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, 26 March, 1914, at three o’clock in the afternoon, John Trowbridge, S.D., in the chair.
The Records of the last Stated Meeting were read and approved.
The Chairman announced the death at West Point, on the 16th instant, of Edward Singleton Holden, a Corresponding Member.
On behalf of Mr. Albert Matthews the following paper was read:
Objection will perhaps be taken to this title, and a reader may be inclined to say that this paper should have been reduced to eight words — namely, “French was not taught at Harvard before 1750.” For it was not, if by teaching French is meant that French was a recognized part of the College curriculum. But though French was not taught at Harvard by a regularly appointed instructor until 1787, nevertheless before 1750 permission had been granted to at least two persons and probably to a third person to give instruction in French to such students as desired it. The subject is, however, a very obscure one, and the present paper pretends to be nothing more than a series of notes.
At a recent meeting480 it was stated that the first pamphlet on the French language to be published in this country was Thomas Blair’s Some Short and Easy Rules Teaching The true Pronunciation of the French Language, printed at Boston in 1720.481 The dedication to this reads as follows:
To the Reverend
The very worthy President of Harvard College at Cambridge in New England.
THE following Pages containing a Method, consisting of many concise and easy Rules, for the attaining to the true Pronunciation of the French Language (extracted from the best Grammars, and from my own Experience) I humbly submit to your Censure. I most humbly submit it to you Sir, Whom all the World allow to be so great a Master of Learning, so well vers’d in all the solid and curious Parts of Erudition.
SIR, It is no small Pleasure to me, that I have this publick Opportunity of rendering you those Thanks, which are deservedly due to the Favour you have granted me, in permitting me to instruct in the French Language some of those Young Gentlemen who are (happily) under your Care.
SIR, the Language of Versailles is look’d upon as a distinguishing Ornament in all the Courts of Europe.
I’M sure it is no small Accomplishment to a Gentleman, and may be of very great Service to those whose Interests or Inclinations may induce them to travel.
IF I may be any ways Instrumental in serving those Gentlemen whom (by your Favour) I instruct, it will be a great pleasure to
and very humble Servant,
When Blair began to teach, and for how long a period he taught, it is impossible to say, since the Corporation Records and the Overseers’ Records are silent and Blair’s pamphlet is our only source of information in regard to the episode. The only copy of the pamphlet which I have seen, owned by the Massachusetts Historical Society, has written in ink on the title-page “Saml Barrett.” If this is the autograph of the Rev. Samuel Barrett who graduated in 1721, it is possible that the pamphlet had been used as a text-book. Nor do we know with certainty exactly who Thomas Blair was, but perhaps he was the Scotchman482 of that name of whom we learn something in the Diary of the Rev. William Homes of Chilmark:
A list of ye grown persons that have died in this town since I came to it . . . 1723 8ber 27 Thomas Blair died . . . 1723. 8ber 27. . . . This night about 10 of the clock Thomas Blair departed this life. He had gone some time ago to the Jarsies and came home with a fever and ague upon him.483
If this was the Thomas Blair who wrote the pamphlet, then he must have abandoned teaching French to the students within three years. For a decade thereafter there is no further allusion to the teaching of French at Harvard, but the Quinquennial Catalogue informs us that from 1733 to 1735 French was taught by an instructor whose name is given as “M. Longloisserie,” and it is stated that he was one of those Instructors “not regularly appointed, but persons permitted by the Corporation484 to teach such students as so desired” (p. 45). This introduces us to an interesting character who has hitherto eluded identification. His name, which naturally occurs in various forms, was unquestionably Louis Langloiserie. Our knowledge of this gentleman begins, curiously enough, with a note on the title-page of an edition of the Bible, printed in London in 1723, as follows: “Louis Langloiserie est parti de Canada pour la Nouvelle York l’année 1725.”485
Langloiserie belonged to a family that had made its appearance in Canada in the seventeenth century, and upon his arrival in New York in 1725 was apparently thirty years old.486 That he had then embraced Protestantism, or did so shortly afterwards, may be assumed from what we hear about him later on. On June 17, 1726, there was passed “An Act to entitle Lovis Hector Piot De Langloiserie to the Sole Fishery of Porpoises in the Province of New York during the Term of Ten Years.”487 Whether he actually entered upon this undertaking is not known, but if he did he must soon have abandoned it, for he appears to have entered the family of William Burnet, then Governor of New York and New Jersey. In 1728 Burnet was transferred to Massachusetts, and reached Boston on July 29 of that year,488 presumably bringing Langloiserie with him. Late in life — exactly when is not known, but certainly after his final departure from Boston in 1774 — Governor Hutchinson drew up a sketch of himself which affords a glimpse of Langloiserie and of an early French Club in Boston:
When he left College489 he went into his father’s counting house, and became a Merchant Apprentice, from 17 years to 21. He saw how much he had neglected his studies at College, and applied to his schoolmaster, (who succeeded Mr Bernard, and whose tuition he was under about five years), and desired he would allow him to spend two or three evenings in a week in going over some of the Latin Classicks, which he readily consented to. In a short time he acquired a relish for the Latin tongue, which he never lost. Soon after he put himself under M. Le Mercier,490 the French Minister, and then began to learn the French tongue; but Monsieur Langloiseier,491 arriving at Boston soon after, in Gov. Burnet’s family, & Mr Lidius492 of Albany, who had lived and married in Canada, and Mr Chardon,493 a young gentleman of fortune from London, being also in Boston, a French Club was formed, of which the three gentlemen above named were members, and Mr Gridley,494 the Lawyer, Mr Jo. Greene,495 Lovell,496 and two or three more New England young gentlemen were members, & the whole conversation was to be in French.
In these ways he acquired a competent knowledge of the Latin & French, accustoming himself to reading authors in both languages, and at length he found very little difficulty in either.497
Governor Burnet died suddenly in Boston on Sunday, September 7, 1729:
This Town was exceedingly surpriz’d on Monday last with the sad News of the Death of His Excellency our Governour WILLIAM BURNET Esq;
He had been very ill all the Week before, but on Fryday the symptoms grew threatning; after which he very little recover’d any Use of his Understanding.
He expir’d about Eleven of the Clock the Lords-day Night; a teaching and monitory Instance to us of the Vanity of Humane Life and Greatness.498 . . .
Another account states that on “Sunday morning he . . . knew his Physicians distinctly, and some of his Attendants, and spoke in French to M. Langlazerie.”499 His funeral took place on Friday, September 12th, when “The Chief Mourners were his eldest Son Mr. Gilbert Burnet, his Son and Daughter William500 and Mary,501 the two Sisters of his late Wife, being led by Jacob Wendell and Mr. Langlazerie, attended by his Domesticks.”502
Upon the death of his patron, Langloiserie was thrown on his own resources, and presumably at once went to Europe, as the following advertisement appeared in the New England Weekly Journal of September 29, 1729:
☞This may Notify all concerned, that Mr. Longlaizere is Bound for London, all Persons Indebted to said Longlaizere are desired to make speedy Payment, or any that hath any Accounts with him are desired to bring in and settle with him (p. 2/2).503
A year later, however, he was again in Boston, and applied to the Selectmen for permission to open a French school. This was granted on October 21, 1730:
In answar to the Petition of mr Lovis Langlaserie Liberty is Granted to Him to Reside and Inhabit in the Town of Boston and to keep a School for Teaching and Instructing in the french Tongue, He Having given Security to Indemnifie the Town as the Law Directs.504
Whereupon the following advertisement was inserted in the New England Weekly Journal of October 26, 1730:
*‡* Mr. Louis Langloiserie having leave from the Gentlemen Select-Men of the Town of Boston, to keep a School for the Teaching the Rudiments of the French Tongue: These are therefore to acquaint all Persons that are inclined and such as are disposed to send their Children to learn that Language, that the said Louis Langloiserie now dwells at Mr. Timothy Green’s Printer in Queen-Street Boston, where he Teaches School (p. 2/2).505
Three years later he asked the College authorities to be allowed to teach French to the students, and under date of September 1, 1733, the Faculty granted the request with conditions:
Eodem tempore, Upon a motion made by mr Longlaserie, asking Libertie to teach ye French Tongue to such Undergraduates as are desirous to attend his Instructions — Agreed, yt he be allowed so to do, provided yt he teach none but such as have the Consent of their Parents or Guardians therefor, signifi’d to their respective Tutors under their hands; and yt he take such times for his Instructions, as shall not Interfere with any of ye College Studying hours or Exercises.506
In 1734 another advertisement was printed in the New England Weekly Journal:
THIS is to Notify any young Gentlemen who are desirous to learn the French Tongue, that Mr. Langloiserie will keep his French School, three days in the Week at Cambridge, and three days at Boston, at the House of Mr. Benj. Bridge in King-street-, where he will give his Attendance to as many as will please to come to him.
If any young Ladies are curious of learning that Language, they will find him ready to wait upon them at said House, at what hours they please, and a Room purposely provided for them. And he will endeavour such a method as may not only bring the Learners into as speedy an Acquaintance as possible with the French Tongue, but at the same time lead them into the Knowledge of some agreeable parts of History.507
Things appear to have gone smoothly with Langloiserie at Harvard for a year and half, when suddenly he found himself in deep waters. At a Corporation meeting held April 1, 1735, we read:
Whereas there are general Rumours abroad, as if mr Longlazeree (yt has been permitted by ye President & Tutors to teach ye French tongue to such Undergraduates, as their Parents or Guardians shall desire may be instructed by him) holds and delivers some unsound & dangerous Doctrines, voted; yt ye President & Tutors be desired to examine into yt affair, and do what they shall think proper upon it.508
Immediately the Overseers took action, and on April 8, 1735, voted —
6 That a Committee be appointed to Enquire into the present State of the College The Committee appointed were the Honble Ezekiel Lewis509 Josiah Willard510 Jacob Wendel511 Esqrs with the Revd Dr Sewal512 Mr Webb513 Mr Cooper514 & Mr Gee.515
7 The following Vote was passed viz Whereas there has been a complaint entered at this board that certain dangerous Errors have been vented by Mr Longloissorie at the College it be an Instruction to the Committee to Enquire how far these principles have been propogated & received and make a report to this board.516
The report of the committee and the action thereon by the Overseers are recorded in the meeting held May 13th:
Report of visitg Comtee
The Committee appointed by the Honble & Revd Overseers of Harvard College Apr 8th 1735 to Enquire into the present State of sd College and to make report how far certain dangerous Errors said to have been vented by mr Longloissorie have been propogated & received there having met and made Enquiry upon those matters doe report as follows viz
That upon discoursing with the Revd Presidt & Tutors who had Examined Mr Longloissorie and a Number of his schollars it did not appear that Mr Longloissorie had vented any of his dangerous Errors among the undergraduates nor that they had been Embraced by any of the graduates to whom he had freely communicated them. But upon discoursing Mr Rogers517 one of the Tutors on occasion of the reports concerning him wch were brought to this board he appeared to think it a hardship that he shd be Examined as to his particular sentiments on the said heads when there had been no express Charge Laid against him & declined to give us any such answers as might Enable us to report him free & clear of those opinions —
As to the general State of the College this Committee not having had Convenient Opportunity to make Enquiry into it are humbly of Opinion that this Honble & Revd board wil think fit to appoint a Committee to Enquire & make report on that head at the next anniversary meeting
Cambr. May 13. 1735
After a debate on the first article of the aforesd report It was Voted —
That the President & Tutrs have not power by any Law518 to introduce or permit any person to Instruct schollars in arts or Languages in this Society and therefore the permission sometime since given by them to Mr Longloissorie to teach the French tongue is in itself void and inasmuch as this board Judg it not consistent with the safety of the College that the said Mr Longloissorie shd continue to teach the French Language there any Longer It was therefore Voted that the Presidt & Tutrs be directed to forbid the Students whether Graduates or Undergraduates from attending on his Instructions either within the College walls or Elsewhere
Upon debate had on the second paragraph of this report the board think it proper to assert & declare their right to Examine into the principles of all those that are Employed in the instruction of the Students of the College upon any Just Suspicion of their holding dangerous tenents althô no Express Charge be Layed in against them — And that it be recommended to the Corporation to take due Care as to the principles of such persons as shal from time to time be chosen by them into any office for instruction and that no person chosen into such an office shal be accepted or Continued who refuseth when desired to give Satisfaction to this board as to their principles in religion
The final allusion to this matter occurs in the Faculty Records under date of May 20:
President & Tutors met (May. 20. 1735) and consider’d, ye first part of ye Report given in by ye Committee of ye Overseers, to said Overseers ye 13. currant, and ye vote of ye Overseers upon it, & agreed, yt said part of ye Vote thereon should be read in ye Hall; ye President also declaring agreable to said Vote, yt President & Tutors do forbid ye Scholars to attend ye Instructions of mr Longlazaree (i. 76).
Abt mr Longlazaree.
ys was executed in ye Hall. May. 21, 1735.
“It would be interesting to know,” wrote the late Mr. William H. Tillinghast to the present writer in 1911, “what were the errors by which the Overseers were so much alarmed. Did he anticipate Tom Paine?” And again:
It will also be interesting to know how long Langloiserie continued his school in Boston. No doubt he was a Roman Catholic and that may be the source of trouble, though in that case I do not quite see why the Overseers should have made such indefinite mention of his opinions unless they did not wish it to appear on the records that students had been permitted to receive instruction from a Roman Catholic.
How long Langloiserie continued his school, when he left Boston if he did leave it, when he died if he remained here, or what finally became of him, are matters wholly of conjecture, since with a single exception I have been unable to find any allusion to him after the College authorities took away his permission to teach French to the students. It is certain, however, that Mr. Tillinghast was mistaken in suggesting that Langloiserie anticipated Tom Paine and in supposing that he was a Roman Catholic. He had been a Catholic earlier, and later he returned to Catholicism, but during his residence in Boston — or at all events while he was teaching French to the students — he was a Protestant. Our final glimpse of him is as singular as was the first reference to him in the Bible of 1723. For though he may not have been in Boston when the Rev. George Whitefield first came here in 1740, and though there is no evidence that if here he was influenced by the noted preacher, yet had it not been for “the Great Awakening” and the consequent heated controversy that so stirred New England we should know nothing further about him. Of the endless pamphlets to which this controversy gave rise, it is necessary to mention only three. Whitefield having animadverted upon Harvard College, the College authorities replied in 1744 with “The Testimony Of the President, Professors, Tutors and Hebrew Instructor of Harvard College in Cambridge, Against the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, And his Conduct.” Early in 1745 Whitefield came back with “A Letter to the Rev. the President, And Professors . . . In answer to A Testimony Publish’d by them against the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, And his Conduct,” and at once the Rev. Edward Wigglesworth rejoined with “A Letter To the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, By Way of Reply To his Answer to the College Testimony against him and his Conduct.” In the first of these pamphlets the College officers said:
First then, we charge him, with Enthusiasm. Now that we may speak clearly upon this Head, we mean by an Enthusiast, one that acts, either according to Dreams, or some sudden Impulses and Impressions upon his Mind, which he fondly imagines to be from the Spirit of God, perswuading and inclining him thereby to such and such Actions, tho’ he hath no Proof that such Perswuasions or Impressions are from the holy Spirit: For the perceiving a strong Impression upon our Minds, or a violent Inclination to do any Action, is a very different Thing from perceiving such Impressions to be from the Spirit of God moving upon the Heart:521 . . .
It is in the third pamphlet that the allusion to Langloiserie, though he is not mentioned by name, occurs. Professor Wigglesworth wrote:
The first Thing we charge you with is Enthusiasm. This we take to be a Charge of an higher Nature, than perhaps People are generally aware of. They who are unacquainted with the Histories of former Ages, and so strangers to the Mischiefs which Enthusiasm hath often brought upon both States and Churches, may be too apt to think it a pretty harmless Thing; and may fancy an Enthusiatick Turn to be an Innocent Weakness, to which none but good Men are liable. But all who duly consider the natural Tendency of this cast of Mind, and are acquainted with the outragious Acts of Wickedness, which Men have been frequently led into by it, cannot but dread and set themselves vigorously to oppose its first Appearance.
If we consider the Nature of Enthusiasm, which is to make a Man imagine, that almost any Tho’t which bears strongly upon his Mind (whether it came into it by Dreams, Suggestion, or whatever other Way) is from the Spirit of God; when at the same Time he hath no Proof that it is; it will plainly appear to be a very dangerous Thing. For if a Man believes the Tho’t which bears upon his Mind, to be from the Spirit of God, he must think it his Duty to conduct himself agreably to it. . . . So that a Man of an Enthusiastick Turn is likely to have but little Help in his Conduct, either from his own Reason or from the Holy Scriptures, whenever a Tho’t from some other Quarter rushes strongly into his Mind, or lieth much upon it. And what Wonder will it be, if Men in such a Case, are led on insensibly, till they have put away a good Conscience, and concerning Faith have made Shipwrack in a most surprising Manner.
And such hath been found by sad Experience to be the Fruit of Enthusiasm, in all Ages of the Christian Church. But we shall only mention two or three Instances, looking no farther back than the Times of the happy Reformation from Popery.
Wigglesworth then goes on to cite one instance from the sixteenth century and one from the seventeenth century, and then continues:
We shall take Notice of but one Instance more, among the Multitudes which might be rehearsed; for hardly any Age of the Christian Church hath passed without them: And tho’ the Instance which we shall now pitch upon, did not end so tragically as the two already mentioned; yet Enthusiasm in this proved as destructive to Faith, as it did to a good Conscience in the two former. And we the rather speak of this, because the World hath never yet had any publick Account of it. And we our selves very sensibly felt its ill Effects, in the Society under our Care, not more than Ten Years ago; when a Gentleman, who had been permitted to teach the French tongue in the College, where he had behaved himself to all Appearance unblameably, at length began to give too much heed to certain Dreams, which he supposed to be of Divine Original. And when once he had gotten his Imagination thoro’ly heated with these, he soon began to fancy himself favoured frequently with Visions too; and these sometimes attended with articulate Voices to instruct him in the Divine Meaning and Design of them. Upon this he very industriously, tho’ with as little Observation as he could, endeavoured to propagate among his intimate Friends, several strange and pernicious Doctrines; such as the unlawfulness of Magistracy among Christians, and consequently of any temporal Punishments for evil Doers, from men; that Punishment from God in the Future State would be sure not be eternal, nor any other, nor perhaps more, even for a Time, than what wicked Men now suffer in this World, by being abandoned to the outrage of their own and others Passions, &c. That a standing Ministry, Ordinances, the Christian Sabbath, and Social Worship, were all without Warrant from the New-Testament: That, beside our blessed Lord of the tribe of Judah, who was in his Account but a meer Creature, (if not a meer Man) there was quickly to be expected a second Messiah of the Tribe of Ephraim, who is the Shepherd the Stone of Israel, spoken of Gen. 49. 24. And the person like the Son of Man, whom Daniel saw in the Night Visions, to whom there was given Dominion and Glory, and a Kingdom, &c.*522 that this Person was then in Being; that he had been often presented to him in Vision, and was one whom he knew very well. And tho’ he declined telling who he was, under Pretence of wanting a Permission for it; yet, by many Circumstances it appeared highly probable, that he himself was the Man, in his own Conceit. Nor was his being by Birth a French Man, an Objection of Force enough to be set in Opposition to his heavenly Visions; for Multitudes in the World (as he said) are undoubtedly of Israelitish Extract, who are not known to be so, either by themselves or others. And since the Posterity of Jacob have utterly lost their Genealogies, it was impossible that Ben Ephraim should know his own Descent, otherwise than by Revelation; or be able to make it out to others, but by the Gifts of Prophesy and Miracles.
And these Gifts, he once and again before very credible Witness, declared, that he knew by Revelation he should shortly be endued with from on High, in as great a Degree as ever the Apostles were, to say nothing more.
These extraordinary Things Monsieur did not broach all at once; but by little and little; the most plausible of them, or rather some plausible Deductions from them, first, and only to such (as to use his own Expression) he found of a teachable Spirit; till at length the Secrets were imparted to too many to remain such any longer.
The Propagator of them now waxed bold,*523 professed the strongest Assurance imaginable of the Divine original of his Dreams and Visions, and of the sacred Truth of those Doctrines and Interpretations of Scripture which he had by these Means been led into; and sometimes went so far as to declare, that if the Event should prove these Things to be Delusions, he should doubt, for his part, whether God ever made any Revelations at all to Men.
We soon perceived, that too great a Respect was paid, by several in our Society, and elsewhere, to his Pretences to Visions and Revelations; that one of his greatest Confidents524 began to be favoured with Visions too, in his own Conceit; and that others were in suspence, whether he might not be a Teacher sent from God; and waited with some Impatience to see him begin to prove his Mission, and were likely to take up with Evidences slight enough.
As the Gentleman’s Notions were no longer Privacies, it soon appeared, that they had been industriously spread by some, among their Friends, in Places far and near; that many People’s Minds were greatly moved with them; and strange Apprehensions and Expectations raised, of what these Things would come to.
It would be beside our present Business to relate by what Means, thro’ the good Providence of God, it was at length made manifest, that these high Pretences to extraordinary Divine Communications were all meer Delusions; and so the Minds of People again quieted.
It would be of more Importance to remark, what was the End of these Things with respect to the Enthusiastick Gentleman himself; namely, That when he began to be exalted above Measure, with the abundance of his imaginary Revelations, he withdrew himself entirely from the publick Worship of God, which he before diligently (and so far as appeared) devoutly used to attend; and he has since returned to the Idolatries of the Church of Rome, from which he had professed himself a sincere Convert.525
It would seem from the final sentence that Langloiserie was still living in 1745.
The third and last instance known to me of teaching French at Harvard before 1750 is in one respect more obscure than the other two instances. For it is clear that Blair obtained his permission to teach from the President, while it is certain that Langloiserie’s permission came from the President and Tutors (or the Faculty). But by whom or by what authority “Mr. Gardner” was allowed to teach French in 1746–1748 does not appear, though that he did so is certain. Under date of January 2, 1746, Edward A. Holyoke,526 then a Senior, wrote: “Dearborn,527 Oliver528 and I went into Mr Gardner to Day to Learn French;” and on February 21st following he recorded that “We did not go in to Mr Gardner.”529 On March 15, 1748, John Holyoke,530 then a Freshman, wrote that “Sam531 & I began to learn French of Mr. Gar[dner];” on March 16, “Went in to Mr. Gardener A. M. & P. M.;” on March 31, “We got up to ye other French Scholars & began Telemachus;” and on April 28, “Did not goe to Mr. Gardener this week.”532 Though there were then living at least four, and possibly five, graduates of the name of Gardner,533 there can be no doubt, I think, that the “Mr. Gardner” of these extracts was Nathaniel Gardner of the Class of 1739. There are several allusions to him’ in the Corporation Records,534 and he remained in residence for eleven years after graduation, as appears from an entry in the Faculty Records: “Mem° Sept. 3. 1750. Mr. Gardner resign’d his Chamber.”535
Mr. Frederick L. Gay spoke as follows:
In Sibley’s account of the Catalogues of Harvard University, written in 1864,536 two only are mentioned as having been issued before 1700, namely, those of 1674 and 1682. Whether the preceding were all the catalogues which were printed in the seventeenth century is uncertain, he says. After the lapse of fifty years we can add one more to his list. Although we can show printed proofs of its existence, no copy of it has yet turned up to gladden the bibliographical eye of a cataloguer of Catalogues.
I have here a quarto volume printed in Riga in 1691. It was written by Henning Witte, a German divine, who wrote biographies of contemporary European scholars. He died in 1696. On the last page he prints what he calls a “gleaning” to fill up a blank page. Luckily for us, it is a short notice of Harvard College, and of the printing of a Catalogue by Increase Mather in 1685. The first fifteen lines are a condensed abstract of Mather’s De Successu Evangelii apud Indos in Nova-Anglia, published at Boston in 1687. The last three lines refer beyond question to a distinct Catalogue issued in 1685.
The title to Witte’s volume reads:
diarii / biographici / tomus secundus, / in quo / non nulla etiam ex priori tomo / emendantur et illustrantur. / accessit / index quintuplex, / et / recensio professorum / hodie vel nuper / in inclutis aliquot lyceis / docentium, / opera ac studio / henningi witte. / [Printer’s cypher] / rigæ, / Typis ac sumptibus Georgii Matth. Nölleri. / AN. M.DC.XCI.
Spicilegium. Ad supplendum chartæ vacuum. Relatio de Academia Bostoniensi sive Neo-Cantabrigiensi in America.
Annis ab hinc, & qvod excedit, XL. Johannes Eliotus, Pastor Anglus, linguam incepit Indicam addiscere, eosq̄; in ea fecit progressus, ut integra Biblia, Catechismum, & varios libros alios, in istam transtulerit linguam ac deinceps ediderit. Idem, anto annos circiter triginta, concionari coram Indis in idiomate illo orsus est. Hujus viri laboribus Deus ita benedixit, ut Anno 1685. in variis locis viginti qvatuor Ecclesiæ, non nullæ etiam numerosæ, extiterint. Hisce præponuntur XXIV. Pastores Indi, & IV. Angli, qvi Evangelium Christi bis singulis diebus domi, in freqventi cœtu, linguâ Indis populari, promulgant. Omnes hi per suffragia ab ipsis Ecclesiis barbaris eliguntur, qvibus postea à Joh. Elioto & Joh: Cottono, Pastoribus Anglis, coram Ecclesia solenniter manus imponuntur. Hæc autem conversio in nova Anglia tarn feliciter succedit, propter erectam Bostoniæ sive Neo-Cantabrigiæ Academiam, in qva Angli pariter ac Indi erudiuntur, edocti examinantur, ac deinceps ritè ad munus Ecclesiasticum exornandú vocantur. Crescentius Matherus, Mr. Dubl. Hib. Academiæ dictæ socius, & tum Præses, catalogum eorum vulgavit, qvi ab anno 1642. ad an. 1685. in Collegio Harvardino, alicujus Gradus Laurea donati sunt, numerumq̄; CCCXIX. constituunt. Finis.
To fill out a blank page.
Of the Academy of Boston
Forty years ago and more John Eliot, an English clergyman, began to learn the Indian tongue, and made such progress therein that he first translated into that language and then published the whole Bible, the Catechism and various other books. About thirty years ago he likewise began to preach before the Indians in that idiom. God so blessed the labors of this man that in the year 1685 there were in different places twenty-four Churches, some in fact composed of great numbers. In charge of them are twenty-four Indian pastors and four English, who make known in the Indian dialect the Gospel of Christ twice daily in their homes in well attended assemblies. These are all elected by votes of the barbarian Churches alone, and on them afterwards the imposition of hands by John Eliot and John Cotton, the English pastors, takes place solemnly before the Church. Now this conversion prospers so fruitfully in New England because of the Academy built at Boston or New-Cambridge, in which the English as well as the Indians are taught, when well instructed are examined, and then duly called to adorn the clerical office. Increase Mather, Master of Arts of Dublin, Ireland, Fellow of the aforesaid Academy, and then its President, published a catalogue of those who were given a degree of any kind in Harvard College from the year 1642 to the year 1685, and they amount to 319 in number.537
Mr. John W. Farwell exhibited a copy of the fourth edition of a curious temperance tract printed at Boston in 1750, and spoke as follows:
I wish to call attention to a rare and early temperance tract, which is interesting because of the peculiar form of the argument and its unusual popularity for a publication of its character. Its title reads:
At a Court held at Punch-Hall, / in the colony of Bacchus. / [Rule] / The / Indictment and Tryal / of / Sr. Richard Rum / A Person of noble Birth and Extraction, / well known both to Rich and Poor, / throughout all America. / Who was accused for several Misdemeanours / against his Majesty’s Liege People, viz. / Killing some, Wounding others, bringing / Thousands to Poverty, and many good Fa- / milies to utter Ruin. / [Rule]538 / It is not the Use, but the Abuse, of any good Thing, that / makes it hurtful. / [Rule] / The Fourth Edition, with a Preface, and a Song, / compos’d by Sir Richard, immediately after his Dis- / charge, not in the former Editions. / [Rule] / Boston: Printed and sold at the Heart / and Crown in Cornhill. 1750.539
The first record I find concerning it is an advertisement in the New England Courant of March 2, 1724, which reads:
THe Indictment and Tryal of Sir Richard Rum, a Person of noble Birth and Extraction, well known to Rich and Poor throughout all America. Sold by T. Fleet at his Printing House in Pudding-Lane. Price, 6 d. single and 4 s. per Dozen (p. 2/2).
One week later, March 9, it appears again, but no mention is made of a second edition, although on the 16th is advertised —
THis Day is publish’d, the third Edition of the famous Tryal of Sir Richard Rum. With a Preface, and a Song compos’d by him immediately after his Discharge, not in the former Editions. Sold by T. Fleet at his Printing House in Pudding Lane (p. 2/2).540
By this it appears that the first two editions were sold and a third edition announced in two weeks from the first publication. No mention of it is made elsewhere in the Courant, and neither the Boston News Letter nor the Boston Gazette, of the same period, has anything concerning it. There is a copy of the third edition in the Boston Public Library. It closely follows the fourth edition.541 The fourth edition, which I have here, was advertised in the Boston Evening Post of March 5 and 12, 1750, but no notice of it appears elsewhere in the paper. The Preface to this fourth edition reads:
TO THE READER
The following Tract has sufficiently recommended it self to the World, by the Sale of Three large Impressions, the last of which went off in a little more than a Fortnights Time, a few Years ago, and so gave Birth to this Fourth Edition.542
It must be acknowledged, that excessive Rum-Drinking is one of the Sins of the Times; and if so, it must be granted, that Rational Methods to check such a growing Vice, is both Lawful and Commendable.
Agreeable hereto, tho’ the following Piece may pass for a Romance or Fiction with some, yet it will he found to have a direct Tendency to shame Sir Richard’s most intimate Friends into an Estrangement from his Company. For, it is not only innocent, Pleasant and Diverting in it self, but the MORAL is Excellent, Useful and Instructive.
Now that it may he happily Instrumental to reclaim Sots and Tipplers from their vicious Courses, and reduce their Feet into the Paths of Vertue, it is heartily recommended to the Publick,
This edition is recorded by Evans but not by Sabin. I find no record of the fifth edition. There is a copy of the sixth edition in the library of the American Antiquarian Society. It has but nineteen pages, although it closely follows the fourth edition. It has the imprint, “Newport: Printed and sold by S. Southwick. m,dcc,lxx.” It is recorded by both Sabin and Evans. Of the seventh edition, I find no record. There is a copy of the eighth edition in the Boston Athenæum. It has sixteen pages and bears the imprint, “New-York: Printed and Sold by John Anderson, at Beekman-Slip.” It has no date. The Preface begins: “The following Tract has sufficiently recommended itself to the World, by the Sale of the proceeding Editions.” Sabin gives the imprint of the ninth edition as, “Providence: Printed and Sold by John Waterman. 1774. 12mo, pp. 19.” Another, and probably the last edition, was published in 1835. It is recorded by Sabin and bears the imprint, “Boston: Published by John Ford, Temperance Press, Wilson’s Lane. 1835.” For the Preface of the earlier editions is substituted an Advertisement, which begins: “The following account of the Indictment and Trial of Sir Richard Rum, was written sixty or seventy years ago, and contains frequent allusion to the colonial condition of the American States.” There is a copy in the Boston Athenæum, on the fly leaf of which is written, “Given to the Boston Athenæum by the Editor — Dunn, Esqr.” It has been considerably edited; the song has been left out; and the title-page has been rewritten and made much shorter.
The argument in the tract before you, is made in the unusual form of a trial of Sir Richard, a name which was sometimes used to designate a drunken man, “By a special Commission of the Peace a Court was held, May 18. at Punch-Hall, in the Kingdom of Toaping, before the Right Worshipful Sir Nathan Standfast, and Sir Solomon Stiffrump, Chief Judges of the Courts of Justice constituted by King Bacchus.” Timothy Tosspot, Benjamin Bumber,543 Richard Rednose, John Neversober, Giles Lickspiggot, Theophilus Toaper, John Sixgodowns, Obadiah Thirsty, Anthony Idlefellow, Nathaniel Spendthrift, Jonathan Lovedram, and Edward Emptypurse were chosen and accepted as jurors.
The Clerk then reads the indictment and Sir Richard pleads “not guilty” and says he will be tried by “the Opinion of all judicious Persons.” The Crier then makes his proclamation, and John Vulcan, the Blacksmith, is called and testifies to his experiences and says: “he scarce ever parts with me till he hath catcht me fast by the Noddle, tript up my Heels, and laid me fast on my Back, so that I have not been able to get up to go to Work for two or three Days; besides having my Pockets pickt, and my Head and Bones ake, he hath set my Wife’s Tongue going like a Paper-Mill.” William Shuttle, the Weaver, then testifies: “I can never sit at my Loom, but this wicked Companion is enticing me from my Work, and is never quiet till he gets me to the Tavern.” Thomas Snip, the Taylor, then testifies that —
Sir Richard picking a Quarrel with me, gave me such a knock on the Crown, that I had almost broke my Arms, and both my Elbows, so that I could not work for a Fortnight after. And what is still worse, he has got acquainted with my Wife, and sends her home every Night in a scolding mood, and for my part, unless I am as boozy as she, I dare neither speak nor stir, but am forced to be a Passive-Obedience Man whether I will or no.
James Wheat, the Baker, complains that people forsake him and prefer Sir Richard, with serious consequences to themselves. New-England, New-York, New-Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Carolina, etc., are next called, and all testify to the evil effects produced by Sir Richard. Connecticut says: “we are sometimes ready to think, That we are the best People in the World, (at least in America);” then goes on to recite the evil effects of Sir Richard.
Boston, being called, says, “It has been observed within less than Twenty Years That this was countd one of the most flourishing Towns in America; but in a few Years more (we have reason to fear) it will be in as bad a Condition as any of its Neighbours,” etc. New Hampshire says, “for this pernicious Prisoner comes and consumes most of our Labour.” Sir Solomon Stiffrump then addresses Sir Richard, saying that he deserves to suffer, but Sir Nathan Standfast gives his opinion “that Sir Richard can make a Defence.” Sir Richard then addresses the Court:
I have done good Service to the Common Wealth, of which I am a good and loyal Member. In the first place, Gentlemen, besides making many an honest Mans Pot boil, I do Service to the Common Wealth by raising the Excise a third part; I am esteemed by all sober, moderate People, for the good I do when seasonable consulted.
Barbadoes, with the Leeward Islands, are called and testify that “without the Help of Sir Richard, we that live in the Islands could not subsist; for he is the best Branch of our Trade,” and “That upon us depends the Prosperity of Trade in many other Countries.” Newport, on Rhode Island, then testifies that “He forceth no body,” and that “we are sensible that he hath done much good to many Men in this Place; he hath raised many from almost nothing to a great Estate, in a very few Years, and helped to build many good Vessels, and employs a great Number of Men daily both by Sea and Land, and most of them that do not abuse him thrive.”
Then Friend John, the Quaker, says, “For my own part I may say, he hath many times comforted me, both at Sea and Land.” He further testifies to the good character of Sir Richard. Mrs. Hostess and Mrs. Fillpot are called, and the former says, “I beseech you not to take notice of what those cruel Blood-sucking Men say; They do not care what becomes of us and many Innholders and Retailers that must starve if this Person suffer.” The Court then gives the charge to the jury, and Sir Richard addresses them:
. . . as to the Witnesses against me, they are of two sorts; first, particular Persons, and secondly, whole Colonies and Provinces. As for the particular Persons and some in the more Southern Colonies, you will find them Persons of none of the best of Characters, especially such of them as complain that they are abused by me, it may easily be made to appear, that they are Vicious and Immoral. And every Body knows that has been among them, that the further South you go, especially towards N. York, N. Jersey, &c. they hate a Stranger as they hate a Rattle-Snake, . . . If a Stranger at any Time have occasion to enquire which is the right Road to any Place, they will not answer him before they have asked him the following Questions, viz. From whence did he come? Where is he bound? What is his Name and Business? With many more such impertinent Questions.
Further on he says, “How much precious Time do they spend in sucking the Smoke of Tobacco, by which means they make a Chimney of their Mouth, burn up their Lungs, corrupt their Breath, and turn their Head into a Still.” The jury acquits him and he is discharged. It will be noticed from these quotations, that there has been little change in the arguments, as used to-day, nearly two hundred years after the first appearance of this tract.
I have consulted several of the best authorities and otherwise endeavored to discover the author, but without success. Many suggestions have been made, but after examination, I have been unable to adopt any of them. Several of the clergy could have written it, and about that time there was one Matthew Adams,544 residing here, who was a popular writer and one of the writers in the Courant. He had a good library and was one of the earliest friends of Benjamin Franklin. He with Mather Byles and others constituted a club, the members of which wrote essays for the papers, published by the Franklins. Some one of them may have been our author. The evidence points to its having been written here, but I will leave for others to discover the authorship.
In the North-American’s Almanack for 1776,545 by Samuel Stearns, is an article entitled “Sir Richard Rum’s Advice to the Soldiers and others,” written in the same style as this tract and evidently inspired by it. The name of the author does not appear.
In my search for the author, I have found no history of the early temperance movement here, and it is probable that there was no organized effort in that direction when this tract was first issued. The clergy early took up the subject and preached against intemperance. The earliest I have found published are two sermons preached by Increase Mather, in 1673. The second edition, published in 1712, has, as a heading to the title, “Wo to Drunkards.” In the preface to that edition,546 he says, “The Sermons Emitted herewith, were both Preached & Printed Nine and Thirty Years ago, in 1673. There was then need of Preaching & Writing against this prevailing Evil. There is so much more now at this Day.” He also says, “There was a time (as I have elsewhere noted) when a man might Live Seven Years in New England, and not see a Drunken man.” About 1690 there was published “A Disswasive from the Folly and Sin of Drunkenness. By way of Answer to two Questions: viz. 1 What is it? 2 What may be said against it,” printed for and sold by Benjamin Harris, Boston.547
Cotton Mather, in his Diary, says, in 1709, “On the Occasion of some Judgments, which God has dispensed on some Sinners (especially Drunkards) in my Neighbourhood, I thought, that I would watchfully endeavour an holy Improvement of them. I preached a sermon at the Lecture, on that Subject, how Sinners are punished in their very Sins themselves.”548 Again, in 1711, he says, “I am given to understand, that among the Communicants of the Church under my Charge, there are several wicked People. Some that frequently drink to Excess.”549 A note in the Diary, April, 1713, says, “Ezekiel Needham, having been convicted of being scandously overtaken with Drunkenness and of being accustomed unto a Trade of excessive Drinking, he was this Day laid under the Admonition of the Church and suspended from the Communion.”550 Sewall in his Diary, under date of March 10, 1686–7, says, “Mr. Mather preaches the Lecture. Speaks sharply against Health-drinking, Card-playing, Drunkenness, profane Swearing, Sabbath-breaking, etc.”551
I have thought this tract worthy of your attention, it being one of the earliest, if not the earliest temperance tract, written and published here, as well as one of which three editions were issued and sold in some four weeks from its first appearance, and which besides has been republished from time to time in ten editions, the last over one hundred years after the first.
Mr. Farwell’s remarks cover the ground so completely that little remains to be added. But perhaps three comments will be worth while. Several years ago, before I had seen the book exhibited to-day, I had noted allusions to “Sir Richard” in a sense at first somewhat obscure, but later clearly shown to be a personification of rum. Thus in “An Extract of a Letter from an Officer in Capt. Stewart’s552 Company at Jamaica, dated Jan. 8. 1740,” it is stated that “We have lost four of our Soldiers since we left Boston, two of them at Sea, which Sir Richard kill’d.”553 Again, the following passage occurs in the Massachusetts Centinel of June 18, 1785:
SHELBURNE,554 June 6.
Saturday last being the anniversary of His Majesty’s Birth Day, the same was celebrated here with every demonstration of Joy: . . . In the evening the barracks were beautifully illuminated, as were also many of the houses in town; and the night was spent with that decorum that marks the character of loyal subjects, viz. getting drunk for the honor of the crown — fighting out of love to Majesty — and rolling about in the streets all night in honor of Sir Richard’s victory (p. 2/3).555
But why was rum personified as Sir Richard, rather than as Sir David, Sir John, or what not? Though of no importance, the question interested me, and was solved when one day at the Boston Athenæum I called for a pamphlet and found it bound up with other pamphlets, one of which was the edition of the Indictment and Tryal of Sir Richard Rum mentioned by Mr. Farwell.556
Secondly, it is fitting that Barbados should be brought into the argument, for it was there that both the liquor and the word rum as applied to it originated557
Thirdly, in Sir Richard’s plea for himself we have — unless indeed in 1724 it was already a Joe Miller — the original of a story which later became famous, was repeated in many forms, and was more than once attributed to Franklin. “The further South you go, especially towards N. York, N. Jersey, &c.,” says Sir Richard, “they hate a Stranger as they hate a Rattle-Snake;” and then he goes on to speak of the “impertinent Questions” to which a traveller in those parts was subjected, as, “From whence did he come? Where is he hound? What is his Name and Business?”558 In 1759 and 1760 the Rev. Andrew Burnaby, Vicar of Greenwich, travelled extensively in this country, and, speaking of New England, wrote:
The lower class of people . . . are impertinently curious and inquisitive. I was told of a gentleman of Philadelphia, who, in travelling through the provinces of New England, having met with many impertinences, from this extraordinary turn of character, at length fell upon an expedient almost as extraordinary, to get rid of them. He had observed, when he went into an ordinary, that every individual of the family had a question or two to propose to him, relative to his history; and that, till each was satisfied, and they had conferred and compared together their information, there was no possibility of procuring any refreshment. He, therefore, the moment he went into any of these places, inquired for the master, the mistress, the sons, the daughters, the men-servants and the maid-servants; and having assembled them all together, he began in this manner. “Worthy people, I am B. F. of Philadelphia, by trade a ——, and a bachelor; I have some relations at Boston, to whom I am going to make a visit: my stay will be short, and I shall then return and follow my business, as a prudent man ought to do. This is all I know of myself; I beg therefore that you will have pity upon me and my horse, and give us both some refreshment.”559
Here the story is related of New Englanders in general. In the next version it is brought home to the people of Connecticut:
Yesterday came to Town in the Stage-Coach from Boston, the LADY,560 who is said to be the Dutchess or Princess of Cronenburgh — in some of the Southern Papers, she has gone by the above and different Names and Titles, as may be seen by our late Papers. A Correspondent says, it is a pity this Lady came from New-York to Rhode-Island in a Packet, for had she come through the Colony of Connecticut, we should certainly have known who and what she was, as it is generally the Custom at all Public Houses there, to ask a Stranger, what is his Name & his Business, where he came from, where he is going, &c. &c. before they’ll even give your Horse Oats.561
In the same year Patrick M’Robert, also alluding to New England, represents the traveller as a Scotchman, who, “as soon as he entered a tavern, . . . used to begin and tell them he was such a one, telling his name, travelling to Boston, born in North Britain, aged about thirty, unmarried, prayed them not to trouble him with any more questions but get him something to eat.”562 In the Massachusetts Centinel Extraordinary of December 16, 1789, there appeared, under the heading “ANECDOTES. From a London paper. AMERICAN INQUISITIVENESS,” an article by “A Gentleman who has travelled through most parts of North America” which reads in part as follows:
This curious spirit is intolerable in the Eastern States; and the gentleman563 who has favoured us with this article, has heard the celebrated Dr. Franklin, who is himself a Bostonian, relate with great pleasantry, that in travelling, when he was young, the first step he took for his tranquility, and to obtain immediate attention at these inns, was to anticipate inquiry, by saying, “My name is Benjamin Franklin, I was born at Boston, am a Printer by profession, am travelling to Philadelphia, shall return at such a time, and have no news — now what can you give me for dinner” (p. 1/1).
Finally, in a slightly different form but still applied to Franklin, the story was again printed in the Massachusetts Magazine for February, 1792 (IV. 116).
What bearing has this story on the authorship of Mr. Farwell’s tract? So far as it has any, it seems to me to show conclusively that the anecdote did not originate with Franklin. At the time of the publication of the tract, Franklin was barely eighteen years old, he had recently quarrelled with his brother James, and until a few months before he had never, so far as is known, left Boston. Exactly when he ran away has never been ascertained, but presumably it was in or about September, 1723, since James Franklin on September 30 advertised for “a likely lad for an Apprentice”564 and Benjamin had certainly reached Philadelphia in October of that year.565
Mr. Samuel E. Morison read a translation of a curious and amusing document, which he recently found in Paris, describing a project for a descent on St. Helena in 1780 by John Paul Jones, at the head of a contingent of Americans disguised as East Indian women.
The following paper by Mr. Julius H. Tuttle was read:
In 1637, the large and increasing numbers of incoming passengers did not always find suitable accommodations among their friends in the maritime towns of the Bay Colony. The overcrowding of these towns had led a few years before to permission given by the General Court to the inhabitants of any town to make settlements elsewhere within the jurisdiction if there were no encroachments on plantations already granted. Of the first two so-called inland plantations, Dedham was a large tract with ample room for many groups of settlers. Its civil affairs had been administered for a year when on July 18, 1637, John Allin, later pastor of the Church, and twelve others, were admitted as townsmen. Then steps were taken to form a Church. At the next meeting of the town on August 11, this record appears:
It is ordered yt yf mr Peter Prudden wth 15. more of his Company shall please to come vnto vs, they shall haue enterteynemt & Lotts accordingly to be layd out for them. brenging crtifficate from ye magistrats as is Requiered.566
From some extracts given below it appears that Peter Prudden’s company was a part of a larger company led by John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton; and that all had entered into the consideration of Dedham’s invitation. On June 26, 1637:
There arrived two ships from London, the Hector, and the [blank]. In these came Mr. Davenport and another minister, and Mr. Eaton and Mr. [Edward] Hopkins, two merchants of London, men of fair estate and of great esteem for religion, and wisdom in outward affairs.
In the Hector came also the Lord Ley, son and heir of the Earl of Marlborough, being about nineteen years of age, who came only to see the country.567
The town of Newbury had invited the company to its plantation:
In June, two ships arrived with passengers. With them came Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Eaton, and Mr. Davenport, and many others of good note. Great pains were taken to induce them to settle in Massachusetts. ‘The Court offered them any place they would pitch upon.’ ‘The town of Newbury offered to give up their settlement to them,’ but they chose to remove to Connecticut, where they built New Haven.568
Only twenty days after the Dedham record, on August 31, —
Mr. Eaton, and some others of Mr. Davenport’s company, went to view Quinepiack with intent to begin a plantation there. They had many offers here and at Plimouth, and they had viewed many places, but none could content. . . .
The synod, called the assembly, began at Newtown. There were all the teaching elders through the country, and some new come out of England, not yet called to any place there, as Mr. Davenport, etc.569
Later in the fall the Dedham plantation gave up hope of a favorable acceptance of their invitation to Peter Prudden and his company, as appears by the record of the town on November 28:
Wheras mr Prudden wth 13. more of his Company at our last meeting had liberty given to come & haue Lotts in our Towne yf they soe pleased: But not haueing since vndrstood anything of their acceptance: we nowe hould ourselves noe longer to stand engaged vnto them therin.570
Meantime several interesting events had taken place. When the company had landed at Boston in June, the Pequot War had been successfully ended, and the region near the mouth of the Connecticut River made habitable for plantations. Massachusetts felt a keen interest, by right, in the coming settlements along the river, since the General Court had issued a “Declaration” on November 17, 1637, stating that the lands and places in the “Pecoits Country, & Quon̄apiack,” that they possessed “are by iust title of conquest fallen to vs, & or freinds & assotiats;” and had suggested that a meeting be held at Newetowne as soon as the season would permit “to cunsult & determine of the disposeing & planting the said lands.”571
On March 12, 1637–8, John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton wrote an interesting letter to the Governor and General Court of Massachusetts explaining the reasons for the company’s decision to settle outside of the patent. While their desire to stay in the Bay Colony “was real and strong,” they had spent “almost nine months’ patient waiting in expectation of some opportunity to be offered,” which had been a “great charge and hindrance many ways.” They speak particularly of “a place for an inland plantation, beyond Watertown,” which had been propounded to them “and pressed with much importunity by some, whose words have a power of law with us.” They say that “a boat cannot pass from the bay thither, nearer than eight or ten miles distance,” and thus they would be as long a way from their dwelling-houses “as Boston or Charlestown is from that place.” This inland plantation was Dedham, whose breadth on the north was from the present Readville section of Boston to the farthest limits of Natick on the west, and whose length from north to south extended from the Roxbury bounds to the Providence plantation. If John Allin and the group who became Dedham townsmen in July, 1637, were fellow-passengers with the company that arrived in the two ships on June 26, as seems most probable, it might throw some light on the expression in the letter that they had been “pressed with much importunity.” The season of the year hastened them to a final conclusion. They had “sent letters to Connectacutt for a speedy transacting the purchase of the parts about Quillypieck from the natives.”572
On the 30th of March, 1637–8, “Mr. Davenport and Mr. Prudden, and a brother573 of Mr. Eaton, (being ministers also,) went by water to Quinepiack; and with them many families removed from this jurisdiction to plant in those parts.”574
Every effort had been made in the Bay Colony by those in authority to accommodate the company here; but though, as Winthrop says, their leaving was “a great weakening to these parts,” yet more were expected soon from England to fill their places. To remain here, “Charlestown offered them largely, Newbury their whole town, the court any place which was free.” Their removal to Quinnipiack was, in the mind of Governor Winthrop, evidently with a view to scatter the settlements as much as possible; for there was “danger of a general governour, who was feared to be sent this summer,” and by their new settlement those parts would be possessed “which lay open for an enemy,” and their presence there would strengthen “our friends at Connecticut.”575
Chief among the New Haven settlers were John Davenport, their first minister, who later was minister of the First Church in Boston; Theophilus Eaton, their first governor; Edward Hopkins, whose bequest perpetuated his memory in the Hopkins Grammar School there; Peter Prudden, who soon, with his associates, pushed several miles westward into the wilderness, settled Milford, and became the first minister of its church; and Ezekiel Cheever, the famous schoolmaster, who early established a free public school there, and who spent his closing years in Boston. The company had men of wealth, mechanics, artisans, and others whose services, though lost to the Bay Colony, played an important part in the founding of the State of Connecticut.