FEBRUARY MEETING, 1908

    A Stated Meeting of the Society was held at No. 25 Beacon Street, Boston, on Thursday, 27 February, 1908, 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 Corresponding Secretary pro tempore reported that letters had been received from Mr. Julius Herbert Tuttle accepting Resident Membership, and from Mr. James Kendall Hosmer accepting Corresponding Membership.

    The Council reported that at its Stated Meeting, held on the sixth instant, Mr. Thomas Minns had been unanimously elected a Member of the Council for the unexpired term ending 21 November, 1909, to fill the vacancy caused by the declination of service, on account of absence from Boston, of Mr. John Eliot Thayer.

    The Rev. Charles Edwards Park of Boston was elected a Resident Member.

    The Rev. Henry A. Parker spoke as follows:

    The Rev. Stephen Bachelor, whose arrival Winthrop records June 5, 1632, he being then aged seventy-one, quite the most aged of the nonconformist clergy who came to New England, was, as will be remembered, a nonconformist to the Massachusetts establishment as he had been to the established church in England. A notice of him which shows something of the extent and character of his influence in England, some time after his departure to this country, may be of interest.

    The year of Mr. Bachelor’s departure from England Sir Robert Paine was Sheriff of Hampshire, and was also chosen churchwarden of the parish of Barton Stacey, which adjoined the parish of Wherwell,—of which Mr. Bachelor was the minister, or had been the minister just before, as I imagine, though Mr. Pope places the time of his incumbency there as only lasting from January 26, 1587–88, to 1601. At any rate Sir Robert, three years later, found himself in very serious difficulties which he ascribed to the influence of the teaching of Mr. Bachelor as follows:

    1635, Dec. 1. Petition of Sir Robert Paine to the same [i.e. the Council]. Petitioner being in 1632 Sheriff of Hants, was also chosen Churchwarden of Barton Stacey135 in the same county, and finding the church and chancel ruinous and indecent, at his own charge beautified some part thereof, intending and offering fair hangings for the chancel. But some of the parishioners, petitioner’s tenants, having been formerly misled by Stephen Bachelor, a notorious inconformist, had demolished a consecrated chapel at Newton Stacey, neglected the repair of their parish church, maliciously opposed petitioner’s intent, and executed many things in contempt of the canons and the bishop. There being divers suits in the ecclesiastical and temporal courts between petitioner and Robert Cooper and others, his tenants of the manor of Barton Stacey, the Lords on complaint directed three trials at law, and in the meantime ordered all the suits to be stayed. Petitioner has conformed to that order, but his tenants have slighted the same, and have sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court at Winchester, presented him in the Archbishop’s metropolitical visitation, and served him with a subpoena for costs for not filing a bill against them in the Star Chamber. Prays that he may be allowed to proceed against them in the High Commission upon articles exhibited two years ago.136

    This was by no means the end of the matter, but that does not concern us. One would like to know what was the beginning of the trouble and what Mr. Bachelor thought of Sir Robert. Sir Robert clearly had a low opinion of Mr. Bachelor.

    The Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, a Corresponding Member, read the following paper:

    THE SECESSION OF SPRINGFIELD FROM CONNECTICUT.

    Massachusetts never had among her people a larger proportion of men of mark, ambitious and deserving of high station and wide influence in public life, than in 1633.

    The Colony at this time reached hardly as far as thirty miles from the sea coast. It had a slender population, mainly of poor people. Cotton said that its greatest poverty was a poverty of men. Cotton Mather spoke of it later as at this time “like an hive overstocked with bees.”137 A vote of the freemen of Watertown, on August 30, 1635, serves to corroborate this assertion, though evidently drawn to put on record a justification for what might be claimed to be an act of selfishness and unfair exclusion. It reads thus:

    Agreed by the consent of the freemen (in consideration there be too many inhabitants in the Towne, & the Towne thereby in danger to be ruinated) that no forrainer comming into the Towne, or any family arising among ourselves shall have any benefit either of Commonage or Land undivided, but what they shall purchase, Except that they buy a man’s right wholly in the Towne.138

    Wherever the truth in these respects may lie, the Colony was rich, too rich, in political leaders. Differences between these—partly honest differences of policy, and partly personal rivalries—led to the emigration in 1635 and 1636 to the banks of the Connecticut River.

    The General Court of the Colony consented to it only with the proviso that the emigrants should continue under its government, and on March 31, 1636, a commission was issued to “Roger Ludlowe Esqr, Willm Pinchon Esqr,” and six others not given that suffix of distinction, or the greater part of them, to order for one year “the affaires of the said plantac̃on,” with power “to convent” the inhabitants, from time to time, in the form of a court. All this, however, was expressly declared to be without prejudice to the rights held under the Earl of Warwick’s patent of 1631. These were possessed by several men of rank and distinction, including Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Brooke, John Pym and John Hampden, who were then about to erect a trading post and fort at Saybrook.139

    Ludlow and Pyncheon had both been assistants in the Colony. Ludlow had also served as Deputy-Governor, and Pyncheon as Treasurer.

    This emigration was an emigration of communities rather than of individuals.

    The church was the centre and soul of the early New England town. The pastors of the church were leaders in all public affairs. Of the clergy of the Bay settlements at this time, a majority favored the policy of confining suffrage to church members. A vigorous minority were opposed to it, and carried with them many of the laity, including several of those who stood first in respect to property, station, and public influence. Those embracing their views were especially numerous in Newtown, Watertown, and Dorchester, and these three settlements (for they were hardly yet to be called towns) were in large part transferred from the banks of the bay to the banks of the great river. The seceders carried the town names with them, and each of the three new settlements maintained its separate existence as a village community. That they might carry the ark of their covenant with them, each company of planters sought to bear off with them their church organization.140

    Two succeeded. The Newtown church had been formed in 1633. The Rev. Thomas Hooker, its pastor, was a leader in the emigration movement, and a plan was arranged by which the Rev. Thomas Shepard, who afterwards became his son-in-law, should organize a new church to take the place of his. This was accomplished February 1, 1635–36, and its members, several of whom had come over from England with Mr. Shepard in the previous autumn, bought the houses to be vacated by the Hooker party, to their mutual advantage.141 In the following June the old church was removed, to become the First Church of Newtown in Connecticut.142

    The pastors of the Dorchester church did not favor the scheme of removal. One of them, however, died in March, 1636, and the other was swept off with the tide of his people. The Dorchester church of Massachusetts therefore became the Dorchester church of Connecticut, although on August 23, 1636, a new church was formed to take its place in the old colony.143

    In Watertown the original church organization was continuously maintained by those who remained on the soil.144

    A town organization was maintained in each of the three places, without a break, although Governor Winthrop speaks of “three towns” having gone to Connecticut.145

    William Pyncheon, a man of means and ability, was the principal inhabitant of Roxbury. He led off a few families from that place to join those leaving the other towns; but the church and the main body of the people remained, and there was nothing that resembled a removal of Roxbury as an organized community. He took letters of dismission and recommendation to the church set up at Windsor, to serve till his company should form a new one, at the place of their settlement.146

    The name Agawam had been originally given to what is now and was in 1636 called Ipswich.147 It was adopted for the second time by Pyncheon and his followers for the place on the river situated above Enfield Falls, where they concluded to remain. In the old records and letters of that day it is variously spelled as Agawam, Agawom, Aggawam, Agaam, and Aguam.

    Pyncheon’s selection of this site for his new town was the farsighted act of a sagacious trader. As the northernmost of the five river settlements, it was in a position where there could be no competition in dealing with the Indians. For those ranging the wilderness then covering northern New England, it was the natural market to which to bring their beaver skins; and it was in these that there was the greatest chance of immediate profit. Pyncheon in fact enjoyed for years a lucrative trade in them. He also had considerable commercial dealings with Hartford for some time. There he had a close business connection with one of the leading men, Jonathan Gilbert, through whom he sold goods shipped up the river and imported from England.148

    For merely agricultural purposes, the land at Agawam was no better than that below the falls. An exploring party from Dorchester had been over the ground in 1635, with a view to the removal there of that town, but preferred the lower site subsequently selected at Windsor.149 Its selection by Pyncheon as the place of his settlement was probably largely due to the fact that it was at the intersection of the great Indian trail, leading west from Massachusetts Bay, with the river which formed the natural channel of intercourse between the Northern wilderness and Long Island Sound.150

    Pyncheon built a warehouse and landing-place at the head of navigation on the Connecticut River, near the foot of Enfield Falls. Its site soon became known as Warehouse Point and a village grew up around it which still exists under that name. From hence it was easy to ship the peltry collected at Agawam.151

    The emigrants, as a whole, were a choice body of men, though perhaps overweighted by a superabundance of leaders. Cotton Mather speaks of these as “worthy, and learned, and genteel persons going to be buried alive on the banks of Connecticut, having been first slain by the ecclesiastical impositions and persecutions of Europe.”152

    Four separate settlements were made by those who thus left their homes in Massachusetts; at Agawam, under Pyncheon, at Hartford, at Windsor, and at Wethersfield.

    The first of the general courts contemplated by the Commission was held at Newtown (later known as Hartford) on April 26, 1636. Agawam was not represented, and did not appear by her representatives at the united councils until the fifth court, on November 1, 1636, in which Mr. Pyncheon sat as one of the Commissioners.

    In the following February the Massachusetts names of the three southern plantations were dropped, and by order of the court “Newtowne” became “Hartford Towne,” “Watertowne” became “Wythersfield,” and Dorchester became Windsor.153

    In founding Agawam, the inhabitants signed a written compact of local government. This was dated May 14, 1636, and states that it was not contemplated or desired that more than forty or fifty families should settle there.154 Mr. Pyncheon was probably apprehensive from the first that if there were a large population, his trading interests might be prejudiced by competition.

    From the first the Connecticut emigrants were recognized as four distinct companies, though starting out on a common errand. Of the eight persons named on the commission from the General Court of Massachusetts Bay, each of these companies contributed two. William Pyncheon and Henry Smith, afterwards his step-son and son-in-law,155 were those thus named to represent the Roxbury party.

    This commission, the Connecticut authorities afterwards insisted, rested quite as much on the assumed assent of the grantees under the Warwick patent, represented on the spot by John Winthrop, Jr., as on any inherent authority of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay.

    The real object of procuring such a paper from Massachusetts became a matter of dispute at a Congress of the United Colonies of New England held in 1648. The Massachusetts Commissioners who sat in it contended that—

    those whoe went from Watertoune and Camberidge and Roxebery and Dorchester, . . . tooke possession in our name and Right and had a Commission of Gouerment from vs, and some ordinance for theire defence, and in this State they remained a good Space.156

    The Connecticut Commissioners replied to this that—

    the Masachusets by vertue of the Expressions in theire patent of goeing to the South Sea clayme an interest to Sprinkefiled (WarroNoco &c) after they were settled Under another Goverment, yet they claim not the licke at Forte Oraina that lyeth without any Controversy within their Limites upon that grounde; and wee further concaiue if the Massachusetts setle any plantacion upon Hudson Riuer by vertue of their graunte theire present plea for free egress and regress in and out of that Riuer would not bee founde of a prevailing Power.157

    They added that—

    The Commission of Gouernment mentioned tacken from the Massachusets was taken Salva Jury of the enterest of the Gentlemen whoe had the Patent of Conecticut, that Comission takeinge rise from the desier of the People who removed, whoe judged it in Conveniencie158 to goe away without any frame of Gouernment, not from any Claymes of the Masachusets Jurisdiction over them by vertew of Patent.159

    That patent, it will be recollected, embraced “all that part of New England in America which lies and extends itself from a river there called Narragansett river, the space of forty leagues upon a straight line near the sea-shore towards the Southwest, West, and by South or West, as the coast lieth towards Virginia, . . . North and South in latitude and breadth and in length and longitude of and within all the breadth aforesaid, throughout the main lands there, from the Western ocean to the South sea.”160 This, if it refers to the head waters of the Narragansett, covers all that is now Connecticut and a strip of Massachusetts reaching as far north as Worcester.161

    Lord Saye and Sele, the leading patentee, had given assurances of his friendly interest in the proposed emigration from Massachusetts to the great river,162 but Winthrop, whom he and his associates had sent out as their Governor, probably went beyond his instructions in countenancing the issuance of the commission, for it was not long before we find him joining with Sir Harry Vane and Hugh Peter in a protest, in behalf of the Warwick patentees against the setting up of claims to land-titles in the towns established under the new jurisdiction.163

    Massachusetts, however, had, six months before, asserted her dominion over these settlements, which had been already then begun.

    On September 3, 1635, her General Court ordered that “every town upon Connecticut shall have liberty to chuse their owne constables, who shall be sworne by some magistrate of this Court.”164

    The earliest courts of Connecticut consisted of the magistrates from each town who were named in the original commission of March 3, 1636. That expired by its own limitation on March 3, 1637, and there must have been, though the Colonial Records do not explicitly state it, some kind of an election between the court of February 21, 1636–37, and the next, which was held on March 28, 1637.

    This is indicated by three things.

    1. “Mr. Welles,” who was not named in the Massachusetts commission, sits at the latter court as one of the magistrates, and is named next after Mr. Ludlow. This was Thomas Welles of Hartford, who in 1639 became treasurer of the Colony and in 1655 its Governor. He must have owed his seat to the choice either of his town or of all the towns.165 William Westwood of Hartford, one of the magistrates named in the Massachusetts commission, was apparently not elected at this time as a magistrate, and Mr. Welles was probably chosen instead by the inhabitants.

    2. At the court next following, on May 1, 1637, in addition to the magistrates there are entered, as sitting, nine persons styled “Committees,” three of whom come from each of the lower towns. These men are evidently legislative representatives sent by each of these three settlements,—prototypes of the deputies provided for in the colonial Constitution of 1639.

    3. At the last court held during this year—the first year after the expiration of the commission—on February 9, 1637–38, it was voted to dissolve, and ordered that the attendance of those at present “members” of the General Court was not thereafter “to be expected, except they be newly chosen in the next General Court.”166 The term “members” was here apparently used to signify both the magistrates and the members of the several town committees.

    The next General Court opened on March 8, 1637–38, and was, as previously ordered, a Court of Election. The plan pursued, it would seem, was to invest the committees from the several towns with the right by a general vote of choosing all the magistrates. No doubt each committee made its nominations for those from its own town. Referring to this occasion, the Rev. Thomas Hooker wrote, a few months later, in a letter which has been preserved, that—

    at the time of our election, the committees from the town of Agawam came in with other towns, and chose their magistrates, installed them into their government, took oath of them for the execution of justice according to God, and engaged themselves to submit to their government, and the execution of justice by their means and dispensed by the authority which they put upon them by choice.167

    At this court Mr. Pyncheon and Mr. Smith sat among the magistrates. The Colonial Records of Connecticut do not show that there had ever been a committee from Agawam in attendance at any previous General Court, nor at that. None apparently was elected by the inhabitants of that settlement until March 28, 1638. The town records of Agawam (now Springfield) make this entry concerning it in the minutes of a meeting on that date:

    There was a free choyce according to an order from Mr. Ludloe by the plantation of two Good men, Committys for the General Court to be at Hartford the 4th of April 1638. The partys chosen are Mr. George Moxom and Jehue Burr.168

    Agawam had been settled on both sides of the river, but it still had only a handful of inhabitants.169

    President Dwight of Yale College tells us that of the first planters one was a tailor and another a carpenter. The tailor bought from an Indian chief a tract three miles square in what afterwards became known as West Springfield. He was in need of a wheelbarrow, and the carpenter had made one. The tailor offered him either this land for it, or a suit of clothes, and he wisely chose the land.170

    This carpenter, whose name tradition has not handed down, was, no doubt, the Jehu Burr chosen on the committee of representatives. His name is written in such a way in the ancient script of some of the public records that it is difficult to say whether the penman meant to write it as John or as Jehu.171 Apparently he was an illiterate man, for his signature affixed to an important document on record was made by a mark. He is described by Hubbard, under the name of John Burr, in his General History of New England, as following the trade mentioned and one of the principal men among the Roxbury company.172

    At the April Court at Hartford (April 5, 1638), Mr. Pyncheon and Mr. Smith again sat as magistrates, and Mr. Moxom and Mr. Burr appear as the committee from Agawam. Probably the two magistrates had simply held over until this time, and were now elected on the nomination of the committee.

    Mr. Moxom was the minister of Agawam, and a graduate of Cambridge University from Sydney College.173 Burr, a year after Springfield had identified itself with Massachusetts, removed to Southern Connecticut and made that colony his future home.174

    In 1637 the Pequot war had been fought, and a heavy expense incurred. Of this it was thought fair that Agawam should bear its share, and at a court held on February 9, 1637–38, a tax of £620 had been laid to defray the cost of it. Of this sum £86, 16 shillings was assessed upon Agawam, about a third of the sum levied on Hartford. Mr. Pyncheon’s shallop had been used in the expedition,175 but Agawam had sent no men. She had quite enough to do to defend herself, far removed as she was from her sister towns.

    Roger Ludlow writes to Pyncheon under date of May 17, 1637:

    I have received your letter wherein you express that you are well fortified, but few hands. For my part, my spirit is ready to sink within me when, upon alarms which are daily, I think of your condition; that if the case be never so dangerous, we can neither help you, nor you us. . . . I can assure you it is our great grief we cannot, for our plantations are so gleaned by that small fleet we sent out that those that remain are not able to supply our watches, which are day and night, that our people are scarce able to stand upon their legs.176

    Early in 1637 the General Court of Massachusetts Bay authorized the Council to treat with “or frends vpon Conectecot” in regard to matters of common defence against the Indians, and “to proceede wth them in the said treaty as occation shall require.”177 Correspondence resulted in which, as noted by Governor Winthrop in his Journal under date of April 1, 1636 (doubtless a mistake for 1637), the representatives of Connecticut stated “their unpreparedness to declare themselves in the matter of government, in regard of their engagement to attend the answer of the gentlemen of Saybrook about the same matter.”178 In May, 1637, John Haynes was in Saybrook on his way to his new home,179 and doubtless talked this question over with the younger Winthrop.

    Early in the following month (June 2, 1637) the General Court of Connecticut ordered that forty men should be despatched from Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield “to set down in the Pequoitt Countrey & River in place convenient to mayntaine or right yt God by Conquest hath given to us,” and this was followed upon June 26 by an order that—

    Mr. Haine and Mr. Ludlowe shall goe to the mouth of the River to treate and Conclude wth or frendes of the Bay either to joine wth their forces in prsecutinge or designe against or enemies or if they see cause by aduise to interprise any Accon accordinge to the force we haue. And to parle wth the baye aboute or settinge downe in the Pequoitt Countrey.180

    It will be observed that this action strongly confirms the conclusion that after March 3, 1637, Connecticut, if it did not claim to be a self-governing body, at least no longer acknowledged any political dependence on Massachusetts.

    The negotiations between the two colonies thus commenced were followed up during the following year (1638), at Boston, on the invitation of Governor Winthrop.

    At the General Court of Connecticut held February 9, 1637–38, John Burr was appointed collector for Agawam, and it was ordered that “noe man in this River nor Agawam shall goe vpp River amonge the Indians” to trade for corn until otherwise ordered.181

    The object of this was to give a monopoly of this trade to Mr. Pyncheon; but for the benefit of the lower towns he was to sell five hundred bushels there, if he could get as much from the Indians, at five shillings a bushel, “if hee can save by that;” otherwise at five shillings, two pence, or more if need be. No Indian bringing corn down the river was to be paid more than four shillings a bushel for it.182

    Agawam was also required to provide and keep on hand, by way of military supplies, seven corselets, half a barrel of powder, and a hundred and fifty pounds of lead.

    A bitter controversy arose as to the manner in which Mr. Pyncheon had fulfilled his undertaking as to supplying corn to the lower towns. He was charged with acting in bad faith. A trial followed in March at Hartford. He made a vigorous defence, Mr. Moxom appearing as his counsel. The magistrates asked the opinion of the two Hartford ministers as to whether the facts proved established the accusation, and they both (the Rev. Thomas Hooker and the Rev. Samuel Stone) said that it showed that Mr. Pyncheon had violated his oath as a magistrate.

    The matter came up for final disposition before a court held at Hartford April 5, 1638, at which Mr. Pyncheon was present, as one of the magistrates, and it was there adjudged that he had not been “soe carefull to prmote the publique good in the trade of Corn as hee was bound to do.” For this he was fined forty bushels of corn.183 The General Court which convicted him offered at the same time an olive branch by granting him a monopoly of the beaver trade at Agawam.

    This traffic with the Indians brought large returns, so long as it was under the exclusive control of one man. Subsequently, when thrown open to competition, the profits became so reduced that farming was found to pay better.184 The vote of censure, however, stung Mr. Pyncheon too deeply to let him hesitate as to sacrificing his grant of monopoly. It was certainly an impolitic act on the part of his associates to deal out such a sentence against the head and centre of the Agawam plantation, if they desired to retain it within their jurisdiction.

    It is probable, however, that he had been sounded before this as to the scheme by this time under serious consideration, for setting up a new commonwealth upon the upper waters of the Connecticut, and had been found not in favor of it. The plan as finally developed was the work, we are told by one of our oldest authorities, of six or eight of the leading men of the three lower towns.185 Among them, no doubt, were John Haynes, Thomas Hooker, Roger Ludlow, Thomas Welles, George Wyllys and Edward Hopkins. The formal draft of the “Fundamental Orders” was probably from the hand of Roger Ludlow.

    In determining all the causes which led Agawam to draw off when this project was agitated, it will be necessary to review events of preceding years.

    American geography at this period presented almost an unknown field. No map could be constructed in which patents did not overlap. As has been seen, the emigrants to the Connecticut river went out under a show of authority derived partly from the patent of the Massachusetts Bay Company and partly from that given by the Earl of Warwick. Governor Winthrop regarded it as doubtful whether the new Dorchester on the Connecticut (that is, Windsor) was not within the bounds of Massachusetts.186

    When John Winthrop, Jr., after the expiration of his term as Governor and his return from Saybrook to Boston, desired to acquire a title to Fisher’s Island, he was not content until he had obtained a grant of it from Massachusetts. The General Court, however, was careful to add to the conveyance, “so far as is or power, reserving the right of Connecticut & Saybrooke.”187

    On August 30, 1637, an ecclesiastical synod was held at Newtown. It was attended by the teaching elders of all New England, and seats were provided for the magistrates. The Rev. Thomas Hooker of Hartford was one of the moderators. He had come on some weeks before with his colleague, Mr. Stone, and on August 5 was at Boston, where Roger Ludlow and William Pyncheon had also come from Connecticut, with a view of treating for a confederation between the two jurisdictions.188 A day was set for a conference between them and representatives of Massachusetts, and Plymouth was also invited to join in it. The notice given to that colony was, however, so short that it sent no delegates.189

    The result was that some of the magistrates of Massachusetts prepared a draft of articles of confederation, which was discussed, and an agreement reached that it should be referred for ratification to the proper authorities in each colony, that is, to the General Court of Massachusetts and “the magistrates and people” in Connecticut.190

    It would seem that Massachusetts at first regarded it as provisionally in force, before final ratification; for on November 30, 1637, her General Court voted that inasmuch as the Pequots had been conquered, and their lands “are by iust title of conquest fallen to vs, & or freinds & associats vpon the ryver of Connecticut,” and so peace secured to such as should settle “at Pecoit & Quinapiack & the parts beyond towards the Dutch, wee do hearby declare the iust right & title wch or selues & or said associats vpon Conecticut have to all the said lands & territories, & wth all it is or desire that or said associats (according to the articles of confederation agreed vpon between vs) wilbee pleased to appoint 2 com̄ittees sufficiently authorized, to give or com̄ittees a meeting at Newtoune so soone as the season of the yeare will ꝑmit” to decide as to the disposition of the lands and as to a suitable portion of the expenses of the war to be paid by future settlers on them.191 Later (in 1641), however, the General Court of Massachusetts referred to the articles on which the negotiations in August, 1637, were based as “articles claimed by Connecticut to have been ꝑpounded to them by authority of this Court,” but declared by way of “answer that they were ꝑpounded & drawen out onely by some of the Matrats of each p̃ty, wtb out any order or alowance of this Court.”192

    It is possible that the articles of confederation relied on in the vote of November 30, 1637, may have been some concluded with the commissioners sent by Connecticut to Saybrook on June 26 of that year, which have failed of record in either colony. We have surer ground on which to stand with regard to action taken in the direction of confederation in 1638. On May 29 of that year, Roger Ludlow writes from Windsor to the “Governor and brethren of the Massachusetts Bay” a commission of authority to John Haynes, William Pyncheon and John Steele to treat with them on this subject. It opens with a reference to “There being of late a generall assembly of these plantacons in this River, & falling into considerac̃on of divers p̃ticulers that might or may concerne the generall good of these p̃ts,” and states that this resulted in deputing the three persons named to confer with the Massachusetts authorities as to some “rules, articles & agreemts” for the purpose of combining and uniting the Connecticut plantations with Massachusetts Bay.

    The signature to this missive was “R. Ludlowe in the name of the whole.”193 His name stood first in the original commission from the Bay Colony, of March 31, 1636. It was always put first, in the list of those holding the courts of Connecticut, in the records of that jurisdiction until and including that of the General Court of May 1, 1637. During that month John Haynes removed to the river colony, and as he so recently had been Governor of Massachusetts, and was a man of high social position, it seems probable that by vote of the next court he was elected a magistrate. Two General Courts were held in June, the record of which, contrary to the usual custom, contained no minute of the magistrates present. The next assembled November 14, 1637, and in the records of that, Mr. Haynes’s name stands first, as it does in the records of all that follow, until the date of the adoption of the Eleven Fundamental Orders in 1639, under which he was elected the first Governor.

    It is evident, therefore, that Roger Ludlow signed the commission of May 29, 1638, as the ranking magistrate, next after John Haynes, who could not well authenticate a commission to himself.

    The Records of Massachusetts, under date of June 2, 1641, assert that at a General Court held at Cambridge in June, 1638, articles of agreement for that purpose were “agitated and brought to some issue,” as the result of negotiations with commissioners from Connecticut who were there present; and that at this time—

    Springfeild, then called Agawam, was claymed by the Court (though by occasion of some private speach &c) to belong to us; & it was then agreed by the Court, & yeilded unto by their com̃issionre, that so much of the ryver of Connecticut as should fall wth in the line of or patent should continue under or iurisdiction, (& it was then taken for granted that Springfeild would fall to us wth out question;) & those articles had then beene fully agreed on between the Cort & their com̃issionrs, had there not bene some question about their granting us free passage up the river, in regard of the lords interest, (as they alleadged).194

    This reference to the Lords refers, of course, to Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Brooke, and the other owners of the Warwick patent.

    The Massachusetts Records for 1638 show that a General Court held at Newtown May 2, 1638, was adjourned “to the 7th of the 4th mo, being the 5th day of the same week in wch the Quarter Court is,” and that an adjourned session was in fact held there on the eighth day of that month (June 8, 1638), at which it was voted that for the future the place of holding courts be transferred to Boston.195 The record of this adjourned meeting does not state that any Connecticut matters were taken up. Other sources of authority, however, make it reasonably certain that important negotiations were then had with commissioners sent from Connecticut for that purpose, and that Mr. Pyncheon was one of these.

    At a meeting of the Congress of the United Colonies of New England held in New Haven on September 9, 1646, a question arose between Massachusetts and Connecticut as to which had jurisdiction over the plantation then recently made by John Winthrop, Jr., at “Pequot.” Massachusetts claimed title by conquest; Connecticut by patent, purchase, and conquest. The record then proceeds thus:

    It was remembered that in a treaty betwixt them at Cambridg 1638, not perfected, a proposition was made that Pequot river in reference to the conquest should be the bounds betwixt them, but Mr. Fenwick was not then there to pleade the pattent, neither had Connecticute then any title to those lands by purchase or deed of gift from Vncus.196

    The Connecticut Commissioners also claimed that the treaty for a confederation began in June, 1638.197 Later a letter from Massachusetts signed by Governor Winthrop and other magistrates, was filed in reply. This seems not to have disputed that the date thus claimed by Connecticut was the true one, and refers to the meeting as held at Cambridge.198

    Another and fuller description of the negotiations of 1637 and 1638 is given in the records of the Congress of the United Colonies, held at Boston, July 23, 1649. The Massachusetts commissioners there stated that—

    at the meeting at Cambridg about ten or twelve years sence Mr. Pynchon in the behalfe of Sprinkfield declared his desire to bee and remayne vnder our Goverment, and so haue continewed ever sence without question or word speaking against it that wee remember, till something was moved to that purpose the last yeare at Plimouth.199

    The Connecticut Commissioners thereupon rejoined—

    that Sprinkfield was in Combination with Conectacutt and so owned by the Goernment of the Massachusets is more cleare than to bee left vnder any doubt; propositions being sent in Anno 1637 by the honered Gouernor lately desseased200 to all the plantations vppon that River concerning a Combination with the Massachusets, and Mr. Pinchon in prosecution thereof chosen and sent as Comissioner from that Colonie to acte in the treaty for them in Anno 1638, at which time and not before hee declared his apprehensione that Sprinkfield would fall within the Massachusetts line: and was so accepted, without any proufe of what was alledged; and that motion by Mr. Pincheon arose (as is verily conceived) from a present pange of discontent vpon a sensure hee then lay vnder by the Gouernment of Conectacutt.201

    This last allusion, unquestionably, is to the vote of the General Court of Connecticut passed April 5, 1638, which has been previously mentioned. Governor Winthrop, under date of June 5, 1638, notes in his Journal,202 the arrival of Governor Haynes in Massachusetts. That he sent back by him to Connecticut some formal reply to the communication from Ludlow and that in this the question of jurisdiction over Agawam was raised appears from several letters found among the Winthrop Papers. In one of these sent to him by Ludlow, under date of July 3, 1638, the hope is expressed that he will not “take it amisse wee have written backe no thinge aboute yor Ppositions sent by Mr. Haines. Or imploymts are soe many att this tyme wee cannot drawe our people togeather, but as soone as conveniently wee cann wee intend to consider of it.”203

    On November 29, 1638, William Spencer of Hartford writes at length204 to Winthrop in regard to the negotiations at Cambridge. The Connecticut Commissioners had reported, to quote his words, that—

    when it came vnto the isue, you would have Aggawame joyned vnto you, or else you would not conclud of the Vnion; and to that purpose, they say, you have written to dismiss the same from them; this wth some other, wch I forbeare to name vntill I speake wth you, because I presume they are but reports, and soe may be false; but heering the other, I could not tell what to say; only I their left it, and spake no moore aboute it. Now the truth is, Sr., although, for my owne part I do earnestly desier what euer may promote your good, and soe I hope shall doe, yet I must confes I doe not yet see what benifit it canbee vnto you to haue a plantac̃on soe far remote dependent upon yu, wch cann in noe kinds be seruiceable and in the mean tyme may bee very preiedusall vnto the plantac̃o heer, for they cannot posible bringe aboute some of ther ocations, as it war meet they should, if they bee severd from them. Nay, further, I doe concede it may bee an ocation of some differce betwixt you and them.

    Neither the Records of Massachusetts nor of Connecticut were kept at this period with perfect accuracy or completeness, but it is made reasonably certain by the documents which have been cited that early in June, 1638205 John Haynes, William Pyncheon and John Steele were in Massachusetts as envoys from Connecticut to confer with the General Court as to articles of confederation between the colonies, and to urge certain amendments to those framed in 1637. Connecticut objected to these, for one reason, because they put too much power in the hands of the commissioners, preferring to leave a right of veto to each party to the combination.

    The propositions of Massachusetts brought back by Governor Haynes, in June, 1638, no doubt suggested as one of the matters to be agreed on, that Agawam should be treated as belonging to Massachusetts.

    Between June and December, 1638, there was a correspondence between Governor Winthrop and the Rev. Mr. Hooker of Hartford, which throws a strong light upon this question. It is of the greater value to the historical student, because the Colonial Records of Connecticut were not written up between the Court of April 5, 1638, and that of January 14, 1638–39. In the colonial record book, ten pages were left for this purpose, but the gap was never filled. A partial explanation is to be found in the fact that John Steele, who had acted as Secretary of the Colony from its first beginnings, was replaced in April, 1639, by the election of Edward Hopkins.

    It is hardly possible that so long a period as nine months elapsed without several meetings of the courts, and in the letter mentioned from Mr. Hooker, as will be seen from quotations now to be made, it is explicitly stated that in the fall of 1638 there was a court at which an Agawam culprit was punished for a misdemeanor, on complaint of those representing that settlement.

    The Governor in his letter to him had said that the objections of Connecticut to the plan of union seemed ill taken, and complained that Connecticut still exercised jurisdiction at Agawam, saying that “Mr. Pincheon had small encouragement to be under them.”206 Hooker’s answer, written in the fall of 1638, “touching the business of Agaam,” says that the sum of the matter lies “partly in the jurisdiction we have exercised, partly in the jurisdiction which, at this time, you so suddenly, so unexpectedly take to yourselves.”

    As to the former, he says that the jurisdiction of Connecticut (i.e. the organization into a collective body in the nature of a colony) was established by commissioners from four towns, including one from “Agaam.” Since Governor Winthrop’s letter they had exercised an act of jurisdiction over Agaam. That town had sent one of its inhabitants apprehended in some misdemeanor to the Court of Connecticut, to desire justice, “which they answerably did.” Nor, Mr. Hooker continued, could they have done otherwise. The magistrates of Connecticut had been elected by the committees of all the four towns. When the men of Agaam demanded justice from magistrates so chosen, how could it be denied? He went on thus:

    Yea, taking it for granted that it is in each inhabitant’s liberty in Agaam to choose his jurisdiction (which is to me beyond question) if I was there an inhabitant, I should judge myself bound in conscience to submit to the jurisdiction of the river, and do believe I should make a breach upon the eighth commandment, if I should do otherwise, because in so doing I should steal from mine estate, in that I should rush myself into needless and endless inconveniences: namely to cast myself into that condition that for a matter of five shillings (as the case may fall out) I should put myself to unreasonable charges and trouble to seek for jurisdiction hundred miles off in the wilderness. If Mr. Pyncheon can devise ways to make his oath bind him when he will and loosen him when he list: if he can tell how, in faithfulness to engage himself in a civil covenant and combination (for that he did, by his committees, in their act), and yet can cast it away at his pleasure before he give in sufficient warrant, more than his own word and will, he must find a law in Agaam for it; for it is written in no law nor gospel that ever I read. The want of his help troubles not me, nor any man else I can hear of. I do assure you we know him from the bottom to the brim and follow him in all his proceedings, and trace him in his privy footsteps; only we would have him and all the world to understand, he doth not walk in the dark to us.207

    Hooker evidently writes under the strain of strong feeling. Pyncheon had been one of the leaders of the Connecticut expedition. He had been prospered in his undertakings. He had been honored with all that Connecticut had to give in the way of official distinction. He had sat year after year as a magistrate, and now, that they were planning to set up a permanent scheme of government suitable for a separate colony, he held off, and was evidently preparing to carry Agawam over to Massachusetts. Hooker viewed him as a kind of traitor. Possibly he had some knowledge also of Pyncheon’s attitude towards Calvinism, which a dozen years later brought him under the censure of the orthodox both in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The breach between them was evidently irreconcilable.

    Winthrop replied to Hooker in an amicable spirit. There is, he says, a gospel rule to “let the Cloke goe after the Coat; but (I suggest) you will not tye us to that; neither will we require it of you.” In lieu of this he proposes “that you should yield in some thinges & we in the rest.” He prefers not to go into particulars as to a compromise, adding “but if matters must come to be scanned, I doubt not there will appear some reason on or part & that the occasions of yor greatest grief arise wholly from your owne Comission wthout any thought of ors touchinge that course.”208

    While Winthrop must have respected Hooker’s ability as a preacher, it may be doubted if he regarded him as well fitted to engage in statecraft. The great source of the disagreements between Massachusetts and Connecticut, he wrote at about this time (December, 1638) in his Journal, was that in Connecticut, for want of civil officers of sufficient training and parts, “the main burden for managing of state business fell upon some one or other of their ministers, (as the phrase and style of their letters will clearly discover).”209

    On January 14, 1638–39, there was a General Court of Connecticut, at which it would seem that the plan of government which Hooker, Ludlow, and others had long been preparing was formally adopted in the name of “the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield,” those of Agawam not participating.210 No reference to Agawam was made in any part of the instrument, unless it can be implied in the provision that each town should send four deputies to the General Court “and whatsoeuer other Townes shall be hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many deputyes as the Courte shall judge meete, a reasonable prportion to the nũber of Freemen that are in the said Townes being to be attended therein.”211

    Two days later (January 26, 1638–39), Edward Hopkins of Hartford encloses in a letter to Pyncheon a copy of a vote passed, with the latter’s consent,212 at the General Court of April 5, 1638, at which he was present as a magistrate, requiring him to pay William Whiting forty pounds in corn or merchantable beaver. The benefit of this contract had been assigned by Whiting to Hopkins, who writes to acknowledge the receipt of a partial payment upon it. He adds that he has been ordered by the Court to write to him (Pyncheon) about the fine that is due from him, and for such moneys as are coming to the country for such beaver as he had traded for, and requests him by the next opportunity to give him an answer, for it will be expected of him (Hopkins).213 This order is not to be found in the Colonial Records of Connecticut, but was probably passed at the General Court of January 14, 1638–39 at which the new frame of civil government was adopted. That step was no doubt felt by the three lower river towns to put them in such new relations to Agawam as to make it desirable to come to an early settlement with Pyncheon of all matters pending undetermined.

    He was prompt to sever the last thread of political connection, and in the following month declared his attitude, in terms which were unmistakable.

    An agreement, under date of February 14, 1638–39, was drawn up, executed and recorded by him in the “Pyncheon” or town records of Agawam, commencing thus:

    February 14, 1638. Wee, the inhabitants of Aguam uppon the Quinecticut, taking into consideration the want of some fit magistracy among us, Beinge now by God’s Providence fallen into the line of the Massachusetts jurisdiction, and it beinge far off to repair thither in such cases of justice as may often fall out among us, doe therefore think it meett by a general consent and vote to ordaine (till we receive further directions from the General Court in the Massachusetts Bay) Mr. William Pyncheon to execute the office of a magistrate in this our plantation of Agawam, etc., etc.214

    The dispensation of Providence, on which this vote relies for its justification, can hardly be the discovery of any new light as to the southern bounds of the Massachusetts patent in that quarter, for no survey to determine it had yet been made. It was no doubt the reorganization of the jurisdiction of Connecticut, in a way which left Agawam out, and—to go one step farther back—the conclusion of Pyncheon to have it left out, and to cast in his lot with the older colony.

    Mr. Pyncheon now proceeded to prepare a vindication of his conduct in respect to his contract relations to Connecticut, which was circulated in manuscript throughout the river towns. The General Court of Connecticut appointed John Haynes and Thomas Welles a committee to compose an answer. A letter of this nature, signed by them, “by apointement of the Court” and addressed to “Mr. Pinchon,” was sent to him under date of April 18, 1639. “Your ‘Apology,’” they say, “is an attempt to vindicate your owne credit to the dishonor and wronginge the Court, a course very offensive and far unbeseeminge on of your quality.”215

    The Windsor church, which he had joined by letter, made Mr. Pyncheon’s action the subject of disciplinary proceedings, and (September 5, 1640) came to the conclusion that he had not made good his defence to the charges against him. He undertook to bring this finding under review by the Roxbury church, and there obtained a favorable report.216

    It was evidently not without some hesitation that Massachusetts concluded to treat Agawam as within her jurisdiction. It was a petty settlement, separated from the Bay towns by a long stretch of wilderness. Access to it by water could be had only by leave of the river towns, or by resort to measures of force or reprisal. Agawam stood, in 1639, to Massachusetts, much as the early settlements at Wyoming stood to Connecticut, or, let us say, as the Philippines now stand to the United States.

    In a letter of September 6, 1639, from John Harrison to Governor Winthrop, he addresses it “To the honoorable my truely noble freind, John Winthrop Esqr Govornour of Masecusets bay and Agawom.”217

    Ten years were yet to pass before Massachusetts was found ready to admit to her General Court representatives from this distant possession.

    In May, 1639, the newly elected Governor of Connecticut, John Haynes, and Mr. Hooker went on to Boston to propose a renewal of the treaty for a combination between the two colonies, and their overtures were favorably received by the General Court.218 In the following August, Governor Haynes, Deputy-Governor Ludlow and Thomas Welles, or any two of them, were appointed by the General Court of Connecticut “to goe to the Rivers mouth to consult with Mr. Fenwicke about a treaty of combinac̃on wch is desi againe to be on foott with the Bay.” Fenwick was now Governor of the Saybrook settlement, and Ludlow and Welles went there, taking Mr. Hooker with them, and reported to the next Court that Governor Fenwick had no objections to the proposed combination, provided any settlement of “matters of Bounds” were postponed until he heard further from the Warwick patentees.219

    Early in the next year, on April 16, 1640, the inhabitants of Agawam wiped out their Connecticut name by the following vote: “It is ordered that the Plantation be called Springfield.”220

    That there was any moral justification for their course of action was denied by the lower river towns. Thomas Hooker’s letter of 1638, already quoted, shows how deep this feeling then was. That it had not abated in 1640, and that some at Agawam were rendered uneasy by it appears from a letter dated in July of that year from the Rev. George Moxom to Governor Winthrop. It was written to ask if there was any order of the Massachusetts General Court showing that the settlers of Agawam “were dismissed out of the Bay with this ꝑviso, to continue of the Bayes iurisdictiõ.” He gives as his reason for the inquiry that he hears—

    some of or neighboors in the River are doubtful whether we lye not in sin (not in fallinge from theyre governm̃et but) in fallinge disorderly from them without first orderly debaytinge ye matter & or greiuances, if we had any . . . . I conceiue some objectiõ may be grounded on this, that they were possest of vs at that tyme.221

    A few months later, a petition to the General Court of Massachusetts was prepared, which was formally presented to that body in June, 1641, signed by William Pyncheon and others, describing themselves as inhabitants of Springfield, in reference to their separation from Connecticut. In this they say that—

    some of their neighbors & freinds upon Coñecticut have taken offence at them for adhereing to or government & wthdrawing frõ that upon the river, supposeing that they had formerly bene dismissed from this iurisdiction, & that wee had bound orselves (by or owne act) frõ claiming any iurisdiction or interest in Agawam, now Springfeild.

    The Court thereupon declared that the commission of March, 1635, was “not granted upon any intent either to dismise the ꝑsons frõ us, or to determine any thing about the limits of iurisdictions,” and disposed of other points mentioned by the petitioners as pressed by the Connecticut people, by the reference to the doings at the General Court of June, 1638, to which I have already alluded.

    The conclusion of the Court was to put the inhabitants at Springfield under the government of “Willi Pinchen, gent̃” for the current year, according to the laws of Massachusetts, and with an appeal from his doings in weighty matters to the Court of Assistants at Boston.222

    A letter was also agreed on at this Court to the Connecticut authorities, complaining that they had assumed to make grants of lands as far north as Springfield, and stating that “wee intend (by God’s help) to know the certainty of or limitts.” A grant of the kind named had, indeed, been made on September 10, 1640. The General Court of Connecticut then invested Edward Hopkins, the Governor of the Colony, with “the benefitte and liberty of free trade at Waranocoe & att any place thereabout, vppe the Riuer, and all other to be restrayned for the terms of seauen yeres, and the land to be purchased for the Com̃onwealth.”223 Waranocoe, otherwise written Waranoco or Waranoke, was the Indian name for what is now Westfield, some twelve miles west of Springfield. Under this grant Governor Hopkins, shortly afterwards, purchased the Indian title and built a trading house there.224

    The misunderstandings between Massachusetts and Connecticut did not prevent the continuation of negotiations for a combination of the colonies in 1642, nor their favorable conclusion in 1643, when articles of confederation between the United Colonies of New England were finally ratified by all the parties to them.225 Fenwick had personally participated in the final proceedings, and was made in July, 1643, one of the two Connecticut Commissioners to sit in the Congress of the Confederacy.226 Not long afterwards Connecticut bought through him the Warwick title. This gave new strength to her claim to Agawam and Waranoco, since Governor Fenwick had always claimed, not without at least strong color of right, that they fell within the bounds of his jurisdiction.

    Part of the consideration of the purchase was a grant to Fenwick for ten years of a duty on exports of certain kinds of goods from the mouth of the river. Mr. Pyncheon and the people of Springfield generally refused to pay it, on the ground that Connecticut had no jurisdiction over them.

    These differences between Massachusetts and Connecticut were soon carried before the Congress of the United Colonies. That as to Waranoco came up first, and in 1644 (shortly before Fenwick’s sale to Connecticut) at the annual Congress held in Hartford, it was adjudged that the settlement there should be under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts until or unless it should become evident from further proof that it did not belong there.

    In the Congress of the following year, before which the Warwick title had passed to Connecticut and that colony had passed a statute laying the tolls on exports which the bargain of sale called for,227 her right to make such an imposition was challenged by Massachusetts. The decision of the Congress was again of the procrastinating and in statu quo order,—namely, that the duties set must be paid, until at some future time the question could be thoroughly examined and finally decided.

    At the Congresses of 1646, 1647, and 1648, it was again debated at length before the Commissioners from Plymouth and New Haven, sitting alone (those two colonies being the only ones not interested in the dispute). The original Warwick patent was called for by Massachusetts, and Connecticut could only produce a copy, though offering to authenticate it by the oath of Governor Hopkins. The Commissioners at last, “further considering that the Commissioners from Conectacut have formerly and doe still lay Clayme to Sprinkefield, as falling within their patent and not within the Limits of the Massachusetts,” ordered a copy of this patent to be laid in at the Congress of the following year,—

    and that in the meane time the two Colonys of the Masachusets and Conectacut would agree vpon som equall and satisfying way of rooneing the Masachusets line that it may without further dispute apeare into which of the Jurisdictions Sprinkefield falls, which being don, the supose that either the question betwixt the twoe Colonyes will cease or there may be a dew consideration of what shall further bee tendered from the order of Conectacut, and in the meantime what was done the last yeare to stand as then concluded.228

    Connecticut was apparently not disinclined to this proposal that the south bounds of Massachusetts should be settled by a definite survey to which both governments should be parties, for at her General Court on June 6, 1649, over which Haynes presided as Governor, it was declared that, while as early as 1645 it had treated that place as under the Massachusetts government, “they are yet altogether vnsatisfied that Springfield doth properly fall in within the true limmitts of the Massachusetts Patent wch they much desire may with all convenient speed bee clearly issued in a way of love and peace and according to truth.”229

    A few weeks later, at the Boston Congress of July 23, 1649, of which Governor Hopkins was a member, Massachusetts made reply to the counsel that a boundary line should be run in a proper way, by observing that she had run such a line, long before, on an understanding with Governor Fenwick, prior to the acquisition by Connecticut of the Warwick title, and had found Waranoco to be within the lines of their patent, but would consent to have it run again, in connection with Connecticut, provided that colony would pay the whole bill for the re-survey. This Connecticut declined, but offered to pay half the cost of such a survey,230 and so the matter dragged along on its way into another century.

    In fact, Massachusetts had, as early as 1642, employed two surveyors, who unfortunately were of quite questionable ability, to run the southern boundary of her patent. This required the ascertainment of “the South part of the Charles River, or of any or every part thereof.” Three miles south of that began the line that ran west to the South Sea.

    It is now conceded that the survey put it eight miles further south. This gave Springfield to Massachusetts and gave her also a long strip of territory embracing a large part of what now forms thirteen Connecticut towns.231

    Connecticut followed with surveys of her own. Appeals to the King in Council were threatened by each colony, and negotiations ensued that were protracted for nearly three quarters of a century. At last a compromise line was settled by an agreement ratified by Connecticut in 1713.232 It was afterwards found that Connecticut had yielded too much. The towns of Enfield, Suffield, and Woodstock were above the south line of Massachusetts as thus established. Each colony claimed them. In 1749 the General Court of Connecticut formally asserted her jurisdiction,233 but it was not until 1804 that Massachusetts finally abandoned her claim.234

    In apparent anticipation of the decision of the Commissioners at the Congress of 1649, the General Court of Massachusetts (on May 3, 1649) had adopted retaliatory legislation, laying a tax on all exports from the Bay or imports into Boston harbor of goods owned by citizens of the other New England Colonies. The Commissioners of the three other colonies in the Congress remonstrated against this policy, in a letter addressed to the General Court, suggesting the propriety of its reconsideration on the ground that such action was inconsistent with the tenor and import of the Articles of Confederation. “And in the mean time,” they added, “desire to bee spared in all further agitations concerning Sprinkfield.”235 This appeal was not without its effect, for on May 23, 1650, the Court, reciting that it is informed that Connecticut intends to repeal her order taxing exports from the river, and meanwhile to suspend its execution, suspended the enforcement of its retaliatory measures until it could be certainly known what the course of the other colony would be.

    In 1643, William Pyncheon had again been elected an Assistant in Massachusetts, and on May 14, 1645, the General Court ordered that the Commissioners of the Confederation for the year should form with Mr. Pyncheon a court of justice at Springfield.236 Two years later (in October, 1647) he was authorized by the General Court to make freemen in the town of Springfield “of those that are in covenant and live according to their profession.”237 Up to this time the inhabitants had possessed no electoral or political power, since they had broken off their connection with Connecticut; and it was not till May, 1649, that the first deputy from Springfield appeared to take his seat in the General Court. Until 1647 it was never included in any official list of Massachusetts towns.238

    Mr. Albert Matthews made the communication which follows.

    While in Philadelphia recently I found, in a collection of broadsides and other documents at the Ridgway branch of the Library Company of Philadelphia, a small document of four pages containing satirical epitaphs on Wedderburn and Hutchinson. These showed that those two objects of our forefathers’ execration were burned in effigy in Philadelphia on May 3, 1774. The epitaphs follow. That of Wedderburn fills pages 1 and 2, that of Hutchinson pages 3 and 4.

    EPITAPH, &c.

    To the Memory of

    ALEX. WEDDERBURNE, ESQ.

    He was born in the City of Edinburgh,

    in North-Britain.

    In Order fully to gratify his LUST for

    Wealth, Power, and Popularity,

    he pushed his Fortune in the

    METROPOLIS of the British Empire.

    His Abilities and Eloquence soon procured him

    a Seat in the House of Commons,

    where he embraced the Principles,

    and followed the Practices of a Company

    of STATE PROSTITUTES.

    Finding the Pleasures and Emoluments

    of this House, unequal to the

    Sacrifice he had made of his Virtue,

    He renounced their Society, and

    (how condescending is REAL Goodness!)

    He was received into the Society of

    the Friends of Liberty and his Country.

    But alas! the Acclamations of Millions,

    proclaiming his Reformation,

    and the Pleasures of accepted Contrition,

    were not able to protect him from a

    SECOND SEDUCTION.

    He was led on from one Degree of Venality to another;

    untill he was at last prevailed upon

    to commit MURDER upon the Character

    of an illustrious AMERICAN Patriot & Philosopher,

    and HIGH TREASON against

    BRITAIN and HER COLONIES.

    Traveller;

    While you tread heavily upon his Dust,

    Remember, that the Pangs of a

    first Fall from Virtue,

    are not to be compared with the Anguish

    of a Heart, awakened to the Guilt of a

    Second Defection.

    Also; that great Abilities and Eloquence, are

    not the Marks of a Favourite of Heaven, or

    they would not have been conferred upon

    THIS UNHAPPY CULPRIT.

    He was Executed May 3d, 1774,

    in the City of Philadelphia, in the Presence of

    many thousand Spectators.

    He had no Friends to lament his Fate,

    for “Treachery would not trust him:”—

    He had no Enemies to forgive—-—-

    for he was below Contempt.

    Even the Eye of Pity (which sometimes

    drops at the Expiation of Murder,)

    refused him this

    Tribute of Humanity.

    [A skull and bones.]

    EPITAPH, &c.

    To the Memory of

    THOMAS HUTCHINSON, ESQ.

    Governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay.

    He was descended from an ancient Race

    of American Worthies,

    And was educated in the Principles of

    Virtue and Religion.

    But alas! what availed the Renown of

    his Ancestors,

    And the holy Precepts of his Parents!

    He remembered no more of the former,

    And practised no more of the latter,

    Than were sufficient to raise him to

    The first Offices, and the Honours of the

    Government.

    He was an Enemy to

    Virtue, Liberty and his Country.

    Let Antiquity be dumb, nor

    Reproach with Obloquy, her

    Catalines, Caligulas, and Neros,

    Since Mankind are here furnished

    With an Instance of Depravity which

    Includes with their Guilt, the

    Basest Hipocrisy.

    American Traveller,

    Forbear to open his Sepulchre, and to avenge

    Upon his Ashes, the Injuries he did

    Thy Country.

    His private Virtues did not atone for

    His public Vices.

    He was detected in an Attempt

    To “abridge the English Liberties”

    And to destroy the Charter of his

    Native Province.

    Let Posterity remember with Gratitude

    The illustrious

    Dr. FRANKLIN (not

    Less successful in disarming political

    Than natural Clouds of their Mischief)

    For this Discovery.

    Although this treacherous Governor

    Was defended by one of the most artful

    British Counsellors, yet he was

    Condemned by a Jury of all the

    Freemen in Britain and America,

    To be hanged, and burned

    May 3d 1774, in the City of Philadelphia in the

    Presence of many thousand Spectators,

    Who while they exulted in his

    Punishment,

    Lamented that he could suffer but

    Once

    To expiate the high Treason he

    had committed against

    his

    COUNTRY.

    [A coffin.]

    The following account is taken from the Pennsylvania Gazette of May 4, 1774 (p. 3/1):

    Yesterday, about Four o’Clock in the Afternoon, the Effigies of Alexander Wedderburne, Esq; convicted of traducing the American Colonies, and insulting their Agent before his Majesty’s Privy Council for doing his Duty; and of Thomas Hutchinson, Esq; Governor of Massachusetts-Bay, convicted of an Attempt to incense Great Britain against her Colonies, were put into a Cart, and conducted through the Streets of this City. On the Breast of Wedderburne the following Label was fixed,

    The infamous

    WEDDERBURRNE,

    “A pert prime Prater, of a scabby Race,

    “Guilt in his Heart, and Famine in his Face.

    Churchill altered.

    Similis Proteo mutet, et fallacior Catalina

    Hunc vos Britanni cavete!

    “He availed himself of the Licence of the Bar to insult the venerable Dr. Franklin, whose Knowledge in Philosophy, universal Benevolence, just Sentiments of Liberty, and indefatigable Labours to promote Harmony between Britain and her Colonies, entitle him to the Esteem of the Learned of every Nation, the love of all good Men, and the sincere Affection of every honest Briton and American.

    “But the base born SOLLICITOR, who attempted to turn his Learning, Benevolence and Patriotism into Ridicule, is (like Hutchinson) a Paricide of the first Rank, who would sacrifice his Country, his Liberty and his God, and delight in the Carnage of the most faithful British Subjects in America, to gain Promotion at Court. - - - Such horrid Monsters are a Disgrace to human Nature, and justly merit our utmost Detestation and the Gallows, to which they are assigned, and then burnt by Electric Fire.”

    With several others, and the following Lines from Hudibras:

    So a wild Tartar, when he spies

    A Man that’s handsome, valiant, wise,

    If he can kill him, thinks t’ inherit

    His Wit, his Beauty, and his Spirit:

    As if just so much he enjoy’d,

    As in another is destroy’d.

    On Governor Hutchinson’s Breast was fixed the following Label,

    “Governor HUTCHINSON,

    whom we now consign to the Gallows and Flames, as the only proper Reward for Double-Dealing and Treachery to his native Country.”

    After being exposed for several Hours, they were hung, and burnt, in the Evening, amidst a vast Concourse of People, who testified their Resentment against the Originals with the loudest Acclamations.

    The account of the affair which appeared in the Pennsylvania Journal of May 4, 1774 (pp. 2, 3), differed slightly from the above. In the former it is stated that it took place “about 3 in the afternoon;” that Hutchinson “was represented with a double face;” and that “after being exposed for several hours, they were hung on a Gallows erected near the Coffee-House, set in flames by electric fire, & consumed to ashes, about 6 o’clock.”

    Mr. Henry H. Edes exhibited an original letter dated at Paris, 12 March, 1793, written by Gouverneur Morris to Robert Morris.239

    On behalf of Mr. Worthington C. Ford, a Corresponding Member, Mr. Edes made the following communication:

    In my edition of the Writings of George Washington (I. 231–234) I gave an extract from the Ledger of income and expenditure kept by Washington from an early period. That extract, covering his expenses in a visit to Boston, was inserted for a special purpose. In the following pages I give a transcript of the early leaves of the same Ledger, beginning with the first general entry and continuing to his Boston journey. After the fashion of good accountants, Washington also kept entries of his accounts with individuals, some of which are of earlier date than the first of these general expenses, but they were also continued in some cases to the opening of the Revolution. It appeared more logical to confine this extract to the general items, leaving to a future time the individual accounts.

    Washington was at this time in the Colonial service, and later accompanied Braddock as a volunteer aid on his unfortunate adventure. The entries are of value as showing the tastes and amusements of the young Virginian, proving that he played cards and billiards, even when on the serious mission of seeking recognition of the House of Burgesses. He was buying slaves and horses, and some furnishings for his house. The details do not throw much light upon his actions, but they serve to supplement what is already known.

    WASHINGTON’s LEDGER, 1754–1756.

        £ s d

    1754 Octr 15

    By Captn. Merrie charges on my watch

    1

    1

    6

     

    By Ditto for a chance to Raffle for a watch

     

    5

     
     

    By Chair leathers

     

    3

    3

    1754 Octr 16

    By Buckles for Ditto

     

    4

    3

     

    By Captn Newton for Frank Self

    4

    6

    10½

    18

    By Servants 5/ Expences at Taylors Ordy 3/9

     

    8

    9

    19

    By Expences at Todds Ordy

     

    1

    10½

     

    By Ditto at King William Ct House

     

    5

    20

    By Ditto at Claybourns 4/10½ Ditto at Chizls Ordy 6/7½

     

    11

    6

     

    By 2 Almanacks 2/6 By my Servt Jno

    Alton 6/

     

    8

    6

    23

    By Dinner and Club at Finnies

     

    5

    3

     

    By Barber &ca 3/9 By Jno Alton ⅓

     

    5

     

    24

    By Club 7/6 Mending ye Axle tree of my

    Chair 5/

     

    12

    6

     

    By Shoes and Gloves 20/ 25th By Jno Alton 5/

    1

    5

     

    25

    By Silver lace for a Hatt

    1

    8

    5

     

    By Shoe Blacking

     

    2

     
     

    By one pair Buckskin Gloves

     

    7

    6

     

    By a Horse whip

     

    15

    6

     

    By a Shot Pouch

     

    6

     
     

    By 3 pair Stockings

    1

    16

     
     

    By Shoe Blacking & Brushes old acct.

     

    3

    8

    31

    By Mr Collin Campbell my deputy Adjutant his Salary for the last half year

    25

       
     

    By a Saddle Cloth

     

    6

    3

     

    By a Circingle

     

    3

    6

     

    By Shoeing my Horse

     

    1

     
     

    By a Negro Fellow bought at Publick Sale

    of John Wake as pr rect.

    40

    5

     
     

    By Cash lost or st 1 e

    1

    6

     
     

    By 12½ Yards Cotton Velvet

    9

    7

    6

     

    By the Barber

     

    10

     
     

    By Mr Finnies Ordinary Acct.

    5

    9

    6

     

    By Board at Mrs Coulthards

    1

    7

    6

    Novr 2

    To Expences at Armisteads Ordinary

     

    7

    6

    3

    To Ditto at King William Court House

     

    3

     

    To a pair of Gloves

     

    3

     
     

    To Servants

     

    3

     

    11

    To Doctor Halkerston

     

    5

     
     

    To a Servant

     

    1

    3

    1754 Novr 11

    To Shott &ca

     

    3

    9

    12

    To Mr Antho: Strother on acct of Jacob Vanbram

    16

    2

    6

    14

    To Servants

     

    2

    19

    To Club at Chews Ordinary

     

    1

     

    20

    To John Roberts Taylor his Acct

    2

    3

     
     

    To washing while Quartered in Alexandria

    1

    13

    3

     

    To gave Joseph Powell

     

    6

    3

     

    To Wilson a smith his acct. in full

    1

    1

    6

    21

    To Expens at Saml Jenkins’s 3/1 Ditto at

    G: Creek 5/3

     

    8

    4

    23

    To Ditto at Thompsons 7/. Ditto to ye Ferryn at Shanh 1/3

     

    8

    3

    25

    To Mr Stephenson’s son Richard

     

    1

    3

    Do

    To Simeon Rice for Carriage of 10 Hhds.

    Tobo. and back Loads to this date

    13

       

    26

    To a joiner for his advice upon Sawing

     

    2

    6

    28

    To Cash to Chr Hardwick to make Sundry

    Paymts

    1

    11

    13

    29

    To Mr Stephensons Children & Servants

     

    8

    9

     

    To my Brothr John

     

    3

    2

     

    To gave away at Edward Thompson’s

     

    3

    9

    31

    To Powder

     

    1

    3

    Decr. 1

    To Expences at Samuel Jenkins’s

     

    1

    3

     

    To a Quarter of Vennison of Ditto

     

    2

    6

    2

    To Dd. Green for Corn, and pasturage of my Horses while I was quarterd in

    Alexa in full

    2

    3

     

    To a Tenant of mine to pay his Levy

     

    5

    9

     

    To John Alton

     

    2

    6

     

    To Captn Mercer’s acct. in full

    4

    11

    11

     

    To Ditto lost at Cards

     

    4

     

    By Servants

     

    1

     
     

    By Jno Alton’s Expences to Marlborough

     

    2

     
     

    By Lawyer Johnston’s opinion on Colo Lee’s claim

    1

    1

    6

     

    By Cards

     

    3

    6

    1755 Jany 1.

    By the following Servants at Colo. Fairfax’s

         
     

    Myrtilla

    £.5.9

         
     

    The Cook

    2.6

         
     

    House Maid

    2.6

         

    1755 Jany 1.

    Laundry Wench

    2.6

         
     

    Hostler

    1.3

         
     

    Pompey

    1.3

     

    18

     

    Will

    1.3

    Jack

    1.

     

    By the Ferryman at Occoquan

     

    1

     

    3

    By 300 bundles of Fodder

     

    9

     

    5

    By Billiards

     

    4

     
     

    By one quire of best Paper

     

    2

     
     

    By Jervis Heyden for Corn &ca

     

    13

    9

     

    By Pevey for Sundries done to my Chair

     

    8

     
     

    By Doctr. Lynn for Colo. George Fairfax

     

    8

     
     

    By Expences at Caroline Court House

     

    5

    3

    9

    By Ditto at Ditto

     

    5

     
     

    By a Servant at Colo. Baylors

     

    1

     
     

    By my Servant & Horses Exps. at Todds

     

    6

    8

     

    By a Negro fellow namd Jack bot. at Buckners Sale

    52

    5

     
     

    By a Negro Woman called Clio, bot. at Ditto

    50

       
     

    By a Servant at Colo. Spotswoods

       

    11

    By Mr. Mercer for his opinion of the devise

    of my Brothers Negroes

    1

    1

    6

     

    By Ditto on his Opinion on the devise of Mount Vernon Tract to me

    1

    1

    6

    12

    By the farrier for visiting a sick Horse

     

    2

    6

    13

    By Cards

    1

    6

     

    17

    By gave Jno Alton

     

    1

    3

    21

    By Ditto to a Sailor

     

    2

    22

    By Colo Stephen for a broken sett of Smiths Tools

    10

    15

     
     

    By Ditto for 6 leather bottomd Chairs

    3

    15

     

    25

    By Cards

     

    2

     

    By Colo Fairfaxs Ned

     

    3

    9

     

    By Mr Mercer for drawing a Release & for Advice

    1

    1

    6

     

    By his Gardner

     

    2

    6

    Feby 1

    By two Salts ⅓ By 1 Mustard Pot 8½d

     

    1

    11½

     

    By a Beer Glass and Pepper Box

     

    1

    3

     

    By Captn Burden for 2 Gross Bottles

    2

    3

     

    2

    By knitting a pair of yarn Gloves

     

    1

    6

    5

    By Club in arrack at Mrs Gordons

     

    2

    6

    1755 Feby 5

    By Cash lent Mr James Hunter

     

    5

    9

     

    By Andrew Sheppard for a pair of Gloves

     

    3

    6

     

    By Cash lent my Brother John

    1

    1

    6

     

    By my Brothr Charles for a pr of Black Gloves

     

    1

    3

     

    By Ditto for Ethiops Mineral got of Dr Lymefool: Jr

     

    7

    6

    7

    By Margaret Fitzjoe for marking

     

    3

     

    By a Young Mare of Patrick Kendrick

    6

       
     

    By two wounded Soldiers of the Virginia Regiment

     

    5

     

    12

    By Dinner & Club at Caroline Ct House

     

    2

    6

    13

    By Ditto at Ditto

     

    3

     

    By Colo. Spotswoods Coachman

    2

    6

     

    14

    By a Carpenter named Kitt, bot at Buckner’s Sale

    39

    5

     

    15

    By a bed of Old Heyden

    1

    5

     
     

    By 500 bundles of Fodder of Jacobs

     

    15

     

    16

    By ye Ferryman

       

    18

    By Robin Loyd

     

    1

    3

    21

    By Billiards

       

     

    By a great Coat for John Alton

     

    5

    9

    23

    By Ordinary Expences at Moxley’s

     

    12

    2

    Mar. 3

    By Cards

     

    11

     

    By Charles Griffith for a Bed &ca.

    3

    4

    6

    6

    By Cash gave Myrtilla

     

    5

     
     

    By Billiards lost

     

    3

     

    10

    By Cash gave away

     

    2

    6

     

    By Ditto

     

    3

     
     

    By Ditto

     

    2

     
     

    By Ditto to the Sailors that brot my Goods from Rapk

     

    3

    9

    18

    By Eggs

     

    2

    6

     

    By Cards

     

    1

    3

    20

    By Colo. Fairfaxs Gardener

     

    2

    6

    24

    By Saml. Johnston for Wheat &ca.

     

    17

    9

    25

    By Oysters

     

    2

    6

     

    By Eggs

     

    3

     
     

    By Jno. Bishop

     

    2

    6

    Apl. 3

    By Jno. Gunston for buildg a Chimney in my Smiths Shp

    1

    1

    6

    1755 Apl. 3

    By a Servant given

     

    1

    10

    By John Ballendine in part for Iron

    11

       
     

    By Mr Hart for a Field Bedstead & Curtains

    4

    16

    3

    15

    By Cash for Fowls

     

    3

     

    By Cash given Sergeant Hamilton

     

    5

    9

     

    By Washing

     

    5

    9

     

    By Servants

     

    2

    1

    19

    By Eggs

     

    1

    7

     

    By two Horse Collars

     

    4

     

    20

    By Eggs

     

    2

     

    23

    By Cash gave to M

     

    11

    6

    24

    By Ditto to John Alton

     

    5

    9

    25

    By Expences

     

    4

    4

     

    By Ditto at Minors

     

    9

     

    28

    By gave Hardins Son

     

    1

    6

     

    By Colo Chambers for a Canoe

    1

    5

     
     

    By Hardin, for Ditto

     

    15

     
     

    By Ditto for Plank in part

     

    3

    8

    30

    By Expences at Swearingen’s

     

    3

    9

     

    By Richard Stephenson’s Children

     

    11

    6

     

    By a Servant Maid of His

     

    1

    3

    May 1

    By my Servant Jno. Alton, lent

     

    5

    9

    2

    By Expences at Frederick Town, Maryland

     

    4

    9

     

    By Captn. Ormes Servant

     

    1

    3

     

    By a Knife

     

    1

    3

    6

    By a Servant Maid at Cocks’s

     

    5

    9

     

    By the Saddler

     

    2

    6

     

    By a Smith

     

    4

    6

     

    By

     

    2

     

    15

    By the Generals Coachman

     

    1

    10½

     

    By Washing

     

    5

    9

    20

    By Captn. Dalton to pay Mrs Langfear

    4

    6

    8

    23

    By two tooth Brushes

     

    1

    3

     

    By a Sword Belt

     

    8

     
     

    By two Combs and an Ink holder

     

    1

    10½

     

    By two pair of Gloves

     

    4

     
     

    By wounded Soldiers

     

    2

    6

     

    By a Fan and pair of Gloves

     

    10

     
     

    By John Alton

     

    3

    9

    1755 May 23

    By the Watchmaker cleaning Mr Gists Watch

     

    5

     

    25

    By Mr. Bowee for a Negro boy named Harry

    45

       
     

    By two Padlocks

     

    1

    6

     

    By a Circingle

     

    3

     

    28

    By four pair thread Stockings @ 7/6

    1

    10

     
     

    By 1 pr. Shares and 2 Pencils

     

    2

    9

     

    By 3 Yards narrow Ribbon

     

    2

    6

     

    By 1 Quire Paper

     

    1

    6

     

    By Cash to my Bro: John supposed to be as they were 5 dubloons

    21

    13

    4

     

    By a large Bay Horse of Saml. McRoberts

    10

    6

     

    29

    By Bhurras for a Bell

     

    5

    9

     

    By Ditto gave

     

    11

    6

     

    By Ropes &ca

     

    5

     

    June 1

    By altering my Valise

     

    1

    3

    2

    By Captain Ormes Servant

     

    1

    3

    3

    By Cresaps acct

    2

    16

    10

    7

    By Mr. Shirley’s Servant

     

    1

    3

    8

    By John Alton

     

    10

     
     

    By making a black Stock

     

    4

     
     

    By Cash gave to——

     

    5

     

    13

    By Washing

     

    10

    3

     

    By Thos. Bhurras

     

    2

    10½

    17

    By Colo. Burton’s Servant

     

    2

    10½

    27

    By cleaning my Pistols

     

    3

    10½

    July 2

    By 8 days attendance of a Nurse in my Sickness

     

    8

     

    4

    By Milk

     

    5

    9

     

    By 3 pair Hopples

     

    9

     

    21

    By Mr. Hawthorn for a Mattrass

    1

    2

    22

    By Washing

     

    5

    9

     

    By Thomas Bhurras for a Horse

    2

    1

    6

     

    By Joseph Bunnian, Batman

     

    5

    9

     

    By Smith for Shoeing my Horse

     

    1

    3

    23

    By Expences at McCrackens

     

    5

    9

    24

    By Jos: Oliver

     

    5

    9

     

    By Expences at Winchester

     

    2

    6

     

    By Ditto at Edward Thompson’s

     

    5

    9

    27

    By Water Mellons

     

    1

    3

    1755 July 31

    By 40 Bushels of Oats

    2

       

    Augt 1

    By Mr. Posey

    4

    6

    8

     

    By my Brothers Servt ⅓ By Presley in pdfor Dg 6/3

     

    7

    6

     

    By Mr Dalton for Paying Bell & Meads accts

    4

    6

    8

    24

    By Cash pd. for Sundries at McGraths Ordy

     

    4

     
     

    By Ditto to the

     

    1

    6

    27

    By Ditto to John Alton

     

    7

    6

     

    By two Cockades

     

    2

    6

     

    By Mr Blairs Coachman

     

    1

    3

     

    By Fidlers

     

    1

    3

     

    By the French Barber in Wmsburg

     

    2

    6

     

    By Billiards

     

    1

    10

    Septr 2

    By John Alton

     

    5

     
     

    By Shoes

     

    15

     
     

    By Gloves

     

    12

     

    3

    By one Silver Shoe Buckle & pr of knee Ditto

     

    15

     
     

    By the Saddler for making a sett of Furniture

    1

    10

     
     

    By the Printers Acct.

    2

    5

     
     

    By Mr. Mitchelson’s Acct.

    2

    15

     
     

    By Expences at Doncastles

    4

    1

    1

     

    By the Governors Clerk for my Commission

    2

    12

    9

     

    By Ordinary Expences at Captn Danzies

     

    6

    10

    4

    By Ditto at Tods

     

    3

    6

    By John Alton

     

    3

    9

    8

    By Ditto gave to my Brothr John

     

    5

     
     

    By repairs done my Mill by Masterson

    3

    15

     

    9

    By William Pool 5/. Punch and Cards 3/

     

    8

     
     

    By Cash gave the Widow Langdon

    1

    12

    13

    By Ordinary Expences at Colemans

     

    3

    1

    15

    By Expences at Lewis’s 5/. Ditto at Cox’s 2/6

     

    7

    6

     

    By John Alton 2/6 By a guide from Pattersons 2/6

     

    5

     
     

    By a Guide from Ft. Cumbd to Ft. Dinwiddie

    2

    16

    3

    1755 Septr 22

    By a black Horse bought of

    11

    5

    9

     

    By a Grey Ditto Ditto

    11

    5

    9

     

    By a Soldr. 1/3. By Expences at Earlys 3/1½

     

    4

    26

    By Exps. at Augusta Ct. House 1/3. A Negro boy 1/3

     

    2

    6

     

    By a Cane 6/. Exps. at Morgans 1/3

     

    7

    3

     

    By Jno. Alton’s Exps. 3/9. Colo. Fox’s Ned 1/3

     

    5

     

    29

    By Billiards

     

    3

     

    30

    By Mrs. Spearing, for Bedsteads &ca

    11

    6

     

    Octr 2

    By Tavern Expences at Moxley’s

    1

    14

    8

    7

    By Ditto at Todds Ordy

     

    3

    6

    10

    By Captn. John Hardin

    1

    1

    6

    16

    By a Penknife 1/3. By Cards 14/9.

    16

       

    25

    By Cash for the Milk of sundry Cows

    1

       

    28

    By Cards 4/4 By Washing 8/

     

    12

    4

     

    By Evans’s Map and the Gazettes in part

     

    16

    6

    30

    By Expens. at Jo: Neavils 6/7½. Ditto George’s 13/

     

    19

     

    By Ditto at Colston’s

    2

    14

    6

    Novr 1

    By Jervis Heyden for Corn

     

    11

    3

    2

    By John Alton 10/. Exps. at McGraths 3/1½

     

    13

    7

    By Expences at York 5/7½. Shoes at Ditto 10/6

     

    16

    8

    By Coach hire at sundry times

     

    5

    6

     

    By repairs to my watch 6/3. Coach hire 5/

     

    11

    3

    11

    By Fidlers 5/. By coach hire 1/3

     

    6

    3

     

    By Mr. Palmer 20/. Sundrie Tickets for ye Ball 60/

    4

       
     

    By Servants

     

    2

    6

    12

    By Mr. Prentis’s Acct. in full

    21

    14

    7

    17

    By Mr. Jas Hunter for his own Lydes & Mr. Wm Hunter’s Accts. in full

    5

    18

    7

     

    By Billiards

     

    5

     

    By Mr. Fieldg. Lewis

    55

       

    18

    By 5 pr Stockings of Mr. Dick

    2

    10

     
     

    By Corn and Fodder

    1

    10

     
     

    By Mr. Mc Williams’s Acct.

    6

    14

     
     

    By Mr. Yates Ditto

    34

    17

    1755 Novr 18

    By a pr of blk. leathr. Breeches & buckskin Gloves

    1

    15

     
     

    By the Smith 1/3. By R. Lewis Saddler in full £5

    5

    1

    3

    19

    By Mr McCreas Acct. in full

    34

    13

    3

    Octr. 29

    By Enoch Pearson’s Acct. neglected to be chargd

    15

    16

    Novr 25

    By Cash pd. the Balle. of Majr. Carlyle’s Acct.

    101

    18

    7

     

    By Billiards and Cards

    1

    10

     

    26

    By Charles Mason Taylors Acct.

    4

    16

    6

     

    By William Baker Hatters Acct.

    1

    18

    6

     

    By Mr. Adam Mercht. Acct.

     

    14

    9

     

    By Danl. Lawrence Sadlers Acct.

     

    3

     
     

    By William Sewell Barbers Acct.

     

    17

    6

     

    By Joseph Chew Ordinary Acct.

    3

    16

    6

     

    By Alexr. Bell Smiths Acct.

     

    3

     
     

    By Thos Bishop

    1

    10

     
     

    By Sundry payments made in Williamsburg by my Servt. Bishop

     

    To Charles Jones, Taylor

    2

    9

    0

         
     

    To Alexr. Craik Sadler

    3

    10

           
     

    To Wm. Flatters Shoemaker

     

    13

           
     

    To Sarah Cummins for Washing

     

    13

         
     

    To the Black Smith

     

    2

    6

         
     

    To the Barber

    1

    5

           
     

    To Corn at the Brick House

     

    1

    3

         
     

    To Bishops Drink

     

    6

    6

    9

     

    26

    By 1 Pistole gave

    1

    1

    6

    Decr. 8

    By my Quitrents to the Date

     

    15

    4

    11

    By Cards 1/3. By Billiards 2/6 gave away 2/6

     

    6

    3

    12

    By Doctr. Ross for 6 pr. Negro Shoes

    1

    15

     

    16

    By Mesrs. Carlyle & Dalton to purchase a Bill of Excha

    45

       
     

    By a pair of Leather Breeches

    1

    6

     

    25

    By Cards 5/6. By Jno. Alton 10/. Cutting Wood 5/

    1

     

    6

    31

    By Cocks’s House Maid

       

    5

    1756 Jany 10

    By John Alton 10/. Jno Leyden’s Wife 5/

     

    15

     
     

    By Thomas Bishop part Wages

    1

       

    16

    By Colo. Fairfax’s Pompey

     

    1

    3

    22

    By Oats £5. By Billiards 20/. Jos. Chew for Wine 15/

    6

    15

     

    31

    By Valentine Crawford 10/. Colo Fairfax’s Servts.2/

     

    12

     
       

    937

    7

    3

     

    Cash.

         

    1754 Octr. 15

    To Cash in hand

    145

       

    25

    To Ditto of Mr. Prentis, my Salary as Adjutant

    50

       

    30

    To Ditto of Majr. Carlyle in Williamsburg

    8

    14

    2

    Novr

    To Ditto in Alexandria

    21

    12

    1

    20

    To Cash won at Cards

     

    3

    9

    25

    To Ditto for Corn

    1

    3

     

    Decr 2

    To Ditto in an Exchange of my Char. Horses

    4

    6

     
     

    To Ditto won at Cards

     

    8

     

    25

    To Cash at Cards

     

    8

     

    26

    To Ditto at Ditto

     

    3

    9

     

    To Ditto of Major Carlyle

    60

       

    27

    To Ditto at Cards

     

    2

    6

     

    To Ditto of Major Carlyle

         

    1755 Jany 6

    To Ditto of Mr. Woodward at Cards

     

    2

    6

     

    To Mr. Mercer at Ditto

     

    4

    13

    To Mr. Lewis at Billiards

     

    2

    6

    15

    To Mr. Strother at Cards

     

    5

    9

     

    To Ditto at Ditto

     

    2

     
     

    To Patrick Kendrick

    23

    13

    1

    Feby 5

    To Mrs. Thornton for my Lotts in Fredricksg

    50

       

    10

    To Patrick Kendrick

    12

    7

    9

    21

    To Mr. Spearing at Billiards

     

    8

    9

    26

    To Mrs. Spearing at Cards

     

    4

    6

    Mar. 11

    To Ditto at Ditto

     

    3

    9

     

    To Ditto at Ditto

     

    1

    6

     

    To Cards at Sundry Times

    1

    10

    9

    Apl 7

    To Cash of Majr. Carlyle

    6

    13

    2

     

    To Ditto of Ditto

    5

       

    1755 May 6

    To Cash of the Right Honble the Lord Fairfax

    40

       
     

    To Ditto my Pay &ca. of the Country

    61

       
     

    To Smiths acct. of the Country

     

    6

     
     

    To Cash

    25

       
     

    To Cash recd. as a present from the Assembly

    300

       

    Septr 29

    To Billiards

     

    10

     

    Novr 12

    To my Salary as Adjutant

    25

       
     

    To my Expences in going to Fort Dinwiddie refunded

    3

    1

    3

    Decr 1

    To my Pay to this

    136

    10

     

    16

    To Cash of the Publick

    60

       

    1756 Jany 10

    To Ditto at Cards

     

    10

     
     

    To Ditto of the Publick

    16

       

    16

    To Ditto of Ditto

    15

       

    Feby 2

    To Ditto of Ditto

    96

       
     

    To Ditto of Ditto

    43

    10

     
     

    To Ditto of Ditto lodgd with Captn. Mercer

    117

       
     

    To Ditto of Ditto for Ditto

    20

    15

     
     

    To Ditto borrowd of Colo. Carlyle

    5

    7

    6

     

    To Ditto of the Publick for Captn. Mercer

    4

    6

    8

     

    To Ditto of Ditto for Ditto

    8

       
       

    1370

    18

    ½