DECEMBER MEETING, 1911

    A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Thursday, 28 December, 1911, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the Hon. John Adams Aiken, LL.D., in the chair.

    The Records of the Annual Meeting were read and approved.

    The Corresponding Secretary reported that a letter had been received from Mr. Melville Madison Bigelow accepting Resident Membership.

    Mr. Clarence Saunders Brigham of Worcester, and Mr. Arthur Fairbanks of Cambridge, were elected Resident Members; and Mr. Edward Vanderhoof Bird of Assuan, Egypt, was elected a Corresponding Member.

    Mr. Albert Matthews exhibited, through the courtesy of Dr. Edward Breck of Boston, photographs of an ancient armchair152 which had been brought from Lancashire, England, to Dorchester, Massachusetts, in 1635 by Edward Breck153 and which is still in the possession of the family.154

    On behalf of Mr. George L. Kittredge, Mr. Henry H. Edes presented an abstract of the following paper:

    COTTON MATHER’S ELECTION INTO THE ROYAL SOCIETY

    When a Boston preacher who died almost two hundred years ago can still divide our local republic of letters into hostile camps at a moment’s notice, the presumption is that he amounted to something. Such a man is Cotton Mather. The burning questions that fired his contemporaries might be supposed to be extinguished by this time; but whoever pokes among the ashes will soon discover the semina ignis, quite ready to flare up. For my own part, I am neither pro-Mather nor anti-Mather, and my purpose in resuscitating the debate about the Doctor’s title of F. R. S., which began in his own day, is to administer an irenicon. To this end, I shall produce two fresh pieces of evidence which seem to have eluded investigation. They are positive, direct, trustworthy, indubitable. They prove conclusively that Cotton Mather was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and they fix the day, and almost the hour, of the event. Before reciting them, however, I must review the whole case.

    In November, 1712, Cotton Mather composed a series of thirteen letters on the Natural History of New England and kindred topics. Seven of them were addressed to John Woodward, M. D., F. R. S., Professor of Physic at Gresham College, and six to Richard Waller, Esq., Secretary of the Royal Society. All were intended as communications to that learned body.155

    Excerpts from these letters were printed in 1714 in No. 339 of the Philosophical Transactions, — the number designated as “for the Months of April, May and June.”156 The excerpts were, of course, of a highly miscellaneous character. They deal with fossil teeth and bones (believed to be the remains of an antediluvian giant),157 with plants and birds, with antipathies and the force of the imagination, with the American Indians, with rainbows and sundogs, with the strange discovery of a murder by a dream, with the rattlesnake, with earthquakes and thunder, with pits in the rocks at Amoskeag “a little above the hideous Falls” of the Merrimac, with longevity and the multiplication of the human race, and with the mysterious figures engraved on Dighton Rock. It is easy to make fun of these jottings, which, indeed, are commonly held to betray an abnormal credulity. I have no wish to enter the lists in championship of Cotton Mather as a man of science. Still, an error is no less an error when it has come to be a tiresome fashion. Mather may or may not have been exceptionally credulous. Such a charge, at all events, gets no support from these Curiosa and others like them. For they are precisely the kind of thing that naturalists were noting and publishing at that time, in England and on the Continent, and most of them were really worth noting. It is a pity that we do not study the history of science a little, before we pitch upon an individual as a scapegoat for his age. If we would only look abroad oftener, we might find the intellectual life of Massachusetts in Mather’s period less barren, less glacial, than we do. The significant thing is, not that Mather thought the venom of a rattlesnake would decompose the steel edge of a broadaxe, but that his Curiosa were not out of place in the Philosophical Transactions, and would not have been out of place in the Acta Eruditorum of Leipzig or the Ephemerides of the Leopoldina. Even the story of the murder revealed in a dream was respectfully treated by the English savants. “The Relation” — such is the editor’s comment — “seems to be well attested,”158 and the editor was no less a personage than the great astronomer Halley. In fact, it is just such an incident as psychologists now register with anxious care, and study with trembling hope. Ralph Thoresby, the historian of Leeds, believed devoutly in apparitions and in witchcraft, and he was an F. R. S. and voted for Cotton Mather — but I must not anticipate.

    It is sometimes assumed that Mather sent these scientific papers to the Royal Society “solely and merely of his own spontaneous motion.” This is a mistake. The first letter of the series settles the matter. It is addressed to Dr. John Woodward, and begins:

    Sr,

    Your excellent Essay towards the Natural History of the Earth, has obliged and even commanded, ye true Friends of Religion, and Philosophy, to serve you with as many Communications as they can, that may be subservient unto your noble Intention. But the Letters wherewith you have honoured me, have laid me under your more particular commands, to supply you with such subterraneous curiosities, as may have been in these parts of America mett withal. I do with much Alacrity apply myself immediately to obey your Commands, in one Remarkable Instance, wherein I apprehend myself best able to do it.”159

    Woodward was particularly interested in palæontology, and was always eager for fossils160 or for information about them. It was natural that he should apply to the most learned man in New England for such information in the American field, and it was equally natural that he should suggest (as he appears to have done) that he should like to lay before the Royal Society the communications that Mather might favor him with.

    How cordially the Royal Society welcomed Cotton Mather’s correspondence, may be seen in the following extract from their MS. Journal, July 23, 1713:

    A letter drawn up by Mr. Waller for Mr. Cotton Mather at Boston in New England was read; giving an account of the receipt of his letter and his manuscript, containing his several observations on Natural subjects, with an invitation to a future correspondence; which was ordered to be sent.

    Mr. Waller proposed the same gentleman as a candidate, according to his desire mentioned in his said letter; which was referred to the next Council.161

    The statement that Waller nominated Mather “according to his desire mentioned in his letter” must not be taken (as it usually is162) to indicate that Mather in effect nominated himself. It indicates merely that Waller had ascertained what it was incumbent upon him to learn before nominating anybody — namely, the willingness of the person in question. For the Statutes of the Royal Society expressly provided that one who propounds a person for election into the fellowship “shall satisfy the company, that he hath informed [him of certain obligations], and that hereupon it is the desire of the said person to be of the Society.”163

    The next meeting of the Council took place only four days later, on July 27, 1713, and their Minutes record, on that date, that “Mr. Cotton Mather was proposed, balloted for, and approved to be a Member of the Society.”164

    Secretary Waller’s official letter, acknowledging the receipt of Mather’s manuscript and inviting him to continue his correspondence, was received by Mather on October 12, 1713. This was the missive that had been approved by the Society on July 23. Along with it, we must believe, came a private letter from Waller, informing him of the action of the Council and assuring him of a speedy election by the Society as a whole, — for Waller doubtless felt sure that the favorable action of the Council had made the result a foregone conclusion. These two letters are referred to as follows in Mather’s Diary under that date:

    12d. 8m. This Day, in Ships arriving from London, I receive Letters from the Secretary of the Royal Society, who tells me, That my Curiosa Americana being Readd before that Society, they were greatly Satisfied therewith, and ordered the Thanks of the Society to be returned unto me; They also Signified their Desire and purpose to Admitt me as a Member of their Body. And, he assures me, that at their first lawful Meeting for such purposes, I shall be made A Fellow of the Royal Society.165

    Mather sent Waller a witty and graceful reply, which I am permitted to print, for the first time, from the original draught in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.166

    [Separate Letter.]167

    Sr

    An Honour too great for me to have hoped for, the Letters wherewth you have lately favoured me, have allow’d me some hope of my arriving to.168 The Academy of ye Nascosti, at Milain; that of ye Innominati, in Parma; and that of ye Incogniti, in Venice, would by their Titles, have been more fitt for so obscure a person, than a room among your honourable Virtuosi.169

    I have nothing to render me worthy of a Relation to so Illustrious a Society, as that whereto you have done me the Honour of proposing my Admission as a Member, except it be my vast Veneration for the Persons that compose it, and my firm Resolution, to have annually as long as I may live, contributed unto its Treasures, by my best (tho’ mean) Com̄unications, altho’ I should never have been in this way obliged unto it.

    170And now you give me a Prospect of reaching to such a Dignity, there will be some Addition to my Assiduities, as well as my Capacities, that if I be not one of the Ardenti, which they tell me, is a Title worn by one of ye Academies at Naples, yett I will not be one of ye Otiosi; wch, they say, is a Title worn by another of ym.

    I first render my most humble & hearty Thanks unto you, for doing ye Part of a Patron on my behalf, in the Recom̄endation you have been pleased to give me: And I assure myself, that an affayr, which will so much strengthen my Opportunities to render myself a Master of what may be found useful & proper to be transmitted from these parts of ye World, under such a Management as yours, cannot miss of being brought unto Perfection.

    I must further pray you to be my Instructor, (for, Sr, you must imagine that you have now a sort of a tame Indian under your Tuition,) what the Rules of my Relation will oblige me to observe, in ye point of those little pecuniary Expences, which I am to consider ye Treasurer of the Society.

    Your Instruction, which my Ig[norance]171 at so long a Distance from you, rende[rs necessary] for me, will in this, & in ever[y thing] else be complied withal, by, Sr,

    Your most obliged Fr[iend]172

    The next document in the case is a letter from Secretary Waller to Cotton Mather. It is not preserved, so far as I know, but we have Samuel Mather’s account of it, with an all-important extract:

    Twas in the Year 1714. he received a Letter from the Secretary of the Royal Society, [Richard Waller, Esq;]173 dated Decemb. 4. 1713. in which are these Words; As for your being chosen a Member of the Royal Society, that has been done both by the Council and Body of the Society: only the Ceremony of an Admission is wanting; which, you being beyond Sea, cannot be performed.174

    When did Cotton Mather receive this momentous letter from Mr. Secretary Waller? The question can be answered with exactness enough for the purposes of our investigation. The letter certainly reached him before July 2, 1714, and in all probability before March 30.175 The importance of thus approximating the date will appear presently.

    To understand Waller’s letter, we must have recourse to the Statutes of the Society (“made in 1663” and in force during the whole period that concerns us in this inquiry), as well as to its Second Charter (also of 1663).176 The Statutes provide that a candidate for fellowship shall be voted on (by ballot) at some meeting subsequent to that at which he is nominated,177 and the Charter prescribes a two-thirds vote.178 Reference of nominations to the Council was not required, either by Charter or by Statute, but it seems to have been customary, and it certainly took place in the present instance. Further requirements of the Statutes are that “every person elected a Fellow” shall “subscribe the obligation” to do his duty by the Society,179 and that he shall go through the ceremony of admission. The sections defining admission are as follows:

    V. Every person, elected a Fellow, shall appear for his Admission at some ordinary meeting of the Society, which shall be within four weeks after his Election; or within such further time, as shall be granted by the Society or Council, upon cause shewed to either of them. Otherwise his Election shall be void.

    VI. The Admission of any Fellow of the Society shall be at some meeting thereof, in manner and form following: The President, taking him by the hand, shall say these words,

    I do by the authority, and in the name of the Royal Society of London for improving natural knowledge, admit you a Fellow thereof.180

    These rules explain Waller’s words in his letter of December 4, 1713, quoted by Samuel Mather: — “Only the Ceremony of an Admission is wanting; which, you being beyond Sea, cannot be performed.” This ceremony, we have seen, had to take place within four weeks of a candidate’s election (otherwise the election was void); but the time could be extended indefinitely, for cause, either by the Society or by the Council. In Mather’s case, such an extension, if not expressly mentioned at the time, must have been taken for granted by everybody concerned; for he could not even learn of his election until the regular limit had expired.

    Everything now seemed to be in good order. Mather had been officially notified by the Secretary that he had been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in the regular way. Whenever he should go to London, it would be incumbent on him to present himself for formal “admission,” to sign the pledge of fidelity, and to receive the right-hand of fellowship. He would then become an F. R. S. in the fullest legal and technical sense of the term. Meanwhile, he felt justified in appending these honorable letters to his name. He did so immediately, on the title-page of The Glorious Throne,181 a sermon delivered on September 23, 1714, and published that year, and he continued the practice, on fitting occasions, as long as he lived.

    We now see the importance of fixing approximately (as we have already done) the date on which Mather received Waller’s notice of election.182 And we observe that it makes no difference whether we choose March 30 or July 2, 1714, as the terminus ad quem; for The Glorious Throne was not published before September 29.183 Mather did not presume on Waller’s assurance (received in 1713)184 that he was going to be elected: he waited, as was proper, until the Secretary had informed Mm that the election was an accomplished fact.

    It is impossible to see how Mather can be blamed for using the title of F. R. S., even if he had nothing to go on except Waller’s letter of December 4, 1713; for it was inconceivable that there should have been any mistake: Waller was not only the Secretary, but he was the person who had nominated Mather. But Waller was by no means his only voucher. He received assurances of a similar tenor from Dr. Woodward. This appears from an important letter, dated May 21, 1723, from Mather to Dr. James Jurin,185 Secretary of the Society, printed by Mr. N. Darnell Davis in 1892.186 In this document, to which we shall have occasion to recur, Mather tells of communicating to Waller and Woodward “a great number of American and Philosophical Curiosities” (evidently the Curiosa, the thirteen letters written in November, 1712, and excerpted in the Philosophical Transactions in 1714), and adds:

    These Gentlemen putt the, as Unexpected as Undeserved Respect upon187 me, of proposing me for a Member of the Royal Society; and they both Wrote unto me, That I was chosen accordingly both by the Council and Body of the Society, on the Anniversary Day188 for such elections, in the year 1713.189 — Adding, that the only Reason of my not having my name in the Printed List of the Society, was because of my being beyond-Sea, and yett a Natural Born Subject, & so not capable of being inserted among the Gentlemen of other Nations.190

    Nor was this all. In the Table of Contents in No. 339 of the Philosophical Transactions, issued in 1714, — the number that contains the excerpts from Mather’s Curiosa, — there stand, in plain type, the words: “An Extract of several Letters from Cotton Mather, D. D. F. R. S.,”191 and of course this announcement remained when, in 1717, Nos. 338–350 were bound together and published as Volume XXIX. The Philosophical Transactions, though not actually issued, at this time, by the Royal Society, was universally understood to be its organ,192 and the editor was the Secretary of the Society, the illustrious Halley.193 “You[r] Secretary also,” writes Mather to Jurin, “Dr Halley, in the Philosophical Transactions of 1714 printed my Name, with an F. R. S. annexed unto it.”194 And he continues: “Mr. Petiver did the like, in his Naturæ Collectanea; And in his Letters to me, he had these Words, ‘Your Election succeeded without opposition, and you were Elected after the usual Method of Balloting. The Reason of your being out of the Printed List, is your not being personally here, to subscribe to the Orders195 that should be tendred you.’”

    “Mr. Petiver” is James Petiver, F. R. S., the distinguished botanist and entomologist.196 Mather sent him (on September 24, 1716) a few dried American plants,197 with observations upon them and a personal letter.198 In the letter, Mather adverts to the fact that his name has never appeared in the printed list of Fellows. His words are these:

    In ye mean time, I shall not be altogether wanting in my Essayes to do ye best I can in Obedience to your Commands. And I hope, annually to treat ye Royal Society also with such a Number of Com̄unications, that if every Member of that Illustrious Body, whose Name stands in the Catalogue (an Honour not yett granted unto mine), will do but half as much, the Stores in your Collection will soon grow considerable.

    It was in reply to this observation, we may be certain, that Petiver assured Mather that the election had been perfectly regular, and that the omission of his name from the printed list was explained by inability to be “personally here, to subscribe to the Orders that should be tendred you.” It is peculiarly significant, in view of Mather’s letter, that when, in the very next year (1717), Petiver included in his Naturæ Collectanea a list of the plants which he had received from Mather, he took special pains to accord his American correspondent the title of Fellow of the Royal Society at full length by prefixing an acknowledgment as follows:

    Some American Plants, with their Specifick Vertues and Wonderful Effects, lately sent me by the Reverend and learned Dr. Cotton Mather, at Boston in New England, and Fellow of the Royal Society, London.199

    From 1714 to 1724 Mather was in active correspondence with the Royal Society and its members, and there is reason to believe that he was frequently addressed by such members as an F. R. S. Samuel Mather avers:

    After this200 he had several Letters from many considerable Gentlemen of that Society, who always Superscribed their Letters to him as F. R. S. And he was assured by several of them, that he ought to affix that Title to his Name before his Works: otherwise he would never have done it. . . .

    I have at this Time in my Hand, Letters to him from Mr. Waller, Dr. Chamberlain, Dr. Woodward, Dr. Jurin, and others who give Dr. Mather his Title, and express Concern some sordid People here will not allow it.201

    I give the testimony of Samuel Mather for what it is worth, for I am well aware that whatever one member of this family says in behalf of any of his relatives is traditionally received, in this part of the world, with some caution. Still, it would be credulous incredulity to reject this evidence altogether, particularly since it accords, in its general purport, with what seems probable. Let me hasten to add that (for a reason which will appear later) we are here concerned with only such of these letters as were written before April 11, 1723, and that, in the absence of the letters themselves, we cannot be sure which of them preceded that date.202 One of Chamberlayne’s letters, however (of August 31, 1720), is fortunately quoted by Cotton Mather in a letter to John Winthrop (H. C. 1700), dated December 26, 1720. It is of much importance in settling the question whether Mather was or was not regarded at this time as an F. R. S. by the Fellows of that Society. Mather writes:

    All the Return I have yett had of the Remittances I made the last February to the R. S.,203 is an obliging Letter of Mr. Chamberlain,204 Aug. 31, whose words are, “I thank you for your Noble Entertainment with which so many of my Friends were Regaled, before I could gett a Snap for myself, who hungerd & thirsted for it, that I had not the pleasure thereof till very lately, and indeed too late to communicate the same pleasure to your Illustrious Brethren, the Gentlemen of the R. S. who have always a long Recess at this time of the year.”205

    Chamberlayne’s words “your Illustrious Brethren, the Gentlemen of the Royal Society” are certainly equivalent to calling Mather an F. R. S. The same turn of phrase is used by Mather himself in The Christian Philosopher, 1721, when (after describing himself on the title-page as “Fellow of the Royal Society”) he speaks of a certain F. R. S. as “my Brother.”206 It is particularly interesting, in view of Chamberlayne’s language (just quoted) to observe that it was into the form of a letter to him that Mather put his tract entitled The World Alarm’d (1721), which is described on the title-page as “a Letter to an Honourable Fellow of the Royal Society at London. From a Member of the same Society, at Boston.”207

    We must frankly admit that, if Cotton Mather was (as he supposed) a properly elected F. R. S., there was nothing irregular, according to the practice of the Society itself, in his being adorned with those letters, even in default of the ceremony of “admission.” The Rev. William Brattle, of Cambridge, was elected a Fellow on March 11, 1714,208 and, so far as I know, his right to bear the title of F. R. S. (which stands after his name in the Harvard Quinquennial Catalogue) has not been questioned. Yet it is pretty clear that Brattle was never formally “admitted.” He was in this country when his election took place,209 and it seems quite certain that he did not visit England between March 11, 1714, and February 15, 1717 (when he died210). Paul Dudley was elected a Fellow on November 2, 1721,211 and Ins name occurs with the title F. R. S. several times in the Philosophical Transactions.212 Dudley lived until 1751, and I cannot undertake to say that he never went to England in the interim. If so, however, nobody has recorded the fact. And, at any rate, I feel sure that (if he eventually did take the voyage) he had not done so before the Secretary had described him as F. R. S. in the Transactions at least half-a-dozen times. These examples are instructive with regard to the custom of the time in this matter.

    It does not appear that anybody challenged Cotton Mather’s right to style himself an F. R. S. until 1720, although in the interim (beginning, as we have observed, in 1714, immediately after the receipt of Secretary Waller’s notification of his election) he had appended the letters to his name on several title-pages.213 In this year, however, the question was raised by John Checkley in a very curious fashion. In 1719214 Checkley had attacked Mather and Thomas Walter, Mather’s nephew, in the preface to his Choice Dialogues.215 Walter replied to the Dialogues in 1720. This reply was believed by Checkley to be “the joint Labours of the grand Committee” of ministers, “but taggd together by Mr Walter and by him adorned with those many Billingsgate Flowers which have so delicately perfum’d the whole Piece.”216 Checkley also conceived himself to have been hardly used by the action of the Court of General Sessions in the matter of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and he ascribed his prosecution — not, I dare say, to Cotton Mather in particular but to the dominant party in general, among whom Mather was a leader. However exalted Checkley’s motives may have been, he was quite as bigoted as any of his opponents, and there is no doubt that he was only too eager to discover weapons to use against Mather. Now Mather’s name, as we have seen, was not appearing in the annual List of Fellows of the Royal Society. He had commented on the omission himself, in letters to some of the Fellows in England, and had received explanations which justified him in still styling himself F. R. S., particularly as his correspondents in the Society so addressed him. Whether Checkley had inspected one of the annual lists or not, we cannot tell. Probably he had. We know that the omission of Mather’s name in them was public property in Boston as early as February, 1722, and Mather himself asserts, in a letter in which he mentions Checkley, that it was this omission that gave rise to the attack upon the genuineness of his title.217 At any rate, Checkley knew (like everybody else) that Mather had styled himself F. R. S. on various title-pages, and he smelt imposture. Accordingly, on August 22, 1720, he wrote to Colonel Francis Nicholson, then in London, and begged him to ascertain the facts.218 Nicholson, I fancy, “did not like the office” — to borrow Iago’s phrase. Besides, the letter reached him when he was very busy. He had just been sworn (on September 27, 1720219) as Governor of South Carolina, and he was getting ready for departure. He sailed from Plymouth for America in March, 1721,220 and “just before his sailing” he sent Checkley “a verbal Message by a Gentleman, that the Hurry of his Affairs at that Time had hindered him from procuring” Checkley the needed information, “but that He wou’d desire Cap’ Halley to send [Checkley] a Certificate relating to the Business.”221

    Now the gentleman222 with the “verbal message” must have reached Boston at almost the same time as the ship which brought a hundred copies of Mather’s Christian Philosopher, printed in London. This ship came into port in the course of the five days immediately preceeding March 31, 1721.223 Checkley was a bookseller and a reading man. He soon got hold of one of these volumes and noted that the title-page described the author as a “Fellow of the Royal Society.” Here was a fresh document in his case against Mather. Checkley was too ardent a controversialist to wait patiently for the results of Nicholson’s promised letter to the Secretary of the Society, — which, indeed, might never have been written at all. He took the inquiry into his own hands and, on April 26, 1721, he directed a fervid appeal to Halley, a perfect stranger, enclosing a copy of the epistle that he had previously despatched to Nicholson, and continuing in the extraordinary terms that follow:

    Thus (Sr) you have both my Petition & the Cause of it. And now I most humbly entreat of you (Capt Halley) to send me a Certificate under your own Hand, relating to Mr Mather’s being a Fellow or not a Fellow of the royal Society. Mr Mather hath published a Book in London in 1720, entituled the Christian Philosopher, in which He writes Himself at Length, Fellow of the royal Society. Teacher Bradbury writes a Preface to it inscrib’d to Mr Hollis. Sr, your sending me the Certificate by the very first Opportunity, will capacitate me to defend myself from these Sons of Strife, Schism & Sedition, and will indeed be an Act of Charity to a distressed, persecuted (but I thank God a true) Son of our Holy Mother the Church of England, and your unknown, but very humble & devoted Servt.224

    The tone of this impertinent request shows how uncharitably certain Checkley felt that Mather had been sailing under false colors. It is amusing to notice that he desires Halley to address his reply to “Doctr John Checkley,” thus himself assuming a title which was popularly given to him (as an apothecary) in Boston, but which, educated as he was in England, he must have known would hardly have been accorded him in the mother country.225

    It is highly improbable that Halley deigned to answer Checkley’s letter. But it appears to have been read at a meeting of the Society,226 and to have prompted Mather’s constant friend, Dr. John Woodward, to write to Mather inquiring what the trouble was. Mather replied, in November, 1721, explaining his relations with Checkley, and (no doubt) begging Woodward for some assurance as to his actual status.

    I have said that Woodward was Mather’s constant friend. This will come out clearly in the sequel, but it is satisfactory to know for certain that in the very month in which Checkley was penning his missive to Halley, Woodward had written (April 3, 1721) to Mather in the most friendly manner, explaining the failure of the Philosophical Transactions to print some of Mather’s communications on the ground that “the Editors, since Mr. Wallers Death, are very neglectfull & partial; by which the Society suffers not a little,” and adding: “For my own Part I have not been wanting in Doing you Justice: and makeing the Curious here sensible of your Diligence there.”227

    I have said that Mather wrote to Dr. Woodward in November, 1721, giving him an account, in response to an inquiry, of the quarrel which had led to Checkley’s missive to Halley. This fact, and this date, may be gathered from a passage in Mather’s subsequent letter to Jurin.228 But we have other evidence, enabling us to fix the date with exactness, for in Mather’s Diary, under November 30, 1721, occurs the following entry:

    Writing letters for Europe, I send over many Things, that I hope, will serve the Kingdom of GOD. And particularly, among the rest, I write a further and a more distinct Account of the Small-pox inoculated, the Method and Success of it among us, and the Opposition to it; By which Means, I hope, some hundreds of thousands of Lives, may in a little while come to be preserved.

    The document to which this entry particularly refers is easily identified. It was a formal communication to the Royal Society, addressed to Dr. Woodward, and entitled “A further Account of the Method and Success of the Small-pox Inoculated,”— under which title it stands catalogued, in Mather’s handwriting, in a list of Curiosa Americana which were certainly sent to the Society (addressed to Woodward) at about this time.229 With every such packet of scientific communications it was Mather’s habit to send a covering letter, of a more personal and informal character, and it was, we may be sure, in the personal letter to Woodward (enclosing the “Further Account” and other communications) that Mather replied to Dr. Woodward’s inquiry about the trouble with Checkley which had prompted the latter to despatch his extraordinary epistle to Halley. Thus we are enabled to assign Mather’s reply to Woodward’s inquiry to a precise date, — November 30, 1721.

    One question, of immense significance, emerges from our jejune collation of dates and documents: — Was not the agitation concerning Mather’s right to wear the title of F. R. S. — started (it seems) by Checkley in 1720 — furthered and intensified by the inoculation controversy in Boston?230 This controversy broke out in June, 1721, when Mather issued (in manuscript) his Address to the Physicians.231

    The Royal Society was keenly interested, and news from the seat of war was always welcome. The first inoculation in Boston was performed by Zabdiel Boylston, at Mather’s instance, on June 26, 1721,232 and it is possible that Mather apprised Dr. Woodward of it immediately, in a letter of June 29th.233 It is certain, at any rate, that on September 25th Dr. William Douglass, the vociferous and determined opponent of Mather and Boylston, wrote from Boston to Alexander Stuart, M. D., F. R. S., in London,234 inquiring what English physicians thought of “this rash practice,” expressing his own opposition to it, and describing Mather as “a certain credulous Preacher of this place.” His letter was read before the Royal Society, presumably by Stuart, on November 16, 1721.235 The English doctors, of course, were not all of one mind. Dr. James Jurin, the Secretary of the Royal Society, was much in favor of inoculation.236 Dr. Stuart’s attitude I do not know, but his public reading of Douglass’s letter looks unfriendly to the practice.

    Early in 1722 Douglass put forth an anti-inoculation tract, in the form of a Letter to Stuart, dated December 20, 1721, in which he twits Mather on his correspondence with the Royal Society. “A certain Reverend Gentleman of the Town,” he calls him, “a Man of Whim and Credulity,” who thought the outbreak of the smallpox “a fit Opportunity to make Experiments on his Neighbours, (which in his Vanity he might judge acceptable to the Royal Society).”237 And again, near the end, he styles Mather “a certain Gentleman, (who you know in times past has been troublesome to the R. S. with his trivial credulous Stories).”238

    This last slur must have been particularly galling to Mather, who was rather sensitive about the delay which the Fellows of the Society sometimes showed in acknowledging his communications and about the failure of most of them to get into print. He betrays this feeling in writing to John Winthrop (H. C. 1700)239 and also in some of his letters to his correspondents in the Society.240 Indeed, he had apparently been unable to conceal his sensitiveness from his associates in Boston, — even from Douglass himself, with whom, before this quarrel about inoculation, he had been on excellent terms.241 Douglass adverts to the matter again in a letter to Cadwallader Colden (May 1, 1722), in which he characterizes “Mather, Jr.” as “a credulous vain preacher,” and alleges that he “set inoculation at work” in order “that he might have something to send home to the Royal Society who had long neglected his communications as he complained.”242

    Douglass’s sneers did not pass unnoticed by Mather’s friends, and it is particularly instructive to observe the way in which Isaac Greenwood expresses himself in February, 1722,243 on this point of Mather’s connection with the Royal Society, in his little masterpiece of controversial raillery, the Dialogue between Academicus, and Sawny and Mundungus. “He,” says Academicus (Greenwood) to Sawny (Douglass), “has been above Forty Years a Celebrated Preacher, and has been so acknowledged by Foreign Universities, as no American ever was before him, and justly merited the Honour of being a Member of the ROYAL SOCIETY.”244 Greenwood’s challenge was instantly accepted in an anonymous Dialogue between Rusticus and Academicus,245 which is dedicated in mockery “To the Very Reverend and Learned Dr. Cotton Mather, Fellow of the Royal Society.” In the Advertisement prefixed, the anonymous author takes pains to refer to “C. M. D. D. and F. R. S.,” and again (echoing Greenwood’s phrases) to “the said C. M. (who has justly merited the Honour of being a Member of the ROYAL SOCIETY).” Further, in the course of his dialogue, he uses, as a kind of ipse dixit, the sentence, “Dr. Cotton Mather (Fellow of the Royal Society) says so.”246 Once more, when he is about to quote Oldmixon’s violent attack247 on the Magnalia, he prefaces it by repeating Greenwood’s praise of Mather (which I have just quoted) word for word.248 And finally, in appending a document which he ascribes to Mather’s son,249 he speaks of this young man as “an Academical Brother (Son to a Fellow of the Royal Society).”250

    All this does not, in strictness, denote a doubt of the genuineness of Mather’s title of F. R. S., though it certainly is susceptible of that interpretation, in view of the fact that the question had already been raised among his enemies. But in this same year (1722) Douglass went to press with another Letter to Stuart,251 in which he not only ridiculed Mather’s communications to the Royal Society,252 but went so far as to suggest that the Society had repudiated him. “Perhaps,” writes Douglass, “he may oblige this his Alma Mater253 to disown him for a Son, as it seems the Royal Society have already done, by omitting his Name in their yearly Lists.”254

    Finally, on November 21, 1722, John Checkley sailed for England.255 By this time, in all human probability, Mather had learned that Checkley’s letter of April 26, 1721, and Douglass’s of September 25, 1721, had been read before the Royal Society. No reply had come from Mather’s letter of November 30, 1721, to Dr. Woodward256 — we should remember that the postal service was irregular and precarious, and that packets were continually miscarrying. Stuart must have been regarded by Mather as a hostile influence within the Society. The fact that Douglass claimed Stuart as an old friend257 and had dedicated two anti-Mather pamphlets to him258 would inevitably produce that impression, even if no report of Stuart’s attitude (whatever that attitude may have been) had reached Boston. So far as I know, Mather nowhere mentions Stuart, but there is a bare possibility that he alludes to him in a letter to Woodward, dated September 21, 1724. This letter is devoted to the famous Amphisbæna, immortalized by Whittier (with the inevitable fling at Cotton Mather) in his poem of The Double-headed Snake of Newbury. Here Mather subscribes himself “one, who forever wishes your Protection from the Amphisbœna in humane Shape among you.”259 Perhaps this is Stuart, whose other head may have been Douglass! But another interpretation is far more probable.

    At all events, by the spring of 1723, there were reasons enough why Mather should think it high time to put an end to the current discussion as to his right to call himself an F. R. S. He had no doubt — it is inconceivable that he should have had any doubt — that he was fully justified in wearing that title; but the situation was awkward, and some action on his part seemed advisable. Accordingly, on May 21, 1723, he addressed a straightforward and circumstantial letter to Dr. James Jurin, then Secretary of the Society, reciting the facts of his election as he had understood them from Waller and Woodward, mentioning that both Halley and Petiver had adorned him with the letters F. R. S. in printed works (the former in the Philosophical Transactions itself), saying that he had been accused of imposture for using the title on appropriate occasions, and requesting Jurin to give him an authoritative and final decision as to whether he was or was not an F. R. S. I do not see how a man in Mather’s position could have expressed himself in better taste than he shows in the following sentences, near the close of this letter to Jurin:

    But if after all, it be the pleasure of those Honourable Persons, who compose or Govern the Royal Society, that I should lay aside my pretensions to be at all Related unto that Illustrious Body upon the least Signification of it by your pen, it shall be dutifully complied withal. I will only continue to take the leave of still communicating Annually to you (as long as I live) what Curiosa Americana I can become the possessor of. For (my Jewish Rabbis having taught me, to Love ye Work and have little Regard unto the Rabbinate) it is not the Title, but the Service, that is the Heighth, & indeed the Whole of my Ambition.260

    And to prove that he was in earnest in his protestations, he enclosed an elaborate manuscript tract on inoculation (a subject in which he knew that Jurin was profoundly interested), and promised other communications in about a fortnight.261 That he kept his word is shown by a series of seven letters to Jurin (June 3–8, 10, 1723) in the archives of the Royal Society.262 Evidently Mather wished to demonstrate that he really meant to be serviceable, whether or not the Society should confirm him in his title.

    Jurin’s reply to Mather’s letter has not been found. Mr. Darnell Davis, in printing the document, remarks that it would be interesting to know what it was, and adds:

    A diligent search among the records of the Society has, however, failed to find that Cotton Mather’s name was ever submitted to the general body of Fellows. Would it be an undue surmise to suspect that Cotton Mather’s mistaken zeal in the witchcraft heresy stood in the way of his obtaining a two-thirds vote [i. e., in 1713, when his name passed the Council],263 and that, the Council finding this the case, did not risk a rejection?264

    Dr. Slafter, after quoting these words, with approval, continues with another suggestion:

    But in addition to this, his Sermon before the General Court in Boston in 1690 had been published, and was by no means flattering to the members of the Church of England. His open and violent hostility to the Church, and abusive language concerning it must have been known, and could not have gained for him many friends among the Fellows of the Royal Society, who were, we presume, mostly prominent members of the Church of England.265

    And now we arrive at the two pieces of fresh evidence which are my only excuse for the present paper.

    Several months ago I came across an entry in the Diary of the distinguished antiquary, Ralph Thoresby, F. R. S., under date of April 11, 1723:

    Afternoon: transcribing rest of Mr. Thomas Milner’s will and benefactions, till four, at the Royal Society; I gave my vote for the Rev. Mr. Williams, to be librarian; and keeper of the Museum; he had more votes than most of the eight candidates, yet was outdone by one, viz., Mr. Hawkesby; after I had voted for Mr. Cotton Mather to be F. R. S. returned in time for prayers. This was a very large convention of the Society; I met with good old Dr. Sl. . . . 266 and other ancient acquaintance, and never saw so great a number of the Fellows together, three rooms almost filled; Dr. Tancred Robinson and I sat on the same chair.267

    Of course this entry left no doubt in my mind that the Royal Society balloted on the name of Cotton Mather on the 11th of April, 1723, in the afternoon. The startling thing was the date, — almost ten years later than the letter from Waller quoted by Samuel Mather. It remained to consult the records of the Society, which, it was to be hoped, would clear up the mystery. Professor Ernest W. Brown, of Yale University, himself an F. R. S., was so kind as to forward my queries to the proper quarter, and the response was prompt and satisfactory. I have a letter268 from Robert Harrison, Esq., Assistant Secretary and Librarian, containing the following extract from the MS. Journal of the Society for April 11, 1723:

    Dr. Woodward informed the President that Dr. Cotton Mather of New England was recommended many years ago to the Society for a Fellow, and had also upon a reference to the Council past their approbation in order to be ballotted for in the Society, which was never yet done, he therefore desired that the said gentleman might be now ballotted for, which being granted, Dr. Cotton Mather was elected a Fellow.

    Mather’s appeal to Jurin, we observe, had been effectually answered before it was written. It bears date May 21, 1723, and the Society had already acted, at the instance of Woodward, on the 11th of April. The inquiry provoked by the pugnacious Checkley had operated in a way its originator little expected. Woodward, we remember, had written to Mather, and Mather had replied.269 Investigation of the Society’s records had doubtless followed, and the awkward blunder of ten years before had come to light. For this blunder Mather was obviously not responsible. It was Waller, if anybody, who was to blame; for he had certainly informed Mather that he had been elected in 1713 both by the Council and by the body of Fellows. The Council’s vote was correctly entered in the Minutes, but no record could be found of Mather’s election by the Society. Perhaps there had been an informality in the balloting; perhaps there was an omission in the record. Waller, who had nominated Mather, and who, as Secretary, should have entered his election (if it took place) in the Journal,270 had been dead for several years.271 There was only one way to set things right, — to abide by the face of the record, to assume that no ballot had been taken by the Society in 1713, and to proceed to such a ballot at this late day. Woodward stated the facts, in open meeting, to the President, Sir Isaac Newton, and asked for a ballot. And so, at last, Cotton Mather was duly elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on the 11th of April, 1723. It was still impossible for him to fulfil the technical condition of attending a meeting within four weeks, signing the obligation, receiving the right-hand of fellowship, and thus undergoing the ceremony of admission. But all this, in his case, was clearly regarded as of no immediate consequence. It is ridiculous to imagine that the Society elected him, under these exceptional circumstances, with the intention that his election should become void in a month, — before he could be informed of it, indeed! We must suppose that the statutory proviso (“or within such further time, as shall be granted by the Society or the Council, upon cause shewed to either of them”) was meant to go into effect in his case; and meantime, we may be sure, the Society expected him to annex the F. R. S. to his name. Otherwise, their action is unintelligible.

    Less than four years later, on January 9, 1727, a new section was added to the Statute, in order to provide for just such cases of persons living at a distance:

    Every person, who is a foreigner, and every one of his Majesty’s subjects, whose habitation or usual place of residence is at more than forty miles distance from London, shall be and be deemed a Fellow of the Society, immediately after he shall be elected, and shall be registered in the Journal-book of the Society as such: Provided always, that no such person shall have liberty to vote at any Election or meeting of the Society, before he shall be qualified pursuant to the Statutes. And if he shall neglect so to qualify himself, the first time he comes to London, when he may be present at a meeting of the Society, and can be admitted; his Election shall be declared void, and his name shall be cancelled in the Register.272

    This section was, I suppose, not retroactive, and it has therefore no legal significance in the case of Cotton Mather, except perhaps to indicate that, in spite of his election, he was never, in the full technical sense of the term, a Fellow of the Royal Society. One thing, however, must now be clear, — that the Society did its utmost to make him a Fellow, and that, from 1723 until his death, he was an F. R. S. elect, lacking only the formality of a ceremonial admission. And the lack of this ceremony, we should remember, did not, according to the practice of the Society, deprive Americans of the right to be styled and to style themselves Fellows of the Royal Society — as we have seen already in the case of Paul Dudley.273

    Thoresby’s account of the meeting at which Mather was finally elected is particularly interesting. It was, he tells us, “a very large convention of the Society.” He “never saw so great a number of the Fellows together.” The assembly was so crowded that he and Dr. Tancred Robinson had to “sit on the same chair.”274 Now it was well known to the meeting that Cotton Mather had been erroneously describing himself as an F. R. S. for nine years past. Their action, therefore, in electing him on this occasion is more eloquent than words. They were not offended at what he had done. They perceived that he had acted under an innocent — indeed, an unavoidable — misapprehension, and, in this large meeting, they corrected the error of their deceased Secretary and rehabilitated Mather in a way not less honorable to themselves than to him. Few men have ever received a more striking and brilliant vindication. John Checkley was in England at the time.275 I trust he got early news of the occurrence.

    It may seem to many persons as it did to Dr. Slafter, “a matter of very little importance whether Dr. Mather was, or was not, a Fellow of the Royal Society.”276 But it certainly is of some consequence to know whether he was, or was not, a shameless impostor. It is of some consequence to know that, in using the letters F. R. S. from 1714 to 1723, he was acting in good faith and in a way that received the emphatic endorsement of the Society. And it is at least very pleasant to feel sure that when, after the vote of April 11, 1723, he appended this title to his name (as he did, for example, in Successive Generations in 1725, and in the inscription under Peter Pelham’s mezzotint likeness of him in 1727) he was proceeding in the strictest accordance with the desire and purpose of the Royal Society itself, as expressed in the plainest manner at a very large meeting of that august body.

    How or when Mather was informed of his final election we do not know, — doubtless in an official notice from the Secretary, Dr. Jurin, and perhaps also in a private letter from Dr. Woodward. His replies would be good reading if we had them. His correspondence with the Society continued. On August 3, 1723, he gave John Perkins, his family physician, a letter of introduction to Jurin.277 In the early autumn of 1724 he despatched a set of “Curiosa Americana continued. In a Decad of Letters to Dr John Woodward and Dr James Jurin.”278 On October 5, 1724, he wrote a letter to Jurin introducing Howard Wyborn,279 and on the 15th of the following December a letter introducing Zabdiel Boylston.280 No later communications are preserved, if any were ever sent. The letter of October 5 is especially interesting, for it expresses, in its opening sentences, the satisfaction that Mather felt in the action of the Society in perfecting his title and his sense of gratitude to Jurin himself. I shall quote the passage in full, as a fit conclusion to our study of Cotton Mather’s Election into the Royal Society:

    You have so encouraged me, by the kind Reception, which my former communications have had with you, and by your Means with my Illustrious Masters, that I cannot but in my poor way, continue them. I wish that they had been more valuable for Curiosity or Erudition. But they are what I have. And you will have the Goodness to consider me, as a man exceeding full of employments: Able but now & then after a Mean Manner to express my zeal for your Noble Design. Tis indeed nothing but that well-meaning Zeal, that can bespeak for me, the Room you are pleas’d to allow me in a Society which I esteem as one of the most Illustrious in the World.

    Mr. Henry H. Edes exhibited a copy of Christian Ravis’s Hebrew Grammar, published at London in 1650, that had belonged to Samuel Hough, President John Leverett, Abiel Holmes, Sidney Willard, Edward Everett, and William W. Greenough, and bore several autograph signatures.

    Mr. Melville M. Bigelow read a paper, written by Mr. Elroy M. Avery of Cleveland, Ohio, on John Humfrey,281 the early Massachusetts magistrate, and his wife the Lady Susan Clinton, a daughter of Thomas Clinton (alias Fiennes), third Earl of Lincoln,282 and a sister of Theophilus Clinton, fourth Earl of Lincoln. A New York genealogist283 having recently denied that Humfrey’s wife was the Lady Susan Clinton, Mr. Avery stated that there was abundant evidence to prove that she was;284 and wrote in substance:

    The admiral of Winthrop’s fleet was, as every one knows, the Arbella, named for the Lady Arbella Johnson, a daughter of the third Earl of Lincoln and the wife of Isaac Johnson. Under date of September 30, 1630, Winthrop wrote: “About two in the morning, Mr. Isaac Johnson died; his wife, the Lady Arbella, of the house of Lincoln, being dead about one month before.”285 Johnson immediately informed Humfrey of his wife’s death, and on December 9, 1630, Humfrey replied in a long letter which begins as follows:

    To the worshipfull my dearely respected & much honoured brother Isaac Johnson Esqr. at Charlestovme in New England.

    Dearest brother, — That which is yet new to mee & wherein I must follow your greife a far of, I desire may now grow old & out of date with you; there bee dayes of mourning which it is as meete to set a period unto, as it is seemely & needeful at first to take up. Therefore that I may not renovare dolores no more of that. Your late letter by the Gift286 I received, blessing God for your health & prospering in the midst of all your losses. But good brother beare up, you have as much cause of comfort that so sincerely have devoted your selfe to the service of the Lord in his worke as anie that I know.287

    Three days later — on December 12 — Humphrey wrote a letter to Governor Winthrop in which he used these words: “Sir I beseech you give mee & inanie others occasion to bee thankeful unto you for your more indulgent care of your selfe, as I (above manie) have alreadie an obligation of further love & service laid upon mee for your tender care of my dearest brother.”288 And on December 17th and 23d, the news of Johnson’s death not having reached London, Humphrey again wrote Johnson, addressing him in the one case as “Deare & much esteemed freind & brother” and in the other as “Dearest brother.”289 Humfrey was detained in England in 1630, and did not come over until 1634. In July of that year Winthrop wrote: “Mr. Humfrey and the Lady Susan, his wife, one of the Earl of Lincoln’s sisters, arrived here.”290 Winthrop was intimately acquainted with Humfrey, and his statement alone would prove the identity of Humfrey’s wife.

    To the above pieces of evidence may be added another, not hitherto noted. On March 14, 1649–50, “Humphrey, (——), gent., of kin to (Theophilus 4th) Earl of Lincoln, and son of a colonel,” was “created M.A. by dispensation” by Oxford University, his parentage being given as “Sarah” — a mistake for Susan — “daughter of Thomas, 3rd Earl of Lincoln, married to —— Humphreys, of the county of Kent, esq.”291 The recipient of the honorary degree was clearly that Colonel John Humfrey, the eldest son of Colonel John Humfrey the Massachusetts magistrate,292 who in 1641 was admitted a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company in Boston.293

    In the discussion that followed the reading of this paper, the Rev. Thomas Franklin Waters communicated the following abstracts from Essex County records at Salem which relate to John Humfrey and his family, and supplement what has already appeared in print:294

    I

    At a Court held at Boston, 6. 7 mo. 1642. Mrs. Liddea Banks against Mr. John Humphrey for pi. damage, 100£ cost 13s.

    [Letter to William Hathorne.] Beloved Brother: Received yours dated 30. 3. 1645, and wrot to you again by the last ship. I hear you have sold my lands at the Plains for 123£. I left at my brother Mories a trunk. Yo loving sister in Christ, Lydia Bankes, Maydstone, August the 28: 1646. [Postscript:] pray let my indeared respect be presented to your wife, and all so to Mrs. dounind [Downing] & her husband desiring them to rejoyce with me for that the lord is pleas to make ther sone a instrument of praise in the hartes of tose that regoyc to hear the sperit of god poured forth upon our young men according to his word, let her know that he prech in our town of maidstone a day or two before this letter wass wrot to the gret soport of our sperites.295

    23. 6 mo. 1655, William Hathorne one of the attorneys of Mrs. Liddea Banckes, late of Salem.

    II

    Adam Otley in behalfe of John Humphry esqr hath sould unto Ralph Fogg of Salem one frame of a dwelling house and Sellar, etc., 11 day of the 2d moneth 1644.296

    III

    Mr. Joseph Humphries and Mr. Edmund Batters the administrators of the estate heare in New England of John Humphryes esquire, deceased, layeth claim to five hundred acres of land, more or less, about and by a pond of fresh water nere Salem bounds, granted by the Generall Court to ye sayd John Humphries about the year 1635, & confirmed with its exstent or bounds by a Generall Court held at Newtowne 12th of ye first month 1637 or 1638, and now in ye tenure or occupation of Joseph Pope, as by the Courts order appeareth, this 19. 9ber [16]61.297

    IV

    At a County Court held at Salem 30: 4: [16]74. Edward Richards of Lin, aged 60 yrs., deposed that about 20 years since, by virtue of judgment granted against Mr. Adam Otley, Joseph Armitage seased by execution cattle belonging to the estate of John Humphreys esq.

    William Crafts, aged above 60, saw several cattle of Mr. John Humphreys upon the Town common of Lin on a Sabbath day above 20 yrs. since, which the deponent was informed Joseph Armitage had taken from Mr. Addam Oately by an execution.298

    V

    3 July 1663, Joseph Humfrey of Lynn in New England, gent., being bound on a voyage for England, am willing to order my estate here in New England as far as my interest is, an do make this my last will. My grant of 300 acres of land, granted to mee by the last General Court, if I dye before I come to New England, unto Mr. Antipas Boys for the use of his sonne Antipas jun. To Mr. Richard Price his sonne Thomas Price and to Mrs. Elizabeth Pelham all my right and title of my farme at Lynn, where Francis Ingalls now lives, equally to be divided between them, excepting tenn pounds that I give to Mr. Samuel Whiting senior and Pastor of the Church of Christ at Lynn. My trusty and well beloved friend Mr. Richard Price to be my executor. Witness my hand and seale, Joseph Humfrey. Witnesses, Thomas Kellond, John Wensley. Proved 23 Oct. 1672.

    David Anderson aged 29 years or thereabouts testifyeth that above three years since, hee being then in Lisborne, Mr. Joseph Humfrey formerly of this country was then killed and the said deponent did helpe inter the body of the abovesaid Humfrey into his grave, and farther saith not. Taken upon oath Oct. 5, 1672.

    At a County Court held at Salem the 26th of ye 9 mo. 1672. There being a copy of the last will and testament of Mr. Joseph Humphries deceased presented to this Court, wherein the Court find that the said Joseph Humphries did give and bequeath unto Thomas Price, son of Mr. Richard Price, and Mrs. Elizabeth Pelham all his right, title and interest in his farme at Lynn, given them provided they pay to Mr. Edmund Batter (late administrator) to the value of seventy five pounds and seaventeen shillings, as appears by his account is his just due from the estate, and is allowed by the Court, and the said Mr. Richard Price and Mrs. Elizabeth Pelham and the said farme are to be responsible to this Court for the further security against any of the relations of Mr. Joseph Humfries Esqr., deceased, that may lay just claime thereto or any part thereof.299

    VI

    John Miles of Swanzey in the Colony of New Plimouth in New England, Clerk, who married Ann Palmes the relict widdow of William Palmes late of Ardfinan in the County of Tipperary, Ireland, gent, deceased, constitute our well beloved son Griffin Edwards of Boston our attorney. John Myles. Anne Myels. January 15: 1680[–1].300

    VII

    At a County Court held at Salem, 28 June 1681. Griffin Edwards the husband of Elizabeth the daughter of Anne the now wife of Mr. John Miles ye only surviving child of John Humphrys esq. deceased, presenting a letter of Attorney under hand and seall of said Anne his mother in law relating to any right she has or ought to have in the estate of her said father, John Humphreys. Also producing a certificate under the hand of the Mayor of Clonmell301 in Ireland and attested by several that the said Anne is the only surviving reputed Child of the said John Humphreys. The Court grants power of administration to him as her attorney, the Court having formerly ordered Mr. Thomas Price and Mrs. Elizabeth Pelham upon their receiving of Col. Humphrys farm at Lyn into their hands to pay 75:17:00 to Mr. Edmund Batter which was a debt due from the estate, the said Price and Pelham to keep it in their possesion as formerly until they shall be reimbursed the 75: 17: 00 and until they also be reimbursed other ten pounds which as a legacy of Mr. Joseph Humphrys they paid to Mr. Saml Whiting the Pastor of the Church of Lyn.302

    Mr. Henry E. Woods spoke as follows:

    I have been much interested in the communications of Professor Bigelow and Mr. Waters, and especially in the Court record showing that Mrs. Ann (Humfrey) Miles was in 1681 the only surviving child of John Humfrey.

    My interest in the Humfrey family history began some years ago, when I had occasion to look for the antecedents of one Mary Davis of Lynn who married Thomas Ivory there in 1660, and I discovered that she was the daughter of Jenkin Davis who, together with Daniel Fairfield and John Hudson, all of them servants of John Humfrey, had been involved in a criminal matter concerning two of Humfrey’s daughters. The story is told in Winthrop’s History of New England.303 Fairfield was the most severely punished of the three culprits,304 and after serving seven years of his sentence, he was allowed to depart from the Colony with his family.305

    It must have been the daughter of Humfrey who had become the wife of Adam Otley of Lynn,306 and who in 1642 is described by Winthrop as “newly married,” to whom her young sisters Dorcas and Sarah confided their misfortunes. His daughter Ann, “a young gentlewoman” when she first came to New England with her father,307 in 1634, evidently did not marry William Palmes of Ardfinnan, county Tipperary, Ireland, until after she left this country,308 perhaps going back with her father, as probably did her brother John, in 1641. After the death of Palmes, she came again to New England with their four children, in 1680,309 and soon afterwards married secondly, as his second wife, the Rev. John Miles of Swansea, dying at Swansea 17 December, 1693. It is evident that John Humfrey, the father, died at Westminster (London) between 16 and 19 December, 1651, at which time he had another wife, Mary, and that his son John administered the estate310 and had a lawsuit with his stepmother.

    Mr. Frederick L. Gay pointed out that William Coddington, one of the Massachusetts Assistants, in his book A Demonstration of True Love, speaking of The Planters’ Plea and The Humble Request of His Majesty’s Loyall Subjects, the Governor and the Company late gone for New England, dated aboard the Arbella April 7, 1630, says: “which was by John Humphry (a known Man that married the Earl of Lincoln’s Sister, that printed them) dispersed into most Parts of England” (page 14).

    Mr. Julius H. Tuttle made the following communication:

    One of the efforts of the early settlers to advance the interests of the Colony is shown in the action of the General Court on June 2, 1641, when —

    The Court doth intreat leave of the church of Salem for Mr Peters, of the church of Roxberry for Mr Wells, & of the church of Boston for Mr Hibbens, to go for England upon some weighty occations for the good of the countrey, as is conceived.311

    These men, Hugh Peter, Thomas Weld, and William Hibbens soon repaired to England on their important mission, where Weld became largely responsible for the work of the agents, as appears by the account submitted below. Little is known of what Mr. Peter did for the good of the Colony in this affair; and Mr. Hibbens’s service ended in 1642 when he returned to New England. Weld in a letter dated September 25, 1643,312 mentions letters which he had sent, and these may have been reports of progress. On October 1, 1645, the General Court recorded that it was the Court’s mind, as to Weld and Peter, “yt they desire their prsence here, & speedy returne.”313

    Weld had written in 1643, from London, that —

    the prsent condition of this kingdome, yt is now upon the Verticall point, together wth ye incredible importunities of very many godly Persons, great & smale (who hapily conceive we by or prsence doe more good here, then we orselves dare imagine yt we doe) have made us, after many various thoughts, much agitation, & consultation wth god, & men, vnwillingly willing to venter orselves upon Gods Providence here, & be content to tarry one six moenths longer from yr & or churches most desired prsence with whom or hearts are, w’hout the least wavering, fixed; Things can not long stand at this passe here, . . . If worse, we are like to bring thousands wth us to you.314

    Neither Weld nor Peter returned to New England or responded to the desire of the General Court for “their prsence here, & speedy returne,” but the results of Weld’s labors must have been of considerable service to the struggling Colony. It is not until April, 1647, that a trace of an accounting is found. The paper, submitted below, is transcribed from the original in the State Archives, which is signed by Increase Nowell, William Tyng, Edward Jackson and Nathaniel Duncan, on October 25, 1651.

    In January, 1649, Weld wrote in defence of himself and Peter, for neglect imputed to them in reporting their receipts and disbursements, in the cause which certainly Weld had had at heart for many years. When the account came into possession of the General Court is not known, but it probably was not far from the date of its being audited. That the record of Weld’s work was open to inspection, certainly so far as the poor children were concerned, is shown by the following entry in his “Innocency cleared,” where Weld says —

    That if any desired to be fully satisfied in or receipts and disbursements for the poor childrens transportation they might pleas to repair to Mr Pococks shop at the plough in Watling street London and p’ruse or accounts.315

    Mr. Weld’s efforts may have led to the incorporation of the Corporation for the Promoting and Propagating the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England, on July 27, 1649, by act of Parliament, a full account of which is given by our associate, Mr. Edes, in the Publications (VI. 180–182) for April, 1899. Edward Winslow is spoken of as “a chief agent in that worthy worke.”316

    The substance of Weld’s account is given in his “Innocency cleared,”317 and in his statement presented in the same year to the new Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and audited by its auditor, Nathaniel Duncan.318 His account, given below, differs enough from these to warrant its being printed again.

    Mr Weld is Debitor as appeeret by this Copie of his Acc fott

    A true acco of what Moneyes were by myselfe and others, Receiued and from whome for New England toward a Com̄mon Stock, the poore Children, the Colledge, advance of learning, the Library, the poore of N: England and the Conversion of the Indians from the tyme of our first landing heere vntill this prsent 10th of ye 2d mo 1647.

    Iprs I ꝓoured by the helpe of my brother Mr John Weld & mr Reiner of Lincolne

    £

    57

    12

    Red more of my brother John

    £

    18

    Red of Mr Richard Herlackenden

    £

    3

    Of mr Lister

    £

    5

    Lent Good: Goue of the publick stock wch hee payd my agent Their

    £

    3

    Given in publick faith bills wch wee sould

    £

    13

    10

    Of a Ladye in marke lane

    £

    3

    mr Robert Houghton

    £

    20

    mr Butcher of Maidstone gaue mee

    £

    5

    Of mr Hibbens to cleere his accoumpts at his deꝑture from hence

    £

    1

    8

    Of Alderm̄ Andrewes

    £

    50

    Capt Jackson

    £

    20

    Mr Dixon mrcer in Lumber streete

    £

    10

    mr Hunt since deꝑted

    £

    10

    Alderm̄ Chambers

    £

    10

    mr Richard Hill mrchant

    £

    10

    mr Stock in Gra: streete

    £

    3

    mr Stacke in the same place

    £

    2

    mr George Henly

    £

    5

    mrs Wilson

    £1

    mrs Stallā

    £1

    mrs Peake

    £1

    mrs Loe

    £1

    £

    4

    mrs Joshua Foote

    £

    5

    mrs Bimon on fish streete hill

    £

    5

    Col: Player in the same streete

    £

    5

    Red of mrs Goodwin of Borholme in Essex giuen ꝑ her husbands will after many Joumeyes wch I made about it & much difficultie else it had bene lost

    £

    50

    Doctor Hurdon

    £

    5

    £

    323

    10

    What I Red for the poore Childrens transportation

    Iprs Of mr George Walker on of the Reviuours appoynted by Parlement

    £339

    8

    Mr Calamie our other Receiuor

    £338

    6

    Of the other Parishes wch were behind that brought it not in to them wth very much adoe at last by the L:Maiors asistance I got

    £103

    12

    8

    Sent vs from a ladie

    £5

    Procured from Dedham in Essex

    17

    17

    6

    Of Childrens moneyes the some brought from yt other side

    £804

    4

    2

    From Yarmouth in Northfolke

    £12

    From Sudbery in Suffolk

    £8

    5

    From Wrentham

    £2

    The Ladye Armine gaue to transportation

    £30

    Chilo wee gott such of the poore Childrens parents & freinds as were able to lay downe some thing towarde their transportation wch must bee considered for them their in due tyme viz:

    Mary Audleigh layd downe ꝑ her father

    £1

    10

    John Littlefeild by his master here

    £2

    10

    Judith Nichols by her father

    £2

    John Stiles

    £2

    £8

    John Copland & his brother

    £2

    An other whose name I know not

    £2

    A child that came from Mary Stanning

    £1

    John Emry

    £2

    10

    Edward Morgan

    £2

    10

    £10

    £874

    9

    2

    What I Red for the Colledge & for the advance of learning

    Iprs The lady Moulsham gaue mee for a Schollership 100ƚi the revenue of it to bee imployed that way for euer for Wch I entered Couehant and am bound to haue it ꝑformed

    £100

    Mr Holbrock schoolemaster gaue me

    £22

    Mr Bridges by his will

    £50

    Mr Greenhill

    £7

    Mr George Glouer to buy 2 books

    £2

    Giuen by a Godly freind of myne who will haue his name Concealed

    £50

    £231

    What I Red for the Poore.

    Mr Bridges by will to be disposed by mr Hooker mr Syms mr Peeters and my selfe

    £ 20

    My Cosen Hayward of Barholt in Essex

    £ 5

    5

    Mr Clarke mercer

    £ 1

    10

    Mr Richard Andrews for ye poore in N: England & old 10ƚi so I acco 5ƚi for the poore their

    £ 5

    £ 31

    15

    What I Red towards Conversion of the Natiues

    The Ladye Armine hath payd alreadye for 3 yeers

    £ 60

    She hath also ꝓmised for this last due in Mrch wth wch I charge my selfe & rely vpon the payment

    £ 20

    Mr Craddock

    £ 10

    Of an other

    £ 2

    10

    £ 92

    10

    £ 31

    15

    £231

    £874

    9

    2

    £323

    10

    £1553

    04

    2

    For a bill of so much payd his sonne ꝑ the Trea.

    71

    18

    4

    £1625

    2

    6

    Accompt of the disposing of all the mo was giuen to this Country for several vses as foƚƚ most Collected ꝑ mr Weld.

    Ipr The 500 from mr Andrews is giuen in Cowes to poore people according to order of the Donor

    The 1553–4–2d wch mr Weld giueth on this acco

    Red from several Benefactors

    For Chargs pd in England ꝑ mr Weld on seural occasions gathered out of his acco

    £347

    19

    1

    more payd & to pay to mr Pocock

    £150

    more to the Colledge

    £291

    3

    10

    more for Instruction of Indians

    £ 78

    16

    3

    More mr Weld payd for powder

    £ 39

    1

    More 35ƚi layd out their for children wch came not, & cannot be received

    £ 35

    Maior Bourne is allowed 50ƚi for 30 passengers agreed wth for and not put aboard

    £ 50

    More on maior Bourne, & mr Downing’s acco of ye 701–14–3 for losse that some passenge ye Chil: runne away, and other & charge & losse

    £ 91

    Of the Children come miscaried, others came not a shoare and runne away many payd but halfe passedge some none, and the Country at much Charge for diet & curing diuers of them who were lame, & sick at least lost this way

    £200

    Their was giuen more to mr Hibbens there

    £ 30

    More what is giuen to mr Winthrop for his paynes

    £ 40

    So it appeereth that the Country hath little benefit by all these moneyes, yea none considering how great trouble the Court hath had. about it the ballance of this acco beeing but

    £200

    4

    1553

    4

    2

    Wee the Committee do accept of this account the 25th of the 8th mo 1651

    Increase Nowell

    Wm Tynge

    Edward Jackson

    Natha: Duncan

    Mr Weld is Creditor for the parcels foƚƚ as appeereth more ꝓticularly by his acco

    Iprs For ꝑte of ye goods sent ouer by Maior Sedgwick & seurall other ꝓticulars in fo 4 of his acco

    £238

    3

    8

    more for mr Hibbins 30ƚi mr Peetrs 90ƚi mr Weld 100ƚi towards their paynes for ye Country

    £220

    more in folio 4 of his for seurall ꝑticulars fo 5

    £ 34

    15

    5

    more layd out for the Childrens transport fo 4

    £799

    3

    3

    more for the Advance of learning folio 6

    £ 97

    17

    6

    More for Roxbery schole & for charitable vses

    £ 49

    19

    for books, powder and other things fo 7

    £ 43

    7

    for moneyes payd for mr Leaders bills exco & 20ƚi payd mr Elliot folio 7

    £ 65

    17

    ꝑ an error on yc disbursments for the Children

    2

    10

    For so much payd in Mr Sherley

    60

    Mr Weld affirmeth by his lettcrs & ꝑueth ꝑ Certificate for the most 43–15s of that wch he chargeth on himselfe & in what regard, and other respects demands for the Issue of all his accoumpts

    29

    16

    01

    1625

    02

    06

    Wee the Com̄ittee do accept, & alow of this account this 25th of the 8th mo 1651

    Increase Nowell

    Wm Tynge

    Natha: Duncan

    Edward Jackson

    [Endorsed]

    Countrye C[     ] Mr Wel[ ] ꝑ [     ] 1319

    Mr. F. Apthorp Foster read the three following extracts relating to the loss and recovery of the Province Seal and of the Seal of the Supreme Court of Probate when Harvard Hall was burned320 in January, 1764:

    In Council, Jan. 26, 1764. Ordered, That the Committee appointed to Rebuild Harvard-College be directed to take the most proper Measures immediately to remove the Rubbish from that part of the Building where the Hall321 stood, in order to find the Province Seal which was buried in the Ruins: And that they employ some Persons of Credit to make diligent Search for the same, taking Care to set a trusty Watch on the Place in the mean time.322

    [27 January, 1764]

    To Mr Caleb Prentice for himself and three others the Sum of four pounds, Sixteen shillings, allowed for their care and Trouble in finding the Seal of the Province, and the Seal of the Supreme Court of Probate, the same being buried in the ruins of Harvard College which was lately consumed by Fire.323

    £4–16– to Caleb Prentice &c

    [1764]

    Paid Caleb Prentice & Others for their care & Trouble in findg the seal of the Prov’ & the seal of the Supreem Court of Probate buried in the ruins of Harvard College

    4 16324

    Mr. Matthews made the following remarks:

    The Society is under obligation to Mr. Foster for reproducing William Burgis’s view of A Prospect of the Colledges in Cambridge in New England,325 published in 1726. In connection with that view, it may not be without interest to give, from a contemporary newspaper, an advertisement of its publication:

    THIS Day is Published a Prospect of the Colleges in Cambridge in New England, curiously Engraven in Copper; and are to be sold at Mr. Price’s Print-seller, over against the Town-House, Mr. Randal Jappaner in Ann-Street, by Mr. Stedman in Cambridge, and the Booksellers of Boston326

    Mr. Horace E. Ware communicated a Memoir of Francis Henry Lincoln, which he had been requested to prepare for publication in the Transactions.

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

    MEMOIR OF FRANCIS HENRY LINCOLN

    by HORACE EVERETT WARE

    New England has always been fortunate in having a type of men of untiring and quiet but effective industry, a large measure of the results of whose labors have enured to the benefit of the community. These men are respected and loved by their neighbors, their public services are valued, and their business integrity and ability held in high estimation. But as to some of the men of this class it is essential to review their labors and certain features of their lives in some detail if we would adequately appreciate their character and their life work.

    Our late associate Francis Henry Lincoln died in Boston, where he had undergone surgical treatment, on July 7, 1911. Mr. Lincoln was the son of the Hon. Solomon and Mehitable (Lincoln) Lincoln of Hingham, Massachusetts, in which town he was born April 14, 1846. Hingham was the place of his residence through life. His father, graduated at Brown University in 1822, was a lawyer by profession. When quite a young man he wrote the first History of Hingham, which was published in 1827. He served in both houses of the Massachusetts General Court, was United States Marshal for the District of Massachusetts, and cashier and subsequently president of the National Webster Bank of Boston. He performed many other services of a public nature and stood high in the confidence and regard of the community. He died December 1, 1881, at the age of seventy-seven. The other children of Solomon and Mehitable Lincoln were Solomon Lincoln and Arthur Lincoln. Both were older than Francis and predeceased him. They were both graduated at Harvard College and became lawyers, each of noted ability and character.

    Francis H. Lincoln married Anna Frances Baker of Hingham June 1, 1875. A son, Francis Henry Lincoln, Jr., was born December 2, 1876. Mr. Lincoln’s wife and son survive him.

    Through his father Francis H. Lincoln was descended from Samuel Lincoln, who came from Hingham, England, and settled in Hingham, Massachusetts, in 1637. In his mother’s line he was descended from Daniel Lincoln, who was in Hingham as early as 1644. Among his other ancestors were Richard Warren, who came in the Mayflower in 1620, and Robert Bartlett, who came in the Anne in 1623 and subsequently married Mary, daughter of Richard Warren. Three great-grandfathers, Jesse Bates, Welcome Lincoln, and Nathaniel Gill, were soldiers in the War of Independence.

    Francis Henry Lincoln attended public and private schools at Hingham, until 1861, — the last four years at Derby Academy. In 1861 he entered the private Latin school of Epes Sargent Dixwell in Boston, where he continued until he entered Harvard College in 1863. He was graduated from Harvard with his class in 1867, and in 1871 received the degree of A.M. He was elected class secretary in 1873 and continued in that office until his death. During the thirty-eight years that he held this position, Mr. Lincoln maintained a constant correspondence with his classmates, kept up the pleasant memories of their former association, presided at their reunions, and performed the many other duties appertaining to the office. His work was admirably done and its value has been deeply appreciated by the men of his class.

    After graduation Mr. Lincoln was for some time in the employ of the dry goods firm of A. Hamilton & Co., in Boston. For a short period, subsequent to the great fire of 1872, he was in the office of Alexander S. Porter, real estate and mortgage broker. In June, 1873, he entered the general real estate and insurance business on his own account, opening an office in Boston. In this business he was actively engaged during the rest of his life. It should be added that he constantly acted and advised in the settlement of estates and the administration of trusts.

    In 1876 Mr. Lincoln became agent for Boston and vicinity of the Hingham Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Of this company he was chosen a director in 1905, and subsequently, in the same year, made president. The reputation which he acquired among insurance men for character and business ability may be judged from his having been elected, in 1910, president of the Massachusetts Mutual Fire Insurance Union, and, also in 1910, State vice-president of the National Association of Mutual Fire Insurance Companies.

    A brief enumeration of Mr. Lincoln’s services to the town of Hingham and its institutions and organizations gives us some idea of how generously he bestowed his time and labor for the public benefit.

    He was a member of the school committee for nine years (1879–1888), serving also as secretary and treasurer during the entire period. Beginning with the special meeting on April 10, 1879, he was moderator of that and of all the subsequent special (but not annual) town meetings in Hingham during the years 1879, 1880, and 1881. In March, 1882, he was chosen moderator of the annual town meeting; and thereafter he presided at every town meeting, both annual and special, until March, 1907, when he declined a reelection, making twenty-five years of continuous service as moderator at all the meetings of the town, besides presiding previously, as stated, at the special meetings. Chosen a trustee of the Hingham Institution for Savings in 1893, he was made its vice-president in 1906, and its president in 1908. In 1893 was published the second History of Hingham, Mr. Lincoln’s father having been the author of the first History, as already stated. This second History, published by the town, was prepared and published under the supervision of a committee of which Francis H. Lincoln was a member, and for which he acted as treasurer. Of this History he wrote the following chapters, — Ecclesiastical History, Education, Public Conveyances, Fire Department, Public Institutions, Lodges and Societies, Native and Resident Lawyers, Native Ministers, and Miscellaneous Matters. In addition to writing the chapters named, Mr. Lincoln did the chief part of the editing. The work took ten years in the preparation. Elected a trustee of Loring Hall in 1882, for a period of several years, beginning in 1893, he served as secretary and treasurer. He was chosen, in 1900, clerk of the First Parish in Hingham; president of the Proprietors of Hingham Cemetery, 1900; president of the Wompatuck Club, an organization designed to bring together on occasions people of various walks in life, 1902–1903; trustee of the Hingham Public Library, 1903.

    In matters of religion Mr. Lincoln was affiliated with the Unitarian denomination. He became a life member of the American Unitarian Association in 1892. Chosen its treasurer in 1898, he gave liberally of his care and attention to the duties of that office during the rest of his life. His co-workers in the administration of the affairs of the Association bear enthusiastic testimony to his tact and moderation, his resourcefulness in suggesting improved methods and measures, and his wisdom in council; while for completeness and accuracy, his accounts were models of their kind.

    There are still other organizations or associations, mostly of a philanthropic or historical character, of which Mr. Lincoln was a member. Among these may be mentioned the New England Historic Genealogical Society; the Massachusetts Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, of which he was one of the board of managers, 1898–1901, and the historian, 1901–1906; the Bunker Hill Monument Association, of which he was treasurer from 1905 to the time of his decease; the Charity of Edward Hopkins, of which he was a trustee and on whose auditing committee he served for several years; the Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Indians and Others in North America; the Massachusetts Congregational Charitable Society; the Society for Promoting Theological Education; and the Society for Ministerial Relief.

    At the time of his decease Mr. Lincoln held the offices hereinbefore respectively designated in several of the-organizations named. He was elected a Resident Member of this Society April 19, 1893.

    While the features in Mr. Lincoln’s career of which I have spoken show that he was a man of marked capacity in business and affairs, it must be kept in mind that he was also a man appreciative of things meritorious in literature and in art. When in college he was a member of the Harvard Glee Club. That he was prominent in the organization is shown by his having been elected director, treasurer and president. For several years he sang in the choir of his church at Hingham. On occasions he wrote verses which he read to the enjoyment of the men of his class and of other friends. Were it not for the exacting duties the nature of which have been indicated, I believe he could have done work of superior kind for the reading public.

    The number of the activities in which Mr. Lincoln was engaged is striking, but we are even more impressed when we realize that all his work was well and thoroughly done. However diverse was their nature, he was easily equal to every position in which he was placed and to every duty which he undertook. Probably the consciousness of his ability contributed to make work come easier to him. His tact and good judgment were constantly in evidence when he was acting in cooperation with other men. While he was possessed in high degree of wit and the sense of humor, the way and occasions of their expression were guided by discretion and good taste. Fortunate in the home into which he was born, he was happy in the home which he established. For what he has been and for what he has done, Francis Lincoln will be held in grateful remembrance in his home, in the community in which he lived, in his college, and in the many organizations which he served.