A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at the house of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, No. 28 Newbury Street, Boston, on Thursday, 27 February, 1913, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, Henry Lefavour, LL.D., in the chair.

    The Records of the last Stated Meeting were read and approved.

    The President announced the death, on the 24th instant, of Henry Leland Chapman, a Corresponding Member.

    The Corresponding Secretary reported that letters had been received from Messrs. Samuel Chester Clough, Allan Forbes, George Emery Littlefield, Edgar Huidekoper Wells, and Dr. Charles Lemuel Nichols, accepting Resident Membership.

    The Hon. Charles Grenfill Washburn of Worcester was elected a Resident Member.

    Mr. George Lyman Kittredge exhibited a receipt for a United States loan certificate signed by the famous Lord Timothy Dexter of Newburyport, remarking that Dexter (as he himself tells us) made a fortune by investing in such securities, and that the Dexter saga — as one might well call it — owes something to the old story of Dick Whittington.

    The Rev. Thomas F. Waters spoke of the stern, repressive legislation against the Quakers which had been established in Massachusetts before July 16, 1658, and read a letter written on that day by five Quakers “from ye house of bondage” in Boston to the magistrates of Salem.967

    Mr. Albert Matthews made the following communication:



    Little attention has apparently been paid to the proceedings that occurred in the Massachusetts Legislature when the Explanatory Charter reached Boston late in 1725. It is true that the proceedings which took place in the House of Representatives were printed in the House Journal, and, in part, in the newspapers of the day; but copies of both the House Journal and the newspapers are rare, and hence it may be well to bring the data together in one place.

    Burges,968 who had been commissioned Governor in March, 1715, never came over and resigned in April, 1716, when Shute was appointed. The latter took office in October, and, though his coming was hailed with delight, immediately got into a controversy with the House of Representatives over that bone of contention, a fixed salary for the Governor, and also over the choice of a Speaker of the House and the power of the House to adjourn itself. “If Col. Burgess,” wrote Jeremiah Dummer in 1720 — apparently alluding to the opposition that any governor would necessarily meet with in Massachusetts, but of course also with special reference to Shute’s difficulties — “If Col. Burgess had well considered what he did, when he put in an appearance for the province, ’tis probable he would not have done it.”969 One cannot help wondering what success a fire-eater like Colonel Burges would have had, and whether Shute, could he have foreseen the outcome, also “would not have done it.” But such speculation is futile. An impasse was finally reached, and, having obtained leave of absence, Shute, without previous warning, suddenly embarked on board the Sea Horse late in December, 1722, and sailed in the Ann on January 1, 1723.

    Arrived in England, Shute submitted (August 23) a memorial to the King and made complaints against the Massachusetts Assembly;970 and in March, 1724, presented a second memorial.971 These complaints were before the Committee of the Privy Council early in 1725, and on May 29 the report of the Attorney and Solicitor General in regard to them was considered in detail, when “Their Lordships proceeded to hear Counsell, as well for the said Governor as in behalf of the said House of Representatives thereupon,”972 and rendered the following decision:

    Their Lordships having maturely considered what was offered on both sides, Do agree upon the whole matter to report as their opinion to Your Majesty, That Governor Shute hath acted with great Zeal and Fidelity in the maintaining and supporting Your Majestys Prerogative, and that his Conduct in the Matters Stated in the Report of Mr. Attorney and Sollicitor General, deserves Your Majestys Royal Approbation — And their Lordships are further humbly of Opinion, that Governor Shute hath made good, against the House of Representatives, his charge of invading and encroaching upon Your Majestys Prerogative, And that by the Articles aforementioned, it evidently appears, that the said House of Representatives have unlawfully assumed to themselves Powers which do not belong to them, And in an unwarrantable manner encroached upon Your Majestys undoubted authority; And their Lordships do further agree to report to Your Majesty, that the Conduct of the said House of Representatives in the Matters beforementioned tends greatly to Weaken the Subordination and dependance of this Colony upon the Crown of Great Britain, and may be of evil example in other Your Majestys Plantations, and therefore that all proper legal Methods should be taken to assert Your Majestys Royall authority and prosecute all such who have Contemned the same, unless a due obedience be paid to Your Majesty for the future.

    As to the Claim made on behalf of the House of Representatives, that Your Majestys Governor hath not Power to put a Negative on the Choice of a Speaker, Their Lordships apprehend that it is of very High and dangerous Consequence to the Government of the said Province And Their Lordships observing that in the Charter Granted by their late Majestys King William and Queen Mary, there is not any express mention made of the Choice of a Speaker to preside in the said House of Representatives, or of Your Majestys right by Your Governor to approve or Disapprove such Choice, by reason whereof the House may possibly have been led into some mistakes touching their said Claim Their Lordships doe therefore humbly propose for preventing any such mistakes for the future, that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased to Grant an Explanatory Charter to the said Province touching the said premisses thereby expressly requiring the Choice of a Speaker to be made by the House of Representatives at their first Assembling, and the Person so Chose to be presented by them to Your Majestys Governor for his Approbation.

    And forasmuch as by the said Charter the Power of adjourning as well of Proroguing and Disolving the House of Representatives is vested only in Your Majestys Governor, Yet the said House of Representatives have usually adjourned themselves from day to day which Seems necessary for avoiding great inconveniencys that might otherwise happen — Their Lordships further humbly propose to Your Majesty that in such Explanatory Charter, a Clause may also be inserted, if Your Majesty shall think fitt, giving leave to the said House of Representatives to adjourn themselves from day to day, but not at any time to adjourn themselves longer than for the Space of two days without leave from the Governor.

    And that if such Explanatory Charter shall not be accepted, and a just regard Shewed to Your Majestys Royal Prerogative, by the House of Representatives for the future in all the particulars aforesaid, it may be proper for the Consideration of the Legislature973 what further Provision may be necessary to support and preserve Your Majestys Just authority in this Province and prevent such presumptuous Invasion for the future.974

    On July 6 there was “Reference to a Committee of the report of the Attorney and Solicitor General with the draft of an explanatory charter;”975 on July 17 the “Committee recommended that the draft of the explanatory charter be approved;”976 and on July 20 “Order accordingly.”977 The Explanatory Charter passed the Seals August 26.978 It reached Boston December 13, and the following proceedings took place in the House on December 14:

    A Message from His Honour the Lieut. Governour979 by Mr. Secretary:980 Mr. Speaker,981 His Honour the Lieut. Governour Expects the Attendance of this Honourable House forthwith in the Council Chamber. Mr. Speaker and the House went up accordingly; and His Honour made a Speech, of which Mr. Speaker obtained a Copy; and at the same time His Honour delivered to Mr. Speaker an Explanatory Charter, which His Majesty has been graciously pleased to Grant to this Province, a Copy of His Majesty’s Order in Council concerning the same; wherein is contained the Report of the Lords of the Committee, with His Majesty’s Royal Approbation thereof; and then Mr. Speaker with the House returned to their own Chamber.

    His Honour’s Speech is as follows.


    YESTERDAY I received from His Grace the Duke of New-Castle, an Explanatory Charter, which His Majesty has been Graciously Pleased to Grant to this Province, which I shall lay before You for Your Acceptance, with which His Grace was Pleas’d to Inclose a Copy of His Majesty’s Order in Council concerning the same, wherein is contain’d the Report of the Lords of Committee with His Majesty’s Royal Approbation thereof, which I shall now also deliver to You; By all which You will see what His Majesty expects from You: And I hope after a due Consideration thereof you will Act as becomes You, and in all Your future Proceedings demonstrate the utmost Sense of the Duty and Loyalty which you owe to His Sacred Majesty King GEORGE.

    Wm DUMMER.982


    The Explanatory Charter was Read, together with the several Papers referred to in His Honour’s Speech.983

    On December 17 “The Explanatory Charter Read again, and the House entred into a deliberate Consideration and long Debate thereon.”984 On December 18, —

    UPON a motion made and seconded by many of the Members of the House, that a Day might be appointed for the House to Enter into the Consideration of the Explanatory Charter:

    Resolved, That this House on Tuesday next Afternoon, will Enter further into the Consideration of His Majesty’s ROYAL Explanatory Charter.985

    On December 21 “According to the Order of the Day, the House Entred into the Consideration of the Explanatory Charter, and had a long Debate thereon.”986 In the morning of January 6, 1726, —

    A Message from the Honourable Board by Benjamin Lynde Esq; that the Board had Concur’d the Vote of the House for a Conference, and desire it might be atteifded at Four of the Clock Afternoon.987

    And in the afternoon of the same day —

    A message from the Honourable Board by Benjamin Lynde Esq; That the Board were ready to Enter into the Conference agreed to be had, between the two Houses, and the Board desired the House would bring up with them the Explanatory Charter.

    Mr. Speaker and the House went up to the Council Chamber with the Explanatory Charter with them, which was laid on the Council Board, and the Houses conferred for several Hours, on the great and important Matters agreed on, for the Subject Matter of the Conference, which being over, Mr. Speaker and the House Returned to their own Chamber.988

    Meanwhile, in the morning of January 5 the House expressed a wish to be adjourned:

    IN AS MUCH as matters of very great Consequence to the Welfare and Privileges of His Majesty’s Subjects, the Inhabitants of this Province, still remain not acted upon, and the Present Session of the Great and General Court having continued to a more than Ordinary length, and many Members of the Court being Absent: Therefore, Voted, That a Message be sent to His Honour the Lieut. Governour, to desire he would please to Adjourn the Court for a Month, or some small space of time, as His Honour shall see cause, and that His Honour would please to Order the strict Attendance of Every Member of the Court to his Duty, for the Reasons aforesaid.989

    To this request a reply came the same afternoon:

    A Message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governour by Mr. Secretary. Viz.

    Gentlemen of the House of Representatives,

    I Have considered your Message for My Adjourning the Court, and Communicated it to the Council, who are of Advice, That no Adjournment should be yet made. I must therefore desire You would Apply Your Selves to the Important Business you refer to, that so it may be brought to a speedy Conclusion, and I may be able to give such an Account of your Proceedings, as will be acceptable to His Majesty, and for the Welfare of the Province. Jan. 5. 1725.

    Wm. DUMMER.990

    On January 7 the House —

    Voted, That it is the Earnest Desire of this House that His Honour would please to Adjourn or Prorogue this Great and General Court for some short space of time, that so Every Member may then Meet and Attend his Duty, that Matters of the Greatest Consequence and Importance to the Welfare of this Province, may be put to an Happy Issue, which yet Remain under Consideration and not Determined.991

    And it was ordered, in case the Lieutenant-Governor should accede, “That the Clerk of the House be Directed at the Pub lick Charge, to Express three Men into the several parts of the Province, Requiring the Strict Attendance of Every Absent Member to his Duty, at the next Meeting of the Court upon the Important Affairs under Consideration.”992

    On the same day, January 7, —

    William Tailer, Addington Davenport, Thomas Hutchinson Esqrs; with Mr. Secretary, brought down the following Message, viz. In Council, January 7th. 1725. A Conference being had Yesterday at the Desire of the Honourable House of Representatives, between the Board and the House upon the Subject Matter of the joynt Address reported by a Committee of both Houses; and the Board hoping that what was offered on their part at the said Conference was Satisfactory, and may prevail on the House to joyn with the Board in their Amendment, do therefore desire the Honourable House would pass upon the Vote of the Board for Accepting the said Report, with the Amendments as taken into the New Draught.

    Read. J. Willard Secr.993

    Also on the same day (January 7) “A Message from His Honour the Lieut. Governour by Mr. Secretary, to inquire Whether the House have Ordered their Absent Members to Attend their Duty in case of a short Adjournment. Mr. Speaker informed him the House had taken care about it.”994 Whereupon the Court was adjourned to Friday, January 14, on which day “The Explanatory Charter, and the Report of the Lords in Council, with His Majesty’s Approbation thereof. Read, and the House Entred into the Consideration of the same and a long Debate was had thereon.”995

    In the morning of January 15, —

    The House Entred into the further Consideration of His Majesty’s Royal Explanatory Charter, and after some debate being had thereon, The House Resolved, That the Question should be put to each Member present, who should declare his Acceptance or Non-Acceptance thereof by his saying Yea or Nay, and Mr. Speaker did accordingly put the Question to each Member present, who severally declared for themselves as appears by the List hereafter following. Viz.



    • John Ashley Esq;996
    • Mr. Benjamin Barker
    • Mr. Thomas Bancroft
    • Mr. Elisha Bishey
    • Mr. Robert Blake
    • Mr. John Blanchard
    • Jonas Bond Esq;
    • Mr. John Brown
    • Ezra Bourn Esq;
    • Mr. Thomas Bryant
    • John Chandler Esq;
    • Capt. Samuel Bullard
    • Thomas Church Esq;
    • Mr. Samuel Chamberlain
    • Mr. Westwood Cooke
    • William Clark Esq;
    • Henry Dwight Esq;
    • Mr. Thomas Cushing
    • Capt. Daniel Epes
    • Mr Isaac Cushman
    • Capt. Joseph Estabrooke
    • Mr. Joseph Davis
    • Mr. Joshua Fisher
    • Capt. Edward Goddard
    • Capt. John Foster
    • Mr. Joseph Hale
    • Capt. James Grant
    • Mr. John Hobson
    • Mr. John Howlet
    • Mr. Ezekiel Lewis
    • Mr. Josiah Jones
    • Capt. Thomas Loring
    • Mr. John Kent
    • Mr. Daniel Pierce
    • Mr. Joseph Lemmon
    • John Quincy Esq;
    • Timothy Lindall Esq;
    • Mr. John Rice
    • Mr. Dependence Littlefield
    • Capt. William Rogers
    • Major Samuel Moodey
    • Mr. John. Sanders
    • Nathaniel Paine Esq;
    • Mr. Jonathan Sargent
    • Mr. Joseph Peck
    • Mr. Edward Shove
    • Henry Phillips Esq;
    • Mr. Nathaniel Southworth
    • Mr. Ephraim Pierce
    • Mr. William Stone
    • Capt. Isaac Powers
    • Mr. Isaiah Tay
    • Mr. William Pynchon
    • Mr. Samuel Tenney.
    • Mr. Jonathan Rayment
    • Mr. John Torrey
    • Jonathan Remington Esq;
    • Mr. John Wadsworth
    • Mr. Caleb Rice
    • Mr. Richard Ward
    • Capt. Henry Rolfe
    • Mr. Edward White
    • Capt. Nicholas Shapleigh
    • Mr. Joseph Wilder
    • Capt. John Shipley
    • 32
    • Mr. John Snow
    • Mr. Samuel Sprague
    • Capt. Jeremiah Stevens
    • Mr. Samuel Stevens
    • John Stoddard Esq;
    • Thomas Terrey Esq;
    • Maj. Thomas Tilestone
    • Mr. Thomas Turner
    • Eleazer Tyng Esq;
    • John Wainwright Esq;
    • Capt. Benjamin Warren
    • Capt. Thomas Wells
    • Seth Williams Esq;
    • Capt. William Willson The Honourable
    • William Dudley Esq; Speaker.

    In the afternoon of January 15 the Explanatory Charter was accepted in the following terms:

    Whereas His Honour the Lieut. Governour laid before this Court in their Present Session for their Acceptance, an Explanatory Charter, received from His Grace the Duke of New-castle, with a Copy of His Majesty’s Order in Council concerning the same, wherein His Majesty hath been pleased to confirm the Charter granted by their late Majesty’s King William and Queen Mary, in which former Charter there being no Express mention made relating to the Choice of a Speaker, and the Houses Power of Adjourning, as to both which Points in the said Explanatory Charter His Majesty hath been pleased to give particular Direction. We His Majesty’s Loyal and Dutiful Subjects being desirous to Signalize Our Duty and Obedience, which we at all times Owe to His Most Excellent Majesty, have and do hereby Accept of the said Explanatory Charter, and shall Act in Conformity thereto for the future, not doubting but that thereby we shall recommend His Majesty’s Loyal & Faithful Subjects the Inhabitants of this Province to His further most Gracious Favour & Protection.

    Sent up for Concurrence.998

    On January 17 “An humble Address of both Houses to be sent to the Kings most Excellent Majesty agreed on by the House, and Voted, That the same be sent up for Concurrence.”999 That portion of the address which relates to the Explanatory Charter is as follows:

    To the Kings Most Excellent Majesty

    The humble Address of the Council & Representatives of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England

    Most Gracious Sovereign

    We your Majesties Loyal and Dutiful subjects the Council and Representatives of Your Province of the Massachusetts Bay, now in General Court Assembled being deeply sensible of the many Advantages, that we, in common with your other subjects do partake of under Your auspicious Government, as also those Valuable Privileges Contained in the Royal Charter Granted to the Inhabitants of this Province by Their late Majestys King William & Queen Mary of Glorious Memory, and which we are now in the Enjoyment of under Your most sacred Majesty, Do therefore Esteem ourselves Obliged in Gratitude, as well as Duty, humbly to assure Your Majesty of our Inviolable Loyalty and Affection to your Majesties Person and Government.

    We think it our Duty likewise to acquaint Your Majesty, that we have lately received from Their Excellencies the Lords Justices, by the Hands of Your Lieutenant Governour, Your Majesties Explanatory Charter, wherein for the removing of Doubts and Controversies that have lately arisen in this Province, Your Majesty has signified Your Royal Pleasure Relating to the Choice and Approbation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and their Power of Adjourning themselves, unto which we humbly submit1000 and for the future shall Endeavour that the same be duly complied with, hoping thereby to Recommend Your Majesties Most Faithful & Obedient People of this Province to Your Royal Protection and Favour.1001

    In conclusion a few words may be said in regard to the publication in Boston in 1726 of the Explanatory Charter. When Mr. Worthington C. Ford and myself compiled our Bibliography of the Laws of the Massachusetts Bay we stated, of course, that the Explanatory Charter was printed together with the Province Charter in each of the volumes published in 1726, 1742, and 1759;1002 but we did not list a copy of the Explanatory Charter issued by itself in 1726, as at that time neither of us had seen such a copy. Since then, however, two copies have been found — one in the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, the other in the Boston Public Library. The Explanatory Charter was printed in full in the Boston News Letter of February 3, 1726.1003 In the same paper of January 27 appeared the following advertisement (p. 2/2):

    JUst Printed the Explanatory CHARTER granted by His Majesty King GEORGE, To the Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New-England. Sold by D. Henchman.

    The copy in the Boston Public Library measures 3⅞ inches in width by 6⅜ inches in height. The title and collation follow:

    [Ornament] / The / Explanatory Charter / Granted by His Majesty / King George / To the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay / in New-England. / Accepted by the General Court, Jan. 15th / Anno 1725. / [Ornament] / Printed for & Sold by D. Henchman. 1725.

    Collation: Title, 1 p; Charter, pp. 2–7; In the House of Representatives, January 15th. 1725, p. 8.

    The copy in the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society measures 3⅞ inches in width by 6 inches in height, and differs in three minor respects from the Boston Public Library copy;1004 but the two impressions were, I think, unquestionably printed from the same type.

    Mr. Henry H. Edes made the following communication:

    At the meeting of the Society in April, 1912, Professor Kittredge communicated Further Notes on Cotton Mather and the Royal Society.1005 In that paper he showed that the suspicion cast upon the validity of Mather’s F. R. S. in his lifetime was intimately connected with the inoculation controversy in Boston in 1721 and 1722, and that the headquarters of the Society of Physicians Anti-Inoculators was Hall’s Coffee House in King Street, near the Town House, which plays an important part in Mr. Kittredge’s interesting story. The precise location of this resort, however, was unknown at the time the paper was read, but it has since been ascertained by one of our recently elected associates, who is so kind as to allow me to announce the discovery to the Society.

    The plan before you upon the screen shows that Hall’s Coffee House was in a building owned by John Foye at the westerly corner of King (now State) Street and Crooked (later Wilson’s) Lane, opposite the Town House (now the Old State House). This estate was conveyed1006 to Foye by John Usher, 31 December, 1711. The lot had a frontage of 43 feet 2 inches on King Street and 08 feet on Crooked Lane, while the northerly end of it abutted 40 feet 2 inches on land of Henry Gibbs’s heirs and the westerly side 06 feet on land of Peter Barbour. The building occupied in whole or in part by Hall was doubtless erected by Foye shortly after his purchase of the land, to replace the structure destroyed, with so many others, by the great fire of 1711, which consumed the Town House and many of the public records and archives. It is worthy of note that the Foye lot was a part of the homestead of the Rev. John Wilson;1007 and that when Wilson’s Lane was widened, in 1872, and renamed Devonshire Street, the Coffee House lot was nearly all taken and thrown into the roadway, only a strip about six feet wide on State Street remaining in private hands. This strip is to-day covered by the southeasterly corner of the Devonshire Building.

    It would be interesting to know something of Richard Hall, his family and his antecedents, and doubtless this desire will some day be gratified. To-day, however, I will not venture to attempt to establish his identity because there were other contemporary Richard Halls in Boston, Roxbury, and Dorchester, some of whom were doubtless of kin to him. There are several entries concerning two or more of these men to be found in the Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports and it may be well to assemble them for the use of some future inquirer as to the identity of the man who interests us to-day:

    A List of Seuerall psons returned to ye Countie Courts at seuerall times not admitted nor aproued of by ye select men of Boston to be Inhabitants of ye Towne . . . 1674, July 27 . . . Richard Hall, Saylr. (x. 55, 56). (“Saylr” is an error for “Taylrr.”)

    July 27. 1674. . . . Ordered the seuerall psons to followinge to be returned to ye Court. . . . Richard Hall1008 Taylor at Mathew Grosse1009 (vii. 88).

    The Names of such persons who tooke the Oath of Allegiance in Boston: 11th. Novembf 1678. Adminstred by the Honooble. John Leverett Esqr. Governor. . . . Richd Hall (xxix. 164, 167).

    March 15th. 1709 At a meeting of the Free holders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston . . . Messures Richard Hall, . . . are chosen to Serve as Constables for ye year ensueing (viii. 60).

    April 11. [1709] The Selectmen do order and Assigne to each of the present constables within this Town the perticuler precinct or Company where each of them are to Officiate in warning for Town meetings &c. No. . . . 5. Richd Hall1010 (xi. 87).

    Aprill the 25th [1709.] . . . The Select men haveing advised wth the Justices of the Town of Boston Sitting in Qr Sessions abt. visiting the Severall families in the Town, in order to detect and prevent disorders, have agreed to Attend the Sd Service on Tuesday the 17th of may next, and do propose that the same be Attended in the respective wards as is hereafter named & Set Down. . . . No. 5. . . . Richd Hall consta. (xi. 88).

    At a meeting of ye Sel. men, Sepf 15th. [1712] . . . Liberty is Granted unto Mr. Richd Hall, to Set his windows for his Barbers Shop Seventeen inches and a halfe into King Street, at ye Tenement wch he hires of Mr. Foy, and So to continue only during pleasure (xi. 173).

    At a meeting of ye Sel. men, Decr. ye 10th. [1713] Whereas there is Lately imported into this Town 320 bushll of wheat now on board a vessell wher of Mr Stephen Payn is master. The Selm̄ pursuant to ye Govrs Proclamation do now ord. and direct the Sd Mr. St. Payn to deliver to ye Severall Bakers hereafter named ye respective quantities thereof as is here Set down agt each of their names they paying for ye Same vizt. . . . And whereas Nathll Harrise hath imported four hundred bushall of wheat, they do in like maner order and direct him to deliver to.

    Mesurs. Joseph Brisco Senr 50 . . . Jos. Brisco Junr 20 . . . Richd Hall 50 . . .

    And the Sd Bakers are likewise directed to bake the Same into bread (and as prudently as they can) therewith to Supply the necessities of the Private familyes of this Town with bread for there money (xi. 197).

    At a Meeting of ye Sel. men, Janry 13. [1713–14] . . . the Sd Master Indego Potter, [was ordered] to deliver out thereof [about 400 bushels of wheat] to each of the Severall Bakers hereafter named the quantity of Thirty Bushells they paying for ye Same. Vizt. . . .

    • Jos. Briscow Senr . . .
    • Lately Gee . . .
    • Richd Hall (xi. 198).

    Anno 1717. Octobr 7th. Liberty is granted by Willm Welsteed, Habijah Savage Esqrs, John Marrion, & John Baker Gentm. Sel. men of ye Town of Boston. To Richard Hall, Barber & partners, to digg open the High way thro Wilsons Lane and So into Dock Square for Laying their Cellar drain into the Comon Shore there, Provided they Lay ye Sd Drain wth brick or Stone as the Law directs, And also forth wth make good yt part of ye Sd way where they Shall So digg (xiii. 27).

    At a Meeting of the Sel. men, ye 15th of April. [1718] Mr Richard Halls Petition to Sell Strong drink as an Inholder at a Tenement of Simion Stoddard Esqr in Cornhill [now that part of Washington Street between School Street and Dock Square] is disallowed by ye Sel. men (xiii. 36).1011

    At a meeting of the Sel. men July 6th [1719] The Petitions of Sundry persons for Lycence to Sell Strong drink as Inholders at Large wch wr disallowed by the Sel. men vizt . . . . . . Richd Hall (xiii. 54).

    At a meeting of the Sel. men, ye 15th of July. [1719] The Petition of Sundry persons for Lycence to keep comon victuallin Houses and coffee House allowe by ye Sel. m̄. vizt. Richd Hall at his House nigh ye T. House in Kink [King] Street (xiii. 56).

    At a meeting of ye Select men the 4th of July. [1720] . . . Sundry persons Petitioning for Lycence to Sell Strong drink as Inholders wr. approved and Recomended by ye Sel. m̄. vizt. . . . Richd Hall in King Street at his house there (xiii. 70).

    At A Meeting Octor the 12th. 1722. Lett to mr. Richard Hall that part of the Town house Celler,1012 which was formerly Hired by James Gillcrest, The Said Hall to haue it for One year & to pay nine pounds Pr. Annum and the Rent to begin the 29th Sepf Last (xiii. 104).

    Anno 1723. At a meeting of the Select men, July 8th. . . . They Excepted to Richard Hall and Alice Oliver as unfitt to hold and Exercise the Imployment of a Tavernor and Retailer by Reason of their not keeping good Rule & order in their Houses (xiii. 115).

    At A Meeting of the Members of the Councel, Justices & Select men [29 July, 1723]. . . . Since the Date of the above written Richard Hall of Boston Tavernor having made application to the Select men that he may be further Indulged with a Licence for a tryal of his Behaviour, and promising to Observe the good & wholesom Laws of the Province, and take Espesial care to prevent all Disorders &c. In Consideration where of the Select men are willing that he be Indulged accordingly (xiii. 118).

    At a meeting of the Select men July 13th. [1724] The Several Persons named in the List transmitted to the Select men of Boston by the Clerk of the Peace for the County of Suffolk to Sell Strong Drink according to their Licences in the year 1723. The said Select men haue Considered thereof and haue made no Objection to the Renewal of the Said Licences. Saving Richard Hall, Joseph Dodge, and Ralph Wheeler, Innholders, whom they Except against as unfitt to hold Such Employment by Reason of their not keeping good Rule & order in their Houses, and not being Sutably accomodated as the Law directs for that Employment (xiii. 128).

    At a Meeting of the Select men, Decemr. 28th. [1724] Lett to John Bushell that part of the Town House Celler which was formerly Lett to Mr. Richard Hall (xiii. 133).

    At a Meeting of the Freeholders & other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston. . . . adjorned till . . . March the 9th [1724–5] . . .

    John Bruster Sworn

    Ebenezer Fisher Paid

    Richard Hall, Baker Excus’d

    Chosen Constables (viii. 185, 186, 187).

    At a meeting of the Select men, July 5th. 1728 Sundry Petitioners for Retailes with out Doors. Dissaproved Vizt. . . . Richard Hall in maulbro Street [now that part of Washington Street between Summer and School Streets] (xiii. 177).

    Passing on to the vital records, we find the marriage of Richard Hall and Eliza Brisco, by the Rev. Ebenezer Pemberton of the Old South Church, 13 October, 1709.1013 This man was the “Baker.” His bride was Elizabeth, daughter of Joseph and Rebecca Briscoe, born 24 June, 1691.1014 Their children were Richard, born 9 September, 1712; Joseph, born 3 December, 1713;1015 John, born 24 April, 1716; Eliza, born 16 June, 1718 (baptized 22 June following at the Old South); and Joseph again, born 11 July, 1725, and baptized at the New South the same day.1016 Toward the close of his life he owned an estate in School Street, on the southerly side. The lot1017 was about 205 feet west from Marlborough (Washington) Street and had a frontage of 40 feet. It adjoined that of Joseph Maylem, which was contiguous to the lot covered by the French Huguenot Church. He died in Boston 24 February, 1729–30, at the age of 42. His estate was administered1018 7 April, 1730, by his widow Elizabeth Hall, the inventory amounting to £1074.8.

    Another Richard Hall was married by the Rev. Joseph Sewall of the Old South, 21 April, 1720, to Mary Kneeland.1019 He may have been that Richard Hall, “Gentleman,” whose will, dated 19 April, 1744, proved 3 July following, mentions sons John, George, Richard, William, and Charles, and daughter Constance Woodhouse, to each of whom he bequeaths five shilhngs, also son James and daughter Mary Hall.1020

    Still another Richard Hall was married by the Rev. John Webb of the New North Church, 7 November, 1735, to Martha Williston,1021 and was the father of Martha, born 15 July, 1736.1022 He was probably the “baker’s” son, above-mentioned, born in 1712.1023

    In the discussion which followed the reading of this paper, Mr. Samuel C. Clough said:

    The references to Richard Hall in Mr. Edes’s paper, drawn from the Boston Records, are the only statements yet discovered which definitely locate Hall’s place of business, although this information is indirectly brought out as a result of researches concerning the great fire of 1711.

    Such events as conflagrations are to be deplored, and they excite our sympathies for the personal losses of our early townspeople, and our regret that so much original manuscript material of historical value became a prey to the flames. Yet such catastrophes inevitably bring many changes, and the knowledge derived from the records of these changes is invaluable to the student of history, biography, and topography. Fire insurance in the early days was unknown, hence, in many cases, the property owners in a burnt district were nearly if not quite ruined, and compelled either to mortgage their realty in order to rebuild, or to sell their estates outright. The subsequent records therefore furnish important descriptive matter concerning that particular period. Much information can also be gleaned from those records relating to the changes in the street lines.

    The fire of 1711 swept both sides of Cornhill (Washington Street) from School Street to Dock Square, and extended in an easterly direction, consuming in its path all buildings to the water’s edge, — in fact, very nearly the entire business district of that time. No doubt it caused considerable activity in the Registry of Deeds, since there are many instruments affecting properties in this neighborhood which were recorded shortly after its occurrence.

    On December 31, 1711, the estate then forming the upper corner of Crooked Lane (now Devonshire Street) and King (now State) Street, passed from the Usher family to John Foye, merchant, and the description in the deed mentions the “building lately demolished by fire.” Prior to the fire the building had three occupants: Peter Barbour, tailor; John Edwards, goldsmith; and William Lackey, also a tailor. These men probably suffered such losses that they did not care to resume their business in the new brick building built by Foye, and therefore gave Richard Hall the opportunity to establish his coffee-house and to become Foye’s first tenant.

    Peter Barbour, above mentioned, owned the estate next west of Foye, and sold half of it to George Cabot. The lot forming the corner of Cornhill and King Street had just been acquired by Samuel Bill, victualler, from the Jacob Green heirs. For some time previous to this date it was known as Robert Gutteridge’s Coffee House. This places two hostelries of that character in this short block on the north side of King Street opposite the Town House. On investigation, I find a summary of the frontages making up this block prior to the fire to be 132 feet, 4 inches; and the same line according to Hales’ Survey of 1819 to be 132 feet, 1 inch, apparently showing no change in this stretch of King Street, from the time Crooked Lane was cut through the estate of the Rev. John Wilson, in 1651, until it was widened, in 1872, and renamed Devonshire Street.

    At the time of reconstruction, in 1712, the northerly end of Cornhill1024 (Washington Street) turned northeasterly into Dock Square. There were then four estates between Samuel Bill’s and the northwesterly angle of this block, all of which were bounded west on Cornhill and east on Crooked Lane. The lot next north of Bill’s was a double estate owned by the Henry Gibbs heirs; then came another double tenement held by Ezekiel Lewis; then that of Samuel Lynde; and forming the corner was a large estate also owned by the Gibbs heirs. In 1721 a division of this estate was made by which John and Mary Cotton of Watertown got the southerly portion, Robert Gibbs the middle, and Henry Gibbs the most northerly part.

    Northeast of this Gibbs property was a three-tenement estate owned by John Barrell. In 1720 he conveyed the two easterly buildings to Shem Drowne, tin-plate worker, who made the grasshopper vane on Faneuil Hall.

    The remaining lot in this block (forming the corner of Dock Square and the westerly side of Crooked Lane) was conveyed shortly after the fire by Elizabeth Powning to William Mann.

    It may be well to note that during the eighteenth century the area between the north side of King Street and the Town Dock contained many taverns or coffee-houses. Among the best known, besides the two already mentioned, were the Exchange and the British Coffee Houses; and the Admiral Vernon, Crown, Golden Ball, Bear1025 (afterwards called The Bight), and Sun Taverns. Besides those granted to these houses of public entertainment, many licences to sell strong drink were granted to individuals residing in the various lanes and alleys of this section; consequently this neighborhood might appropriately have been designated, at the period we have been considering, as a locality for convivial enjoyment.

    Mr. Matthews remarked that he remembered having seen in the New England Courant of March 26, 1722, a letter dated “Hall’s Coffee-House, March 19;” and that the following advertisement was printed in another Boston paper during the same year:

    A Plate of Thirty Pound value to be Run for from Anatomy House to Cambridge on Thursday the 13th of September next, at 3 a Clock in the Afternoon, by any Horse, Mare or Gelding, each carrying 10 Stone weight, allowing weight for Inches, and not above Six in number, each Horse to be entred with Mr. Richard Hall at his Coffee-House in King-Street Boston Three Weeks before the Race, and pay down Five Pounds entrance Money.1026

    Mr. Edes read a holograph letter from Washington to Colonel Gilpin, dated 24 January, 1787. This follows:

    Mount Vernon Jany 24th 1787

    Dear Sir,

    As (if I understood you rightly the other day at Lemax’s) you are high Sheriff of this County, I shall be obliged to you for the Public accts against me for Taxes, Levies, &c that I may make provision, without delay, for payment.

    Can you tell me whether the writ against Edward Williams (given to you at the above time & place) has been served?

    Mr Brindley & his son-in-law called here about ten days ago on their way to South Carolina, but appeared so anxious to get on that I did not press the former to attend to the Service pointed at in Mr Johnson’s letter.

    I am — Dear Sir

    Yr obedt Hble Servt

    Go Washington

    P. S. If you have not the acct ready please to lodge it at the Post Office where I commonly send twice or thrice a week.


    Colo Gilpin


    A Letter From His

    Excellency George Washington

    January 24th 1787.

    Mr. John W. Farwell spoke as follows:

    At our last meeting1027 I exhibited a book containing a sermon by the Rev. Deodat Lawson (printed in Boston by Bartholomew Green in 1693) and the title-page of “The shorter Catechism agreed upon by the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster” which bore the imprint, “Printed for John Usher Anno 1690.” After careful search and inquiry no record of such an edition, or any allusion to it, has been found. Since the meeting I have thought that it would be interesting to discover, if possible, who printed it; and in my search I am indebted to our associate Mr. George E. Littlefield for the. information found in his Early Massachusetts Press.1028

    After the death of John Foster, September 9, 1681, Samuel Sewall was appointed to take charge of the press, but, not being a printer, he engaged Samuel Green, Jr., to come from New London, Connecticut to attend to the practical details of the business. In 1684 Sewall resigned his position and Green continued to manage the press. In 1687 his brother Bartholomew, then twenty-one, became his assistant and remained so until Samuel’s death in July, 1690, after which, probably in the interest of Samuel’s family, he conducted the business until September 16, 1690, when the building on Milk Street, opposite the Old South, which contained the press, was nearly destroyed by fire. Bartholomew then took what printing materials were saved and went to Cambridge, becoming a partner with his father, Samuel Green, Sr. The partnership continued until early in 1692, when it was dissolved and Bartholomew opened an office in Boston.

    In an inventory of Samuel Green, Jr.’s estate made October 10, 1690, after the fire, are these items:

    10 doz: of Psalters at 9s pr Doz

    04 10 00

    46 Doz: & 4 larger Catechisms at 3s pr Doz:

    06 19 00

    06 Doz of smaller Ditto at 18d pr Doz:

    00 09 00

    The Shorter Catechisms appear to have been unbound, for there is another item — “9 bound Books.” From this it would seem that this title must represent one of those copies saved from the fire. Although not mentioned in the inventory — but probably included in “Cash found in ye house,” because previously converted into cash — some of Samuel’s type was also saved, for the Rev. Thomas Prince has written on the title-page of a book printed in 1693, “Mr. B. Green says This was Prind by his Broth Samuel’s Letter, in Boston.” I have examined some books printed by John Foster which have a border type, which corresponds with that on this title when very carefully and exactly measured.

    From the foregoing I have concluded that this title was printed by Samuel Green, Jr., with, at least, a portion of John Foster’s type and on his press, and that it was saved from the fire and later bound in this volume by Bartholomew Green.

    Can anyone inform us what has become of the “Psalters” and “larger Catechisms,” probably unbound, mentioned in the inventory of Samuel Green, Jr.? I have found no trace of them, but they will probably be found bound with some other tract, as has the one we have considered.