse misdemeano^r & foule miscarriage,” “to be severely whiped, to weare an iron coller till the Co^rt please & serve his master,” &c. (Page 318.)

7 Sept., 1641. Thomas Owen “for his adulteros practises” “to be sent to the gallos w^th a roape about his neck, & to sit upon the lather an houre, the roapes end throwen over the gallos, so to return to prison.”

Sara Hales “for her miscarriage” a similar sentence, “& after to bee banished.” (Page 335.)

7 March, 1642–3. Sentence for attempted bestiality was “to bee carried to place of execution & there to stand with an halter about his necke & to bee severely whipped.” (Whitmore’s Transcript of the “Barlow Copy,” p. xxxi.)

7 June, 1642. Thomas Scot & wife, “fornication before marriage,” “to stand an ho^re vpon 16^th present in the market place, with each of them a paper with great letters on their hatts.” (Ibid., p. xxxiii.)

1 Nov., 1654. Edw^d Sanders. “Rape, tried in Ct. of Assistants in April; Jury and Magistrates not agreeing in the verdict, case went to Gen. Ct. which found him not guilty of death, but deserving a high and severe censure; sentenced to be whipt and henceforth to wear a rope about his neck hanging down two feet long, to continue during Court’s pleasure; if found over forty rods from his own house without the rope to be whipt for each offence.” (Gen. Ct., M. C. R.)

11 March, 1673. Ruth Reed, attempted imposition of illegitimate child on her husband. Sentenced, if found in Colony two months after date, to stand “in the market place on a stoole for one hower w^th a paper on hir breast w^th ye Inscription,” &c. (Rec. Ct. of A.)

1674. Anne, Negro. “Committed for having a bastard child & being under sore suspition of making it awaye,” &c. Indictment for murder. Verdict, “Guilty of having a Bastard Child & privately conveyed it away.” “Sentenct to stand on the Gallowes w^th a Roape fastened about hir Necke to the Gallowes for one hower,” “to be tyed to & whipt at the Carts Tayle to the prison w^th thirty stripes,” &c.

1675. Maurice Brett, indicted for adultery, found “not legally Guilty, but Guilty of very filthy carriage,” &c. Sentenced to stand on the Gallowes “w^th a roape about his neck,” “whipt at the Carts Tayle,” &c., and “banished.” Mary Gibbs, the co-defendant, same sentence, except banishment.

13 Sept., 1675. Thomas Davis. Adultery. Verdict, “Not Guilty legally according to indictment, but found him Guilty of very Suspitious Acts leading to Adultery.” Similar sentence, except banishment. The co-defendant the same.

1676. Peter Cole and Sarah Bucknam. Same offence, result, and sentence.

1677. Darby Bryan “chose to be tried by the bench,” and corespondent, Abigail Johnson, same. Sentenced to stand on the gallows “w^th a roape about neck” and to be whipped at the cart’s tail.

Ephraim Beamis, “witting and willing trepanning and pandering,” &c. Similar sentence.

1683. Joshua Pike and co-respondent Elizabeth Crockett, adultery. Same result and sentence.

1684. Philip Darland and Mary Knights. Same.

16 Oct., 1691. Martin Williams, “a stranger,” passing counterfeit money, “to stand three Several lecture days in Boston in the Pillory, one houre each time, after the lecture, w^th a Paper signifying his crime,” &c.

DISMEMBERING OR MUTILATION.

14 June, 1631. Phillip Ratcliffe “shall be whipped, haue his eares cutt of, fyned 40^l and banished out of y^e lymitts of this jurisdicc͠on, for vttering mallitious & scandulous speeches against the goũm^t & the Church of Salem,” &c. (M. C. R., page 88.)

13 May, 1640. James Luxford, “for his forgery, lying & other foule offences,” “to bee bound to the whiping poast, till the lecture from the first bell, & after the lecture to have his eares cut of; & so hee had liberty to depart out of o^r jurisdiction.” (M. C. R., p. 295.)

1675. Maurice Brett, “for his contemptuous carriage confronting the sentence, [for adultery to wear the rope, be whipped, and banished, see supra,] to stand in the pillory, . . . his eare nayled to y^e pillory & after an hours standing there to be cut of,” and also fine and whipping.

1679. Peter Lorphelin, “Frenchman,” “being Accused for Rash Insulting Speeches in the time of the late Conflagration thereby Rendring himself Justly suspitious of having a hand therein,” was committed, and being examined “his chest & writtings” were ordered to be searched, and suspicious articles being there found, was sentenced “to stand upon the pillory two howers & then to haue both you^r eares cutt off by the executioner and to give bond,” &c., “w^ch sentence was executed Accordingly.”

1684. Joseph Gatchell, Blasphemy, “to stand in pillory, have his head and hand put in & have his toung drawne forth out of his mouth, & peirct throyh w^th a hott iron.” “The Marshall General taking necessary help with him to see y^e execution of y^e sentence performed.”

1685. Uriah Clements (supra, under Branding), after that “to have his Right eare cutt of,” and for a second offence “his left eare,” &c.

DEATH.

4 Dec., 1638. Dorothy, the wife of John Talbie, “unnatural & vntimely death of her daughter,” “to bee hanged.” (M. C. R., p. 246.)

10 Dec, 1641. William Hatchet. “Beastuality,” “to bee hanged, & the Cowe to bee slayne & burnt or buried.” (M. C. R., p. 344.)

5 March, 1643–4. lames Brittaine and Mary Latham. Adultery, both “condemned to death.” (Barlow, p. xlii.)

1673. Beniamin Goad. Beastiality. Special Verdict: “If the prisoner’s confession ag^t himself vpon his first apprehention and before his trial together with one evidence be sufficient for legal conviction, then we find him guilty according to the Indictment; otherwise not guilty of the fact but of a most horrid attempt,” &c., “w^ch we leave to the determination of the Honored Court.” Magistrates found him “Capitally Guilty.” Sentenced to be hung, “w^ch was done accordingly.” (Rec. Ct. of A.)

1674. Tom Indian. Rape. Sentenced to be hung.

Robert Driver. Murder of his master. Sentence given verbatim, and in same form as now used.

Nicholas Faevo^r. Same matter.

1675. Peter Rodrjego (Dutchman), John Roads, Richard Fowler, Peter Grant, Randolph Judson. Piracy. Sentenced to be hung.

17 Sept. Samuel Guile. Rape, “be hang^d till you be dead,” &c. “W^ch was accordingly doun, Oct. 16, 1675.”

21 Sept. Several Indians indicted for “y^e murder of those at Nashaway.” Six found not guilty. Several ordered “to be sent away,” and one, “Litle Jn^o Indian y^t came as a messenge^r from being proved to be a murderer of the English in y^e Warr was Condemñd to be hanged & was executed accordingly.”

1676. Stephen Goble, Dan^l Goble, Nath^l Wilder, and Daniel Hoare. Murder of three Indian women and three Indian children. Sentenced to be hanged.

Basto, Negro. Slave, &c. Rape on his master’s daughter of three years. Sentenced to be hanged.

1681. Marja, Negro, serv^t of John Lambe. Arson. “Pleaded & acknowledged herself to be Guilty of y^e Fact.” Sentence of death; to be burnt at place of execution. See infra.

Cheffaleer Jack, Negro, servant, &c. Arson. “To be hanged & then taken down & burnt to ashes in the fier with Marja Negro.”

William Cheny. Rape on his servant. Sentenced to be hanged.

“Secretary ordered to issue out warrants to the Marshal General for the execution of these three on the next lecture day presently after the lecture according to their sentences.”

1685. James Morgan. Murder. Sentenced to death.

1689. Hugh Stone. Murder of wife. Sentenced to death.

3 Jan., 1689–90. Thomas Hawkins. Piracy in Massachusetts Bay three leagues from Half Way Rock.

Thomas Pound, Thomas Johnston, Eleazer Brick. Piracy in Vineyard Sound.

John Sickterdam, William Dunn, Richard Griffin, Dan^l Lander, W^m Warren, Sam^l Watts, W^m Coward. Peleg Heath, Thomas Storey, Christopher Knight, — some of them for Piracy and Murder, — all sentenced to death.

1691. Elizabeth Emmerson. Murder of her illegitimate twins. Sentenced to death.

IN THE GENERAL COURT, 12 MARCH, 1637–8.

“Ordered that the 3 Adulterers, John Hathaway, Rob^rt Allen & Margareet Seale, shalbe severely whiped, & banished, never to returue agaiue, vpon paine of deathe.”

COURT OF ASSISTANTS.

SOME MISCELLANEOUS SENTENCES.

1676. Jn^o Flynt. Indicted for murder. Verdict of manslaughter. Fined 20£ to County, 20£ to the father.

Peter Bent. Murder. Verdict: “Killing by Chanc Medleing, by Casualty.” 10£ to County, 20£ to widow.

Sam^l Hunting. Murder. Verdict of Manslaughter. 20£ to widow, 5£ to County.

1680. John Dyer. Murder of an Indian. “Manslaughter.” “Sixe pounds to widow,” “i. e. 20s downe, in or as money — & 20s more for five years successively.”

1683. Elizabeth Payne. Murder of her illegitimate child. Found “greatly negligent,” &c., “to be whipt 30 stripes for her fornication.”

James Fuller, “being led by instigation of the divill did wickedly call upon or pray to the Divill for helpe, & hath at seueral times had familiarity w^th him.” “Not guilty according to the Indictment,” but “considering of his wicked & pernicious willfull lying & continuance in it till now putting the country to so great a charge.” Sentenced to fine, 30 stripes, 5£ for charges, and in default of payment “left to Treasurer of y^e Country to ship him of & dispose of him as he can, not exceeding foure yeares.”

William King. Blasphemy. Evidence of madness. 20 stripes given.

1678. Bethyah Getchell. Adultery. “Not guilty according to indictment, . . . but enjoyned to appeare before next County Court,” &c., “to answer for her notorious lying.”

1676. Walter Gendall. “Endeavoring to betray the inhabitants into the hands of the enemy in time of y^e Indian War”; to “run the Gautelop through the Military Companies in Boston w^th a roape about his necke, — forfeit all his lands, — and be banished, on penalty of perpetual imprisonment if he returne.”

John Watts. Same, and “trading powder to the Indians,” — “to run the Gautelop,” &c., “bond of 100£.”

1680. Thomas Davis and Jn^o Eggington. “Convicted of being two incorrigible theeves & Robbers,” “also for many reiterated Oaths & cursings of themselves & others”; “threatening if loose to burne the Towne,” &c. Sentenced to 20 stripes, and to be returned to prison; afterward breaking prison, and stealing again, “to restore treble damages,” &c., and in default, “to be sold & sent to any of the English Plantations — & return no more on payne of death.”

SPECIAL COURT, 1686–1687.

Peleg Heath, — “felonious stealing.,” &c., — “pleaded guilty & praying the benefitt of Clergie was called to the booke & readding was burned in the left hand with y^e letter T.”

Richard Hulins, John Stickey, Thomas Waters, William Hawkins, Joseph Aramatu, similarly punished.

Charity Williams, “Stealing goods,” “pleaded guilty, praying the Benefitt of the Statute of Jacobi in favour of women committing small felonies,” was burned in left hand with letter T.

Mercy Windsor similarly punished.

John Neponet alias Nemasit. Murder. Sentence of death.

Thomas Waters, second offence, benefit of clergy not allowed. Sentence of death. Third offence had sentence as above.

SUPERIOUR COURT OF JUDICATURE.

DEATH.

1692. Vol. I. Records. There are several trials for Witchcraft recorded in full, and of extreme interest. In three of these there is a verdict of guilty, and the ominous conclusion: “The Court Ordered the Keeper of the Goale to take care of the Prisoner, Ac̃ording to Law.”

10 Jany.	Sarah Wardwell. (Page 14.)
11 “	Elizabeth Johnson, junior. (Page 18.)
11 “	Mary Post. (Page 21.)

25 Apr., 1693. Elizabeth Emerson, convicted of Murder in 1691, and sentence of death ordered but not pronounced, “brought to the Barr” and sentence passed (Page 50.)

Grace, a Negro. Murder. Death. (Page 51.)

Jan., 1693–4. Jacob, an Indian man. Murder. Death. (Page 94.)

“Zachalcnaco, otherwise called Zechariah, an Indian man of Kycomocho in the County of Suffolk.” Murder. Death. (Page 100.)

1695. Joseph Hyde, an Indyan. Murder. Death. (Page 149.)

1696. Susanna Andrews. Murder. Death. (Vol. II. p. 49.) John and Esther Andrews, parents of above, “were found guilty of death and so pronounced, as accessory,” &c.

1698. Sarah Smith. Murder. Death. (Page 193.)

Sarah Threeneedles. Murder. Death. (Page 199.)

BRANDING.

1693. Samuel White. Robbery. “To be branded in the Forehead the letter B,” treble damages, costs, &c. (Vol. I. p. 73.)

SOME MISCELLANEOUS SENTENCES.

1693. Nathaniel Blackledge and John Chester. Forgery of Certificate. Fined. “Thes Fines were ordered to be received by the Clerk to buy seale & book of Record for the Court.” (Page 52.)

1694. Hannah Newell. “Adultry by her owne confession,” &c. “Fifteen stripes Severally to be laid on upon her Naked back at the Comon Whipping post.”

Lambert Despar, the co-defendant, “twenty five lashes, . . . and that on the next Thursday Immediately after Lecture he stand upon the pillory for the space of one full hower with Adultry in Capitall lett^rs written upon his brest.” (Page 129.)

1696. William Veazey. “A Bill of Indictment was preferred and found by the Grand Jury . . . for High Misdemeanour, in open Contempt of His Maj^ties Royal person and Government here established,” &c.

The case came on for trial 27 April, 1697. He was presented “for that the Authority of this Province Assembled in the Great and Generall Court haveing Ordered & appointed . . . a Solemn day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God for his Great Mercy in the Discovery of the late Hellish plot and Conspiracy to Assasinate his Maj^ties Royal person, and by the s^d Act or Order did Strictly inhibit all Servile Labour upon that day: William Veazey . . . in open contempt . . . did plow amongst his Come”; and furthermore questioned the “Setting apart dayes of Thanksgiving and Humiliation”; and also the King’s title to the Crown. He “pleaded guilty.” “Ordered That he pay the Sum of Tenn Pounds Fine to the King; that he be set in the pillory in the Market place in Boston tomorrow ab^t noon, there to stand by the Space of One Howr,” &c. (Vol. II. p. 75.)

1698. Francis Dormer, “having an Information drawn up against him” for “false and Scandalous words and expressions touching and concerning his Excellency Richard Earle of Bellomont,” “pleaded guilty” “to this Indictment,” and was sentenced to “stand in some publick place in this Towne for an howrs space on a fryday at twelve o’clock with a paper on his breast Signifying his Crime,” &c. (Vol. II. p. 202.)

This dry list lacks, of course, all the attraction of the archaic quaintness and the dramatic interest of the full records of the cases, and is intended only as a mere skeleton.

Mr. Henry E. Woods communicated the intelligence that there was formed at North Brookfield, on 26 December, 1894 —

THE QUABOAG HISTORICAL SOCIETY.42

Its objects, as defined by its By-Laws, are “To unite the citizens of those towns which include the ancient Quaboag District in an effort to collect and preserve all the historical matter belonging to this same section, to stimulate a local pride in, and a love for, antiquarian research by the preservation of relics and the marking of memorable sites within the borders of these towns.”

Mr. John Elbridge Hudson, of Boston, was elected a Resident Member.

1 Mr. Lincoln also gave the following information: —

The Daughters of the Revolution, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was incorporated 28 February, 1894.

The Hills Family Genealogical and Historical Association, Boston, was incorporated 6 July, 1894. Its purposes are: The collection, compilation, and publication of such data and information as may be obtained concerning the genealogy and history of the Hills family.

The Naval Order of the United States, Commandery of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, was incorporated 14 December, 1894. Its purposes are: To transmit to latest posterity the glorious names and memories of the illustrious naval commanders and their companion officers in arms, who are identified with many of the principle (sic) battles and famous victories of the several wars in which the United States has participated, and which were fought and achieved by the naval forces; to encourage research and publication of data pertaining to naval art and science, and to establish a library in which to preserve all documents, wills, books, portraits, and relics relating to the Navy and its heroes at all times.

2 The sources of authority for this story of the Land and Silver Banks are mainly to be found in the Massachusetts Archives and the Suffolk Court Files. [A Calendar of these documents by the author of this paper will be found in Volume iv. of the Publications of this Society.] Occasionally the thread of the narrative prior to 1743 is maintained by use of facts furnished by a contemporary pamphlet entitled, —

An Account of the Rise, Progress, and Consequences of the two late Schemes commonly call’d the Land Bank or Manufactory Scheme and the Silver Scheme, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay. Wherein the Conduct of the late and present G—r during their Ad—ns is occasionally consider’d and compar’d. In a letter from a gentleman in Boston to his Friend in London. Printed in the year 1744.

3 “In our most happy times (as in our fondness we call them) we allowed our Governor an Hundred per annum &c and when the Salary was changed from Corn-Specie to money, there was a muttering and grumbling in the country, as tho’ they were going into a mutiny.” — (A Word of Comfort to a Melancholy Country or the Bank of Credit erected in the Massachusetts Bay, fairly defended by a discovery of the Great Benefit, accruing by it to the whole Province; with a remedy for recovering a Civil State when sinking under desperation by defeat on their Bank of Credit. By Amicus Patriœ. Boston, 1721, p. 9.)

4 By Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull. See Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, October, 1884, p. 266 et seq.

5 Felt, alluding to this Bank, says (Historical Account of Massachusetts Currency, p. 47): “How long or how far the preceding Corporation continued their operations, we are unable to tell.” It seems to me that John Blackwell’s letter of 26 July, 1088 (Massachusetts Archives, cxxix. 63), which opens, “I perceive you have declyned the concerning yourselves any further in the Bank affairs,” is conclusive enough. It appears from this letter that the press was actually set up and used “for tryall of the plates & printing off some bills.”

6 The caulkers, in 1741, alleged that they had for many years “labored under great inconvenience, and had suffered much damage wrong and injury in receiving their pay for their work, by notes on shops for money or goods, and thereby had greatly impoverished themselves and families” (News-Letter, No. 1926, 19 February, 1741).

7 A Model for Erecting a Bank of Credit with a Discourse in Explanation thereof Adapted to the Use of any Trading Countrey, where there is a Scarcity of Moneys: More Especially for his Majesty’s Plantations in America. . . . London: Printed in the year 1688. Reprinted at Boston in New-England in the Year 1714.

See also Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, October, 1884, New Series, iii. 302, note E.

8 Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports (Town Records, 1700–1728), viii. 115.

9 The notes are generally described in the language used in the text. In a pamphlet entitled “The Melancholy State of the Province considered in a Letter from a Gentleman in Boston to his friend in the Country, . . . printed in the Year 1736,” it is stated (page 2) that “the first proposal was to make one hundred thousand pounds in notes to be paid to the Trustees of the Bank in ten years in silver at Twenty shillings per ounce, the Silver to remain in the Bank until the Ten Years were expired.” The writer goes on to say that they were “perswaded to alter the Scheme and agree to have the Silver drawn out at three periods viz. three tenths at the end of three years, & three tenths more at the end of other three years; and the remaining four tenths at the end of the tenth year.”

10 These notes are described in chapter 21, Province Laws 1734–1735 (Province Laws, ii. 743). The fact that they bore interest is stated in the Report of the Board of Trade to the Privy Council (Ibid. ii. 747).

11 The new tenor notes were originally issued in 1741 upon the basis of twenty shillings for three ounces of coined silver, troy weight. In 1744 there was a change in the portion of the note defining the value at which the notes would be received in the Treasury. Bills under this new form were still receivable in all payments to the Treasury, but the basis of valuation was reduced to two ounces, thirteen pennyweights, and eight grains of coined silver, troy weight.

Douglass says that they were known as old tenor, middle tenor, new tenor first, and new tenor second. He adds that the latter, although about twelve per cent worse than the new tenor firsts, passed indifferently among the people at the same value. (A Summary, Historical and Political, of the first Planting, progressive Improvements, and present State of the British Settlements in North-America. . . . By William Douglass, M.D., i. 493.)

12 Massachusetts Archives, cii. 113.

13 The Distressed state of The Town of Boston once more considered, And methods for Redress humbly proposed. With remarks on the pretended Countryman’s Answer to the Book, entitled The Distressed State of the town of Boston &c. With a Schæme for a Bank Laid down: And methods for bringing in silver money, proposed. By John Colman.

14 Some Proposals To benefit the Province, — a tract without a titlepage but with these headlines on page 1. At the end, on page 15, is Boston: Printed for and Sold by Benj. Eliot, at his Shop below the Town-House. 1720.

15 March 18^th, [1740.]. The Comp^y for Merch^t. notes redeem^l p. silver [in] 25 yrs., carrying 3 per cent interest, meet, signed, and chose their Director at Boston. (The Diaries of Benjamin Lynde and of Benjamin Lynde, Jr., Boston, 1880, p. 161).

Although the description is inaccurate, this can only refer to the Silver Scheme.

16 The following from the News-Letter is a sample of these advertisements:

The Negro-Man advertised to be sold by me the Subscriber for Bills of the Land Bank, will be sold to the highest Bidder, by Inch of Candle, on Tuesday next 4 o’clock, at the Sign of the Lamb.

Ephraim Baker.

17 Special references are not necessary on these points. An examination of the News-Letter for the summer and autumn of 1740 and the early part of 1741 will reveal numerous instances of the publications alluded to. A sample of the humor employed by the wits of the day will be found in the following from the News-Letter of 25 September, 1740: —

“This is to caution my Friends concernd in the said Scheme against loading the Contribution Boxes in their several places of Worship with their Bills, for if they are free that way, it will assuredly stir up the Clergy of every denomination against those who have hitherto (to the admiration of all mankind amongst us) been silent about em.”

18 The report of the Board of Trade to the Privy Council was made 13 November. They recommended “prosecutions against all concerned in the said Land Bank.” The Privy Council, on 19 November, stated that they agreed with the Board in their opinion that “the said Land Bank Project may create great interruption and confusion in business;” but referred the question of methods of suppression to his Majesty’s Attorney and Solicitor-General (News-Letter, 29 January, 1741).

19 Hobart, in his Historical Sketch of Abington (p. 166), says: “It is not known that any one was removed from office in Plymouth County excepting Elkanah Leonard, Esq., of Middleborough.”

20 Middleton unanimously voted, 27 January, 1740–41, to receive Land Rank Bills for town rates (News-Letter, 29 January, 1741). Abington passed a similar vote 31 March, 1741 (Hobart’s Historical Sketch of Abington, p. 133).

It was one of the points submitted to the qualified voters of Dartmouth, 30 March, 1741 (Suffolk Court Files, cccxliii. 53351.

The Supremacy of the Land Bank in Salem affairs in 1741 is developed in the Diaries of Benjamin Lynde, &c, pp. 104 and 162. The overthrow of the advocates of the Bank in 1742 is noted, p. 163.

21 See News-Letter, 16 April and 21 May, 1741.

22 [1741, May] 23d, Saturday . . . the Land Bank, and all other Private Banks are likely to be blank’t by Act of Parliament. The Government frowns on them, our principal establishment (The Diaries of Benjamin Lynde, &c, p. 109). The News-Letter, under the following dates, furnishes evidence of knowledge of the progress of the Bill: —

30 April. It was stated in a London letter that the Bill was passing.
28 May. There was a notice of the arrival of the Bill which had passed both Houses.
16 July. An extract from the Act was published.

23 Province Laws, ii. 747.

24 In the Fifth Report of the English Historical Manuscripts Commission, Appendix, page 229, the following is said to be among the Shelburne Papers, under date of 10 November, 1735: “Report of the Attorney-General to the Lords of Trade on the Scheme of erecting a Land Bank in Massachusetts.” The quotation in the text is taken from a manuscript copy of a paper in the Public Record Office, Board of Trade, New England, 26, B^b. 136. Mr. B. F. Stevens, who procured this copy for me, has also secured from Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice a note to the effect that the above copy is identical with the document in the Shelburne Papers which was calendared in the Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission as an opinion on a scheme for erecting a Land Bank.

25 An Account of the Rise, Progress, and Consequences of the two late Schemes, &c, pp. 41, 42. For full title of this pamphlet see note on p. 2, ante.

26 Edward Hutchinson, Samuel Welles, James Bowdoin, Samuel Sewall, Hugh Hall, Joshua Winslow, Edmund Quincy, Thomas Oxnard, James Boutineau. This list is from a mortgage. There is a return in the Archives (cii. 216) in which the name of Andrew Oliver appears in place of Samuel Sewall, while a copy of the note given in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1860, xiv. 264, has appended to it ten names, those of Sewall and Oliver being both included.

27 Robert Auchmuty, William Stoddard, Samuel Adams, Peter Chardon, Samuel Watts, John Choate, Thomas Cheever, George Leonard, Robert Hale.

28 Province Laws, iii. 803.

29 How extensively this Agreement was executed by the subscribers I have no means of knowing. The only copy that I have seen is in possession of our associate Mr. William Gordon Weld. A description of it will be found in this volume of our Transactions, pp. 47–49, post.

30 Answer of the House of Representatives, 2 March, 1773, to the Speech of the Governor [Hutchinson] of 16 February, in “Speeches of the Governors of Massachusetts from 1765 to 1775, and the Answers of the House of Representatives to the Same, . . . Boston, 1818” (generally cited as Bradford’s State Papers), p. 394.

Hutchinson, in his History (ii. 355), says: “It was said the Act of George I. when it passed had no relation to America; but another Act twenty years after gave it force, even from the passing it, which it never could have had without. This was said to be an instance of the transcendent power of Parliament.” This transcendent power of Parliament, which was partially set aside by the General Court in 1743, which was disputed by Samuel Adams in 1773, and which was submitted to the arbitrament of the sword in the Revolution, was claimed by the counsel for the defendant in Phillips v. Blatchford (137 Mass.) to still have force in Massachusetts. His brief recites the passage of the Acts of 6 George I. and 14 George II., quotes from the State Constitution the clause which continues in force existing laws until repealed, and concludes:

“This law, established by the express command of the Sovereign, and, on the change of the government, confirmed by the new Sovereign, is the law to-day.”

31 Novanglus and Massachusettensis; or Political Essays published in the years 1774 and 1775, on the principal points of controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies, . . . p. 39.

We seek in vain for any recognition by historians of the political importance of these events, at all proportionate to the claim advanced in the text of this paper. Hildreth gives a brief sketch of the Land Bank, and says that the Act extending the Bubble Act to the Colonies “was denounced in Massachusetts as an interference with the Provincial Charter, and in South Carolina as a violation of provincial rights.” He also refers to the fact that “earnest efforts on behalf of these unfortunate speculators, of whom his father was one, first introduced into politics Samuel Adams, afterward so celebrated.” Palfrey says “the project became a prominent political question,” evidently referring, however, to local contemporary politics. After stating that “some of the best men of the Province” appealed to Parliament for relief, he sums up the effect of the application of the Bubble Act to the colonies in the epigrammatic statement, “The Land Bank was caught in its own devices.” As a rule the references of historians to these events are brief and inappreciative. Hildreth alone seems to have been upon the verge of a complete understanding of their political value. It may be asked why this is so. Our associate, Mr. Abner C. Goodell, Jr., has made a suggestion to me upon this point which furnishes an answer to this question. He says it is because Hutchinson, who is the accepted authority for this period of our history, was opposed to the scheme not only as an economist but as a politician. It was not possible for him to interpret these events without prejudice, nor could those who relied upon his judgment arrive at a true measure of their political influence.

32 See Sewall’s Diary, i. 209, 210.

33 Williston Walker, Ph.D., of the Hartford Theological Seminary, in Papers of the American Society of Church History for 1893, pp. 73, 74.

34 A very full account of this Controversy will be found in the Rev. Henry W. Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, chap. xvii. (ii. 241–280), on Episcopacy and the Mayhew Controversy.

35 The story of Mayhew’s ancestry and their civilizing work is given on pages 252, 253, of the chapter above referred to. In this connection the speaker took occasion to refer to the Treasurer of our Society, Mr. Henry H. Edes, as a lineal descendant and worthy representative of the heroic Mayhew family.

36 The mortgage is recorded with Suffolk Deeds, lx. 103.

37 Suffolk Court Files, vol. ccclix. no. 56470.

38 Suffolk Files, vol. ccclxii. no. 56960.

39 Ibid. vol. ccclxix. no. 58408.

40 For an account of this volume and a transcript of its unique passages, see William H. Whitmore’s “A Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony,” etc. Boston, 1890.

41 Mr. Noble, as Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk, is the official custodian of the Suffolk Court Files.

42 This Society was incorporated 22 March, 1895.

43 Sewall’s Diary, ii. 105.

44 Sewall’s Diary, ii. 109, 110, and notes.

45 The treaty of amity and alliance between Great Britain and Portugal was signed at Lisbon, 16 May, 1703, and was renewed by Article xxvi. of the treaty of 1810.

46 By the following November, the Charles, being still the property of the same owners, had sailed upon another expedition as a privateer, under a new commission. See Province Laws, viii. 140, 525, Resolves, 1705–6, Chapter 62 and note.

47 Diary, ii. 102.

48 Diary, ii. 102.

49 Addington, who, after Winthrop’s short term, succeeded Stoughton as Chief Justice, offered to resign his commission 23 July, 1703, but was suffered to retain it with the understanding that “no further service was expected from him therein at present,” and that the Governor and Council would consider the subject of filling that place “as soon as possible.” After this, and until Wait Winthrop was reappointed, 19 February, 1707–8, Sewall presided, and writs bore teste in his name.

50 See a foot-note to Mr. Lindsay Swift’s paper at the December, 1894, Meeting (ante, i. 409), on the location of the Star Tavern.

51 Essay XIV., Of Nobility.

52 At a meeting of the Council held 15 October, 1895, the President appointed Mr. Gardiner M. Lane to fill the vacancy in this Committee occasioned by Mr. Andrew’s death, which occurred on the thirtieth of May.

53 Memorial History of Boston, i. 481.

54 Suffolk Deeds, i. 102.

55 Suffolk Deeds, i. 45.

56 For his title, recently discovered, see 2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for November, 1896, xi. 185–187.

57 Suffolk Deeds, iii. 124.

58 Ibid. i. 321.

59 Ibid. iii. 124.

60 Ibid. v. 231.

61 Ibid. vii. 153.

62 Ibid. vii. 302.

63 The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester . . . incorporated with a republication of King’s Vale Royal and Leycester’s Cheshire Antiquities, By George Ormerod, Esq., LL.D., &c., &c., &c. Second edition, revised and enlarged by Thomas Helsby, Esq., of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister-at-Law. In three volumes. London, 1882, ii. 805.

See also Magna Britannia; being a concise topographical account of the several Counties of Great Britain, by the Rev. Daniel Lysons, A.M. . . . and Samuel Lysons, Esq., F.R.S. London, 1810, iii. 798.

64 My kindly reception by Mr. Evans deserves a more grateful acknowledgment than I can give in these pages.

65 Report of the Commissioners appointed in pursuance of an Act of Parliament made and passed in the 5th and 6th years of King William the 4th, c. 71. Intituled, &c., &c., &c. London, 1837.

66 Some Account of the Citizens of London and their Rulers from 1060 to 1867, by B. B. Orridge. . . . London, 1867. p. 234.

67 A short Account of the Company of Grocers, from their Original together with their case and condition (in their present circumstances) truly stated. . . . London, 1689.

68 Some Account of the Worshipful Company of Grocers of the City of London, by John Benjamin Heath, Esq., F.R. and A.S. Second edition. London, 1854.

69 Papers of the House of Commons, 1878, Vol. 62. The titlepage of this volume is somewhat obscure, but I give it verbatim: Accounts and Papers.

Thirty-nine volumes — (17. Part I.) — Members of Parliament. Part I. Session 17 January–16 August, 1878. LXII. Part I. p. 476.

70 The Register Book of St. Christopher le Stocks, in the City of London. Edited by Edwin Treshfield. . . . London, 1882. p. 42.

71 Westmin. 1 June, 1632. To Mr. Alderman Moulson, Governor of the Merchant Adventurers. Epistolæ Ho — Elianæ. Familiar Letters Domestic & Forren. . . . By James Howel, Esq; One of the Clerks of his late Ma^ties most Honb^le Privy Councell. The Fifth Edition. London, 1678. p. 216.

I am indebted to Mr. Edward M. Borrajo, of the Guildhall Library, for this reference to the authority which was the basis of Mr. Welch’s assertion relative to Sir Thomas’s position in this Company. For this and for the courtesy which led him to submit the Stocken papers to my inspection, and for the great courtesy of my treatment at the Library, I desire to make my acknowledgments.

72 Ante, i. 353.

73 See Mr. Noble’s paper read at the February, 1895, meeting, ante, pp. 51–65, and especially pp. 55 and 56.

74 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 259.

75 Suffolk Court Files, vol. ccclvi., no. 55.818.

76 Suffolk Court Files, vol. ccclvi., no. 55.818.

77 New England Historical and Genealogical Register for April, 1888, xlii. 184, 185.

78 Sedgwick afterwards removed to Boston, where he owned a house and garden on Washington Street, the estate being contiguous, on the north, to that on the corner of School Street, a part of which is now (1895) the site of the “Old Corner Book-Store.” Cf. Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, ii. 192 and iii. 2; Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 852; and Memorial History of Boston, i. 399, ii. xxxiv.

79 Wonder-Working Providence of Sion’s Saviour in New England (Poole’s edition), p. 192.

80 General Laws of New Plymouth, chap. ii. sec. 13, p. 245.

81 Ibid. chap. ii. sec. 14, p. 245

82 The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts reprinted from the edition of 1660 (Whitmore’s edition), p. 123.

83 Frothingham’s History of Charlestown, p. 97.

84 William Stilson’s name was often spelled “Stitson” and “Stetson” in the early records. See Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, ii. 902.

85 The town was named by Capt. Edward Johnson in honor of his friend and “pateron” Sedgwick, who, as we have seen, was a native of Woburn, in Bedfordshire, England. See Hurd’s History of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, i. 336.

86 Wonder-Working Providence (Poole’s edition), p. lxxxvi. Frothingham (History of Charlestown, p. 108) interprets the phrase “compild body reare” as meaning “my compact body to rear.”

87 Quincy’s History of Harvard University, i. 271, 511.

88 A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe (Birch’s edition), London, 1742, ii. 419.

89 History of Nova Scotia, i. 126.

90 Murdoch’s History of Nova Scotia, i. 124.

91 Thurloe, iii. 753.

92 Thurloe, iv. 152.

93 Ibid. iv. 152, 153.

94 Thurloe, iv. 155.

95 Ibid.

96 Thurloe, iv. 155.

97 Ibid.

98 Ibid.

99 Thurloe, iv. 155

100 Ibid. iii. 151.

101 Thurloe, iv. 454.

102 Ibid. iv. 600.

103 Thurloe, iv. 604.

104 Thurloe, iv. 604.

105 Thurloe, v. 154.

106 Thurloe, v. 152.

107 Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches (Chapman and Hall edition, London, 1870), iv. 171.

108 Long’s History of Jamaica, i. 257.

109 Eastern Railroad Company v. Allen, 135 Massachusetts, 13 (a. d. 1883).

110 Massachusetts Archives, lix. 22.

111 Cf. ante, p. 160, note 1.

112 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, January, 1888, xlii. 67.

113 Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 180, 188, ii. 573.

114 See Francis Higginson Atkins’s Joseph Atkins, The History of a Family, pp. 57–71, 146–150.

115 Printed in 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, ii. 284, 285.

116 An account of Mr. Cary’s ministry is given in Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 407–416.

117 Records of the First Church in Cambridge. For a short time previous to her second marriage, Mrs. Lincoln had been afflicted with melancholia, and fears were expressed (verified by the sad event) that she might die by her own hand.

118 Tudor’s Life of James Otis, pp. 19, 20; History of Hingham, iii. 9, 277; and Records of the Church in Brattle Square, Boston.

119 Miss Ann Gillam Storrow is here referred to. She was born in Halifax, 24 June, 1784, and died in Brattleborough, Vt., 20 May, 1862. She was the daughter of Capt. Thomas Storrow of the British Army by his wife, Ann Appleton, whose mother, Mary Wentworth, was granddaughter of Lieut.-Gov. John Wentworth, niece of Gov. Benning Wentworth, and cousin of Gov. John Wentworth of New Hampshire (Wentworth Genealogy, i. 513). Miss Storrow was a sister of Louisa Storrow, who married Stephen Higginson, Steward of Harvard College, and lived much in her family, where she was always addressed as “Aunt Nancy.”

120 The Rev. Dr. Daniel Dana, afterwards President of Dartmouth College. He was pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Newburyport (in a vault under the pulpit of which Whitefield is buried) from 1794 till 1820. From 1826 till 1845 Dr. Dana ministered to the Second Presbyterian Church, the founders of which withdrew from the First Presbyterian Church because of dissatisfaction with his settlement over it thirty-two years before.

121 One of Mrs. Atkins’s descendants writes to me: “The table was of plain white pine, and always kept scoured to perfect whiteness. Mrs. Atkins was obliged to live very carefully, and probably set up her pine table because she could not afford cloths. They had honey in the comb, and, my mother said, no cake except the lightest sponge-cake. These simple things often charmed visitors, but I know not what Mrs. Lincoln saw there.”

122 The Rev. John Andrews, D.D., was colleague and successor to the Rev. Thomas Cary in the pastorate of the Third Parish of Newbury, now the First Parish of Newburyport.

123 New England’s First Fruits, 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 245.

124 Account of Indigenous Vegetables Botanically Arranged, p. 397.

125 Gerard’s Herbal (Johnson’s edition), p. 1588.

126 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 89.

127 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 78.

128 Mourt’s Relation, 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, ix. 51.

129 Wood’s New England’s Prospect (Prince Society’s edition), pp. 16, 17.

130 The New English Canaan (Prince Society’s edition), book i. chap, xviii. p. 172.

131 Description of New England, 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 117, 118.

132 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 87.

133 Ibid. viii. 88, 89.

134 Ibid. viii. 93, 94.

135 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, viii. 134.

136 Ibid. viii. 157.

137 2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, v. 24.

138 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, vi. 120.

139 New England’s Plantation (Higgeson), 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 118, 119.

140 Hakluyt’s The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation (Goldsmid’s edition), xiii. 92.

141 Somerset’s Land of the Muskeg (London, 1895), passim.

142 Chap. ii. Rhode Island Historical Collections, i. 34.

143 1740–1745, xv. 266, 267.

144 History of the United States (edition of 1858), vii. 105.

145 Province Laws, ii. 586, 595.

146 See pp. 241, 242, post.

147 There were but four generations of Martin Brimmers, — two having been in one generation, one having died in childhood.

148 For the full text of this document see post, v. 116–132.

149 Suffolk Court Files, vol. cccciv. no. 65,227.

150 Province Laws, iii. 449, 505.

151 Palfrey (History of New England, v. 567) gives his term of office 1747, 1748. He was, however, a member of the Council in 1749.

152 Province Laws, iii. 479.

153 Douglass’s “Summary,” Serial Number 15; pp. 235–238, text and note, of loose sheets, without date, among Suffolk Court Files (see p. 227. post); and i. 253 and note (edition of 1749, see p. 218, note 1, post); Snow’s History of Boston, p. 238 et seq.; James Grahame’s History of the United States, ii. 186–188; Bancroft’s History of the United States (edition of 1840), iii. 465, 466; Palfrey’s History of New England, v. 88 et seq.; Memorial History of Boston, chap. xvi.; Narrative and Critical History of America, v. 148 et seq.: and New England Historical and Genealogical Register for October, 1874, xxviii. 451–466. See also Boston Weekly Post-Boy, 23 November, 14 and 21 December 1747, and 4 January, 1748; Boston Evening Post, 14 and 21 December, 1747; Boston Weekly News-Letter, 17 and 31 December, 1747, and 7 January, 1748; and Boston Gazette or Weekly Journal, 5 January, 1748.

154 A Summary, Historical and Political, of the first Planting, progressive Improvements, and present State of the British Settlements in North-America, containing — I. Some general Account of ancient and modern Colonies, the granting and settling of the British Continent and West India Island Colonies, with some transient Remarks concerning the adjoining French and Spanish Settlements, and other Remarks of various Natures. II. The Hudson’s Bay Company’s Lodges, Fur and Skin Trade. III. Newfoundland Harbours and Cod-Fishery. IV. The Province of l’Accadie or Nova-Scotia; with the Vicissitudes of the Property and Jurisdiction thereof, and its present State. V. The several Grants of Sagadahock, Province of Main, Massachusetts-Bay, and New Plymouth, united by a new Charter in the present Province of Massachusetts Bay, commonly called New-England. By William Douglass, M. D. Vol. I. (Ne quid falsi dicere audeat, ne quid veri non audeat. —Cicero.) Boston, New England: Printed and Sold by Rogers and Fowle in Queen Street, md, cc, xlix.

155 The Titlepage of this Number is as follows: A Summary Historical and Political of the first Planting progressive Improvements, and present State of the British Settlements in North America; with Some transient Accounts of the Bordering French and Spanish Settlements. By W: D: M: D. N^o. 15. To be continued. Boston. Printed and Sold by Rogers and Fowle in Queen Street 1747 Where may be had all the former Numbers at 6^d. each New tenor.

156 Address at the meeting of the Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association at Fort Dummer, 13 August, 1896, by Rev. George Leon Walker, D. D. (Greenfield (Mass.) Gazette and Courier (newspaper) of 15 August, 1896); McClintock’s History of New Hampshire, p. 210.

157 See Albert H. Hoyt’s article on the Pepperrell Papers in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for October, 1874, xxviii. 451–466; and Palfrey’s History of New England, v. 88, 145.

158 Memorial History of Boston, ii. chap. xv. and xvi.; iv. chap. ix. and x.; Drake’s History and Antiquities of Boston, p. 623; Shurtleff’s Topographical and Historical Description of Boston, pp. 609, 610; Palfrey’s History of New England, iv. 414 et seq.; and New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1877. xxxi. 118.

159 Records of the Superior Court of Judicature, 1747–50, xvii. 194.

160 Records of the Superior Court of Judicature, 1747–50, xvii. 267.

161 Records of the Superior Court of Judicature, 1747–50, xvii. 276.

162 This may have been Peter Mortimore, mariner, who was married at Trinity Church, Boston, 18 October, 1748, to Mary Wilcocks. See Suffolk Probate Files, No. 15,465.

163 Robert Ball, died in October, 1774 (The Boston Evening Post, No. 2038, of Monday, 17 October, 1774). See Suffolk Probate Files, No. 15,703; and Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports, xiii. 309; xv. 318; xix. 50; and xx. 224.

164 Massachusetts Archives, liii. 231, 232.

165 Massachusetts Archives, xi. 488. Cf. ante, p. 200, and 1 Massachusetts Historical Society’s Proceedings for June, 1859, iv. 349–353.

166 In the Council Records (xv. 24) the name of the fifth petitioner is entered as “Andrew Duckerman.”

167 Province Laws, ii. 586, 595.

168 Its title is, “What a Small Town may do for Itself.”

169 The Lawrence Society of Natural History and Archæology was incorporated at Lawrence, 8 March, 1895. Its purpose is “to promote the study of natural history and archæology.”

170 My attention was called to this suit by Mr. William P. Upham, who is engaged in arranging the old papers in the Suffolk Court Files. If they shall prove to have the value to students of Constitutional Law which I attribute to them, my gratitude to Mr. Upham for this service on his part will readily be appreciated.

I wish also to express my appreciation of the many courtesies received from our associate Mr. John Noble, while examining these and other papers under his charge at the Suffolk office. The admirable arrangement of the papers, and the manner in which they have been mounted for reference, leave nothing to be desired on the part of historical students.

171 1 Cranch, 137. The student of Constitutional Law will find an excellent abstract of this case in Cases on Constitutional Law, by our associate James Bradley Thayer, Cambridge, 1895.

172 The early cases under State Constitutions where the question of the constitutionality of a law was under discussion have been collated by Professor Thayer in his Cases on Constitutional Law. Holmes v. Walton, a New Jersey case in 1780, mentioned in a note on page 62, is said to have been an important case, and to have been discussed in the Constitutional Convention. See also Trevett v. Weeden, Rhode Island, 1786, page 73 et seq.; Den d. Bayard and Wife v. Singleton, North Carolina, 1787, page 78 et seq.: and Van Horne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District, 1795, page 94 et seq.

173 The question of appeals from Colonial Courts was fully discussed by Harold D. Hazeltine, in 1894, before the American Historical Association. (Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1894, pp. 299–350).

174 It seems to me that Palfrey is disposed to underestimate the importance of this case. He speaks of the reservation in the Charter to the effect that the Legislature could make no laws contrary to the laws and statutes of the realm of England, as “a provision which had little practical significance” (History of New England, ii. 541). When he discusses this case he says, “Winthrop’s wife produced to the Governor a record of an Order of the King in Council, overruling that action of the Connecticut Courts of which Winthrop had complained; and the Assembly ordered the Secretary to proceed to put Winthrop in possession of the land claimed by him, as soon as the bounds and quantity of said land should be ascertained.” Notwithstanding this practical application of the determination of the Privy Council, he then goes on to say: “Connecticut could not be brought to accede to the determination of the Privy Council. And at length, nearly twenty years after the adverse decree of that body, the Provincial law was sanctioned by a decision of the Council, under advice of the Crown lawyers” (Ibid. iv. 578). The Crown lawyers were of opinion that this reservation was of force, and that any law which violated it was null and void “(Chalmers’s Opinions, London edition, 1814, i. 347, 354). This last opinion ends as follows: “If any laws have been there made, repugnant to the laws of England, they are absolutely null and void.”

175 “His Majesty cannot, by law, give a direction to any court for to rehear any cause depending therein, but rehearings are granted, or denied, by courts of equity, on petition of the parties grieved, to such court as shall be judged proper.” (From the opinion of Edward Northey, given to the Board of Trade, 19 December, 1717, in Opinions of Eminent Lawyers on various points of English Jurisprudence, chiefly concerning the Colonies, Fisheries, and Commerce of Great Britain. Collected, and digested from the originals, in the Board of Trade, and other depositories. By George Chalmers, Esq., F. R. S. and S. A. London, 1814, ii. 177. This work is generally cited as Chalmers’s Opinions.)

176 I am indebted to Mr. Edward M. Borrajo of the Guildhall Library, London, for the following information concerning Ralph Gulston: —

“In the Gentleman’s Magazine (ix 161) the death of Ralph Gulston, Esq., Turkey Merchant, is recorded under date March 11, 1739. This Gulston was a member of a distinguished family which traces its pedigree from Sir Ralph Gulston, knighted on the field of Cressy by the Black Prince, a. d. 1316; he was the second son of William Gulston, and grandson of Joseph Gulston, Dean of Chichester, Chaplain and Almoner of Charles I., and present with him at his execution. Ralph was born in 1684, and appears to have died without issue. That this Ralph Gulston was identical with your man seems probable. I may add that the address given in a directory of the time is ‘Great St. Helen’s.’”

Mr. Henry E. Woods was kind enough to look up this matter, and through independent sources of information reached the same conclusion as Mr. Borrajo.

177 6 Massachusetts Historical Collections (Belcher Papers), vii. 479. Letter, 9 December, 1734, to the Duke of Newcastle, etc. This letter is as follows: —

May it please your Grace:

The 18: of last mo: I rec’d the honour of his Majestys commands by y^r Graces letter of the 3^d of October respecting a complaint made by Mr Gulston the contractor for supplying His Majestys Navy with masts from this Country which letter with the copy of the Complaint inclos’d by your Grace I first of all laid before His Majestys Council here and then before the General Assembly now sitting that the whole Legislature might exert themselves in an affair that so highly concerns the good of the service and the inclos’d print will give your Grace an account of the particular steps taken for the better preservation of His Majestys Woods.

Then follows what is quoted in the text.

178 Thinking that possibly there might be something among the Privy Council Records which would throw some light upon these proceedings, I made application to the Privy Council Office for information upon the subject. I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr. Thomas Preston, Record Clerk, for the following: —

“The Registers contain just bare minutes of the proceedings & the orders. The dates are as follows: —

Heard	2 April 1736
Petn to enforce order	21 Decr 1738
Report & order	23 Feb 1738
Further order	22 Mar 1738”

179 Willis, in his History of Portland, gives us the following particulars concerning Emery: —

“Noah Emery of Kittery was for many years the only lawyer in Maine; he commenced practice about 1725, and although not regularly bred to the profession, he was a man of talents, a ready draftsman, and had considerable practice. On one occasion, between 1720 and 1730, an action of trespass was commenced in the Inferior Court of York by Matthew Livermore for the plaintiff. William Shirley of Boston, afterward Governor of Massachusetts, for the defendant, filed a special plea; but as special pleading was rarely used in that day and by the practising attorneys of those times little understood, and much less by the Court, the plea was answered by some ore tenus observations by the plaintiff’s counsel, and the cause went to trial ‘somehow or other.’ The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court, where the cause went again in favor of the plaintiff and execution issued. The defendant entered a complaint to the King in Council, and an order was issued thereon to set the whole proceedings aside, on account of the defective pleadings in the Inferior Court. The order of restitution was addressed to the Superior Court, and Mr. Auchmuty, an able lawyer of Boston, made an earnest application to the Court to have the order carried into effect; the Court was somewhat perplexed on the occasion, but Mr. Emery, as counsel for the plaintiff, drew up an answer to Mr. Auchmuty’s petition, in substance as follows: That the Superior Court of Judicature was a court constituted by the law of the Province, whereby they were authorized to hear and determine such civil matters therein mentioned as were made cognizable by them, and to render judgment thereon, and to issue execution pursuant to their own judgment and not otherwise. And if counsel for the defendant in this case had obtained a different judgment from what appeared upon their records, he must go there for his execution, as they were not by law empowered to issue any execution contrary to the record of their own judgment. The Court were satisfied with this answer, and complimented Mr. Emery upon the manner in which he relieved them from their embarrassment. Mr. Auchmuty acquiesced in the decision.” [Reference, Judge Sewall MSS.] (The History of Portland from 1632 to 1864: With a notice of previous settlements, colonial grants, and changes of government in Maine, by William Willis, second edition, Portland, 1865, pp. 616, 617.)

Notwithstanding the variations between the account of the above suit and the story of Frost v. Leighton, there can be but little doubt that this is an attempt to tell the story of that suit from memory.

180 The Board of Trade were advised to the contrary by their counsel: “And as to the instructions given to the Governor mentioned in the petition, whereby he is restrained from allowing an appeal in any case under the value of £500 sterling, that does restrain the Governor only from granting of appeals under that value, notwithstanding which, it is in his Majesty’s power, upon a petition, to allow an appeal in cases of any value, where he shall think fit, and such appeals have been often allowed by his Majesty.” . . . (From the opinion of Edward Northey, 19 December, 1717, on a petition to the Board of Trade, by William Cockburn, from a decision rendered against him in Jamaica. Chalmers’s Opinions, ii. 177).

181 Cf. Massachusetts Reports, cvi. 479–489, 489–498; cxix. 1–28.

182 The words in parentheses were inserted by Ames, J., without indicating where they properly belong. — George F. Tucker, Reporter of Decisions.

183 Pennsylvania Chronicle (newspaper), No. 41, from Monday, October 26th, to Monday. November 2d, 1767.

184 Franklin boarded for fifteen years with Mrs. Margaret Stevenson, whose daughter Mary married Dr. William Hewson, F. R. S. (Bigelow’s Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin (edition of 1887, 1888), ii. 522, note.)

185 Tuthill Hubbart, who succeeded James Franklin, was Postmaster till the Revolution; was Selectman of Boston, 1781–1784; and died, on the site of Sears’s Building, 17 January, 1808, aged 88.

186 “An Epitaph &c To the much esteem’d Memory of B. . . . . F. . . . . . . Esq,’ L. L. D. * * * Possessed of many lucrative Offices Procured to him by the Interest of Men Whom he infamously treated, And receiving enormous Sums from this Province, For Services He never performed After betraying it to Party and Contention, He lived, as to the Appearance of Wealth In Moderate Circumstances. His principal Estate, seeming to consist In his Hand Maid Barbara A most valuable Slave, The Foster Mother of his last Offspring Who did his dirty Work And in two Angelic Females, whom Barbara also served As Kitchen Wench and Gold Finder. But alas the Loss! Providence for wise tho’ secret Ends Lately deprived him of the Mother of Excellency.”^α

^α Governor William Franklin.

187 Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography for 1893, xvii. 256.

188 Samuel Soumien was a silversmith and lived only a few doors from the Franklins in Philadelphia.

189 The names of the gentlemen who constituted this Committee are given in connection with the proceedings of the December Meeting of the Society.

190 The Committee was composed of Messrs. George S. Hale, George M. Lane, Edward Wheelwright, Seth C. Chandler, and S. Lothrop Thorndike.

191 The Class of 1844, Harvard College. Prepared for the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of their Graduation, Cambridge, 1869.

192 Verses by Charles Henry Boylston Snow, Class Poet, recited at a Class meeting in 1864.

193 Reference to these papers is made in the Proceedings of the Society for November, 1896, and January, 1897, Second Series, xi. 183, 221–226.

194 By an Act of the General Court (chap. 95 of the Acts of 1790) passed 11 March, 1797, the Records of the Court after 1 August, 1797, were to be kept in the respective Counties. — The General Laws of Massachusetts (edition of 1823), i. 536.

195 See Freeman’s Norman Conquest (second edition), i. 640; iv. 736. Edric “the Wild,” though his career is very obscure, is prominent enough to figure in the background of Kingsley’s “Hereward.”

196 This letter has the Weld crest, with the motto Auspicium melioris ævi; Nil sine Numine.

197 See Publications of this Society, i. 153.

198 Province Laws, ii. 586.

199 See a copy of this Petition, ante, pp. 211, p. 242.

200 Mr. Thomas Hills.

201 Acts of 1861, chap. 183.

202 Page 2

203 Page 3.

204 Page 23.

205 Page 27.

206 Miss Susan Whitney died at Taunton, Massachusetts, 16 November, 1880, aged 80 years. Her school for boys and girls, in Boston, —was kept in the basement of the First Church, in Chauncy Place.

207 The line of descent from the emigrant ancestor was through the Rev. Michael (H. C. 1651), Prof. Edward (H. C. 1710), Prof. Edward (H. C. 1749), Thomas (H. C. 1793), and Edward (H. C. 1822), — the father of our late associate.

208 John Forrester Andrew was descended from the Higginson, Pickering, Grafton, Otis, Crushing, and other prominent New England families.

209 Memorial address on Governor John A. Andrew, by Parke Godwin.

210 The Officers of the Young Men’s Republican and Independent Club of Boston were as follows: —

President, John F. Andrew; Vice-Presidents, Roger Wolcott, Francis Leeds, Henry W. Putnam, Lewis U. Tucker, and Henry H. Edes; Secretary, John T. Wheelwright; Assistant-Secretary, Francis C. Lowell; Treasurer, Arthur L. Woodman.

211 Andrew had early been urged by the Tariff Reformers to accept the Congressional nomination, but it was decided by him and those whom he consulted that the general cause could be pushed more advantageously if he were the candidate for the Governorship on a platform supporting the reforms which he especially sought to advance.

212 During his absence in Europe in the summer of this year he was mentioned as the probable Democratic candidate, and as he had authorized Mr. Moorfield Storey to decline for him in case his nomination was seriously considered, Mr. Storey did so in an open letter to Hon. P. A. Collins, then the Chairman of the Democratic State Committee.

213 Hon. Scott Wike, now Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in an interview published in Boston Herald, 1 June, 1895.

214 The re-organization of the Fourth-Class Postmasterships in accordance with the recommendations of the De Forest Report could not be accomplished, as the Fifty-fourth Congress refused to grant the requisite transfer of appropriations requested by Postmaster-General Wilson.

215 Mr. Andrew married 11 October, 1883, Harriet, daughter of Nathaniel and Cornelia (Van Rensselaer) Thayer of Boston. She died 16 September, 1891, leaving two daughters, Cornelia-Thayer, and Elizabeth.

216 This Bill proposed the increase of circulation of National Banks to the par value of the bonds held to secure it, the repeal of the tax on circulation, and the reduction of the bond deposits; also the repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act.

217 A Constitutional Prohibitory Amendment was presented by the Republicans, in 1886, for popular vote. Andrew said in a speech of this campaign in regard to this prohibitory legislation: “We need no more laws; we should better enforce the laws we already have. An Act of the Legislature never yet made a man temperate.”

218 Publications, i. 19.

219 At the time of the appointment of this Committee Mr. Endicott was serving on two similar committees of other organizations. He therefore asked to be excused from service, and Mr. Henry H. Edes was appointed by the President to fill the vacancy thus created.

220 This may refer to James Anderson, of Boston, who was an Addresser of Hutchinson and of Gage; but more probably the person referred to was Samuel Anderson, of New York, who, at the beginning of the Revolution, went to Canada, where he held, successively, high judicial offices under the Crown. See Sabine’s Loyalists of the American Revolution (edition of 1864), i. 164.

221 This is probably intended for Lincoln, the fifth and sixth letters being transposed. Mr. James’s mother was descended from the Lincolns. See History of Hingham, ii. 380, 381.

222 General James Warren.

223 General Benjamin Lincoln.

224 The Rev. Caleb Gannett (H. C. 1763) and his first wife, Katherine Wendell, are here referred to. He was Steward of Harvard College from 1779 till his death in 1818.

225 She was probably a daughter of John and Elizabeth (Gretian) Pinkney. See post, pp. 895, 396, notes.

226 Published by the Town in 1893.

227 See also “John Gay of Dedham, Mass., and some of his Descendants,” by Frederick Lewis Gay, in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1879, xxxiii. 45–57, from which the authors of the History of Hingham appear to have copied.

228 See post, p. 398, note 3.

229 Suffolk Probate Files. No. 16,842.

230 In the Roll of Members, &c., published by the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company in 1895, Martin Gay is erroneously set down as Captain under the year 1772. In 1770 he was Lieutenant. He was Captain for one year only.

231 This was the Building now occupied as the West End Branch of the Boston Public Library.

232 The Columbian Centinel (No. 2592) of Saturday, 4 February, 1809, records his death on the previous morning, and announces his funeral on the following Monday “at half past 8 o’clock from his late, dwelling house on Union Street.”

233 See List of “Addressers” in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1870, xi. 392–395. Also, Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts, iii. 459.

234 Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 294–296. See also the Rev. Edward G. Porter’s Rambles in Old Boston, p. 98.

235 This List is commonly known as Barrell’s List. It is printed in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for December, 1880, xviii. 266–268.

236 See also Mr. Frederick Lewis Gay’s article in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1879, xxxiii. 45–57, already cited on p. 384, ante.

237 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 18,785, Bond of Timothy Atkins et al., dated 9 December, 1794.

238 See Suffolk Probate Files, No. 16,950.

239 Swansey or Swansea, Bristol County, Massachusetts.

240 Suffolk Deeds, xcv. 196–198. The second of these conveyances (Gay to Gay) is from the parents of Martin Gay, viz,— “Ebenezer Gay of Hingham, clerk, & Jerusha, his wife.” Mrs. Gay was one of the four daughters of Hannah Bradford.

241 See plan drawn by Osgood Carleton, 7 February, 1814.

242 From plans drawn in 1814 by Osgood Carleton, and in 1881 by Alexander Wadsworth, for subsequent owners of the estate, it appears that the site is now, in part, covered by the modern buildings numbered 56–58 and 60–62 Union Street, near Hanover Street, and opposite the entrance to Marshall Street. A large part of the rear portion was cut off in laying out Friend Street, in 1855, but the line of frontage on Union Street remains, measuring, however, 48 ⁷⁰/₁₀₀ feet instead of 44 feet, according to the old measurement. Something has probably been added from the adjoining estate on the north, belonging to the same owners, in order to equalize more nearly the width of the three buildings. All resemblance to the former aspect of the premises has entirely disappeared. “The great entry way” was long since closed and built upon. The numbering of Union Street has been frequently changed; in 1840 the building covering the site of Martin Gay’s front shop was No. 22.

243 See Act of 1 May, 1779 (chap. 49), Province Laws, v. 968–971, 1056, 1057.

244 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 16,842. See Acts of 1776–77 (chap. 38, sect. 5), Province Laws, v. 631.

245 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 16,842.

246 This Appeal was allowed by Chap. 278 of the Resolves of 1781, approved 30 October of that year.

247 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 16,842.

248 Mrs. Gay is so styled by inadvertence, as her husband was still living.

249 John Lowell, the Agent of the estate, was a Boston merchant and auctioneer, a member of the Committee of Correspondence and, in 1776, Deputy-Secretary of the Executive Council. He was cousin-german to his more distinguished namesake, Judge John Lowell (1743–1802), and died in Boston, 1 June, 1793, œ. 54 years.

250 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 18, 785. The estate was not settled until 1794.

251 See Hassam’s Confiscated Estates of Boston Loyalists in 2 Massachusetts Historical Society’s Proceedings for May, 1895, x. 162–185.

252 Beside the estate on Union Street, Martin Gay, at the time of his leaving Boston, owned a house and land on Winter Street. This was also leased by John Lowell, Agent, until sold to John Davis, of Boston, shopkeeper, for £225, “money.” (Suffolk Deeds, cxxxvi. 228.) In this sale no right of dower was reserved. In the Inventory of the estate of Martin Gay, Absentee, 2 April, 1779, the Mansion House, workshop, stable, and land belonging to the same were appraised at £9000. 0. 0, and the House and land in Winter Street at £600. 0. 0. (Suffolk Probate Files, No. 16,842.)

253 Suffolk Deeds, clxviii. 122.

254 See ante, p. 384 and note 1. There is, to be sure, a difference in spelling. Martin Gay’s wife is called Mary Pinckney; the daughter of John and Elizabeth was Mary Pinkney.

255 See Genealogies of the Payne and Gore Families, published by the Prince Society, 1875, and in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for January, 1875, xiii. 405–424. See also the will of John Pinckney in Suffolk Probate Files, No. 7219. For a further account of Christopher Gore, see Quincy’s History of Harvard University (edition of 1860), ii. 430; Foote’s Annals of King’s Chapel, ii. 470–480 and notes; and 3 Massachusetts Historical Collections, iii. 191.

256 Chap. 85 of the Resolves of 1807.

257 Suffolk Deeds, ccxxii. 168.

258 Ibid, ccxxx. 301.

259 It seems not to have been thought necessary to make Christopher Gore a party to this conveyance, though the legal title to the estate conveyed would seem to have been at the time vested in him as Trustee. It was probably assumed that the purposes for which the trust was created had been accomplished, — that it had executed itself. Its provisions are rehearsed in the deed to Davis.

260 From this amount should be deducted the £380 lawful money paid by Timothy Atkins at the sale, 15 June, 1786, and the $1,680 paid by Mrs. Ruth Gay, 23 June, 1807. (Suffolk Deeds, ccxxii. 168.)

261 Suffolk Deeds, ccxxii. 302.

262 It is entitled Fifty Years with the Revere Copper Company. A paper read at the Stockholders’ Meeting held on Monday, 24 March, 1890. By its Treasurer, S. T. Snow. Boston: Printed by request and for use of the Stockholders.

263 The Boston Directory of 1796 records the name of Robert Crocker, brass founder, on Edwards’ wharf, Back Street, whose house was also on Back Street.

264 Mr. Snow thinks that it was through this association that Martin Gay acquired the designation of “Brass founder,” sometimes applied to him. In all original documents examined, of early date, where his calling is mentioned, he is styled “Brazier” or “Coppersmith;” in later documents, “gentleman.”

In the Act of the year 1778 (chap. 24), “to prevent the return to this State of certain persons therein named,” etc., the name of Martin Gay is followed by the designation “Founder.” (Province Laws, v. 913, 1004–1009.) Also, in the Inventory of the Estate of Martin Gay, Absentee, taken and appraised 2 April, 1779, one of the items (besides the founder’s mould already mentioned) is “Founder’s pattin [?], £8. 15. 0.” (Suffolk Probate Files, 16,842.)

265 Fifty Years with the Revere Copper Company, p. 21.

266 Fifty Years with the Revere Copper Company, p. 21. In a note Mr. Snow adds: “The foregoing is taken largely from Mr. Joseph T.Buckingham’s Letter, No. XVII., in The Saturday Evening Gazette, of May 21,1859. It is understood that the facts contained therein were obtained by him directly from Mr. Davis.”

267 Ibid. p. 22.

268 Ibid. p. 13.

269 Occasional Sermons; Notes, p. 68.

270 Suffolk Probate Files, No. 23,280.

271 Given in Quincy’s History of Harvard University (edition of 1860), i. 311, 312.

272 William Dummer.

273 Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay (edition of 1768), ii. 292.

274 Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay (edition of 1768), ii. 290, note

275 Magnalia (edition of 1702), Book iv. p. 131.

276 Ben: Perley Poore’s The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the United States, ii. 1904

277 Henry Vane, elected Governor in 1636 partly on account of his father’s high social position in England, was not knighted until his return to England.

278 Winthrop’s History of New England (edition of 1853), i. 160, 161; Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay (edition of 1765), i. 490–495.

279 “Hereditary honors both nature and scripture doth acknowledge, but hereditary authority and power standeth only by the civil laws.” — Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay (edition of 1765), i. 493 (Appendix).

280 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 167 et al.; also Winthrop’s History of New England (edition of 1853), i. 363, 364.

281 Felt’s Ecclesiastical History of New England, i. 135.

282 Winthrop’s History of New England (edition of 1853), ii. 19.

283 Massachusetts Colony Records, ii. 95, — 13 November, 1644.

284 History of Massachusetts Bay (edition of 1765), ii. 9. Hutchinson considered the House of Lords the bulwark of the British Constitution, curbing both the Crown and the people.

285 Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 17, note. For some years the title Mr. was given in the records to the Assistants of the Colony, although the Governor Deputy Governor, and some of the Assistants were styled Esquires. This was followed by a period when the title Gentleman was accorded to all of these; and this again was followed by the custom, lasting down to the overthrow of the first Royal Charter, of naming them Esquires. See Massachusetts Colony Records, passim.

286 James Phinney Baxter’s Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine (Prince Society’s Publications), ii. 127.

287 Rev. Edmund F. Slafter’s Sir William Alexander and American Colonization (Prince Society’s Publications), p. 233; Rymer’s Fœdera, xix. 301; Traité entre le Roi Louis XIII. et Charles Roi d’Angleterre pour la Restitution de la Nouvelle Fiance, la Cadie et Canada, 1632

288 Schuyler’s Colonial New York: Philip Schuyler and his Family, i. 12 et al.

289 New York Colonial Documents (edition of 1853), iii. 72 et al.

290 Schuyler’s Colonial New York, i. 275. Cf. New York Colonial Documents, iv. 823.

291 New York Colonial Documents, ii. 619 note.

292 Ibid. iv. 823; also Schuyler’s Colonial New York, i. 199.

293 New York Colonial Documents, iv. 829.

294 Learning and Spicer’s Grants and Concessions of New Jersey, p. 609; also New Jersey Archives, ii. 462.

295 Hazard’s Annals of Pennsylvania, p. 489.

296 William H. Egle’s History of Pennsylvania, p. 281 et al.

297 Maryland Archives, i. 20. An Act was passed in March, 1637–38, against “aliening” manors; also an Act passed to establish baronies. The manors of Bridgewater, of Talbot, of Arundell, of Lady Baltimore and others mentioned in the Maryland Archives appear to have been tracts of land so designated without possessing any special privileges. See also Ibid. vi. 134, 205 et al.

298 Colonial Records of North Carolina, i. Prefatory Notes, p. xviii.

299 Historical Collections of Georgia, by George White, p. 20.

300 Major Simon Willard, who arrived in Boston in May, 1634, was thrice married, his first wife having been Mary Sharpe, his second wife Elizabeth Dunster, and his third wife Mary Dunster. Miss Willard’s descent from him was through Samuel (H. C. 1659), Vice-President of the College, 1700–1707; John (H. C. 1690); Samuel (H. C. 1723); Joseph (H. C. 1765), LL.D., President of the College, 1781–1804; Joseph (H. C. 1816), and Robert (H. C. 1860), M. D. See Willard Memoir, pp. 350, 351, 365 et al.

301 An account of the opening of Dunster’s grave in the old Cambridge Cemetery, 1 July, 1846, is printed in Palfrey’s History of New England, ii. 534, note; further details, including an account of the discovery of the grave, are in Chaplin’s Life of Henry Dunster, pp. 225–230. At that time the Corporation renewed the tablet over the tomb. This last tablet having been broken into several pieces, and the vault being in need of repair, a few of the graduates of the college, with the consent of the President and Fellows, have recently caused the tomb to be repaired, and have placed over it a slab of North River stone, into which the fragments of the old tablet have been set in cement. The work has been done at the expense of David P. Kimball of the Class of 1856, Francis H. Brown and Franklin Haven of 1857, Charles P. Bowditch of 1863, William L. Richardson of 1864, Heman W. Chaplin of 1867, Amory A. Lawrence and Otis Norcross of 1870, Charles M. Green of 1874, and Grenville H. Norcross of 1875. Cf. Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 266–269, where it is maintained that the grave is not that of Dunster, but that of the Rev. Jonathan Mitchell, who succeeded the Rev. Thomas Shepard in the pulpit of the Cambridge Church, and who wrote an Elegy on Dunster; and Eliot’s Sketch of the History of Harvard College, pp. 15 and note, 140, where the Latin epitaph, written by Charles Folsom in 1846, may be read.

302 Eliot’s Sketch of the History of Harvard College, p. 8.

303 Middlesex County Court Records, 1 April–25 June, 1656, i. 77, 83, 87, in Thomas’s History of Printing (edition of 1810), i. 229, 458–466.

304 Palfrey’s History of New England, ii. 534, note. The will of Sir Henry Mildmay of Graces mentions no son William.

305 Lechford’s Plain Dealing (Trumbull’s edition), pp. 122, 123, and notes.

306 See Eliot’s Sketch of the History of Harvard College, p. 15.

307 Edward Jackson was a generous benefactor of the College, and had already served, with Increase Nowell and others, on a Committee which settled Thomas Welds’s account 25th 8th month, 1651. He was an honored citizen of Cambridge Village (Newton) and sat in the General Court sixteen years, between 1617 and 1676. He died 17 June, 1681, œt. 79, leaving a large estate. See Quincy’s History of Harvard University (edition of 1860), i. 458, 474, 506, 512, 513; Massachusetts Colony Records, passim; Jackson’s History of Newton, pp. 330–333; and Paige’s History of Cambridge, p. 593.

308 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.), 178–180. This Order was also recorded in the House Journal, 14 September, 1653. See Ibid. iii. 331, 332.

309 It thus appears that Dunster arrived in Boston early in August, 1640, not “in the autumn of 1610,” as stated by Quincy in his History of Harvard University (edition of 1860), i. 14. Cf. Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence (Poole’s edition), p. 162.

310 Dunster married (1) Elizabeth (Harris), widow of the Rev. Jose (or Josse) Glover, 22 June, 1641. As the spelling and pronunciation of Glover’s given name have been the subject of much discussion, it is not inapposite to call attention to the fact that, to this day, Jŏsse — pronounced as one syllable — is the common contraction for Joshua in Lancashire, and, perhaps, elsewhere in the north of England. Cf. Glover Memorials, p. 564; New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxx. 26–28; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 208, 209; and Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 559, 560.

311 Joseph Cooke was a prominent citizen of Cambridge, of which he was a Commissioner, Selectman, and Town Clerk. He lived on the east side of Holyoke Street near Holyoke Place, and represented the town in the General Court six years. Under date of 30 October, 1651, the records of that body contain the following entry: —

“Itt is ordered, that Capt̃ Daniell Gooking, M^r Joseph Cooke, or M^r Henry Dunster, shallbe, and is heereby, inipowred to marry M^r John Apleton and M^rs Priscilla Glover, who have been published at Cambridge, according to lawe.” (Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.), 74).

Priscilla Glover was the youngest daughter of the Rev. Jose (or Josse) Glover, consequently Dunster’s step-daughter. Paige tells us that Cooke went to England in 1658, and that it is not known that he returned to America. See History of Cambridge, pp. 40, 513, 560; and Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 275.

312 Hugh Peter sailed for England 3 August, 1641; and Samuel Shepard was excused from further service as a member of the General Court, 18 October, 1645, “being to goe for England,” where both joined the Parliamentary Army. See Winthrop’s History of New England (edition of 1853), ii. 37, 38; Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 275, iii. 52; and Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 653, 654, where a full account of Major Shepard, who was a half-brother of the Rev. Thomas Shepard, the elder, may be read. See also post, p. 454.

313 See Plymouth Colony Records, ix. 93–98, 216, 217. The Records of the Commissioners of the United Colonies fill Volumes ix. and x. of the Plymouth Colony Records, where they are printed in full from the contemporary manuscript copy which belonged to the Old Colony.

314 “Cyguatea or Cigoteo, but known also as Eleutheria, Eleuthera, Ethera, Alabaster, and the Bahama Island,” also as Segotea. The circumstances attending this gift and the occasion of it have been fully told by Air. Sibley. The persecuted people of this Island sent to the College, in 1658, another gift of £124, “out of their poverty.” See Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 139; and Quincy’s History of Harvard University (edition of 1860), i. 507, and note.

315 This doubtless refers to the plan for maintaining poor scholars at Cambridge submitted by the Rev. Thomas Shepard to the Commissioners for the United Colonies, 30 September, 1644. See Plymouth Colony Records, ix. 20, 21; and Quincy’s History of Harvard University (edition of 1860), i. 15 et seq.

316 The Rev. Urian Oakes (H. C. 1649), afterwards President of the College, is doubtless here referred to. His name appears in the Quinquennial Catalogue (pp. 10, 35) in the lists of Fellows and Tutors followed by a query; and his term of service — 1650 to 1652 — is also questioned. Dunster’s statement, taken in connection with the entry in the Steward’s Account Book (i. 11, 12), apparently removes these doubts. There was a close friendship between Oakes and the younger Thomas Shepard, who was settled later over the Charlestown Church as colleague with the Rev. Zechariah Symmes. Cf. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 173, 548.

317 It is not improbable that the other “fellow” to be thus maintained by the Hartford, Connecticut, Colony was a classmate of Oakes, — Samuel Eaton, eldest son of Gov. Theophilus Eaton, of New Haven, who, according to Mather (Magnalia, edition of 1702, book ii. p. 28), maintained his son “in the Colledge until he proceeded Master of Arts,” which was in 1652, — the year before Dunster was writing. Samuel Eaton was one of the five original Fellows named in the College Charter of 1650. See Quincy’s History of Harvard University (edition of 1860), i. 589; and Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 171, 172, 548.

318 See Quincy’s History of Harvard University (edition of 1860) i. 455 et seq., where these accounts appear, but without dates.

319 These marks occur in the original paper. They do not indicate that any part of this letter has been omitted in printing.

320 The Rev. John Norton, who was bred at St. Peter’s College, Cambridge.

321 It does not clearly appear whether Leverett’s name was inadvertently omitted from the superscription of this letter or whether he did not sit with the “Commissioners,” which is not improbable. His services were constantly required for important military and civil occasions of every kind. In May of this very year (1653), and for more than a year following, he was a prominent figure in the troubles with the Dutch; and for a considerable part of this time he was out of the country. Early in 1651 Cromwell sent hither ships and troops for the reduction of New York. This expedition was put in charge of Robert Sedgwick and John Leverett, who bore the title of “His Highness’s Commissioners.” Leverett wrote to the Protector from Boston, 4 July, 1654, a letter in which he refers to “my last from Fiall of the first of May, 1654,” and to his “saife arrival in Boston the fifth of June following.”

It is not difficult, therefore, to see that Leverett’s public engagements in a military capacity during the autumn of 1653 and the following winter and spring probably precluded his giving to the affairs of the College that close attention which their importance demanded, and that he preferred to leave to his four competent associates the responsibility of making the investigation and “retourne” ordered by the General Court. — See Plymouth Colony Records, x. 26–30 et al.: Massachusetts Colony Records, iii. and iv. (Part I.) passim; Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay (edition of 1765), i. 179–183; Palfrey’s History of New England, ii. passim; and Thurloe’s State Papers, ii. 425.

322 Cf. Johnson’s Wonder Working Providence (Poole’s edition), p. cxv.

323 Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. (Part I.), 186, 187.

324 See Backus’s History of the Baptists in New England (edition of 1871), i. 290; and Wyman’s Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, i. 102, 312, 313, and 428.

325 Deane’s History of Scituate, p. 180. Cf. Ibid. p. 248; and Palfrey’s History of New England, ii. 533, 534, notes.

During the years 1653–1657 Dunster was harassed by no less than fourteen lawsuits brought by his step-children John Glover and Mrs. Priscilla (Glover) Appleton (ante p. 420, note) and others for an accounting of his stewardship of the Glover property. See Willard Memoir, pp. 178–180 and notes; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 210, 211; and Middlesex County Court Records, i. 79, 83, 87, in Thomas’s History of Printing (edition of 1810), i. 205, 222, 458–466

326 See Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 148–152, 155.

327 History of Harvard University (edition of 1860), i. 14, 15. See also Magnolia (edition of 1702), book iv. sect. 10, pp. 175, 176; and ante, p. 416, note.

328 Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, New Series, vi. 323–349.

329 Chap. xix. pp. 164, 165 (Poole’s edition).

330 1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, i. 242 et seq.

331 History of New England (edition of 1853), ii. 105.

332 Ibid. ii. 165.

333 Princeton Sketches (1893), p. 150.

334 Page 42.

335 The Princeton Book (1879), p. 14.

336 Writings of James Madison (1860), i. 4.

337 J. Maclean’s History of the College of New Jersey (1877), ii. 47, 48.

338 Discourses, p. 276.

339 Ways of Yale (1895), p. 6. 55

340 See Postscript on p. 437, post.

341 1774, January, C. C. Beatty, in J. F. Hageman’s History of Princeton and its Institutions (1879), i. 102.

342 1787, November 26, Ibid. ii. 316.

343 1807, in J. Maclean’s History of the College of New Jersey (1877), ii. 80.

344 M. LaBorde’s History of the South Carolina College (1859), p. 129. The date of this resolve was 1821, — the earliest use of the term at any college except Princeton.

345 1824, J. W. Alexander’s Forty Years’ Familiar Letters (1860), i. 57. The writer was a professor at Princeton.

346 Finch’s Travels in the United States and Canada (1833), p. 282. The writer refers to Princeton.

347 L. R. Gibbes, in M. LaBorde’s History of the South Carolina College (1859), p. 197.

348 S. W. Fisher, in Semi-Centennial Celebration of Hamilton College (1862), p. 82, note.

349 1871, A. C. Dayton’s Last Days of Knickerbocker Life in New York (1897), p. 162. In 1857 Columbia College was removed to its present site. It is doubtful whether Campus was ever actually in use during the occupation of the original site.

350 1870, W. A. Stearns, in Opening of Walker Hall, Amherst College (1871), p. 32. The writer was then President of Amherst, where the term was beginning to be adopted.

351 G. R. Cutting’s Student Life at Amherst College (1871), p. 113.

352 W. Wells, Union College, in The College Book (1878), p. 187.

353 H. J. Van Dyke, Jr., in The Princeton Book (1879), p. 375.

354 Annual Catalogue of the University of Rochester, 1895–96, p. 13.

355 E. M. Hyde’s Lehigh University: A Historical Sketch (1896), p. 36.

356 Catalogue of Ohio Wesleyan University, 1896, pp. 80, 89.

357 The Indiana University: Illustrated Announcement (about 1896), p. 5.

358 Suffolk Court Files, vol. xxviii, group-number 2.331.

359 Magnalia (edition of 1702), book iv., p. 130.

360 Eliot’s Sketch of the History of Harvard College, p. 25; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 166, 167.

361 Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 417.

362 Ibid. i. 419.

363 Eliot’s Sketch of the History of Harvard College, p. 28.

364 Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 423.

365 Eliot’s Sketch of the History of Harvard College, p. 166. See also Quincy’s History of Harvard University (edition of 1860), i. 513.

366 Sibley’s Harvard Graduates iii. 354, 355; and Sewall’s Diary, ii. 320.

367 Paige’s History of Cambridge, p. 562.

368 Ibid. p. 580.

369 Ibid. pp. 558, 559

370 Middlesex County Court Files, October Term, 1672. Cf. Paige’s History of Cambridge, p. 226; and Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, ii. 416, 417.

371 Middlesex County Court Records, iii. 35, 37.

372 Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, ii. 416; and Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 625, 626.

373 Paige’s History of Cambridge, p. 625.

374 Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, ii. 428.

375 Ibid. ii. 455.

376 Ibid. iii. 208.

377 Ibid. iii. 169.

378 Massachusetts Colony Records, i. 217.

379 See ante, p. 420 and note.

380 The Proprietors’ Records of Cambridge, p. 77; Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. xv, xvii, 610, 653.

381 The Proprietors’ Records of Cambridge, p. 88; Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. xv, xvii, 512, 564. The doubt which Paige records as to Gookin’s occupancy of this estate is removed by Oakes’s deposition.

382 I.

To the Constable of Cambridge.

In his Ma^ties name.

you are required to warne Samuel Gebson that he appeare at the Court to be held to morrow at this Towne then and there to answ^r for wrong doing, fraudelency & injustice to Herbert Pelham, Esq^r. by receiveing & taking his sonnes Apparll theu stud^t of Harvard Colledge, & under Age of 21: yeares, without consent of Parents, Guardian, Tutor, or other y^t [have ?] ye dispose & goverm’ of him, & concealing & deteyning ye same from y^m contrary to rules of justice & equity, and her of you are to mak a true return under your hand & not to faile. date 30. 7. 1672.

Thomas Daxforth, Assis^t.

This warrent was served upon Samuell Gibson according to the Tenor of it by me

John Goue

Consta^l

1 (8) 82

[Endorsed] Warrant for Sam^l. Gibson.

Apparrell y^t Samuel Gibson hath had of M^r Pelhams sonne. 1 p^r.of new breeches conteyneing 3 yd^s. Devonshir Kersie. 8^s. yd.		01 — 04 — 0
To making, 2^s 6^d. Pockets. thred, & silk 18^d		00 — 04 — 0
1 Great Coate of bro. cloath. 24^s. yds. 2: yds. ³/₂ [sic] —
	is 3^s. 00 — 00
making & tremeng.	00 — 06 — 00
	3: 06. 00
Abate ye ½ for w^t it had been worn, the remainder is		01 — 13 — 00
The whole is		03 — 01 — 00

— (Middlesex County Court Files, October Term, 1672)

383 At a County Court held at Charlestown Dec. 15, 1674. . . . Samuel Gibson appearing before the Court to answer the p^r sentm^t of the Grand Jury for a pound breach. He is convicted of being guilty thereof, & to pay costs, & the fine imposed by law is respited untill next Court. — Middlesex County Court Records, iii. 107.

At a County Court held at Cambridge April 6, 1675. . . . Samuel Gibson appearing before the Court & refusing to take the Oath tendred for clearing hiins: of a Pound breach. The Court ordered y^t the fine should be respited untill the Court gave further order. — Ibid. iii. 112.

At a County Court held at Cambridge, by speciall order of the Gen^ll. Court. Decemb^r. 18, 1678. . . . Samuel Gibson appearing before the Court, On vehement suspicot of his breaking open the house of Elizabeth Belcher, & stealing a p^s of linnen. On his examination he stands convicted of being out unseasonably, neere to y^e place where the aboves^d damage was done and not giveing a satisfactory ausw^r to the Court of his being abroad so unseasonably at the s^d place, he is sentenced to pay a fine of forty shill: money, or to ly hi Bridwell three dayes.

Samuel Gibson made his Appeale to y^e next Court of Assist^ts.

Samuel Gibson as principle in five pounds Nath^ll. Hancock & Jn^o Gibson as his suretyes in 50^s. a p^e, do acknowledge y^ms to stand bound Joyntly & severally to the Tre͞r of the Coun. On Condiccon that Samuel Gibson shall prossecute his appeale to effect as the law injoynes Aud y^t in y^e meane time he shall be of the good behavio^r— Ibid. iii. 238, 239.

To the Honoured Countye Courte now Seting in Cambridge.

The humble Petition of Samuell Gibson sheweth that whereas your poore petitioner was bound ouer to the last Courte of this Countye upon ye Complainte of M^rs: Belcher whoe had suffered wronge in her Goods by night and your Petitioner being found abroade from his habitation y^e same night did give your honours Reason to adjuge your Petitioner to paye fortye shilings as a fine to ye Countye, but because your humble Petition^r: do knowe & professe his ignorance & inocencey of anye burte done to any bodye or Goods at y^t time, & for his owne parte in that matter can bringe the testimoney (as your honours have ben alredy inforin^d of Sam^ll: Goffe & Sam^ll: Green, therefore I humbly intreate y^t my Bonds of appeale maye bee made Nulle & voyade with y^e remition of my fine and it shall oblige mee in toake[n] of Thankefullues always to praye for yo^r: Honours happines

Sam^ll Gibson.

— (Middlesex County Court Files, October Term, 1678).

The Appeal seems never to have been entered in the Court of Assistants, as its Records show no such case. The Petition, presumably, was granted.

384 Oliver’s Case. — At the “Court of Common pleas holden at Edgertown Octb^r 1^st 95 M^r Samuell Gibson atturnnie to Nathaniel Oliver appeared.” Upon a plea to the jurisdiction the cause was “adjudged to be dismist.” The “petion^r by his Attorney appealed.” His appeal was refused. Oliver then petitioned the General Court “to take this mighty breach upon the undoubted Eight of the Subject and laws of this Land, into yo^r most Serious Consideration & provide Some Redress for so great a Grievance.” The General Court directed a hearing. When it came on “Matthew Mayhew Esq^r One of the said Justices Appeared & Justified the Denial” for want of “Jurisdiction . . . within Elsabeth Islands.” The justification was adjudged good. — Province Laws, vii. pp. 110, 491–496. The identity of Gibson, in this case, while not absolutely established, is made reasonably certain by many circumstances.

Gove v. Gibson. —Samuel Gibson, the defendant in an action brought by John Gove of Cambridge “before Joseph Lynde one of then Majesties Justices of Peace” for “Trespas for cuting and cariiug four trees, . . . plead that the Land upon which the Trees were cut did not belong to the Plant^ve but to the Town of Cambridge, whereof the Defend^t was ail Inhabitant and Proprietor,” and to the jurisdiction “for that the Title of Land wasconcern’d.” . . . “Judgment was giuen for the plaintif,” and “defen^at apealed to the next Court of Common pleas.” To his Reasons of Appeal signed by himself, assigning as the only ground want of jurisdiction, Anthony Checkley filed the Answers. At the September Term, 1695, “The Court . . . find the Judgment good . . .” &c.

Gibson then petitioned the General Court for “direction and assistance therein,” having “no relief or remedy in the premises in the ordinary course of Law;” assigning as his grievance that the plea to the jurisdiction “being overruled at y^e Inferiour Court, Judgement ought not to have been given finally and peremptorily, but he ought to have been permitted to plead issueably.” The General Court voted him a hearing. The two branches disagreed; conferences were ineffectual, and the matter slumbered till 1702, when Gibson presented another petition for a hearing, which was granted. This not coming off, Gibson again petitioned. This hearing was twice deferred. Finally, 5 November, 1703, the General Court —

“Ordered, That there be a full hearing of the said Cause upon the merits thereof at the next Inferiour Court of Common Pleas within the County of Middlesex. And the said Court is hereby directed and Impouered, to receive and hear the said Cause, Aud to do therein that which to Justice pertaineth according to Law.”

At the trial the former judgment was reversed. Gove appealed, and the case was concluded in the appellate Court at the July Term, 1704, the Court determining that in the Inferior Court of Common Pleas, “the Tryal of the s^d Cause being in the nature of an Appeal from M^r Justice Lynde, the order of that Court is final & the Appellant can take nothing by his Appeal.” (Records of the Superior Court of Judicature, iii. 129.) However barren the victory, Gibson was at the last left in possession of the field. (Province Laws, vii. 111, 354, 369, 496–498, 728–730, 745; and viii. 9, 30–31, 263, 309, 310.)

There is also in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court in Boston a collection of papers originally used in different stages of the trial, — thirteen in number, petitions, orders of the General Court, pleadings, &c. (Suffolk Court Files, vol. lxi., group-number 6171.)

Gibson also appears as attorney for the plaintiff in Oliver r. Ray. (Suffolk Court Files, vol. dlxiv., group-number 1301, — “Fragments,” Two papers.)

Mr. Goodell’s Notes give a full history of the cases with complete transcripts from the Massachusetts Archives, Council Records, and Court Records. Too high an estimate can hardly be put on the value of these Notes to the several volumes of the Province Laws issued by Mr. Goodell. With indefatigable research, judgment, and exhaustive knowledge, a wealth of material has been gathered for the illustration of the legislation of that period. Law is not an exact science like mathematics, where what is true once is true for all time, and where results can be ciphered out, — it needs the light of History as an adjunct. And so of Laws, — a mere compilation is comparatively a barren schedule of enactments. The material here collected, from sources often not readily accessible and to a great degree unrecognized before, is ready for instant use. It is not merely for the antiquary, the genealogist, the sociologist, and the historian, but equally or more for the legislator, the lawyer, the judge, and the student of jurisprudence.

In conversation with one of our associates, the late Mr. Justice Devens, not long before his death, bestowed the highest praise upon Mr. Goodell’s method of editing the Province Laws, referring especially to the value of his elaborate Notes, adding: “We often hear it said that Mr. Goodell’s work is valuable only to the antiquary and genealogist; and yet in this very case of which I have been speaking, it would have been impossible for the Court to do justice as between the litigants without the aid of Mr. Goodell’s unique and matchless work.” In some three hundred cases the Province Laws have been cited in the Massachusetts Reports, and in many of these cases the Opinions show that much of the historical information which they contain was drawn from these Notes.

385 Jackson’s History of Newton, p. 445.

386 Ibid. p. 446.

387 Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 20 note, 540.

388 The father died about 1676, and his estate had not been fully administered in 1700. In 1678, “during their nonage,” Jonathan and his brother Thomas were put under the guardianship of John Fayerweather and Arthur Mason, of Boston, and Amos Richardson, of Stonington, Conn., the maternal grandfather of the boys. (Suffolk Probate Files, Nos. 341, 811, 946.) This grandfather seems to have been well endowed with prudence and foresight and landed property. In 1073 he conveys to his —

“Son in Law . . . as a portion with his Wife, . . . in Cousiderac͠on of my parentall Lone to Jonathan Gatliffe of Boston in New England aforoSaid Marriner & his wife Mary Gatliffe my Eldest Daughter & of their Filiall afectiou to Mee . . . all that my house & Land Lieing & beeing in Boston afores^d, which for Seuerall years past hath bin in the Possession & tenu^r of hiin the Said Jonathan Gatliffe . . . And also a farme in Stoneington aforeS^d of two hundred Acres of Land . . . & Also halfe of my Land by the Dock . . . in Boston aforeSaid . . . in fee . . . Prouided always that the premisses nor any part thereof shall not be Sold by the Said Jonathan Gatliue except vponan Imergent otation to reileeme him out of Captiuty in case hee should be taken in Slauery or for the Sustentation of his family in case of Diuiue prouidence by Sickness or losses reducing him to pouerty.”

Anthony Checkley was one of the witnesses to the deed, which was acknowledged before Edward Tyng, Assis^t. — (Suffolk Deeds, viii. 290.)

389 Paige’s History of Cambridge, pp. 97, 572.

390 Ibid. p. 558.

391 Paige’s History of Cambridge, p. 530.

392 Peirce’s History of Harvard University, p. 45.

393 Magnalia (edition 1702), book iv., page 129.

394 Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, i. 179.

395 Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, 1660 (Whitmore’s edition), pp. 136, 137.

396 Suffolk Court Files, vol. xii, group-number 1.174.

397 Records of the Corporation of Harvard College, 22 June, 1693.

398 Eliot’s Sketch of the History of Harvard College, p. 33.

399 Records of the Court of Assistants, ii. 192, 193.

400 The Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States met in Philadelphia 14 May, 1787, but a majority of the States not being represented the members adjourned, from day to day, until the twenty-fifth of the month, when an organization was effected and Washington was chosen President of that august body.

401 Probably the Independent Chronicle of 31 May, 1787, and the Columbian Centinel of 2 June, 1787, which contain lists of the members of the General Court in which the “new Comers” are indicated.

402 Nathan Dane, the writer of this letter, was at this time an able and influential member of the Old Congress then sitting in New York.

403 Dr. Samuel Holten, of Danvers.

404 Judge Gorham was born in May, 1738, in Charlestown, Massachusetts, where he died 11 June, 1796. He was the most distinguished man who ever lived in Charlestown, where he was universally honored. Besides his judicial honors, Judge Gorham sat in the House, of which he was Speaker, in the Provincial Congress, the Board of War, the State Constitutional Convention of 1779, and the Old Congress, of which he was President. In the Convention which framed the Federal Constitution he took high rank, was chosen Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, presided over the Convention in Washington’s absence, and was put on important committees, including that to which the Resolutions of the Convention were referred, in July, for the purpose of draughting a Constitution. Judge Gorham subsequently exerted a powerful influence in securing the adoption of the Federal Constitution by Massachusetts.

405 The Society of Mayflower Descendents (sic) was incorporated 1 April, 1896 for patriotic, antiquarian, and historical purposes.

406 This Sketch proved too long for full insertion in the volume referred to, and with Gould’s entire approval considerable portions were omitted in printing. The original Sketch has been in the hands of the present writer.

407 This school was kept in a building which stood at the northwesterly corner of Kingston and Bedford Streets.

408 In the printed Catalogue of the Boston Latin School Gould appears as entering in 1835. This is surely wrong, and must signify that he entered the class entitled of that year.