The Loyalists of Massachusetts - And the Other Side of the American Revolution

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Loyalists of Massachusetts - And the Other Side of the American Revolution
Author: Stark, James H.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Loyalists of Massachusetts - And the Other Side of the American Revolution" ***

(This file was produced from images generously made

Transcriber's note:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).

Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.

[Illustration: THOMAS HUTCHINSON.

Born in Boston, Sept. 9, 1711. Governor of Massachusetts 1771-4. Died in
London June 3, 1780.]

THE
LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS

AND

THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

JAMES H. STARK

"_History makes men wise._"--BACON.

W. B. CLARKE CO.
26 TREMONT STREET
BOSTON

COPYRIGHTED 1907

JAMES H. STARK

To
The Memory of the Loyalists
of
The Massachusetts Bay

WHOSE FAITHFUL SERVICES AND MEMORIES ARE NOW FORGOTTEN
BY THE NATION THEY SO WELL SERVED, THIS
WORK IS DEDICATED BY THE
AUTHOR

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION 5

CHAPTER I

THE FIRST CHARTER 7

CHAPTER II

THE SECOND CHARTER 16

CHAPTER III

CAUSES THAT LED TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 27

CHAPTER IV

BOSTON MOBS AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REVOLUTION 40

CHAPTER V

THE LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS 54

CHAPTER VI

THE REVOLUTIONIST 68

CHAPTER VII

INDIANS IN THE REVOLUTION 88

CHAPTER VIII

THE EXPULSION OF THE LOYALISTS AND THE SETTLEMENT OF
CANADA 93

CHAPTER IX

THE WAR OF 1812 AND THE ATTEMPTED CONQUEST OF CANADA 98

CHAPTER X

THE CIVIL WAR AND THE PART TAKEN BY GREAT BRITAIN IN
SAME 107

CHAPTER XI

RECONCILIATION. THE DISMEMBERED EMPIRE REUNITED IN
BONDS OF FRIENDSHIP. "BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER." 113

PART II

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE LOYALISTS OF MASS. 122

THE ADDRESS OF THE MERCHANTS AND OTHERS OF BOSTON TO
GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON 123

ADDRESS OF THE BARRISTERS AND ATTORNEYS OF MASSACHUSETTS
TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON 125

ADDRESS OF THE INHABITANTS OF MARBLEHEAD TO GOVERNOR
HUTCHINSON 127

ADDRESS TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON FROM HIS FELLOW TOWNSMEN
IN THE TOWN OF MILTON 128

ADDRESS PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR GAGE ON HIS ARRIVAL AT
SALEM 131

ADDRESS TO GOVERNOR GAGE ON HIS DEPARTURE 132

LIST OF INHABITANTS OF BOSTON WHO REMOVED TO HALIFAX
WITH THE ARMY MARCH, 1776 133

MANDAMUS COUNSELLORS 136

THE BANISHMENT ACT OF MASSACHUSETTS 137

THE WORCESTER RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ABSENTEES
AND REFUGEES 141

THE CONFISCATION ACT 141

CONSPIRACY ACT 141

ABSENTEES ACT 143

BIOGRAPHIES

THOMAS HUTCHINSON 145

LIST OF GOV. HUTCHINSON'S CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY 174

THOMAS HUTCHINSON, SON OF THE GOVERNOR 175

ELISHA HUTCHINSON 177

FOSTER HUTCHINSON 177

ELIAKIM HUTCHINSON 178

LIST OF ELIAKIM HUTCHINSON'S CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY 180

ANDREW OLIVER--LIEUT. GOVERNOR 181

THOMAS OLIVER 183

PETER OLIVER--CHIEF JUSTICE 188

SIR FRANCIS BERNARD 191

SIR WILLIAM PEPPERRELL 205

JOHN SINGLETON COPLEY AND HIS SON LORD LYNDHURST 216

KING HOOPER OF MARBLEHEAD 221

WILLIAM BOWES 224

CONFISCATED ESTATES OF WILLIAM BOWES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 225

GENERAL TIMOTHY RUGGLES 225

THE FANEUIL FAMILY OF BOSTON 229

THE COFFIN FAMILY OF BOSTON. ADMIRAL SIR ISAAC COFFIN
SIR THOMAS ASTON COFFIN ADMIRAL FROMAN H. COFFIN
GENERAL JOHN COFFIN 233

CONFISCATED ESTATES OF JOHN COFFIN IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 246

JUDGE SAMUEL CURWEN 246

JAMES MURRAY 254

SIR BENJAMIN THOMPSON--COUNT RUMFORD 261

COL. RICHARD SALTONSTALL 272

REV. MATHER BYLES 275

THE HALLOWELL FAMILY OF BOSTON 281

CONFISCATED ESTATES OF BENJAMIN HALLOWELL IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY 284

THE VASSALLS 285

CONFISCATED ESTATES OF JOHN VASSALL IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 290

GENERAL ISAAC ROYALL 290

GENERAL WILLIAM BRATTLE 294

CONFISCATED ESTATE OF WILLIAM BRATTLE IN BOSTON 297

JOSEPH THOMPSON 297

COLONEL JOHN ERVING 298

CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO COL. JOHN ERVING 299

MAJOR GENERAL SIR DAVID OCTHERLONY 299

JUDGE AUCHMUTY'S FAMILY 301

CONFISCATED ESTATES OF ROBERT AUCHMUTY 305

COLONEL ADINO PADDOCK 305

CONFISCATED ESTATES OF ADINO PADDOCK IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 308

THEOPHILUS LILLIE 308

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO THEOPHILUS
LILLIE 313

DR. SYLVESTER GARDINER 313

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO SYLVESTER
GARDINER 317

RICHARD KING 317

CHARLES PAXTON 318

JOSEPH HARRISON 319

CAPTAIN MARTIN GAY 321

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
MARTIN GAY 325

DANIEL LEONARD 325

JUDGE GEORGE LEONARD 332

COLONEL GEORGE LEONARD 333

HARRISON GRAY--RECEIVER GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS 334

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO HARRISON
GRAY 337

REV. WILLIAM WALTER, RECTOR OF TRINITY CHURCH 338

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
REV. WILLIAM WALTER 342

THOMAS AMORY 343

REV. HENRY CANER 346

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
REV. HENRY CANER 349

FREDERICK WILLIAM GEYER 350

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
FREDERICK WILLIAM GEYER 351

THE APTHORP FAMILY OF BOSTON 351

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
CHARLES WARD APTHORP 354

THE GOLDTHWAITE FAMILY OF BOSTON 355

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
JOSEPH GOLDTHWAIT 361

JOHN HOWE 361

SAMUEL QUINCY, SOLICITOR GENERAL 364

COLONEL JOHN MURRAY 376

JUDGE JAMES PUTNAM, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS
BAY 378

JUDGE TIMOTHY PAINE 382

DR. WILLIAM PAINE 385

JOHN CHANDLER 388

JOHN GORE 392

JOHN JEFFRIES 394

THOMAS BRINLEY 395

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
THOMAS BRINLEY 397

REV. JOHN WISWELL 398

HENRY BARNES 399

THOMAS FLUCKER, SECRETARY OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY 402

MARGARET DRAPER 404

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
MARGARET DRAPER 405

RICHARD CLARKE 405

PETER JOHONNOT 409

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
PETER JOHONNOT 411

JOHN JOY 411

RICHARD LECHMERE 413

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
RICHARD LECHMERE 414

EZEKIEL LEWIS 414

BENJAMIN CLARK 415

LADY AGNES FRANKLAND 417

COLONEL DAVID PHIPS 418

THE DUNBAR FAMILY OF HINGHAM 421

EBENEZER RICHARDSON 422

COMMODORE JOSHUA LORING 423

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
JOSHUA LORING 426

ROBERT WINTHROP 426

NATHANIEL HATCH 429

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
NATHANIEL HATCH 430

CHRISTOPHER HATCH 430

WARD CHIPMAN 431

GOVERNOR EDWARD WINSLOW 433

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
ISAAC WINSLOW 439

SIR ROGER HALE SHEAFFE, BARONET 439

JONATHAN SAYWARD 443

DEBLOIS FAMILY 445

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
GILBERT DEBLOIS 446

LYDE FAMILY 447

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
EDWARD LYDE 447

JAMES BOUTINEAU 448

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
JAMES BOUTINEAU 449

COL. WILLIAM BROWNE 449

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM 451

CAPTAIN JOHN MALCOMB 451

THE RUSSELL FAMILY OF CHARLESTOWN 452

EZEKIEL RUSSELL 453

JONATHAN SEWALL 454

CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
SAMUEL SEWALL 457

THOMAS ROBIE 457

BENJAMIN MARSTON 459

HON. BENJAMIN LYNDE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS 462

PAGAN FAMILY 464

THE WYER FAMILY OF CHARLESTOWN 465

JEREMIAH POTE 467

EBENEZER CUTLER 468

APPENDIX

THE TRUE STORY CONCERNING THE KILLING OF THE TWO SOLDIERS
AT CONCORD BRIDGE, APRIL 19, 1775. THE FIRST BRITISH
SOLDIER KILLED IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR 471

THE ENGAGEMENT AT THE NORTH BRIDGE IN CONCORD WHERE
THE TWO SOLDIERS WERE KILLED 476

PAUL REVERE, THE SCOUT OF THE REVOLUTION 477

WILLIAM FRANKLIN, SON OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 481

THE ROYAL COAT OF ARMS 482

JUDGE MELLEN CHAMBERLAIN'S OPINION OF COLONEL THOMAS
GOLDTHWAITE 483

NOTE ON PELHAM'S MAP OF BOSTON 483

NOTE ON GOV. JOHN WINTHROP 483

LIST OF LOYALISTS WHOSE NAMES OR BIOGRAPHIES ARE NOT
FOUND IN THIS WORK 484

PELHAM'S MAP OF BOSTON IN POCKET IN THE BACK COVER.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

The author wishes to acknowledge the great assistance he has received
from the New England Historic Genealogical Society, of which he has been
a member for twenty-eight years,--whose library consisting of
biographies and genealogies is the most complete in America. Other
authorities consulted, have been the "Royalist" records in the original
manuscript preserved in the archives of the State of Massachusetts, the
Record Commissioners' Reports of the City of Boston, the Proceedings of
the Massachusetts Historical Society, and the numerous town histories,
and ancient records published in recent years, to the most important of
which he has acknowledged his obligations in the reference given, and
also to the Boston Athenaeum for the use of their paintings and
engravings, in making copies of same.

He also wishes to acknowledge the assistance rendered him by his
daughter, Mildred Manton Stark, in preparing many of the biographies,
also the assistance rendered by Mr. Thomas F. O'Malley, who prepared the
very copious index to this work, which will, he thinks be appreciated by
all historical students who may have occasion to use same.

James H Stark

ILLUSTRATIONS.

Thomas Hutchinson's Portrait, Opposite the title page.

James H. Stark, Portrait, Opposite page 7.

Landing of the Commissioners at Boston, 1664, " " 13.

Randolph threatened, " " 15.

Proclaiming King William and Queen Mary, " " 17.

Killing and scalping Father Rasle at Norridgewock, " " 32.

Reading the Stamp Act in King street, opposite the
State House, " " 37.

Andrew Oliver, Stamp Collector attacked by the Mob, " " 41.

Bostonians paying the Exciseman or Tarring and Feathering," " 49.

Colonel Mifflin's Interview with the Caughnawaga Indians, " " 89.

Cartoon illustrating Franklin's diabolical Scalp story, " " 91.

Burning of Newark, Canada, by United States Troops, " " 103.

Burning of Jay in Effigy, " " 105.

Map, Boundary line between Maine and New Brunswick, " " 115.

Governor Hutchinson's House Destroyed by the Mob, Page 155.

Benjamin Franklin Before the Privy Council, Opposite Page 165.

Views from Governor Hutchinson's Field, Page 168.

Governor Hutchinson's House on Milton Hill, " 170.

Inland View from Governor Hutchinson's House, " 171.

Andrew Oliver, portrait, Opposite page 181.

Andrew Oliver Mansion, Washington street, Dorchester, " " 183.

Thomas Oliver and John Vassall Mansion, Dorchester, " " 185.

Revolutionists Marching to Cambridge, " " 187.

Sir Francis Bernard, Portrait, " " 191.

Province House, " " 195.

Pepperell House, " " 210.

Reception of the American Loyalists in England, Page 214.

Arrest of William Franklin by order of Congress, Opposite page 215.

John Singleton Copley, Portrait, " " 218.

Lord Lyndhurst, Lord High Chancellor of England,
Portrait, " " 221.

King Hooper Mansion, Danvers, " " 223.

Admiral Sir Isaac Coffin, Portrait, " " 239.

Curwin House, Salem, Page 247.

Samuel Curwin, Portrait, Opposite page 253.

Country Residence of James Smith, Brush Hill, Milton, Page 256.

Birthplace of Benjamin Thompson, North Woburn, " 261.

Sir Benjamin Thompson, Portrait, Opposite page 267.

Rev. Mather Byles, D. D., Portrait, " " 277.

The Old Vassall House, Cambridge, " " 285.

Colonel John Vassall's Mansion, Cambridge, " " 289.

General Isaac Royall's Mansion, Medford, " " 293.

Major General Sir David Ochterlony, Portrait, " " 299.

British Troops preventing the destruction of New York, " " 303.

Landing a Bishop, Cartoon, " " 341.

Rev. Henry Caner, Portrait, " " 349.

Leonard Vassall and Frederick W. Geyer Mansion, " " 351.

Bishop's Palace, Residence of Rev. East Apthorp, " " 353.

Samuel Quincy, Portrait, " " 369.

Dr. John Jeffries, Portrait, " " 395.

Clark-Frankland House, " " 417.

Sir Roger Hale Sheaffe, Baronet, Portrait, " " 439.

The Engagement at the North Bridge in Concord, " " 471.

Monument to Commemorate the Skirmish at Concord Bridge, " " 475.

Pursuit and Capture of Paul Revere, " " 479.

Pelham Map of Boston, In the envelop of the back cover.

INTRODUCTION.

At the dedication of the monument erected on Dorchester Heights to
commemorate the evacuation of Boston by the British, the oration was
delivered by that Nestor of the United States Senate, Senator Hoar.

In describing the government of the colonies at the outbreak of the
Revolution, he made the following statement: "The government of England
was, in the main, a gentle government, much as our fathers complained of
it. Her yoke was easy and her burden was light; our fathers were a
hundred times better off in 1775 than were the men of Kent, the vanguard
of liberty in England. There was more happiness in Middlesex on the
Concord, than there was in Middlesex on the Thames."[1] A few years
later Hon. Edward B. Callender, a Republican candidate for mayor of
Boston, in his campaign speech said: "I know something about how this
city started. It was not made by the rich men or the so-called
high-toned men of Boston--they were with the other party, with the king;
they were Loyalists. Boston was founded by the ordinary man--by Paul
Revere, the coppersmith; Sam Adams, the poor collector of the town of
Boston, who did not hand over to the town even the sums he collected as
taxes; by John Hancock, the smuggler of rum; by John Adams, the
attorney, who naively remarked in his book that after the battle of
Lexington they never heard anything about the suits against John
Hancock. Those were settled."[2]

[1] Speech of Senator Hoar at South Boston, March 18, 1901.

[2] Speech of Hon. Edward B. Callender, at Dorchester, Nov. 10, 1905.

These words of our venerable and learned senator and our State Senator
Edward B. Callender, seemed strangely unfamiliar to us who had derived
our history of the Revolution from the school text-books. These had
taught us that the Revolution was due solely to the oppression and
tyranny of the British, and that Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hancock,
Otis, and the host of other Revolutionary patriots, had in a supreme
degree all the virtues ever exhibited by men in their respective
spheres, and that the Tories or Loyalists, such as Hutchinson, the
Olivers, Saltonstalls, Winslows, Quincys and others, were to be detested
and their memory execrated for their abominable and unpatriotic actions.

This led me to inquire and to examine whether there might not be two
sides to the controversy which led to the Revolutionary War. I soon
found that for more than a century our most gifted writers had almost
uniformly suppressed or misrepresented all matter bearing upon one side
of the question, and that it would seem to be settled by precedent that
this nation could not be trusted with all portions of its own history.
But it seemed to me that history should know no concealment. The people
have a right to the whole truth, and to the full benefit of unbiased
historical teachings, and if, in an honest attempt to discharge a duty
to my fellow citizens, I relate on unquestionable authority facts that
politic men have intentionally concealed, let no man say that I wantonly
expose the errors of the fathers.

In these days we are recognizing more fully than ever the dignity of
history, we are realizing that patriotism is not the sole and ultimate
object of its study, but the search for truth, and abiding by the truth
when found, for "the truth shall make you free" is an axiom that applies
here as always.

Much of the ill will towards England which until recently existed in
great sections of the American people, and which the mischief-making
politician could confidently appeal to, sprung from a false view of what
the American Revolution was, and the history of England was, in
connection with it. The feeling of jealousy and anger, which was born in
the throes of the struggle for independence, we indiscriminately
perpetuated by false and superficial school text-books. The influence of
false history and of crude one-sided history is enormous. It is a
natural and logical step that when our children pass from our schoolroom
into active life, feelings so born should die hard and at times become a
dangerous factor in the national life, and it is not too much to say
that the persistent ill will towards England as compared with the
universal kindliness of English feeling towards us, is to be explained
by the very different spirit in which the history of the American
Revolution is taught in the schools of one country and in those of the
other.

[Illustration: James H Stark with signature]

THE LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS

AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

CHAPTER I.

_THE FIRST CHARTER._

A nation's own experience should be its best political guide, but it is
not certain that as a people we have improved by all the teachings of
our own history, for the reason that our "patriot" writers and orators
mostly bound their vision in retrospect by the revolutionary era. And
yet, all beyond that is not dark, barren, and profitless to explore. It
should be known that the most important truths on which our free forms
of government now rest are not primarily the discoveries of the
revolutionary sages.

Writing of the Revolution, Mr. John Adams, the successor of Washington,
declared that it was his opinion that the Revolution "began as early as
the first plantation of the country," and that "independence of church
and state was the fundamental principle of the first colonization, has
been its principle for two hundred years, and now I hope is past
dispute. Who was the author, inventor, discoverer of independence? The
only true answer must be, the first emigrants." Before this time he had
declared that "The claim of the men of 1776 to the honor of first
conceiving the idea of American independence or of first inventing the
project of it, is ridiculous. I hereby disclaim all pretension to it,
because it was much more ancient than my nativity."

It was the inestimable fortune of our ancestors to have been taught the
difficulties of government in two distinct schools, under the Colonial
and Provincial charters, known as the first and second charters. The
Charter government as moulded and modelled by our ancestors, was as
perfect as is our own constitution of today. It was as tender of common
right, as antagonistic to special privilege to classes or interests, and
as sensitive, too, to popular impulses, good or evil. And it is thus in
all self-governing communities, that their weal or woe, being supposedly
in their own keeping, the freest forms of delegated government written
on parchment are in themselves no protection, but will be such
instruments of blessing or of destruction as may best gratify the
controlling influences or interests for the time being.

In tracing the origin and development of the sentiment and the desires,
the fears and the prejudices which culminated in the American
Revolution, in the separation of thirteen colonies from Great Britain,
it is necessary to notice the early settlement and progress of those New
England colonies in which the seeds of that Revolution were first sown
and nurtured to maturity. The Colonies of New England were the result of
two distinct emigrations of English Puritans, two classes of Puritans,
two distinct governments for more than sixty years--one class of these
emigrants, now known as the "Pilgrim Fathers," having first fled from
England to Holland, thence emigrated to New England in 1620 in "the
Mayflower," and named their place of settlement "New Plymouth." Here
they elected seven governors in succession, and existed under a
self-constituted government for seventy years. The second class was
called "Puritan Fathers." The first installment of their immigrants
arrived in 1629, under Endicott, the ancestor of Mr. Joseph
Chamberlain's wife. They were known as the "Massachusetts Bay Company,"
and their final capital was Boston, which afterwards became the capital
of the Province and of the State.

The characteristics of the separate and independent governments of these
two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant,
non-persecuting, and loyal to the King, during the whole period of its
seventy years' existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all
religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal, from the
beginning, to the government from which it held its Charter, and
sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of disaffection and hostility
to the Royal government until they grew and ripened into the harvest of
the American Revolution.

English Puritanism, transferred from England to the head of
Massachusetts Bay in 1629, presents the same characteristics which it
developed in England. In Massachusetts it had no competitor, it
developed its principles and spirit without restraint; it was absolute
in power from 1629 to 1689. During these sixty years it assumed
independence of the government to which it owed its corporate existence;
it made it a penal crime for any immigrant to appeal to England against
a local decision of courts or of government; it permitted no oath of
allegiance to the King, nor the administration of the laws in his name;
it allowed no elective franchise to any Episcopalian, Presbyterian,
Baptist, Quaker or Papist. Every non-member of the Congregational church
was compelled to pay taxes and bear all other Puritan burdens, but was
allowed no representation by franchise, nor had he eligibility for any
public office.

When the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Company emigrated from
England, they professed to be members of the Church of England, but
Endicott, who had imbibed views of church government and of forms of
worship, determined not to perpetuate here the worship of the
Established Church, to which he had professed to belong when he left
England, but to establish a new church with a new form of worship. He
seemed to have brought over some thirty of the immigrants to his new
scheme, but a majority either stood aloof from, or were opposed to his
extraordinary proceeding. Among the most noted adherents of the old
Church of the Reformation were two brothers, John and Samuel Brown, who
refused to be parties to this new and locally devised church revolution,
and resolved for themselves, their families, and such as thought with
them, to continue to worship God according to the custom of their
fathers.

It is the fashion of many American historians, as well as their echoes
in England, to apply epithets of contumely or scorn to these men. Both
the Browns were men of wealth, one a lawyer, the other a private
gentleman, and both of them were of a social position in England much
superior to that of Endicott. They were among the original patentees and
first founders of the colony; they were church reformers, but neither of
them a church revolutionist. The brothers were brought before the
Governor, who informed them that New England was no place for such as
they, and therefore he sent them both back to England, on the return of
the ships the same year.

Endicott resolved to admit of no opposition. They who could not be
terrified into silence were not commanded to withdraw, but were seized
and banished as criminals.[3]

[3] Mass. His. Soc. Vol. ix-3-5.

A year later John Winthrop was appointed to supersede Endicott as
Governor. On his departure with a fleet of eleven ships from England an
address to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England" was
published by Winthrop from his ship, the Arbella, disclaiming the acts
of some among them hostile to the Church of England, declaring their
obligations and attachment to it. He said: "We desire you would be
pleased to take notice of the principles and body of our Company as
those who esteem it an honor to call the Church of England, from whence
we rise, our dear Mother, and cannot part from our native countrie,
where she especially resideth, without much sadness of heart and many
tears in our eyes." It might be confidently expected that Mr. Winthrop,
after this address of loyalty and affection to his Father and Brethren
of the Church of England, would, on his arrival at Massachusetts Bay,
and assuming its government, have rectified the wrongs of Endicott and
his party, and have secured at least freedom of worship to the children
of his "dear Mother." But he did nothing of the kind; he seems to have
fallen in with the very proceedings of Endicott which had been
disclaimed by him in his address.

Thus was the first seed sown, which germinated for one hundred and
thirty years, and then ripened in the American Revolution. It was the
opening wedge which shivered the transatlantic branches from the parent
stock. It was the consciousness of having abused the Royal confidence,
and broken faith with their Sovereign, of having acted contrary to the
laws and statutes of England, that led the Government of Massachusetts
Bay to resist and evade all inquiries into their proceedings; to prevent
all evidence from being transmitted to England, and to punish as
criminals all who should appeal to England against any of their
proceedings; to claim, in short, independence and immunity from all
responsibility to the Crown for anything they did or might do. This
spirit of tyranny and intolerance, of proscription and persecution,
caused all the disputes with the parent Government, and all the
bloodshed on account of religion in Massachusetts, which its Government
inflicted in subsequent years, in contradistinction to the Governments
of Plymouth, Rhode Island, Connecticut and even Maryland.

The church government established by the Puritans at Boston was not a
government of free citizens elected by a free citizen suffrage, or even
of property qualification, but was the "reign of the church, the members
of which constituted but about one-sixth of the population, five-sixths
being mere helots bound to do the work and pay the taxes imposed upon
them by the reigning church but denied all eligibility to any office in
the Commonwealth." It was indeed such a "connection between church and
state" as had never existed in any Protestant country; it continued for
sixty years, until suppressed by a second Royal Charter, as will appear
in the next chapter.

The Puritans were far from being the fathers of American Liberty. They
neither understood nor practiced the first principles of civil and
religious liberty nor the rights of British subjects as then understood
and practiced in the land they had left "for conscience sake."

The first Charter obtained of Charles I. is still in existence, and can
be seen in the Secretary's Office at the State House, Boston. A
duplicate copy of this Charter was sent over in 1629 to Governor
Endicott, at Salem, and is now in the Salem Athenæum.

If the conditions of the Charter had been observed the colonists would
have been independent indeed, and would have enjoyed extraordinary
privileges for those times. They would have had the freest government in
the world. They were allowed to elect their own governor and members of
the General Court, and the government of the Colony was but little
different from that of the State today, so far as the rights conferred
by the charter were concerned. The people were subjects of the Crown in
name, but in reality were masters of their own public affairs. The
number of the early emigrants to New England who renounced allegiance to
the mother church was exceedingly small, for the obvious reason that it
was at the same time a renunciation of their allegiance to the Crown. A
company of restless spirits had been got rid of, and whether they
conformed to all the laws of church and state or not, they were three
thousand miles away and could not be easily brought to punishment even
if they deserved it, or be made to mend the laws if they broke them. The
restriction of subjecting those who wished to emigrate to the oaths of
allegiance and supremacy did not last long. Those who chose "disorderly
to leave the Kingdom" did so, and thus what they gained in that kind of
liberty is a loss to their descendants who happen to be antiquaries and
genealogists.

Under the charter they were allowed to make laws or ordinances for the
government of the plantation, which should not be repugnant to the laws
of England; all subjects of King Charles were to be allowed to come
here; and these emigrants and their posterity were declared "to be
natural-born subjects, and entitled to the immunities of Englishmen."
The time of the principal emigration was auspicious. The rise of the
civil war in England gave its rulers all the work they could do at home.
The accession of Oliver Cromwell to the Protectorate was regarded very
favorably by the colonists, who belonged to the same political party,
and they took advantage of this state of affairs to oppress all others
who had opinions different from their own. The Quakers, both men and
women, were persecuted, and treated with great severity; many were hung,
a number of them were whipped at the cart's tail through the town, and
then driven out into the wilderness; others had their ears cut off, and
other cruelties were perpetrated of a character too horrible to be here
related. It was in vain that these poor Quakers demanded wherein they
had broken any laws of England. They were answered with additional
stripes for their presumption, and not without good reason did they
exclaim against "such monstrous illegality," and that such "great
injustice was never heard of before." Magna Charta, they said, was
trodden down and the guaranties of the Colonial Charter were utterly
disregarded.

The following is a striking example of the very many atrocities
committed by the authorities at that time: "Nicholas Upshall, an old
man, full of years, seeing their cruelty to the harmless Quakers and
that they had condemned some of them to die, bothe he and Elder Wiswell,
or otherwise Deacon Wiswell, members of the church in Boston, bore their
testimony in publick against their brethren's horrid cruelty to said
Quakers. And Upshall declared, '_That he did look at it as a sad
forerunner of some heavy judgment to follow upon the country_.'... Which
they took so ill at his hands that they fined him twenty pounds and
three pound more at their courts, for not coming to this meeting and
would not abate him one grote, but imprisoned him and then banished him
on pain of death, which was done in a time of such extreme bitter
weather for frost, and snow, and cold, that had not the _Heathen
Indians_ in the wilderness woods taken compassion on his misery, for the
winter season, he in all likelihood had perished, though he had then in
Boston a good estate, in houses and land, goods and money, as also wife
and children, but not suffered to come unto him, nor he to them."[4]

[4] "Persecutors Maul'd With Their Own Weapons," p. 41. See also Court
Records, 1662.

After the death of Oliver Cromwell, Charles II. was proclaimed in London
the lawful King of England, and the news of it in due time reached
Boston. It was a sad day to many, and they received the intelligence
with sorrow and concern, for they saw that a day of retribution would
come. But there was no alternative, and the people of Boston made up
their minds to submit to a power they could not control. They, however,
kept a sort of sullen silence for a time, but fearing this might be
construed into contempt, or of opposition to the King, they formally
proclaimed him, in August, 1661, more than a year after news of the
Restoration had come. Meanwhile the Quakers in England had obtained the
King's ear, and their representations against the government at Boston
caused the King to issue a letter to the governor, requiring him to
desist from any further proceedings against them, and calling upon the
government here to answer the complaints made by the Quakers. A ship was
chartered, and Samuel Shattock, who had been banished, was appointed to
carry the letter, and had the satisfaction of delivering it to the
governor with his own hand. After perusing it, Mr. Endicott replied, "We
shall obey his Majesty's command," and then issued orders for the
discharge of all Quakers then in prison. The requisition of the king for
some one to appear to answer the complaints against the government of
Boston, caused much agitation in the General Court; and when it was
decided to send over agents, it was not an easy matter to procure
suitable persons, so sensible was everybody that the complaints to be
answered had too much foundation to be easily excused, or by any
subterfuge explained away. It is worthy of note that the two persons
finally decided upon (Mr. Bradstreet and Mr. Norton) were men who had
been the most forward in the persecutions of the Quakers. And had it not
been for the influence which Lord Saye and Seale of the king's Council,
and Col. Wm. Crowne, had with Charles II., the colony would have felt
his early and heavy displeasure. Col. Crowne was in Boston when Whalley
and Goffe, the regicides, arrived here, and he could have made
statements regarding their reception, and the persecution of the
Quakers, which might have caused the king to take an entirely different
course from the mild and conciliatory one which, fortunately for Boston,
was taken. Having "graciously" received the letter from the hands of the
agents, and, although he confirmed the Patent and Charter, objects of
great and earnest solicitude in their letter to him, yet "he required
that all their laws should be reviewed, and that such as were contrary
or derogatory to the king's authority should be annulled; that the oath
of allegiance should be administered; that administration of justice
should be in the king's name; that liberty should be given to all who
desired it, to use the Book of Common Prayer; in short, establishing
religious freedom in Boston." This was not all--the elective franchise
was extended "to all freeholders of competent estates," if they
sustained good moral characters.

[Illustration: LANDING OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT BOSTON, 1664.

The Royal Commissioners were appointed to hold Court and correct
whatever errors and abuses they might discover.]

The return of the agents to New England, bearing such mandates from the
king, was the cause of confusion and dismay to the whole country.
Instead of being thankful for such lenity, many were full of
resentment and indignation, and most unjustly assailed the agents for
failing to accomplish an impossibility.

Meanwhile four ships had sailed from Portsmouth, with about four hundred
and fifty soldiers, with orders to proceed against the Dutch in the New
Netherlands (New York), and then to land the commissioners at Boston and
enforce the king's authority. The Dutch capitulated, and the expedition
thus far was completely successful. The commissioners landed in Boston
on Feb. 15th, 1664, and held a Court to correct whatever errors and
abuses they might discover. The commission was composed of the following
gentlemen: Col. Richard Nichols, who commanded the expedition; Sir
Robert Carr, Col. Geo. Cartwright and Mr. Samuel Maverick. Maverick had
for several years made his home on Noddle Island (now known as East
Boston), but, like his friends, Blackstone of Beacon Hill and other of
the earliest settlers, had been so harshly and ungenerously treated by
the Puritan colonists of Boston that he was compelled to remove from his
island domain. An early adventurous visitor to these shores mentions him
in his diary as "the only hospitable man in all the country." These
gentlemen held a commission from the king constituting them
commissioners for visiting the colonies of New England, to hear and
determine all matters of complaint, and to settle the peace and security
of the country, any three or two of them being a quorum.

The magistrates of Boston having assembled, the commissioners made known
their mission, and added that so far was the king from wishing to
abridge their liberties, he was ready to enlarge them, but wished them
to show, by proper representation of their loyalty, reasons to remove
all causes of jealousy from their royal master. But it was of no avail;
the word loyalty had been too long expunged from their vocabulary to
find a place in it again. At every footstep the commissioners must have
seen that whatever they effected, and whatever impressions they made,
would prove but little better than footprints in the sand. The
government thought best to comply with their requirements, so far, at
least, as appearances were concerned. They therefore agreed that their
allegiance to the king should be published "by sound of trumpet;" that
Mr. Oliver Purchis should proclaim the same on horseback, and that Mr.
Thomas Bligh, Treasurer, and Mr. Richard Wait, should accompany him;
that the reading in every place should end with the words, "God save the
King!" Another requirement of the commissioners was that the government
should stop coining money; that Episcopalians should not be fined for
non-attendance at the religious meetings of the community, as they had
hitherto been; that they should let the Quakers alone, and permit them
to go about their own affairs. These were only a part of the
requirements, but they were the principal ones. Notwithstanding a
pretended acquiescence on the part of the government to the requests of
the commissioners, it was evident from the first that little could be
effected by them from the evasive manner in which all their orders and
recommendations were accepted. At length the commissioners found it
necessary to put the question to the Governor and Council direct,
"Whether they acknowledged his Majesty's Commission?" The Court sent
them a message, desiring to be excused from giving a direct answer,
inasmuch as their charter was their plea. Being still pressed for a
direct answer, they declared that "it was enough for them to give their
sense of the powers granted them by charter, and that it was beyond
their line to determine the power, intent, or purpose of his Majesty's
commission." The authorities then issued a proclamation calling upon the
people, in his Majesty's name (!), not to consent unto, or give
approbation to the proceedings of the King's Commission, nor to aid or
to abet them. This proclamation was published through the town by sound
of trumpet, and, oddly enough, added thereto "_God save the King_." The
commissioners then sent a threatening protest, saying they thought the
king and his council knew what was granted to them in their charter; but
that since they would misconstrue everything, they would lose no more of
their labor upon them; at the same time assuring them that their denial
of the king's authority, as vested in his commission, would be
represented to his Majesty only in their own words. The conduct of Col.
Nichols, at Boston, is spoken of in terms of high commendation; but
Maverick, Carr and Cartwright are represented as totally unfitted for
their business. It is, however, difficult to see how any commissioners,
upon such an errand, could have given greater satisfaction; for a
moment's consideration is sufficient to convince any one that the
difficulty was not so much in the commissioners, as in their
undertaking.

After the return of the commissioners to England the government
continued their persecutions of the Quakers, Baptists, Episcopalians,
and all others who held opinions differing from their own. The laws of
England regulating trade were entirely disregarded; the reason alleged
therefor being, "that the acts of navigation were an invasion of the
rights and privileges of the subjects of his Majesty's colony, they not
being represented in Parliament."

Again the king wrote to the authorities of Boston, requiring them not to
molest the people, in their worship, who were of the Protestant faith,
and directing that liberty of conscience should be extended to all. This
letter was dated July 24th, 1679. It had some effect on the rulers; but
they had become so accustomed to what they called interference from
England, and at the same time so successful in evading it, that to stop
now seemed, to the majority of the people, as well as the rulers, not
only cowardly, but an unworthy relinquishment of privileges which they
had always enjoyed, and which they were at all times ready to assert, as
guaranteed to them in their charter. However, there was a point beyond
which even Bostonians could not go, and which after-experience proved.

[Illustration: RANDOLPH THREATENED.

This Royal Commissioner reported that he was in danger of his life, and
that the authorities resolved to prosecute him as a subverter of their
government.]

Edward Randolph brought the king's letter to Boston, and was required to
make a report concerning the state of affairs in the colony, and to see
that the laws of England were properly executed; but he did not fare
well in his mission. He wrote home that every one was saying they were
not subject to the laws of England, and that those laws were of no force
in Massachusetts until confirmed by the Legislature of the colony.

Every day aggravated his disposition more strongly against the people,
who used their utmost endeavors to irritate his temper and frustrate his
designs. Any one supporting him was accounted an enemy of the country.

His servants were beaten while watching for the landing of contraband
goods. Going on board a vessel to seize it, he was threatened to be
knocked on the head, and the offending ship was towed away by Boston
boats. Randolph returned to England, reporting that he was in danger of
his life, and that the authorities were resolved to prosecute him as a
subserver of their government. If they could, they would execute him;
imprisonment was the least he expected. Well might the historian
exclaim, as one actually did, "To what a state of degradation was a king
of England reduced!" his commissioners, one after another, being
thwarted, insulted and obliged to return home in disgrace, and his
authority openly defied. What was the country to expect when this state
of affairs should be laid before the king? A fleet of men-of-war to
bring it to its duty? Perhaps some expected this; but there came again,
instead, the evil genius of the colony, Edward Randolph, bringing from
the king the dreaded _quo warranto_. This was Randolph's hour of
triumph; he said "he would now make the whole faction tremble," and he
gloried in their confusion and the success which had attended his
efforts to humble the people of Boston. To give him consequence a
frigate brought him, and as she lay before the town the object of her
employment could not be mistaken. An attempt was made, however, to
prevent judgment being rendered on the return of the writ of _quo
warranto_. An attorney was sent to England, with a very humble address,
to appease the king, and to answer for the country, but all to no
purpose. Judgment was rendered, and thus ended the first charter of
Massachusetts, Oct. 23rd, 1684.

CHAPTER II.

_THE SECOND CHARTER._

Charles II. died Feb. 6th, 1685, and was succeeded by his brother, James
II. News of this was brought to Boston by private letter, but no
official notification was made to the governor. In a letter to him,
however, he was told that he was not written to as governor, for as much
as now he had no government, the charter being vacated. These events
threw the people of Boston into great uncertainty and trouble as to what
they were in future to expect from England. Orders were received to
proclaim the new king, which was done "with sorrowful and affected
pomp," at the town house. The ceremony was performed in the presence of
eight military companies of the town, and "three volleys of cannon" were
discharged. Sir Edmund Andros, the new Royal Governor, arrived in Boston
Dec. 20th, 1686, and, as was to be expected, he was not regarded
favorably by the people, especially as his first act after landing was a
demand for the keys of the Old South Church "that they may say prayers
there." Such a demand from the new governor could not be tolerated by
the now superseded governing authority of Boston, and defy it they
would. The Puritan oligarchy stoutly objected to being deprived of the
right to withhold from others than their own sect the privileges of
religious liberty. To enjoy religious liberty in full measure they had
migrated from the home of their fathers, but in New England had become
more intolerant than the church which they had abandoned, and became as
arbitrary as the Spanish inquisition. Under direction of the king,
Andros had come to proclaim the equality of Christian religion in the
new colonies. Too evidently this was not what was wanted here.

At last came the news of the landing of the Prince of Orange in England
and the abdication of James the Second. The people of Boston rose
against Andros and his government and seized him and fifty of his
associates and confined them in the "Castle" until February, 1690, when
they were sent to England for trial; but having committed no offence,
they were discharged. Andros was received so favorably at home that
under the new administration he was appointed governor of Virginia and
Maryland. He took over with him the charter of William and Mary college,
and later laid the foundation stone of that great institution of
learning.

[Illustration: PROCLAIMING KING WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY, 1689.

This is said to have been the most joyful news ever before received in
Boston.]

Andros has never received justice from Massachusetts historians. Before
his long public career ended he had been governor of every Royal
Province in North America. His services were held in such high esteem
that he was honored with office by four successive monarchs.

It is gratifying to notice that at last his character and services are
beginning to be better appreciated in the provinces over which he ruled,
and we may hope that in time the Andros of partisan history will give
place, even in the popular narratives of colonial affairs, to the Andros
who really existed, stern, proud and uncompromising it is true, but
honest, upright and just; a loyal servant of the crown and a friend to
the best interests of the people.

Not only were the governor and all of his adherents arrested and thrown
into jail, but Captain George, of the Rose frigate, being found on
shore, was seized by a party of ship carpenters and handed over to the
guard.

So strong was the feeling against the prisoners that it was found
necessary to guard them against the infuriated people, lest they should
be torn into pieces by the mob. The insurrection was completely
successful, and the result was that the resumption of the charter was
once more affirmed. A general court was formed after the old model, and
the venerable Bradstreet was made governor. Nothing now seemed wanting
to the popular satisfaction but favorable news from England, and that
came in a day or two. On the 26th of May, 1689, a ship arrived from the
old country with an order to the Massachusetts authorities to proclaim
King William and Queen Mary. This was done on the 29th, and grave,
Puritanical Boston went wild with joy, and all thanked God that a
Protestant sovereign once more ruled in England. This has been said to
have been the most joyful news ever before received in Boston.

May 14, 1692, Sir William Phipps, a native of Massachusetts, arrived in
Boston from England, bringing with him the new Charter of the province,
and a commission constituting him governor of the same. Unfortunately he
countenanced and upheld the people in their delusion respecting
witchcraft, and confirmed the condemnation and execution of the victims.
The delusion spread like flames among dry leaves in autumn, and in a
short time the jails in Boston were filled with the accused. During the
prevalence of this moral disease, nineteen persons in the colony were
hanged, and one pressed to death. At last the delusion came to an end,
and the leaders afterwards regretted the part they had taken in it.

The new Charter of Massachusetts gave the Province a governor appointed
by the Crown. While preserving its assembly and its town organization,
it tended to encourage and develop, even in that fierce democracy, those
elements of a conservative party which had been called into existence
some years before by the disloyalty and tyranny of the ecclesiastical
oligarchy.

Thus, side by side with a group of men who were constantly regretting
their lost autonomy, and looking with suspicion and prejudice at every
action of the royal authorities, there arose another group of men who
constantly dwelt upon the advantages they derived from their connection
with the mother country. The Church of England also had at last waked up
to a sense of the spiritual needs of its children beyond the seas. Many
of the best of the laity forsook their separatist principles and
returned to the historic church of the old home. This influence tended
inevitably to maintain and strengthen the feeling of national unity in
those of the colonists who came under the ministration of the church. In
all the Royal Provinces there was an official class gradually growing
up, that was naturally imperial rather than local in its sympathy. The
war with the French, in which colonists fought side by side with
"regulars" in a contest of national significance, tended upon the whole
to intensify the sense of imperial unity.

"The people of Massachusetts Bay were never in a more easy and happy
situation than at the conclusion of the war with France in 1749. By
generous reimbursement of the whole charge of £183,000 incurred by the
expedition against Cape Breton, the English government set the Province
free from a heavy debt by which it must otherwise have remained
involved, and enabled by it to exchange a depreciating paper medium,
which had long been the sole instrument of trade, for a stable medium of
gold and silver. Soon the advantage of this relief from the heavy burden
of debt was apparent in all branches of their commerce, and excited the
envy of other colonies, in each of which paper was the principal
currency."[5]

[5] Hutchinson, History Mass. Bay, Vol. III., page 1.

The early part of the eighteenth century was filled with wars: France,
England and Spain were beginning to overrun the interior of North
America. Spain claimed a zone to the south, and France a vast territory
to the north and west of the English colonies. Each of the three
countries sought aid from the savage to carry on its enterprises and
depredations. While the English colonies were beset on the north by the
French, on the south by the Spaniards, on the west by native Indians
along the Alleghany Mountains, and were compelled to depend on the
"wooden walls of England" for the protection of their coasts, they were
then remarkably loyal to the Crown of England. Their representative
assemblies passed obsequious resolutions expressing loyalty and
gratitude to the King, and the people; and erected his statue in a
public place. This feeling of loyalty remained in the minds of a large
majority of the people down to the battle of Lexington.

In May, 1756, the English government, goaded by the constantly continued
efforts of the French to ignore her treaty obligations in Acadia, and
her ever-harrassing, irritating "pin-pricks" on the frontiers of the
English colonies, declared war against France. Long before this official
declaration the two countries had been, on this continent, in a state of
active but covert belligerency. Preparations for an inevitable conflict
were being made by both sides. French intrigue and French treachery were
met with English determination to defend the rights of the mother
country and of her children here. Money was pledged to the colonies to
aid in equipping militia for active service, and the local governments
and the inhabitants of every province became as enthusiastic as the home
government in the prosecution of war.

On the northern and western borders of New England and of New York,
along the thin fringe of advanced English settlements bordering
Pennsylvania and Virginia, Indians had long been encouraged or employed
in savage raids, and in Nova Scotia, which, by the treaty of Utrecht had
been ceded to England, systematic opposition to English occupation was
constantly kept up.

Intriguing agents of the French government, soldiers, priests of the
"Holy Catholic" church--all were active in a determined effort to check
and finally crush out the menacing influence and prosperity of the
growing English colonies.

The ambushing and slaughter of Braddock's force on the Monongahela, the
removal of Acadians from Annapolis Valley, the defeat of Dieskau at
Crown Point, the siege and occupation of Fort Beausejour, all occurred
before the formal declaration of war. Clouds were gathering. Men of
fighting age of the English colonies volunteered in thousands; British
regiments, seasoned in war, were brought from the old country to the
new, and with them and after them came ships innumerable. A fight for
life of the English colonies was at hand. The brood of the mistress of
the seas must not be driven into the ocean. France must be compelled to
give pledges for the performance of her treaty engagements or find
herself without a foothold in the country.

With the hour came the man. Under the direction of the greatest war
minister England had ever seen, or has since seen, William Pitt, the
"Great Commoner," war on France was begun in earnest.

At first a few successes were achieved by the French commanders. Fort
William Henry, with its small garrison, surrendered to Montcalm, and
Abercrombie's expedition to Fort Ticonderoga was a disastrous failure.
But the tide of battle soon turned.

The beginning of the end came in 1758. Louisbourg, the great fortress
which France had made "The Gibraltar of the West," became a prize to the
army and navy of Britain. New England soldiers formed a part of the
investing force on land, and their record in the second capture of
Louisbourg was something to be proud of. Fort Frontenac, on Lake
Ontario, was taken, together with armed vessels and a great collection
of stores and implements of war. Fort Duquesne, a strongly fortified
post of the French, whose site is now covered by the great manufacturing
city of Pittsburgh, surrendered to a British force. For many years after
it was known as Fort Pitt, so called in honor of the great minister
under whose compelling influence the war against France had become so
mighty a success.

In 1759, General Wolfe, who had been the leading spirit in the siege of
Louisbourg, was placed in command of an expedition for the capture of
Quebec. Next after Louisbourg, Quebec was by nature and military art the
strongest place in North America. The tragic story of the capture of
Quebec has been so often told that it is not necessary for us to repeat
it here.

Of the long, impatient watch by Wolfe, from the English fleet, for
opportunity to disembark his small army, drifting with the tides of the
St. Lawrence, passing and repassing the formidable citadel, the stealthy
midnight landing at the base of a mighty cliff, the hard climb of armed
men up the wooded height, and the assembly, in early morning mist, on
the Plains of Abraham, are not for us to write of here. In the glowing
pages of Parkman all this is so thrillingly described that we need not
say more of the most dramatic and most pathetic story in all American
history, than that Quebec fell, and with it, in short time, fell the
whole power of France in North America.

In the following year (September 8, 1760), Montreal, the last stronghold
of the French in Canada, capitulated to Sir Jeffrey Amherst, who had
ascended the St. Lawrence with a force of about 10,000 men, comprising
British regiments of the line artillery, rangers and provincial
regiments from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The provincial
contingent numbered above four thousand.

With the fall of Montreal the seven years' fight for supremacy was
ended.

Such a defeat to proud France was a bitter experience, and definite
settlement of the terms of peace, which Great Britain was able to
dictate, was not made until, on the 10th of February, 1763, the treaty
of Paris was signed.

By this treaty to Great Britain was ceded all Canada, Nova Scotia, Cape
Breton and the West India Islands of Dominica, St. Vincent, Tobago and
Grenada. Minorca was restored to Great Britain, and to her also was
given the French possession of Senegal in Western Africa. In India,
where the French had obtained considerable influence, France was bound
by this treaty to raise no fortifications and to keep no military force
in Bengal. To remove the annoyance which Florida had long been to the
contiguous English colonies, that province of Spain was transferred to
the English in exchange for Havana, which had been only recently wrested
from the occupation of Spain by the brilliant victory of Pocock and
Albamarle.

And so 1763 saw the British flag peacefully waving from the Gulf of
Mexico to the northern shores of Hudson's Bay. The coast of the Atlantic
was protected by the British navy, and the colonists had no longer
foreign enemies to fear.

For this relief the colonists gave warm thanks to the king and to
parliament. Massachusetts voted a costly monument in Westminster Abbey
in memory of Lord Howe, who had fallen in the campaign against Canada.
The assembly of the same colony, in a joyous address to the governor,
declared that without the assistance of the parent state the colonies
must have fallen a prey to the power of France, and that without money
sent from England the burden of the war would have been too great to
bear. In an address to the king they made the same acknowledgment, and
pledged themselves to demonstrate their gratitude by every possible
testimony of duty and loyalty. James Otis expressed the common sentiment
of the hour when, upon being chosen moderator of the first town meeting
held in Boston after the peace, he declared: "We in America have
certainly abundant reason to rejoice. Not only are the heathen driven
out, but the Canadians, much more formidable enemies, are conquered and
become fellow subjects. The British dominion and power can now be said
literally to extend from sea to sea and from the Great River to the ends
of the earth." And after praising the wise administration of His
Majesty, and lauding the British constitution to the skies, he went on
to say: "Those jealousies which some weak and wicked minds endeavored to
infuse with regard to these colonies, had their birth in the blackness
of darkness, and it is a great pity that they had not remained there
forever. The true interests of Great Britain and her plantation are
mutual, and what God in his providence has united, let no man dare
attempt to pull asunder."

In June, 1763, a confederation, including several Indian tribes,
suddenly and unexpectedly swept over the whole western frontier of
Pennsylvania and Virginia. They murdered almost all the English settlers
who were scattered beyond the mountains, surprised every British fort
between the Ohio and Lake Erie, and closely blockaded Forts Detroit and
Pitt. In no previous war had the Indians shown such skill, tenacity, and
concert, and had there not been British troops in the country the whole
of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland would have been overrun.

The war lasted fourteen months, and most of the hard fighting was done
by English troops, assisted by militia from some of the Southern
colonies. General Amherst called upon the New England colonies to help
their brethren, but his request was almost disregarded. Connecticut sent
250 men, but Massachusetts, being beyond the zone of immediate danger,
would give no assistance. After a war of extreme horror, peace was
signed September, 1764. In a large degree by the efforts of English
soldiers Indian territory was rolled back, and one more great service
was rendered by England to her colonies, and also the necessity was
shown for a standing army.[6]

[6] Trumbull's "His. of the U. S.," 445-467. Hildreth, Graham,
Hutchinson.

The "French and Indian War," as it was commonly called, waged with so
much energy and success, doubled the national debt of England and made
taxation oppressive in that country. The war had been waged mainly for
the benefit of the colonists, and as it was necessary to maintain a
standing army to protect the conquered territory, it was considered but
reasonable that part of the expense should be borne by the Americans.
This was especially so in view that the conquest of Canada had been a
prime object of statesmen and leading citizens of the colonies for many
years.

It has been said on good authority that Franklin brought about the
expedition against Canada that ended with Wolfe's victory on the Plains
of Abraham. In all companies and on all occasions he had urged conquest
of Canada as an object of the utmost importance. He said it would
inflict a blow upon the French power in America from which it would
never recover, and would have lasting influence in advancing the
prosperity of the British colonies. Franklin was one of the shrewdest
statesmen of the age. After egging England on to the capture of Canada
from the French, and then removing the most dreaded enemy of the
colonies, he won the confidence of the court and people of France, and
obtained their aid to deprive England of the best part of a continent.
He was genial, thrifty, and adroit, and his jocose wisdom was never more
tersely expressed than when he advised the signers of the Declaration of
Independence to "hang together or they would hang separately."

At the conclusion of the Peace of Paris in 1763, Great Britain had
ceased to be an insular kingdom, and had become a world-wide empire,
consisting of three grand divisions: the British Islands, India, and a
large part of North America. In Ireland an army of ten or twelve
thousand men were maintained by Irish resources, voted by an Irish
Parliament and available for the general defence of the empire. In India
a similar army was maintained by the despotic government of the East
India Company. English statesmen believed that each of these great parts
of the empire should contribute to the defence of the whole, and that
unless they should do so voluntarily it was their opinion, in which the
great lawyers of England agreed, that power to force contributions
resided in the Imperial Parliament at Westminster, and should be
exercised. It was thought that an army of ten thousand men was necessary
to protect the territory won from France and to keep the several tribes
of American Indians in subjection, especially as it was believed that
the French would endeavor to recapture Canada at the first opportunity.

Americans, it should be remembered, paid no part of the interest on the
national debt of England, amounting to one hundred and forty million
pounds, one-half of which had been contracted in the French and Indian
war. America paid nothing to support the navy that protected its coasts,
although the American colonies were the most prosperous and lightly
taxed portion of the British Empire. Grenville, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, asked the Americans to contribute one hundred thousand pounds
a year, about one-third of the expense of maintaining the proposed army,
and about one-third of one percent of the sum we now pay each year for
pensions. He promised distinctly that the army should never be required
to serve except in America and the West India islands, but he could not
persuade the colonists to agree among themselves on a practical plan for
raising the money, and so it was proposed to resort to taxation by act
of Parliament. At the time he made this proposal he assured the
Americans that the proceeds of the tax should be expended solely in
America, and that if they would raise the money among themselves in
their own way he would be satisfied. He gave them a year to consider the
proposition. At the end of the year they were as reluctant as ever to
tax themselves for their own defence or submit to taxation by act of
Parliament. Then the stamp act was passed--it was designed to raise one
hundred thousand pounds a year, and then the trouble began that led to
the dismemberment of the empire. Several acute observers had already
predicted that the triumph of England over France would be soon followed
by a revolt of the colonies. Kalm, the Swedish traveller, contended in
1748 that the presence of the French in Canada, by making the English
colonists depend for their security on the support of the mother
country, was the main cause of the submission of the colonies. A few
years later Argenson, who had left some of the most striking political
predictions upon record, foretold in his Memoirs that the English
colonies in America would one day rise against the mother country, that
they would form themselves into a republic and astonish the world by
their prosperity. The French ministers consoled themselves for the Peace
of Paris by the reflection that the loss of Canada was a sure prelude to
the independence of the colonies, and Vergennes, the sagacious French
ambassador at Constantinople, predicted to an English traveller, with
striking accuracy, the events that would occur. "England," he said,
"will soon repent having removed the only check that would keep her
colonies in awe. They stand no longer in need of her protection; she
will call upon them to contribute towards supporting the burden they
have helped to bring on her, and they will answer by striking off all
dependence."[7]

[7] Bancroft's His. of the U.S., Vol. I., 525.

It is not to be supposed that Englishmen were wholly blind to this
danger. One of the ablest advocates of the retention of Canada was Lord
Bath, who published a pamphlet on the subject, which had a very wide
influence and a large circulation.[8] There were, however, some
politicians who maintained that it would be wiser to restore Canada and
to retain Guadaloupe, St. Lucia, and Martinique. This view was supported
with distinguished talent in an anonymous reply to Lord Bath.

[8] "Letters to Two Great Men on the Prospect of Peace."

This writer argued "that we had no original right to Canada, and that
the acquisition of a vast, barren, and almost uninhabited country lying
in an inhospitable climate, and with no commerce except that of furs and
skins, was economically far less valuable to England than the
acquisition of Guadaloupe, which was one of the most important of the
sugar islands. The acquisition of these islands would give England the
control of the West Indies, and it was urged that an island colony is
more advantageous than a continental one, for it is necessarily more
dependent upon the mother country. In the New England provinces there
are already colleges and academies where the American youths can
receive their education. America produces or can easily produce almost
everything she wants. Her population and her wealth are rapidly
increasing, and as the colonies recede more and more from the sea, the
necessity of their connection with England will steadily diminish. They
will have nothing to expect, they must live wholly by their own labor,
and in process of time will know little, inquire little, and care
little, about the mother country. If the people of our colonies find no
check from Canada they will extend themselves almost without bounds into
inland parts. What the consequences will be to have a numerous, hardy,
independent people, possessed of a strong country, communicating little,
or not at all, with England, I leave to your own reflections. By eagerly
grasping at extensive territory we may run the risk, and that, perhaps,
in no distant period, of losing what we now possess. The possession of
Canada, far from being necessary to our safety, may in its consequences
be even dangerous. A neighbor that keeps us in some awe is not always
the worst of neighbors; there is a balance of power in America as well
as in Europe."[9]

[9] Remarks on the Letter Addressed to Two Great Men. Pp. 30-31.

These views are said to have been countenanced by Lord Hardwicke, but
the tide of opinion ran strongly in the opposite direction; the nations
had learned to look with pride and sympathy upon that greater England
which was growing up beyond the Atlantic, and there was a desire, which
was not ungenerous or ignoble, to remove at any risk the one obstacle to
its future happiness. These arguments were supported by Franklin, who in
a remarkable pamphlet sketched the great undeveloped capabilities of the
colonies, and ridiculed the "visionary fear" that they would ever
combine against England. "This jealousy of each other," he said, "is so
great that, however necessary a union of the colonies has long been for
their common defence and security against their enemies, yet they have
never been able to effect such a union among themselves. If they cannot
agree to unite for defence against the French and Indians, can it
reasonably be supposed there is any danger of their uniting against
their own nation, which protects and encourages them, with which they
have so many connections and ties of blood, interest, and affection, and
which it is well known, they all love _much more than they love one
another_."[10]

[10] Canada Pamphlet, Franklin's Works, IV., 41-42.

Within a few years after Franklin made this statement he did more than
any other man living to carry into effect the "visionary fear" which he
had ridiculed.

The denial that independence was the object sought for was constant and
general. To obtain concessions and to preserve connection with the
empire was affirmed everywhere. John Adams, the successor of Washington
to the presidency, years after the peace of 1783 went farther than this,
for he said, "There was not a moment during the Revolution when I would
not have given everything I possessed for a restoration to the state of
things before the contest began, provided we could have had a sufficient
security for its continuance."

In the summer of 1774, Franklin assured Chatham that there was no desire
among the colonists for independence. He said: "Having more than once
travelled almost from one end of the continent to the other, and kept a
variety of company, eating and conversing with them freely, I have never
heard in any conversation from any person, drunk or sober, the least
wish for a separation or a hint that such a thing would be advantageous
to America."

Mr. Jay is quite as explicit: "During the course of my life," said he,
"and until the second petition of Congress in 1775, I never did hear an
American of any class or of any description express a wish for the
independence of the colonies."

Mr. Jefferson affirmed: "What eastward of New York might have been the
disposition towards England before the commencement of hostilities I
know not, but before that I never heard a whisper of a disposition to
separate from Great Britain, and after that its possibility was
contemplated with affliction by all."

Washington in 1774 fully sustains their declarations, and in the
"Fairfax County Resolves" it was complained that "malevolent falsehoods"
were propagated by the ministry to prejudice the mind of the king,
particularly that there is an intention in the American colonies to set
up for independent state.

Mr. Madison says: "It has always been my impression that a
re-establishment of the colonial relations to the mother country, as
they were previous to the controversy, was the real object of every
class of the people till they despaired of obtaining redress for their
grievances."

This feeling among the revolutionists is corroborated by DuPortail, a
secret agent of the French government. In a letter dated 1778 he says:
"There is a hundred times more enthusiasm for the revolution in a
coffee-house at Paris than in all the colonies united. This people,
though at war with the English, hate the French more than they hate
them; we prove this every day, and notwithstanding everything that
France has done or can do for them, they will prefer a reconciliation
with their ancient brethren. If they must needs be dependent, they had
rather be so on England."

Again, as late as March, 1775, only a month before the outbreak of
hostilities at Lexington, John Adams wrote: "That there are any that
hunt after independence is the greatest slander on the Province."

This feeling must have arisen from gratitude for the protection afforded
by the mother country, or at least satisfaction with the relations then
existing. It is true, as has been shown in a previous chapter, that for
some years before the English Revolution, and for some years after the
accession of William and Mary, the relations of the colonies to England
had been extremely tense, but in the long period of unbroken Whig rule
which followed, most of the elements of discontent had subsided. The
wise neglect of Walpole and Newcastle was eminently conducive to
colonial interests. The substitution in several colonies of royal for
proprietary government was very popular. There were slight differences
in the colonial forms of government, but everywhere the colonists paid
their governor and their other officials. In nearly every respect they
governed themselves, under the shadow of British dominion, with a
liberty not equalled in any other portion of the civilized globe; real
constitutional liberty was flourishing in the English colonies when all
European countries and their colonies were despotically governed. The
circumstances and traditions of the colonists had made them extremely
impatient of every kind of authority, but there is no reason for
doubting that they were animated by a real attachment to England. Their
commercial intercourse, under the restructions of the navigation laws,
was mainly with her. Their institutions, their culture, their religion,
their ideas were derived from English sources. They had a direct
interest in the English war against France and Spain. They were proud of
their English lineage, of English growth in greatness, and of English
liberty. On this point there is a striking answer made by Franklin in
his crafty examinations before the House of Commons in February, 1766.
In reply to the question, "What was the temper of America towards Great
Britain before the year 1763?" he said, "The best in the world. They
submitted willingly to the government of the crown, and paid their
courts obedience to the Acts of Parliament. Numerous as the people are
in the several old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts, citadels,
garrisons, or armies to keep them in subjection, they were governed by
this country at the expense only of a little pen, ink, and paper; they
were led by a thread. They had not only a respect, but an affection for
Great Britain, for its laws, its customs, and manners, and even a
fondness for its fashions that greatly increased the commerce. Natives
of Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an 'Old
England' man was of itself a character of some respect and gave a kind
of rank among us." In reply to the question, "What is their temper now?"
he said, "Very much altered." It is interesting to inquire what happened
during the three years intervening to change the temper of the
colonists.

CHAPTER III.

_CAUSES THAT LED TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION._

One of the principal causes that led to the American Revolution was the
question of what was lawful under the constitution of the British
empire, and what was expedient under the existing circumstances of the
colonies. It was the contention of the American Whigs that the British
parliament could not lawfully tax the colonies, because by so doing it
would be violating an ancient maxim of the British constitution: "No
taxation without representation."

On the contrary, many of the profoundest constitutional lawyers of
America as well as of England, both rejected the foregoing contention,
and at the same time admitted the soundness and the force of the
venerable maxim upon which the contention was alleged to rest, but the
most of them denied that the maxim was violated by the acts of
parliament laying taxation upon the colonies. Here everything depends on
the meaning to be attached to the word "representation"--and that
meaning is to be ascertained by examining what was understood by the
word in England at the time when this old maxim originated, and in
subsequent ages during which it had been quoted and applied. During this
whole period the idea was that representation in parliament was
constituted not through any uniform distribution among individual
persons, but rather through a distribution of such privileges among
certain organized communities, as counties, cities, boroughs, and
universities. Very few people in England then had votes for members of
the house of commons--only one-tenth of the population of the entire
realm. Such was the state of the electoral system that entire
communities, such as the cities of Leeds, Halifax, Birmingham,
Manchester, and Liverpool, communities which were as populous and as
rich as entire provinces in America, and yet they had no vote whatever
for members of parliament. The people of these several communities in
England did not refuse to pay taxes levied by act of parliament, because
of that reason. It is still a principle of parliamentary representation
that from the moment a member is thus chosen to sit in parliament, he is
the representative of the whole empire, and not of his particular
constituency. He "is under no obligation, therefore, to follow
instructions from the voters or the inhabitants of the district from
which he is chosen. They have no legal means of enforcing instructions.
They cannot demand his resignation. Moreover, members of the house of
lords represent, in principle, the interest of the whole empire and of
all classes, as truly as the Commons."[11] Therefore the historic
meaning of the word "representation," as the word has always been used
in English constitutional experience, seemed to justify the Loyalist
contention that the several organized British communities in America, as
an integral part of the British empire, were to all intents and purposes
represented in the British parliament, which sat at the capital as the
supreme council of the whole empire and exercised legislative authority
coextensive with the boundaries of that empire. The Loyalists admitted
that for all communities of British subjects, both in England and
America, the existing representation was very imperfect; that it should
be reformed and made larger and more uniform, and they were ready and
anxious to join in all forms of constitutional agitation under the
leadership of such men as Chatham, Camden, Burke, Barre, Fox and Pitt,
to secure such reform, and not for a rejection of the authority of the
general government, nullification, and disruption of the empire.
Accordingly, when certain English commoners in America at last rose up
and put forward the claim that merely because they had no votes for
members of the house of commons, therefore that house did not represent
them, and therefore they could not lawfully be taxed by parliament, this
definition of the word "representation" up to that time had never been
given to it in England or enjoyed by commoners in England. Nine-tenths
of the people of England did not vote. Had not those British subjects in
England as good a right as these British subjects in America to deny
they were represented in parliament, and that they could not be lawfully
taxed by parliament? It was the right and duty of the imperial
legislature to determine in what proportion the different parts of the
empire should contribute to the defence of the whole, and to see that no
one part evaded its obligation and unjustly transferred its part to
others. The right of taxation was established by a long series of legal
authorities, and there was no real distinction between internal and
external taxation. It now suited colonists to describe themselves as
apostles of liberty and to denounce England as an oppressor. It was a
simple truth that England governed her colonies more liberally than any
other country in the world. They were the only existing colonies which
enjoyed real political liberty. Their commercial system was more liberal
than that of any other colony. They had attained under British rule to a
degree of prosperity which was surpassed in no quarter of the globe.
England had loaded herself with debt in order to remove one great danger
to their future; she cheerfully bore the whole burden of their
protection by sea. At the Peace of Paris she had made their interests
the very first object of her policy, and she only asked them in return
to bear a portion of the cost of their own defence. Less than eight
millions of Englishmen were burdened with a national debt of 140,000,000
pounds. The united debt of about three millions of Americans was now
less than 800,000 pounds. The annual sum the colonists were asked to
contribute was less than 100,000, with an express condition that no part
of that sum should be devoted to any other purpose than the defence and
protection of the colonies, and the country which refused to bear this
small tax was so rich that in the space of three years it had paid off
1,755,000 pounds of its debt. No demand could be more moderate and
equitable than that of England. The true motive of the resistance was a
desire to pay as little as possible and to throw as much as possible
upon the mother country. Nor was the mode of resistance more
honorable--the plunder of private houses, and custom-houses, and mob
violence, connived at and unpunished. This was the attitude of the
colonies within two years after the Peace of Paris, and these were the
fruits of the new sense of security which British triumphs in Canada had
given to the colonists.

[11] John W. Burgess, "Political Science and Comparative Constitutional
Law," 67-68, also 65-69.

This is a brief statement and a fair one of the principal arguments of
the Loyalists. Certainly the position taken by them was a very strong
one. A learned American writer upon law, one of the justices of the
Supreme Court of the United States, in referring to the decision of
Chief Justice Hutchinson sustaining the legality of the writs of
assistance, gave this opinion: "A careful examination of the question
compels the conclusion that there was at least reasonable ground for
holding, as a matter of mere law, that the British parliament had power
to bind the colonies."[12] This view has been sustained by the highest
English authorities upon British constitutional law, from the time of
Lord Mansfield to the present. "As a matter of abstract right," says Sir
Vernon Harcourt, "the mother country has never parted with the claim of
ultimate supreme authority for the imperial legislature. If it did so,
it would dissolve the imperial tie, and convert the colonies into
foreign and independent states." It is now apparent that those Americans
who failed in their honest and sacrificial championship of measures that
would have given us political reform and political safety, but without
civil war, and without an angry disruption of the English-speaking race
can justly be regarded as having been, either in doctrine or in purpose,
or in act, an unpatriotic party, and yet even at the present time it is
by no means easy for Americans, if they be descended from men who fought
in behalf of the Revolution, to take a disinterested attitude, that is
an historical one towards those Americans who thought and fought against
the Revolution.

[12] Horace Gray, Quincy's Mass. Reports, 1761-62, Appendix I., page
540.

No candid historian, however, now contends that the government of
England had done anything prior to the commencement of the Revolutionary
War that justified a Declaration of Independence; for, as previously
stated, the amount of taxes required by Parliament was moderate, the
money was needed for a proper purpose, and it seemed there was no other
way of obtaining it.

Another important factor in the causes of the American Revolution was
the so-called "Quebec Act." This act John Adams asserted constituted a
"frightful system," and James Rowdoin pronounced it to be "an act for
encouraging and establishing Popery." The policy of this legislation may
be doubted. Of its justice there can be no doubt. The establishment of
the Catholic clergy in Canada and their resultant domination has
entailed many disadvantages upon the governing powers of the dominion.
But at the time the law was passed it was a simple act of justice. Had
Parliament refused to do this it would have been guilty of that tyranny
charged against it by the Revolutionists, and today the dominion would
not be a part of the British Empire. To the student of American history
it at first seems very strange and unaccountable why at the outbreak of
the Revolution, the recently conquered French provinces were not the
first to fly to arms, especially as their mother country, France, had
espoused the cause of the Revolutionists. Instead of this the French
Canadians remained loyal to their conqueror and resisted by force of
arms all attempts to conquer Canada. The explanation of this curious
state of affairs is the "Quebec Act."

By this act the French Canadians were to retain their property, their
language, their religion, their laws, and to hold office. In fact, they
were allowed greater liberty than they had when subject to France. All
this was allowed them by the British Parliament, and this was resented
by the English colonists, for they were not allowed to confiscate their
lands and drive out the inhabitants as the New Englanders did when they
conquered Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. They
also claimed that by the laws of the realm Roman Catholics could not
vote, much less hold office. At a meeting of the first Continental
Congress, held October 21, 1774, an address to the people of Great
Britain was adopted, setting forth the grievances of the colonies, the
principal one of which was as follows:

"Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British Parliament should
ever consent to establish in that country a religion that has deluged
your island in blood and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder
and rebellion through every part of the world, and we think the
legislature of Great Britain is not authorized to establish a religion
fraught with such sanguinary and infamous tenets."

This act also granted the Catholic clergy a full parliamentary title to
their old ecclesiastical estates, and to tithes paid by members of their
own religion, but no Protestant was obliged to pay tithes. It provided
for a provincial governing council in which Catholics were eligible to
sit, and it established the Catholic clergy securely in their livings.
There were then in the Province of Quebec two hundred and fifty
Catholics to one Protestant[13]. Surely it would have been a monstrous
perversion of justice to have placed this vast majority under the
domination of this petty minority, it would have degraded the Catholics
into a servile caste and reproduced in America, in a greatly aggravated
form, the social conditions which existed in Ireland, but those
determined sticklers for freedom of conscience and "the right of
self-government," those clamorers for the liberty of mankind, the
disunion propagandists, were horrified at the bestowal of any "freedom"
or "right" upon a people professing a religion different from their
own. "The friends of America" in England, Chatham, Fox, Burke, Barre and
others, joined them in their denunciation of the act, the last named
especially deprecating the "Popish" measure.

[13] In the debates on the Canadian bill in 1779, it was stated that
there were but 365 Protestants and 150,000 Catholics within the Province
of Quebec.

On February 15, 1776, it was resolved that a committee of three, "two of
whom should be members of congress," be appointed to pursue such
instructions as shall be given them by that body.[14] Benjamin Franklin,
Samuel Chase and Chas. Carroll were chosen for this purpose, and John
Carroll, a Jesuit, who afterwards became the first Roman Catholic
Archbishop of the United States, accompanied them. The two Carrolls were
chosen because they were Catholics, but they were not justified in
joining an expedition that might kindle the flame of religious war on
the Catholic frontier. The commissioners carried with them an "Address
to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec"[15] from Congress, which
for cool audacity and impertinence can scarcely be paralleled. It
commenced with "We are too well acquainted with the liberality of
sentiment distinguishing your natures to imagine that difference of
religion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us," etc.

[14] Washington's Writings, Vol. III., page 361.

[15] Debates, etc., page 603.

The address from the Continental Congress was translated into French and
was very favorably received. They then begged the translator, as he had
succeeded so well, to try his hand on that addressed to Great Britain.
He had equal success in this, and read his performance to a numerous
audience. But when he came to that part which treats of the new
modelling of the province, draws a picture of the Catholic religion and
Canadian manners, they could not restrain their resentment nor express
it except in broken curses. "O the perfidious, double-faced Congress!
Let us bless and obey our benevolent prince, whose humanity is
consistent and extends to all religions. Let us abhor all who would
seduce us from our loyalty by acts that would dishonor a Jesuit, and
whose address, like their resolves, is destructive of their own
objects."

While the commissioners were applying themselves with the civil
authorities, Rev. Mr. Carroll was diligently employed with the clergy,
explaining to them that the resistance of the united colonies was caused
by the invasion of their charter by England. To this the clergy replied
that since the acquisition of Canada by the British government its
inhabitants had no aggression to complain of, that on the contrary the
government had faithfully complied with all the stipulations of the
treaty, and had in fact sanctioned and protected the laws and customs of
Canada with a delicacy that demanded their respect and gratitude, and
that on the score of religious liberty the British government had left
them nothing to complain of.

And therefore that when the well-established principle that allegiance
is due to protection, the clergy could not teach that even neutrality
was consistent with the allegiance due to such ample protection as
Great Britain had shown the Catholics of Canada. The judicious and
liberal policy of the British government to the Catholics had succeeded
in inspiring them with sentiments of loyalty which the conduct of the
people and the public bodies of some of the united colonies had served
to strengthen and confirm. Mr. Carroll was also informed that in the
colonies whose liberality he was now avouching, the Catholic religion
had not been tolerated hitherto. Priests were excluded under severe
penalties and Catholic missionaries among the Indians rudely and cruelly
treated.

John Adams, who was a member of the congress that sent the commissioners
to Canada, in a letter to his wife, did not state the true reason for
sending a Jesuit priest there, and also warned her against divulging the
fact that a priest had been sent, for fear of offending his
constituents[16]

He wrote as follows:--

"Mr. John Carroll of Maryland, a Roman Catholic priest and a Jesuit, is
to go with the committee, the priests of Canada having refused baptism
and absolution to our friends there. Your prudence will direct you to
communicate the circumstances of the priest, the Jesuit, and the Romish
religion, only to such persons as can judge of the measure upon large
and generous principles, and will not indiscreetly divulge it."[16]

[16] Letter of John Adams to his wife, Vol. I., page 86.

John Adams also wrote: "We have a few rascally Jacobites and Roman
Catholics in this town (Braintree), but they do not dare to show
themselves."[17]

[17] Life and Works of John Adams, Vol. IX., page 335.

[Illustration: KILLING AND SCALPING OF FATHER RASLE AT NORRIDGEWOCK

By Massachusetts scalp hunters, £100 bounty was offered for the scalp of
a male Indian, and £50 for that of women or children.]

To any statesman who looked into the question inquiringly and with clear
vision, it must have appeared evident that, if the English colonies
resolved to sever themselves from the British Empire, it would be
impossible to prevent them. Their population was said to have doubled in
twenty-five years. They were separated from the mother country by three
thousand miles of water, their seaboard extended for more than one
thousand miles, their territory was almost boundless in its extent and
resources, and the greater part of it no white man had traversed or
seen. To conquer such a country would be a task of greatest difficulty
and stupendous cost. To hold it in opposition to the general wish of the
people would be impossible. The colonists were chiefly small and
independent freeholders, hardy backwoodsmen and hunters, well skilled in
the use of arms and possessed of all the resources and energies which
life in a new country seldom fails to develop. They had representative
assemblies to levy taxes and organize resistance. They had militia,
which in some colonies included all adult freemen between the ages of
sixteen and fifty or sixty, and, in addition to Indian raids, they had
the military experience of two great wars. The first capture of
Louisburg, in 1745, had been mainly their work. In the latter stages of
the war, which ended in 1763, there were more than twenty thousand
colonial troops under arms, ten thousand of them from New England alone,
and more than four hundred privateers had been fitted out in colonial
harbors.[18]

[18] Ramsey, History of the American Revolution, Vol. I, page 40;
Hildreth, Vol. II., page 486; Grahame, Vol. IV., page 94.

There were assuredly no other colonies in the world so favorably
situated as these were at the close of the Seven Years' War. They had
but one grievance, the Navigation Act, and it is a gross and flagrant
misrepresentation to describe the commercial policy of England as
exceptionally tyrannical. As Adam Smith truly said, "Every European
nation had more or less taken to itself the commerce of its colonies,
and upon that account had prohibited the ships of foreign nations from
trading with them, and had prohibited them from importing European goods
from any foreign nation," and "though the policy of Great Britain with
regard to the trade of her colonies has been dictated by the same
mercantile spirit as that of other nations, it has, upon the whole, been
less illiberal and oppressive than any of them."[19]

[19] Wealth of Nations, Vol. IV., chapter 7; Tucker's Four Tracts, page
133.

There is, no doubt, much to be said in palliation of the conduct of
England. If Virginia was prohibited from sending her tobacco to any
European country except England, Englishmen were prohibited from
purchasing any tobacco except that which came from America or Bermuda.
If many of the trades and manufactures in which the colonies were
naturally most fitted to excel were restrained or crushed by law,
English bounties encouraged the cultivation of indigo and the
exportation to England of pitch, tar, hemp, flax and ship timber from
America, and several articles of American produce obtained a virtual
monopoly of the English market by their exemption from duties which were
imposed on similar articles imported from foreign countries.

The revenue laws were habitually violated. Smuggling was very lucrative,
and therefore very popular, and any attempt to interfere with it was
greatly resented. The attention of the British government was urgently
called to it during the war. At a time when Great Britain was straining
every nerve to free the English colonies from the incubus of France, and
when millions of pounds sterling were being remitted from England to pay
colonists for fighting in their own cause, it was found that French
fleets, French garrisons, and the French West India Islands were
systematically supplied with large quantities of provisions by the New
England colonies. Pitt, who still directed affairs, wrote with great
indignation that this contraband trade must be stopped, but the whole
community of the New England seaports appeared to favor or was partaking
in it, and great difficulty was found in putting the law into
execution.[20]

[20] Hildreth Vol. II., page 498; McPherson's Annals of Commerce, Vol.
III., page 330; Arnold's History of Rhode Island, Vol. II., pages
227-235.

From a legal point of view, the immense activity of New England was for
the most part illicit. In serene ignorance the New England sailor
penetrated all harbors, conveying in their holds, from the North, where
they belonged, various sorts of interdicted merchandise, and bringing
home cargoes equally interdicted from all ports they touched. The
merchants, who since 1749, through Hutchinson's excellent statesmanship,
had been free from the results of a bad currency, greatly throve. The
shipyards teemed with fleets, each nook of the coast was the seat of
mercantile ventures. It was then that in all the shore towns arose the
fine colonial mansions of the traders along the main streets, that are
even admired today for their size and comeliness. Within the houses
bric-a-brac from every clime came to abound, and the merchants and their
wives and children were clothed gaily in rich fabrics from remote
regions. Glowing reports of the gaiety and luxury of the colonies
reached the mother country.[21] The merchants and sailors were, to a
man, law-breakers. It was this universal law-breaking, after the fall of
Quebec, that the English ministry undertook to stop over its extended
empire. This caused friction, which gave rise to fire, which increased
until the ties with the mother land were quite consumed.

[21] Gordon's History of the American War, Vol. I., page 157.

As early as 1762 there were loud complaints in Parliament of the
administration of custom houses in the colonies. Grenville found on
examination that the whole revenue derived by England from the custom
houses in America amounted only to between one and two thousand pounds a
year, and that for the purpose of collecting this revenue the English
exchequer was paying annually between seven and eight thousand pounds.
Nine-tenths, probably, of all the tea, wine, fruit, sugar and molasses
consumed in the colonies, were smuggled. Grenville determined to
terminate this state of affairs. Several new revenue officers were
appointed with more rigid rules for the discharge of their duties.
"Writs of assistance" were to be issued, authorizing custom house
officers to search any house they pleased for smuggled goods. English
ships of war were at the same time stationed off the American coast for
the purpose of intercepting smugglers.

Adam Smith, writing in 1776, says:

"Parliament, in attempting to exercise its supposed right, whether well
or ill-grounded, of taxing the colonies, _has never hitherto demanded of
them anything which even approached to a just proportion to what was
paid by their fellow subjects at home_. Great Britain has hitherto
suffered her subjects and subordinate provinces to disburden themselves
upon her of almost the whole expense."

The colonists had profited by the successful war incomparably more than
any other British subjects. Until the destruction of the French power, a
hand armed with a rifle or tomahawk and torch seemed constantly near the
threshold of every New England home. The threatening hand was now
paralyzed and the fringe of plantations by the coast could now extend
itself to the illimitable West in safety. No foreign foe could now
dictate a boundary line and bar the road beyond it. The colonists were
asked only to bear a share in the burden of the empire by a
contribution to the sum required for maintenance of the ten thousand
soldiers and of the armed fleet which was unquestionably necessary for
the protection of their long coast line and of their commerce.

James Otis started the Revolution in New England by what Mr. Lecky calls
an "incendiary speech" against writs of assistance, and if half of what
Hildreth asserts and Bancroft admits in regard to smuggling along the
coast of New England is true, there is no reason to wonder that such
writs were unpopular in Boston. James Otis, whose father had just been
disappointed in his hopes of obtaining a seat upon the bench, was no
doubt an eloquent man and all the more dangerous because he often
thought he was right. That it is always prudent to distrust the
eloquence of a criminal lawyer we have ample proof, in the advice he
gave the people on the passage of the Stamp Act. "It is the duty," he
said, "of all, humbly and silently to acquiesce in all the decisions of
the supreme legislature. Nine hundred and ninety-nine in a thousand of
the colonists will never once entertain a thought but of submission to
our sovereign and to authority of Parliament, in all possible
contingencies. They undoubtedly have the right to levy internal taxes on
the colonies."

In private talk he was more vigorous than in his formal utterance.
"Hallowell says that Otis told him Parliament had a right to tax the
colonies and he was a d---- fool who denied it, and that this people
would never be quiet till we had a council from home, till our charter
was taken away and till we had regular troops quartered upon us."[22]

[22] John Adams' Diary, January 16, 1776.

John Adams wrote in his diary, under date of January 16, 1770,
concerning Otis, as follows: "In one word Otis will spoil the club. He
talks so much and takes up so much of our time and fills it with trash,
obsceneness, profaneness, nonsense and distraction that we have none
left for rational amusements or inquiries. I fear, I tremble, I mourn
for the man and for his country. Many others mourn over him with tears
in their eyes."

Again John Adams says, after an attack upon him by Otis: "There is a
complication of malice, envy and jealousy in the man, in the present
disordered state of his mind, that is quite shocking."[23] On the 7th of
May, 1771, Otis, who at this time had recovered his reason was elected
with John Hancock to the assembly. They both left their party and went
over to the side of the government. John Adams wrote "Otis' change was
indeed startling. John Chandler, Esq., of Petersham gave me an account
of Otis' conversion to Toryism, etc." Hutchinson writing to Governor
Bernard, says, "Otis was carried off today in a post-chaise, bound hand
and foot. He has been as good as his word--set the Province in a flame
and perished in the attempt."

[23] John Adams' Diary, October 27, 1772; John Adams' Works, Vol. II
page 26; Letters to Bernard December 3, 1771.

In Virginia the revolutionary movement of the poor whites or
"crackers," led by Patrick Henry, was against the planter aristocracy,
and Washington was a conspicuous member of the latter class. In tastes,
manners, instincts and sympathies he might have been taken as an
admirable specimen of the better class of English country gentlemen, and
he had a great deal of the strong conservative feeling which is natural
to that class. He was in the highest sense a gentleman and a man of
honor, and he carried into public life the severest standard of private
morals.

It was only slowly and very deliberately that Washington identified
himself with the disunionist cause. No man had a deeper admiration for
the British constitution, or a more sincere desire to preserve the
connection, and to put an end to the disputes between the two countries.
From the first promulgation of the Stamp Act, however, he adopted the
conviction that a recognition of the sole right of the colonies to tax
themselves was essential to their freedom, and as soon as it became
evident that Parliament was resolved at all hazards to assert its
authority by taxing the Americans, he no longer hesitated. Of all the
great men in history he was the most invariably judicious, and there is
scarcely a rash word or action of judgment related of him. America had
found in Washington a leader who could be induced by no earthly motive
to tell a falsehood or to break an engagement or to commit a
dishonorable act.

In the despondency of long-continued failure, in the elation of sudden
success, at times when his soldiers were deserting by hundreds, and when
malignant plots were formed against his reputation; amid the constant
quarrels, rivalries and jealousies of his subordinates; in the dark hour
of national ingratitude and in the midst of the most universal and
intoxicating flattery, he was always the same calm, wise, just and
single-minded man, pursuing the course which he believed to be right,
without fear, favor or fanaticism.

In civil as in military life he was pre-eminent among his contemporaries
for the clearness and soundness of his judgment, for his perfect
moderation and self-control, for the quiet dignity and the indomitable
firmness with which he pursued every path which he had deliberately
chosen.

[Illustration: READING THE STAMP ACT IN KING STREET: OPPOSITE THE STATE
HOUSE.]

As previously stated, the heart of the Old Dominion was fired by Patrick
Henry, one of the most unreliable men living. Byron called him a
forest-born Demosthenes, and Jefferson, wondering over his career,
exclaimed: "Where he got that torrent of language is inconceivable. I
have frequently closed my eyes while he spoke and, when he was done,
asked myself what he had said without being able to recollect a word of
it." He had been successively a storekeeper, a farmer and a shopkeeper,
but had failed in all these pursuits and became a bankrupt at
twenty-three. Then he studied law a few weeks and practiced a few years.
The first success he made in this line was in an effort to persuade a
jury to render one of the most unjust verdicts ever recorded in
court. Finally he embarked on the stormy sea of politics. One day he
worked himself into a fine frenzy, and in a most dramatic manner
demanded "Liberty or Death," although he had both freely at his
disposal. He was a slaveholder nearly all his life. He bequeathed slaves
and cattle in his will, and one of his eulogists brags that he would buy
or sell a horse or a negro as well as anybody.

John Adams of Braintree, now Quincy, was a graduate of Harvard College,
and a lawyer by profession. He ranks next to Washington as being the
most prominent of the Revolutionary leaders. He was the son of a poor
farmer and shoemaker. He married Abigail Smith, the daughter of the
Congregational minister in the adjoining town of Weymouth. Much
disapprobation of the match appears to have been manifested, for Mr.
Adams, the son of a poor farmer, was thought scarcely good enough to be
match with the minister's daughter, descended from many of the shining
lights of the colony.[24]

[24] "Letters of Mrs. Adams." Memoirs, XXIX.

John Adams was a cousin of Samuel Adams. He joined the disunionists,
probably, because he saw that if the Revolution was successful there
would be great opportunity for advancement under the new government.
This proved to be the case, for he was the first minister to Great
Britain, the successor of Washington as second president of the United
States. His eldest son became the sixth president, and his grandson,
Charles Francis Adams, ably represented his country as minister to Great
Britain during the Civil War of 1861.

The Stamp Act received the royal assent on March 22, 1765, and it was to
come into operation on the first day of November following. The
"Virginia Resolutions," through which Patrick Henry first acquired a
continental fame, voted by the House of Burgess in May following, denied
very definitely the authority of Parliament to tax the colonies. At
first men recoiled. Otis was reported to have publicly condemned them in
King street, which was no doubt true, for, as we have seen, he fully
admitted the supremacy of Parliament.

The principal objection made by the colonists to the Stamp Act was that
it was an internal tax. They denied the right of Parliament to impose
internal taxation, claiming that to be a function that could be
exercised only by colonial assemblies. They admitted, however, that
Parliament had a right to levy duties on exports and imports, and they
had submitted to such taxation for many years without complaint.

In order to soften the opposition, and to consult to the utmost of his
power the wishes of the colonists, Grenville informed the colonial
agents that the distribution of the stamps should be confided not to
Englishmen but to Americans. Franklin, then agent for Pennsylvania,
accepted the act and, in his canny way, took steps to have a friend
appointed stamp distributor for his province. This made him very
unpopular and the mob threatened to destroy his house.

The Stamp Act, when its ultimate consequences are considered, must be
deemed one of the most momentous legislative acts in the history of
mankind.

A timely concession of a few seats in the upper and lower houses of the
Imperial Parliament would have set at rest the whole dispute. Franklin
had suggested it ten years before, anticipating even Otis, Grenville was
quite ready to favor it, Adam Smith advocated it. Why did the scheme
fail? Just at that time in Massachusetts a man was rising into
provincial note, who was soon to develop a heat, truly fanatical, in
favor of an idea quite inconsistent with Franklin's plan. He from the
first claimed that representation of the colonies in Parliament was
quite impracticable or, if accepted, would be of no benefit to the
colonies, and that there was no fit state for them but independence. His
voice at first was but a solitary cry in the midst of a tempest, but it
prevailed mightily in the end.

This sole expounder of independence was Samuel Adams, the father of the
Revolution. Already his influence was superseding that of Otis, in
stealthy ways of which neither Otis nor those who made an idol of him
were sensible, putting into the minds of men, in the place of the ideas
for which Otis stood, radical conceptions which were to change in due
time the whole future of the world. "Samuel Adams at this time was a man
of forty-two years of age, but already gray and bent with a physical
infirmity which kept his head and hands shaking like those of a
paralytic. He was a man of broken fortunes, a ne'er-do-well in his
private business, a failure as a tax collector, the only public office
he had thus far undertaken to discharge."[25] He had an hereditary
antipathy to the British government, for his father was one of the
principal men connected with Land-Bank delusion, and was ruined by the
restrictions which Parliament imposed on the circulation of paper money,
causing the closing up of the bank by act of Parliament and leaving
debts which seventeen years later were still unpaid.

[25] Hosmer, Life of Hutchinson, page 82.

It appears that Governor Hutchinson was a leading person in dissolving
the bank, and from that time Adams was the bitter enemy of Hutchinson
and the government. Hutchinson in describing him says, "Mr. S. Adams had
been one of the directors of the land bank in 1741 which was dissolved
by act of Parliament. After his decease his estate was put up for sale
by public auction, under authority of an act of the General Assembly.
The son first made himself conspicuous on this occasion. He attended the
sale, threatened the sheriff to bring action against him and threatened
all who should attempt to enter upon the estate under pretence of a
purchase, and by intimidating both the sheriff and those persons who
intended to purchase, he prevented the sale, kept the estate in his
possession and the debts to the land bank remained unsatisfied. He was
afterwards a collector of taxes for the town of Boston and made
defalcation which caused an additional tax upon the inhabitants. He was
for nearly twenty years a writer against government in the public
newspapers. Long practice caused him to arrive at great perfection and
to acquire a talent of artfully and fallaciously insinuating into the
minds of readers a prejudice against the characters of all he attacked
beyond any other man I ever knew, and he made more converts to his cause
by calumniating governors and other servants of the crown than by
strength of reasoning. The benefit to the town from his defence of their
liberties, he supposed an equivalent to his arrears as their collector,
and prevailing principle of the party that the end justified the means
probably quieted the remorse he must have felt from robbing men of their
characters and injuring them more than if he had robbed them of their
estates."[26]

[26] Hutchinson's History, Vol. III., pages 294-295.

In a letter written by Hutchinson about this time he thus characterizes
his chief adversary:

"I doubt whether there is a greater incendiary in the King's dominion or
a man of greater malignity of heart, who has less scruples any measure
ever so criminal to accomplish his purposes; and I think I do him no
injustice when I suppose he wishes the destruction of every friend to
government in America."[27]

[27] M. A. History, Vol. XXV., page 437.

In a letter dated March 13, 1769, Adams petitioned the town, requesting
that he be discharged from his indebtedness to the town for the amount
that he was in arrears as tax collector. He states that the town
treasurer, by order of the town, had put his bond in suit and recovered
judgment for the sum due £2009.8.8. He stated that his debts and
£1106.11 will fully complete the sum which he owes and requests "that
the town would order him a final discharge upon the condition of his
paying the aforesaid sum of £1106.11 into the province treasury." This
letter of Adams to the town of Boston fully confirms the statement made
by Hutchinson that he was a defaulter, for it appears from this letter
that during the several years he was collector of taxes for the town,
that he did not make a proper return for the taxes which he had
collected, and it was only after suit and judgment had been obtained
against his bondsmen that restitution was made, his sureties having to
pay over $5000 in cash and the balance was made up of uncollected
taxes.[28]

[28] This letter was purchased at the E. H. Leffingwell sale of January
6, 1891, for $185, by the city of Boston, and can be seen at the city
clerk's office. In connection with this see "Life of Samuel Adams," by
his great-grandson, William V. Wells, Vol. I., pages 35-38. Here he
emphatically denies that bonds or sureties were given by collectors.
Evidently he had not consulted Boston Town Records, 1767, page 9, when
it was voted that Samuel Adams' bond "shall be put in Suit," and when
bonds and sureties were required of his successor, neither could he have
known of the existence of this letter.

Adams was poor, simple, ostentatiously austere; the blended influence of
Calvinistic theology and republican principles had indurated his whole
character. He hated monarchy and the Episcopal church, all privileged
classes and all who were invested with dignity and rank, with a fierce
hatred. He was the first to foresee and to desire an armed struggle, and
he now maintained openly that any British troops which landed should be
treated as enemies, attacked and if possible destroyed.

CHAPTER IV.

_BOSTON MOBS AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REVOLUTION._

After the adoption in Massachusetts of Patrick Henry's resolves, the
people, brooding over the injuries which Adams made them believe they
were receiving under the Stamp Act, became fiercer in temper. Open
treason was talked, and many of the addresses to the Governor, composed
by Adams, were models of grave and studied insolence. The rough
population which abounded about the wharves and shipyards grew riotous,
and, with the usual indiscrimination of mobs, was not slow to lift its
hands against even the best friends of the people. "Mob law is a crime,
and those who engage in mobs are criminals." This is a fundamental axiom
of orderly government that cannot be denied.

The first great riot was in anticipation of the arrival of the stamps.
On the morning of August 14, 1765, there appeared, at what is now a
corner of Washington and Essex streets, two effigies, hanging on an elm
tree, representing Andrew Oliver, the stamp agent, and Lord Bute, the
former prime minister. In the evening these images were carried as far
as Kilby street, where there was a new unfinished government building,
wrongly supposed to have been erected for use as a stamp office. This
the mob completely demolished, and, taking portions of its wood-work
with them, they proceeded to Fort Hill, where a bonfire was made in
front of the house of Mr. Oliver, burning the effigy of Lord Bute there,
and committing gross outrages on Oliver's premises, which were plundered
and wrecked.

A few nights later riots recommenced with redoubled fury, the rioters
turning their attention to the house of Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson,
who was also chief justice, and kinsman of Oliver. Hutchinson was not
only the second person in rank in the colony, but was also a man who had
personal claims of the highest kind upon his countrymen. He was an
American, a member of one of the oldest colonial families, and, in a
country where literary enterprise was very uncommon, he had devoted a
great part of his life to investigating the history of his native
province. His rare abilities, his stainless private character, and his
great charm of manner, were universally recognized. He had at one time
been one of the most popular men in the colony, and although Hutchinson
was opposed to the Stamp Act, the determined impartiality with which, as
Chief Justice, he upheld the law, soon made him obnoxious to the mob.

[Illustration: ANDREW OLIVER, STAMP COLLECTOR ATTACKED BY THE MOB.

His beautiful mansion on Oliver street, Fort Hill, was wrecked and he
narrowly escaped with his life.]

When the mob surrounded his house in Garden Court street, they called
for him to appear on his balcony, to give an account of himself as to
the Stamp Act. He barred the doors and windows and remained within. One
of his neighbors, alarmed, no doubt, as to the safety of his own
property, told the mob that he had seen Hutchinson drive out just at
nightfall, and that he had gone to spend the night at his country house
at Milton. On hearing this the mob dispersed, having done no other
damage than the breaking of windows.

The popular fury had now become so ungovernable and perilous that
Governor Bernard took refuge in the Castle, leaving Hutchinson to bear
the brunt of this vehement hostility. Shortly after the governor's
retreat, on the 26th of August, occurred a riot as disgraceful as any on
record on either side of the Atlantic. It commenced at dusk with a
bonfire on King street. One of the fire-wards attempted to extinguish
it, but he was driven from the ground by a heavy blow from one of the
mob which had assembled. The fire was doubtless kindled as a signal for
the assembling of a ruffianly body of disguised men, armed with clubs
and staves. They first went to the house of the register of the
admiralty court, broke into his office in the lower story, and fed the
fire hard by with the public archives in his keeping, and with all his
own private papers. Next they went to the house of the comptroller of
customs in Hanover street, tore down his fence, broke his windows,
demolished his furniture, stole his money, scattered his papers, and
availed themselves of the wine in his cellar as a potent stimulant to
greater excesses.

They then proceeded to Hutchinson's house, the finest and most costly in
Boston. He had barely time to escape with his family, otherwise murder
would no doubt have put a climax to the criminal orgies of the night.
The rioters hewed down the doors with broad axes, destroyed or stole
everything of value, including important historical data which he had
spent years in collecting, papers which, if preserved to his countrymen,
would be worth many times their weight in gold; and still further
maddened by the contents of the cellar, the incendiary crowd broke up
the roof and commenced tearing down the wood-work of the mansion.

There exists competent evidence that the municipal authorities had
timely notice of the pendency of this riot. They held a town meeting
next day, denounced the rioters by unanimous vote, in which many who had
been foremost in the affair gave assent to their own condemnation, but
nothing was done towards punishing the perpetrators of the outrages, and
it was evident that the prevailing feeling was with the rioters. Those
who were arrested and committed for trial were released by a formidable
body of sympathizers, undoubtedly fellow criminals, who went by night to
the jail, forced the jailer to deliver up the keys, and released the
culprits.

The Custom House was selected for assault and pillage on the following
night. The collector somehow gained information of this purpose. He had
in his custody about four thousand pounds in specie, which could not be
removed so secretly as to elude the espionage of eyes intent on rapine
and plunder. The governor, at the urgent demand of the collector,
called out the cadets, who constituted his special guard. The mob
assembled. The commanding officers addressed them, first with
persuasion, then with threats, but in vain. Driven to extremity he
ordered his company to prime and load, and then begged the rioters to
retire. They remained immovable until the order was given to "aim," when
a hurried retreat of the tumultuous rabble ensued.

There were, subsequently, various public demonstrations of a disorderly
character; effigies of unpopular members of the home and provincial
governments were hanged and burned, and there were frequent displays of
violent hostility to the administration; but it was not till June, 1768,
that there was another dangerous and destructive riot. In this there
cannot be the slightest doubt that the mob had on their side as little
moral justification as legal right. The sloop "Liberty," belonging to
John Hancock, a leading merchant of the patriot party, arrived at
Boston, laden with wine from Madeira, and a custom-house officer went on
board to inspect the cargo. He was seized by the crew and detained for
several hours, while the cargo was landed, and a few pipes of wine were
entered on oath at the Custom House as if they had been the whole. On
the liberation of the customs' officers the vessel was seized for a
false entry, and in order to prevent the possibility of a rescue it was
removed from the wharf to the protection of the guns of a man of war. A
mob was speedily collected, and as the rabble could not get possession
of the sloop, they attacked the revenue officers for doing their duty in
properly seizing the vessel for false entry and smuggling. The
collector, his son, and two inspectors, received the most barbarous
treatment, were badly bruised and wounded, and hardly escaped with their
lives. The mob next went to the house of the inspector-general, and to
that of the comptroller of customs, and broke their windows. They then
dragged the collector's boat to the Common and burned it there.

When we consider the lawless condition of Boston, there cannot be any
question that Governor Bernard was fully authorized to seek the presence
of troops. The crown officers were in a rightful possession of their
offices, and it would have been cowardly for them to desert their posts
and sail for England, and thus to leave anarchy behind them. Meanwhile
their lives were in peril, and they had an unquestionable right to
demand competent protection. This they could have only by sending out of
the province for it. The colonial militia could not be relied upon, for
the mob must have been largely represented in its ranks. Nor could
dependence be placed on the cadets, for Hancock, in whose behalf the
last great riot had been perpetrated, was an officer of that corps. The
only recourse was to the importation of royal troops--a measure which
legal modes of remonstrance by patriots worthy of the name would never
have rendered necessary or justifiable.

Two regiments, the 14th and 29th, of about five hundred men each,
arrived on Sept. 28, 1768. These soldiers were, of course, a burden and
annoyance. They could not have been otherwise. Individually they were
not gentlemen, and they could not have been expected to be so. Yet had
their presence been desired or welcome, there is no reason to suppose
that there would have been any unpleasant collision with them.

The first token of resentment on the part of the populace occurred
eleven days after their arrival. The colonel of one of the regiments had
ordered a guard-house to be built on the Neck. The site was visited in
the night by a mob, who tore down the frame of the building and cut it
in pieces, so that no part of it could be put to further use. From that
time on there were perpetual quarrels and brisk interchanges of
contumely, abuse, and insult between the soldiers and the inhabitants,
in which gangs of ropemakers bore a prominent part. There was
undoubtedly no lack of ill-blood on either side, but, after patiently
reading the contemporary record of what took place, we are inclined to
adopt the statement of Samuel G. Drake, whose intense loyalty as a
loving citizen of Boston no one can question, and who writes "That
outrages were committed by the soldiers is no doubt true; but these
outrages were exaggerated, and they probably, in nine cases out of ten,
were the abused party."[29]

[29] "History of Boston," Samuel T. Drake, page 778.

Passing over intervening dissensions and tumults, we now come to the
so-called "Boston Massacre," on the 5th of March, 1770, an occasion on
which loss of life was inevitable, and the only question was whether it
should be among the soldiers or their assailants. The riot was evidently
predetermined, as one of the bells was rung about eight o'clock, and
immediately afterwards bands of men, with clubs, appeared upon the
streets. Early in the evening there had been some interchange of
hostilities, chiefly verbal, between the soldiers and town people, but
an officer had ordered his men into the barrack-yard, and closed the
gate. The "main guard," for that day's duty, was from the 29th regiment.

About nine o'clock a solitary sentinel in front of the custom-house on
King street, now known as State street, was assailed by a party of men
and boys, who pelted him with lumps of ice and coal, and threatened him
with their clubs. Being forbidden by the rules of the service to quit
his post, he called upon the "main guard," whose station was within
hearing. A corporal and seven soldiers were sent to his relief. They
were followed by Captain Preston, who said, "I will go there myself to
see that they do no mischief." By that time the crowd had become a large
one, intensely angry, and determined on violence. The mob supposed the
soldiers were helpless and harmless; that they were not permitted to
fire unless ordered by a magistrate. The rioters repeatedly challenged
the soldiers to fire if they dared, and the torrent of coarse and
profane abuse poured upon the soldiers is astonishing even in its echoes
across the century, and would furnish material for an appropriate
inscription on the Attucks monument. The soldiers stood on the defensive
while their lives were endangered by missiles, and till the crowd closed
upon them in a hand-to-hand conflict. The leader of the assault was
"Crispus Attucks," a half Indian and half negro, who raised the
blood-curdling war-whoop, the only legacy save his Indian surname and
his strength and ferocity, that he is known to have received from his
savage ancestry. He knocked down one of the soldiers, got possession of
his musket, and would, no doubt, have killed him instantly had not the
soldiers fired at that moment and killed Attucks and two other men, two
more being fatally wounded. There is no evidence that Captain Preston
ordered the firing, though if he did he certainly deserved no blame, as
the shooting was, for the soldiers, the only means of defence. There is
no doubt that the mobs on these occasions were set in movement and
directed by some persons of higher rank and larger views of mischief
than themselves.

Gordon, the historian of the American Revolution, informs us that the
mob was addressed, in the street, before the firing, by a tall, large
man, in a red cloak and white wig, and after listening to what he had to
offer in the space of three or four minutes, they huzza for the "main
guard" and say, "We will do for the soldiers." He also said, "But from
the character, principles, and policies of certain persons among the
leaders of the opposition, it may be feared that they had no objection
to a recounter that by occasioning the death of a few might eventually
clear the place of the two regiments."

This avowal, which, coming from such a source, has all the weight of
premeditation, chills us with its deliberate candor, and begets
reflections on the desperate means resorted to by some of the leaders of
the populace in those trying times, which historians generally have
shrunk from suggesting.

Hutchinson fulfilled at this time, with complete adequacy, the functions
of chief magistrate. He was at once in the street in imminent danger of
having his brains dashed out,[30] expostulating, entreating, that order
might be observed. His prompt arrest of Preston and the squad which had
done the killing was his full duty, and it is to the credit of the
troops that the officer and his men, in the midst of the exasperation,
gave themselves quietly into the hands of the law.

[30] "Life of Thomas Hutchinson," page 162.

In the famous scenes which followed, the next day, Samuel Adams and
other leading agitators, as representatives of the people, rushed into
the presence of Hutchinson, and rather commanded than asked for the
removal of the troops. Hutchinson hesitated. He was not yet
governor--Bernard was in England. The embarrassment of the situation for
the chief magistrate was really appalling. He knew that their removal
would, under the circumstances, be a great humiliation to the government
and a great encouragement to the mob. On the other hand, if the soldiers
remained it was only too probable that in a few hours the streets of
Boston would run with blood. He consulted the council, and found, as
usual, an echo of the public voice. He then yielded, and the troops were
sent to Fort William, on Castle Island, three miles from the town.

Although, from that day to this, it has been held that the British
uniform was driven with ignominy out of the streets of Boston, they
deserve no discredit for their submission to the Governor and his
council. They were two weak regiments, together amounting to not more
than eight hundred effective men, isolated in a populous province which
hated them, and were in great peril of life. It does not appear that
they showed the white feather at all, but rather that they were
law-abiding. Probably few organizations in the British army have a
record more honorable. The 14th was with William III. in Flanders; it
formed, too, one of the squares of Waterloo, breasting for hours the
charges of the French cuirassiers until it had nearly melted away. The
29th was with Marlboro at Ramillies, and with Wellington in the
Peninsula; it bore a heavy part, as may be read in Napier, in wresting
Spain from the grasp of Napoleon. To fight it out with the mob would no
doubt have been far easier and pleasanter than to yield; for brave
soldiers to forbear is harder than to fight, and one may be sure that in
the long history of those regiments few experiences more trying came to
pass than those of the Boston streets.

Few things contributed more to commence the American Revolution than
this unfortunate affray. Skillful agitators perceived the advantage it
gave them, and the most fantastic exaggerations were dexterously
diffused. It, however, had a sequel which is extremely creditable to the
citizens of Boston.

It was determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public
feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if their fate was
sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for seven months till the
excitement had in some degree subsided. Captain Preston very judiciously
appealed to John Adams, who was rapidly rising to the first place among
the lawyers and the popular party of Boston, to undertake his defence.
Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so unpopular a
cause, but he knew also his professional duty, and though violently
opposed to the British Government, he was an eminently honest, brave,
and humane man. In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who
was also of the popular party, he undertook the invidious task, and he
discharged it with consummate ability. Three years afterwards he wrote
in his diary: "The part I took in defence of Capt. Preston and the
soldiers procured me anxiety and obloquy enough. It was, however, one of
the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested acts of my whole
life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.
Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain
upon this country as the execution of the Quakers or witches, anciently.
As the evidence was, the verdict of the jury was exactly right."

These noble words and his actions in this matter are sufficient alone to
prove that John Adams was a fit successor to President Washington. He
was entirely just in the estimate he put upon his conduct in these frank
terms. His defence of the soldiers was one of the most courageous acts
that a thoroughly manly man performed, and his summing up of the matter
just quoted, is perfectly accurate. If John Adams showed himself here a
man of sense and a hero, as much cannot be said of his cousin, Samuel
Adams, who undoubtedly was one of the leaders who incited the mob to
attack the soldiers, as hinted at by Gordon. And, again, in the
vindictive persecution which followed, in the attempt to arouse in
England and America indignation against the soldiers, by documents based
on evidence hastily collected in advance of the trial, from wholly
unreliable witnesses, and in the attempt to precipitate the trial while
passion was still hot, the misbehavior of the people was grave. In all
this no leader was more eager than Samuel Adams, and in no time in his
career, probably, does he more plainly lay himself open to the charge of
being a reckless demagogue, a mere mob-leader, than at this moment.

Captain Preston and six of the soldiers, who were tried for murder, were
acquitted; two of the soldiers, convicted of manslaughter, were branded
on the hand and then released. The most important testimony in the case
was that of the celebrated surgeon, John Jeffries, who attended Patrick
Carr, an Irishman, fatally wounded in the affray. It is as follows: "He
said he saw many things thrown at the sentry; he believed they were
oyster shells and ice; he heard the people huzza every time they heard
anything strike that sounded hard. He then saw some soldiers going down
towards the custom-house; he saw the people pelt them as they went
along. I asked him whether he thought the soldiers would fire; he said
he thought the soldiers would have fired long before. I then asked him
if he thought the soldiers were abused a great deal; he said he thought
they were. I asked him whether he thought the soldiers would have been
hurt if they had not fired; he said he really thought they would, for he
heard many voices cry out, 'Kill them!' I asked him, meaning to close
all, whether he thought they fired in self-defence or on purpose to
destroy the people; he said he really thought they did fire to defend
themselves; that he did not blame the man, whoever he was, that shot
him. He told me he was a native of Ireland; that he had frequently seen
mobs, and soldiers called to quell them. Whenever he mentioned that, he
called himself a fool; that he might have known better; that he had seen
soldiers often fire on people in Ireland, but had never in his life seen
them bear so much before they fired."

John Adams, in his plea in defence of the soldiers, said: "We have been
entertained with a great variety of phrases to avoid calling this sort
of people a mob. Some called them shavers, some called them geniuses.
The plain English is, they were probably a motley rabble of saucy boys,
negroes, mulattoes, Irish teagues, and outlandish Jack-tars, and why we
should scruple to call such a set of people a mob, I can't conceive,
unless the name is too respectable for them."

Chief-Justice Lynde, eminent for his judicial integrity and
impartiality, said on the announcement of the verdict: "Happy am I to
find, after much strict examination, the conduct of the prisoners
appears in so fair a light, yet I feel myself deeply affected that this
affair turns out so much to the disgrace of every person concerned
against them, and so much to the shame of the town in general."

In 1887, at the instigation of John Boyle O'Reilly and the negroes of
Boston, the Legislature passed a bill authorizing the expenditure of
$10,000 for the purpose of erecting a monument to the memory of the
"victims of the Boston Massacre." The monument was erected on Boston
Common, notwithstanding the fact that the Massachusetts Historical
Society, and the New England Historic Genealogical Society, voted
unanimously against it. "That it was a waste of public money, that the
affray was occasioned by the brutal and revengeful attack of reckless
roughs upon the soldiers, while on duty, who had not the civilian's
privilege of retreating, but were obliged to contend against great odds,
and used their arms only in the last extremity; that the killed were
rioters and not patriots, and that a jury of Boston citizens had
acquitted the soldiers." A joint committee, composed of members of both
societies, presented the resolutions to Governor Ames, and requested him
to veto the bill. He admitted that "the monument ought not to be
erected, but if he vetoed the bill it would _cost the Republican party
the colored vote_." When the monument was erected and uncovered, it
presented such an indecent appearance that the City Council immediately
voted $250 for a new capstone. It now represents an historical lie, and
is a sad commentary on the intelligence and art taste of the citizens of
Boston. To be sure monuments of stone will not avail to perpetuate an
error of history, as witness the monument erected to commemorate the
Great Fire of London. The inscription on that monument, embodying a
gross perversion of history, was effaced in 1831, after it had stood
there one hundred and fifty years, but the just resentment, the
ill-feeling, the grief and shame which it engendered during that period,
had been evils of incalculable magnitude. The time will surely come when
the monument on Boston Common will be removed for the same reason.

On the 18th of March, 1766, the Stamp Act was repealed. It had remained
in force but one year, and was then repealed in an effort to pacify the
colonists. A duty was placed on tea and other imports which the
colonists had always admitted to be a valid act of the Parliament.
Whatever might be said of the Stamp Act, the tea duty was certainly not
a real grievance to Americans, for Parliament had relieved the colonists
of a duty of 12d. in the pound which had hitherto been levied in
England, and the colonists were only asked, in compensation, to pay a
duty of 3d. in the pound on arrival of the tea in America. The measure,
therefore, was not an act of oppression, but of relief, making the price
of tea in the colonies positively cheaper by 9d. per pound than it had
been before. But the turbulent spirits were not to be satisfied so
easily. They organized an immense boycott against British goods and
commercial intercourse with England, and appointed vigilance committees
in many communities to see that the boycott was rigidly enforced.
Hutchinson, in describing them, says: "In this Province the faction is
headed by the lowest, dirtiest, and most abject part of the community,
and so absurdly do the Council and House of Representatives reason, that
they justify this anarchy, the worst of tyranny, as necessary to remove
a single instance of what they call oppression; they have persecuted my
sons with peculiar pleasure." August 26, 1770, he wrote to William
Parker, of Portsmouth: "You certainly think right when you think Boston
people are run mad. The frenzy was not higher when they banished my
pious great-grandmother, when they hanged the Quakers, when they
afterwards hanged the poor innocent witches, when they were carried away
with a Land Bank, or when they all turned "New Lights," than the
political frenzy has been for a twelve-month past."[31]

[31] "Life of Hutchinson," page 195.

In December, 1773, three ships laden with tea, private property of an
innocent corporation, arrived at Boston, and on the 16th of that month,
forty or fifty men, disguised as Mohawk Indians, under the direction of
Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and others, boarded the vessels, posted
sentinels to keep all agents of authority off at a distance, and flung
the three cargoes, consisting of three hundred and forty-two chests,
into the harbor. How can we, law-abiding citizens, applaud the "Boston
Tea Party" and condemn the high-handed conduct of strike-leaders of the
present time? In this transaction some respectable men were engaged, and
their posterity affects to be proud of it. But they were not proud of it
at the time. In their disguise as Indians they were not recognized, and
the few well-known names among them were not divulged till the rebellion
became a successful revolution. It probably made no "patriots." We have
proof that it afterwards turned the scales against the patriot cause
with some who had sympathized with it and taken part in it.

Looking back to those times during later years, John Adams wrote: "The
poor people themselves, who, by _secret manoeuvres_, _are excited to
insurrection_, are seldom aware of the purposes for which they are set
in motion or of consequences which may happen to themselves; and _when
once heated and in full career_, _they can neither manage themselves nor
be managed by others_."

[Illustration: BOSTONIANS PAYING THE EXCISEMAN, OR TARRING AND
FEATHERING.

A cartoon published in London in 1771, showing how the authority of the
government was wholly disregarded in Boston.]

The illegal seizure of the tea was in a certain sense parallel to the
so-called "respectable" mob which on the 11th of August, 1834, destroyed
the Charlestown convent, and, a year later, nearly killed Garrison and
made the jail his only safe place of refuge. Had slavery triumphed, that
mob would at this day be the object and the subject of popular
glorification; every man who belonged to it, who was present abetting
and encouraging it, would claim his share of the glory, and a roll of
honor would have been handed down for a centennial celebration in which
every slaveholder in the land would have borne a part. But now that
slavery is dead, and the statue of Garrison has its place in the
fashionable avenue of Boston, there is no longer any merit in the
endeavor to buttress the fallen cause. Had the Revolution failed, the
disgrace of the men who threw the tea overboard would never have been
removed, and the best that history could say of them would be that, like
the Attucks mob, they were enthusiasts without reason.

John Hancock, one of the principal leaders of the Tea Party Mob, and the
owner of the sloop "Liberty," which was seized for smuggling, and later
the first to sign the Declaration of Independence, inherited £70,000
from his uncle, who had made a large part of it by importing from the
Dutch island of St. Eustacia great quantities of tea, in molasses
hogsheads, and, by the importation of a few chests from England, had
freed the rest from suspicion, and not having been found out, had borne
the reputation of a "fair trader." Partly by inattention to his private
affairs, and partly from want of sound judgment, John Hancock became
greatly involved and distressed, and his estate was lost with much
greater rapidity than it had been acquired by his uncle.[32]

[32] His. Mass. Bay, page 207.

John Adams had very positive opinions concerning the mobs of the
Revolution. In a letter to his wife he says:

"I am engaged in a famous cause. The cause of King of Scarborough
_versus_ a mob that broke into his house and rifled his papers and
terrified him, his wife, children and servants, in the night. The terror
and distress, the distraction and horror of this family, cannot be
described in words, or painted upon canvas. It is enough to move a
statue, to melt a heart of stone, to read the story. A mind susceptible
of the feelings of humanity, a heart which can be touched with
sensibility for human misery and wretchedness, must relent, must burn
with resentment and indignation at such outrageous injuries. These
private mobs I do and will detest."[33]

[33] Letters of John Adams to his wife, Vol. I, pages 12-13.

Concerning the Loyalists, he says: "A notion prevails among all parties
that it is politest and genteelest to be on the side of the
administration, that the better sort, the wiser few, are on one side,
and that the multitude, the vulgar, the herd, the rabble, the mob, only
are on the other."[34]

[34] Letters of John Adams to his wife, Vol. I., page 12.

As regards his own actions towards the Loyalists, he writes in his later
years as follows:

"Nothing could be more false and injurious to me than the imputation of
any sanguinary zeal against the Tories, for I can truly declare that
through the whole Revolution, and from that time to this, I never
committed one act of severity against the Tories."[35]

[35] Diary of John Adams, page 413.

At the time of the shedding of the first blood at Lexington, Hancock was
respondent, in the admiralty court, in suits of the crown to recover
nearly half a million of dollars, as penalties alleged to have been
incurred for violation of the statute-book. It was fit that he should
be the first to affix his name to an instrument which, if made good,
would save him from financial ruin.

One-fourth of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were bred
to trade or to the command of ships, and more than one of them was
branded with the epithet of "smuggler."[36]

[36] Sabine. Vol. I., page 13.

In 1773 John Hancock was elected treasurer of Harvard college. "In this
they considered their patriotism more than their prudence." The amount
of college funds paid over to him was upwards of fifteen thousand and
four hundred pounds, and, like his friend, Samuel Adams, he, too, proved
to be a defaulter. For twenty years the corporation begged and entreated
him to make restitution. They threatened to prosecute him and also to
put his bond in suit, as Adams' was, but it was all of no avail. He
turned a deaf ear to their entreaties, and it was only after his death,
in 1793, that his heirs made restitution to the college, when a
settlement was made, in 1795, in which the college lost five hundred and
twenty-six dollars interest.

Josiah Quincy, the president of Harvard college, in referring to this
matter, says:

"From respect to the high rank which John Hancock attained among the
patriots of the American Revolution, it would have been grateful to pass
over in silence the extraordinary course he pursued in his official
relation to Harvard college, had truth and the fidelity of history
permitted. But justice to a public institution which he essentially
embarrassed during a period of nearly twenty years, and also to the
memory of those whom he made to feel and to suffer, requires that these
records of unquestionable facts which at the time they occurred were the
cause of calumny and censure to honorable men, actuated in this measure
solely by a sense of official fidelity, should not be omitted. In
republics, popularity is the form of power most apt to corrupt its
possessor and to tempt him, for party or personal interests, to trample
on right to set principle at defiance. History has no higher or more
imperative duty to perform than, by an unyielding fidelity, to impress
this class of men with the apprehension that although through fear or
favor they may escape animadversion of contemporaries, there awaits them
in her impartial record, the retribution of truth."[37]

[37] "History of Harvard University," by Josiah Quincy, Vol. II., pp.
182-209.

The action of the tea mob was the culmination of mob violence in Boston.
It brought the king and parliament to decide that their rebellious
subjects in Boston must be subdued by force of arms, and that mob
violence should cease. General Thomas Gage was to have at his command
four regiments and a powerful fleet. He arrived at Boston, May 13, 1774,
and was appointed to supersede Governor Thomas Hutchinson, as governor,
who had succeeded Governor Sir Francis Bernard in 1771. General Gage was
now in the prime of life. He had served with great credit under several
commanders, at Fontenoy and Culloden, and had fought with Washington,
under Braddock, at Monongahela, where he was severely wounded, and
carried a musket ball in his side for the remainder of his life as a
memento of that fatal battle. An intimacy then existed between him and
Washington, which was maintained afterwards by a friendly
correspondence, and which twenty years later ended regretfully when they
appeared, opposed to each other, at the head of contending armies, the
one obeying the commands of his sovereign and the other upholding the
cause of his people. How many cases similar to this occurred, eighty-six
years later, when brother officers in arms faced each other with hostile
forces, and friendship and brotherly love were changed to deadly hatred.

The claim has been set up by American historians, and accepted as true
by those of Great Britain, that hostilities were commenced at Lexington
and by the British commander. This is not so. The first act of
hostilities was the attack upon the government post of Fort William and
Mary at Newcastle, in Portsmouth harbor, New Hampshire. The attack was
deliberately planned by the disunion leaders, and executed by armed and
disciplined forces mustered by them for that purpose.[38] The fort
contained large quantities of government arms and ammunition, and being
garrisoned by but a corporal's guard, it was too tempting a prize to be
overlooked by Samuel Adams and his colleagues.

Sir John Wentworth, governor of New Hampshire, tells us that the raiding
party was openly collected by beat of drum in the streets of Portsmouth,
and that, being apprised of their intent to attack a government fort, he
sent the chief justice to warn them that such an act "was short of
rebellion," and entreated them not to undertake it, "but all to no
purpose." They embarked in three boats, sailed to the fortress and
"forced an entrance in spite of Captain Cochrane, the commander, who
defended it as long as he could. They then secured the captain
triumphantly, gave three cheers, and hauled down the king's colors."[38]

[38] Letter of Governor Wentworth, New Eng. His. Gen. Reg., 1869, page
274.

Thomas Coffin Amory, in his "Military Service of General Sullivan," says
(p. 295) that "the raiding force consisted of men whom Sullivan had been
drilling for several months; that they captured 97 kegs of powder and a
quantity of small ammunition which were used against the British at
Bunker Hill."

The attack on this fort is worthy of far more consideration than has
been given to it, for not only did it occur prior to the conflict at
Concord, but was the direct cause of that conflict. It was as much the
commencement of the Revolutionary war as was the attack on Fort Sumpter
by the disunionists, in 1861, the commencement of the Civil War, and had
precisely the same effect in each case. When the news reached London
that a government fort had been stormed by an organized force, its
garrison made prisoners and the flag of the empire torn down, the
ministers seem to have become convinced that it was the determination of
the colonists to make war upon the government. To tolerate such a
proceeding would be a confession that all law and authority was at an
end. Some vindication of that authority must be attempted. An order was
dispatched to General Gage to retake the munitions that had been seized
by the disunion forces, and any other found stored that might be used
for attacking the government troops; surely a very mild measure of
reprisal. It was in obedience to this order that the expedition was
dispatched to Concord, that brought about the collision between the
British and colonial troops and the so-called "Battle of Lexingon."

In Rhode Island, a revenue outrage of more than common importance
occurred at this time. A small schooner named the Gaspee, in the
government service, with a crew of some 25 sailors, commanded by
Lieutenant Duddingston, while pursuing a suspected smuggler on June 6,
1772, ran aground on a sand-bar near Providence, and the ship which had
escaped brought the news to that town. Soon after a drum was beat
through the streets, and all persons who were disposed to assist in the
destruction of the king's ship were summoned to meet at the home of a
prominent citizen. There appears to have been no concealment or
disguise, and shortly after 10 at night eight boats, full of armed men,
started with muffled oars on the expedition. They reached the stranded
vessel in the deep darkness of the early morning. Twice the sentinel on
board vainly hailed them, when Duddingston himself appeared in his shirt
upon the gunwale and asked who it was that approached. The leader of the
party answered with a profusion of oaths that he was the sheriff of the
county, come to arrest him, and while he was speaking one of his men
deliberately shot the lieutenant, who fell, badly wounded, on the deck.
In another minute the "Gaspee" was boarded and taken without any loss to
the attacking party. The crew was overpowered, bound and placed upon the
shore. Duddingston, his wounds having been dressed, was landed at a
neighboring house. The party set fire to the "Gaspee," and while its
flames announced to the whole county the success of the expedition, they
returned, in broad daylight to Providence. Large rewards were offered by
the British government for their detection, but though they were
universally known, no evidence could be obtained, and the outrage was
entirely unpunished. It is to be observed that this act of piracy and
open warfare against the government was committed by the citizens of a
colony that had no cause for controversy with the home government, and
whose constitution was such a liberal one that it was not found
necessary to change one word of it when the province became an
independent republic.

General Gage, being informed that powder and other warlike stores were
being collected in surrounding towns for the purpose of being used
against the government, he sent, on Sept. 1, 1774, two hundred soldiers
up the Mystic river, who took from the powder house 212 barrels of
powder, and brought off two field-pieces from Cambridge. On April 18,
1775, at 10 o'clock at night, eight hundred men embarked from Boston
Common and crossed the Charles river in boats to the Cambridge shore.
At the same time Paul Revere rowed across the river, lower down, and
landed in Charlestown, and then, on horseback, went in advance of the
troops to alarm the country. He was pursued, and with another scout
named Dawes, was captured by the troops. At the dawn of day Lexington
was reached, 12 miles distant from Boston, where the troops were
confronted on the village green by the Lexington militia, which was
ordered by the commander of the British expedition to disperse, but
failing to do so they were fired on by the troops, and several of them
killed. The militia dispersed without firing a shot.

The troops gave three cheers in token of their victory, and continued
their march to Concord, their objective point, where they were informed
munitions of war were being collected. They arrived there at 9 o'clock,
and after destroying the stores collected there, they took up their
march for Boston. But now the alarm had spread through the country. The
troops had hardly commenced marching, when, crossing the North Bridge
they were fired upon by the Americans; one soldier was killed and
another wounded.[39]

[39] As the wounded soldier was crawling away he was met by a boy who
had been chopping wood, and who, inflamed by the spirit of the hour,
killed him with his axe. The two soldiers lay buried near the stonewall
where they fell. More than a century later a young woman came here
recently from Nottinghamshire, who was a relative of one of them. She
went to the graves and placed upon them a wreath, singing as she did so,
"God save the King!"

Captain Davis and Abner Hosmer, two Americans, were killed by the
British fire. On the march towards Boston the troops were met by the
fire of the Americans from the stonewalls on either side of the highway,
along the skirt of every wood or orchard, and from every house or barn
or cover in sight. The troops, exposed to such a galling attack in flank
and rear, must have surrendered had they not been met with
reinforcements from Boston. This very emergency had been anticipated,
and General Gage had sent out a brigade of a thousand men, and two
field-pieces, under Earl Percy. The forces met at Lexington about 2
o'clock in the afternoon. After a short interval of rest and
refreshment, the troops took up their line of march for Boston. At every
point on the road they met an increasing number of militia, who by this
time had gathered in such force as to constitute a formidable foe. It
was a terrible march. Many were killed, on both sides, and it was with
the greatest difficulty that Lord Percy was able at last, about sunset,
to bring his command to Charlestown Neck under cover of the ships of
war. The troops lost that day in killed, wounded, and missing, 273; the
Americans, 93. The war of the Revolution had commenced. The fratricidal
struggle was entered into, between men of the same race and blood who
had stood shoulder to shoulder in many a hard-fought field; brothers,
fathers and sons, were to engage in a deadly struggle that should last
for years, and which, eighty-six years after wards, was to be repeated
over again in the war between the North and South.

CHAPTER V.

_THE LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS._

At the outbreak of the American rebellion the great majority of men in
the colonies could be regarded as indifferent, ready to stampede and
rush along with the successful party. Loyalty was their normal
condition; the state _had_ existed and _did_ exist, and it was the
disunionists who must do the converting, the changing of men's opinion
to suit a new order of things which the disunionists believed necessary
for their welfare. Opposed to the revolutionists were the crown
officials, dignified and worthy gentlemen, who held office by virtue of
a wise selection. Hardly to be distinguished from the official class
were the clergy of the Established Church, who were partially dependent
for their livings upon the British government. The officers and clergy
received the support of the landowners and the substantial business men,
the men who were satisfied with the existing order of things. The
aristocracy of culture, of dignified professions and callings, of
official rank and hereditary wealth, was, in a large measure, found in
the Loyalist party. Such worthy and talented men of high social
positions were the leaders of the opposition to the rebellion.
Supporting them was the natural conservatism of all prosperous men. The
men who had abilities which could not be recognized under the existing
regime, and those that form the lower strata of every society and are
every ready to overthrow the existing order of things, these were the
ones who were striving to bring about a change--a revolution.

The persecution of the Loyalists by the Sons of Despotism, or the "Sons
of Liberty," as they called themselves, was mercilessly carried out;
every outrage conceivable was practiced upon them. Freedom of speech was
suppressed; the liberty of the press destroyed; the voice of truth
silenced, and throughout the colonies was established a lawless power.
As early as 1772 "committees of correspondence" had been organized
throughout Massachusetts. Adams exclaimed in admiration: "What an
engine! France imitated it and produced a revolution."[40] Leonard, the
Loyalist, with "abhorrence pronounced it the foulest, subtlest and most
venomous serpent ever issued from the egg of sedition."[41] Insult and
threat met the Loyalist at every turn. One day he was, perhaps, set upon
a cake of ice to cool his loyalty,[42] and was then informed that a
certain famous liberty man had sworn to be his butcher. Next he was told
that he might expect a "sans benito" of tar and feathers, and even an
"auto da fe." The committee sent "Patriot" newspapers and other
propaganda to the wavering or obstinate, but seldom failed to follow
this system of conversion with a personal interview if the literature
failed. Such were the means that were used by the "Sons of Despotism" to
bring over the mass of the people to the disunion cause.

[40] John Adams' Letters. Vol. X, page 197.

[41] "Massachusettsensis."

[42] "Moor's Diary." Vol. I., page 359.

In the courts of law, not even the rights of a foreigner were left to
the Loyalist. If his neighbors owed him money he had no legal redress
until he took an oath that he favored American independence. All legal
action was denied him. He might be assaulted, insulted, blackmailed or
slandered, though the law did not state it so boldly, yet he had no
recourse in law. No relative or friend could leave an orphan child, to
his guardianship. He could be the executor or administrator of no man's
estate. He could neither buy land nor transfer it to another; he was
denied his vocation and his liberty to speak or write his opinions. All
these restrictions were not found in any one place, nor at any one time,
nor were they always rigorously enforced. Viewed from the distance of
one hundred years, the necessity of such barbarous severity is not now
apparent.

When this ostracism was approved by a large majority of the inhabitants
of a town the victim was practically expelled from the community. None
dared to give him food or comfort. He was a pariah, and to countenance
him was to incur public wrath.

On January 17, 1777, Massachusetts passed an Act punishing with death
the "Crime of adhering to Great Britain." The full extent of this law
was not carried into effect in Massachusetts, but it was in other
colonies. The "Black List" of Pennsylvania contained the names of 490
persons attainted of high treason. Only a few actually suffered the
extreme penalty. Among these were two citizens of Philadelphia--Mr.
Roberts and Mr. Carlisle. When the British army evacuated Philadelphia,
they remained, although warned of their danger. They were at once seized
by the returning disunionists and condemned to be hanged. Mr. Roberts's
wife and children went before congress and on their knees supplicated
for mercy, but in vain. In carrying out the sentence the two men, with
halters around their necks, were walked to the gallows behind a cart,
"attended with all the apparatus which makes such scenes truly
horrible." A guard of militia accompanied them; but few spectators.[43]

[43] "Penn Packet," Nov. 17, 1778. "Penn Archives," Vol. VIII, page 22.
"Dallis," Vol. I., pp 39, 42; "Galloway's Examinations," page 77.

At the gallows Mr. Roberts' behavior, wrote a loyal friend, "did honor
to human nature," and both showed fortitude and composure.

Roberts told his audience that his conscience acquitted him of guilt:
that he suffered for doing his duty to his sovereign; that his blood
would one day be required at their hands. Turning to his children he
charged and exhorted them to remember his principles for which he died,
and to adhere to them while they had breath. "He suffered with the
resolution of a Roman," wrote a witness.

After the execution, the bodies of the two men were carried away by
friends and their burial was attended by over 4000 in procession.[44]
Some of the more heartless leaders of the rebellion defended this
severity of treatment and thought "hanging the traitors" would have a
good effect and "give stability to the new government." "One suggested
that the Tories seemed designed for this purpose by Providence."[44] The
more thoughtful leaders, however, denounced the trial of Loyalists for
treason, and Washington feared that it might prove a dangerous
expedient. It was true, he granted, that they had joined the British
after such an offence had been declared to be treason; but as they had
not taken the oath, nor entered into the American service, it would be
said that they had a right to choose their side. "Again," he added, "by
the same rule that we try them may not the enemy try any natural-born
subject of Great Britain taken in arms in our service? We have a great
number of them and I, therefore, think we had better submit to the
necessity of treating a few individuals who may really deserve a severer
fate, as prisoners of war, than run the risk of giving an opening for
retaliation upon the Europeans in our service."[45]

[44] "Records of North Carolina," Vol. XI., page 561.

[45] "Washington's Writings," Vol. VI., page 241.

American writers never fail to tell of the "brutal and inhuman
treatment" of the American prisoners by the British in the prisons and
prison-ships at New York, where about five thousand prisoners were
confined. We are informed that their sufferings in the prison-ships were
greater than those in the prisons on land; that "every morning the
prisoners brought up their bedding to be aired, and after washing the
decks, they were allowed to remain above till sunset, when they were
ordered below with imprecations and the savage cry, "Down, rebels!
Down!" The hatches were then closed, and in serried ranks they lay down
to sleep," etc.[46] That many died from dysentery, smallpox and prison
fever, there is no doubt; but there is not any record that _they were
starved to death_. Compare the above treatment of prisoners by the
British with that of the Loyalists by the disunionists! In East Granby,
Connecticut, was situated an underground prison which surpassed the
horrors of the Black Hole of Calcutta. These barbarities and
inhumanities were the portion of those who had been guilty of loyalty to
their country, a social class distinguished by both their public and
private virtues. It seemed almost incredible that their
fellow-countrymen should have confined them in a place unfit for human
beings.

[46] Lossing, "Field Book of the Revolution," Vol. II., page 661.

This den of horrors, known as "Newgate Prison," was an old worked-out
copper mine, sixty feet under ground, in the hills of East Granby. The
only entrance to it was by means of a ladder down a shaft which led to
the caverns under ground. The darkness was intense; the caves reeked
with filth; vermin abounded; water trickled from the roof and oozed from
the sides of the cavern; huge masses of earth were perpetually falling
off. In the dampness and the filth the clothing of the prisoners grew
mouldy and rotted away, and their limbs became stiff with rheumatism.

During the Revolutionary war Loyalists of importance were confined in
this place of horrors, then of national importance, although now but
seldom referred to by American writers. Loyalists were consigned to it
for safe keeping by Washington himself. In a letter dated December 11,
1775, addressed to the Committee of Safety, Simsbury, Conn., he informed
them that the "charges of their imprisonment will be at the Continental
expense," and "to confine them in such manner so that they cannot
possibly make their escape."[47]

[47] "History of Simsbury and Granby," page 125.

"Driven to desperation the Loyalists rose against their guards. About 10
o'clock at night, on the 18th of May, 1781, when all the guards but two
had retired to rest, a wife of one of the prisoners appeared, to whom
permission was given to visit her husband in the cavern. Upon the
hatches being removed to admit her passing down, the prisoners who were
at the door, and prepared for the encounter, rushed up, seized the gun
of the sentry on duty, who made little or no resistance, and became
master of the guard-room before those who were asleep could be aroused
to make defence. The officer of the guard who resisted was killed, and
others wounded. The guard was easily overcome, a few sought safety in
flight, but the greater number were disarmed by the prisoners. The
prisoners, numbering twenty-eight persons, having equipped themselves
with the captured arms, escaped, and, with few exceptions avoided
recapture."[48]

[48] "History of Simsbury and Granby," pp. 123, 124.

The heart sickens at the recital of the sufferings of the Loyalists, and
we turn in disgust from the views which the pen of faithful history
records.

After the legislation of 1778 every grievance the colonists had put
forward as a reason for taking up arms had been redressed, every claim
they had presented had been abandoned, and from the time when the
English parliament surrendered all right of taxation and internal
legislation in the colonies, and when the English Commissioners laid
their propositions before the Americans, the character of the war had
wholly changed. It was no longer a war for self-taxation and
constitutional liberty. It was now an attempt, with the assistance of
France and Spain, to establish independence by shattering the British
empire.

There were brave and honest men in America who were proud of the great
and free empire to which they belonged, who had no desire to shirk the
burden of maintaining it, who remembered with gratitude that it was not
colonial, but all English blood that had been shed around Quebec and
Montreal in defence of the colonies. Men who with nothing to hope for
from the crown were prepared to face the most brutal mob violence and
the invectives of a scurrilous press; to risk their fortunes, their
reputation, and sometimes even their lives, in order to avert civil war
and ultimate separation. Most of them ended their days in poverty and
exile, and, as the supporters of a beaten cause, history has paid but a
scanty tribute to their memory. But they comprised some of the best and
ablest men America has ever produced, and they were contending for an
ideal which was at least as worthy as that for which Washington fought.

It was the maintenance of one great, free, industrial, and pacific
empire, comprising the whole British race, holding the richest plains of
Asia in possession, blending all that was most venerable in an ancient
civilization with the abundant energies of a youthful social combination
likely in a few generations to outstrip every commercial competitor, and
to acquire an indisputable ascendency among the nations. Such an ideal
was a noble one, and there were Americans who were prepared to make any
personal sacrifice to realize it. These men were the LOYALISTS of the
Revolution. Consider what the result would be today had not this
"Anglo-Saxon Schism," as Goldwin Smith calls it, taken place. There
would be a great English-speaking nation of 130,000,000 that could
dominate the world. They would in all substantial respects be one
people, in language, literature, institutions, and social usages,
whether settled in South Africa, in Australia, in the primitive home, or
in North America.

Because the Revolution had its origin in Massachusetts, and the old Bay
State furnished a large part of the men and the means to carry it to a
successful issue,[49] it seems to have been taken for granted that the
people embraced the popular side almost in a mass.

[49] The Southern States furnished 59,330 men; the Middle States 54,116,
and New England 118,355, of which number Massachusetts furnished 67,907.
("General Knox's Report.")

A more mistaken opinion than this has seldom prevailed. At the
evacuation of Boston, General Gage was accompanied by eleven hundred
Loyalists, which included the best people of the town. Boston at that
time had a population of 16,000. "Among these persons of distinguished
rank and consideration there were members of the council, commissioners,
officers of the customs, and other officials, amounting to one hundred
and two; of clergymen, eighteen; of inhabitants of country towns, one
hundred and five; of merchants and other persons who resided in Boston,
two hundred and thirteen; of farmers, mechanics and traders, three
hundred and eighty-two."[50]

[50] Sabine, "Loyalists of the Revolution," Vol. I., page 25.

Cambridge lost nearly all her men of mark and high standing; nearly all
the country towns were thus bereft of the very persons who had been the
most honored and revered. With the exiles were nearly one hundred
graduates of Harvard college.

Among the proscribed and banished were members of the old historic
families, Hutchinson, Winthrop, Saltonstall, Quincy, the Sewells, and
Winslows, families of which the exiled members were not one whit behind
those that remained, in intelligence, social standing and moral worth.

At the evacuation of New York and Savannah no fewer than 30,000 persons
left the United States for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. From northern
New York and Vermont the Loyalists crossed over into Upper Canada, and
laid the foundations of that prosperous province under the vigorous
leadership of Governor Simcoe, who, during the war, commanded a regiment
of Loyalist rangers which had done efficient service. Many of the
Southern Loyalists settled in Florida, the Bahamas and the West India
Islands.

Familiar New England names meet one at every turn in the maritime
provinces, especially Nova Scotia. Dr. Inglis, from Trinity church, New
York, was the first bishop, and Judge Sewell, of Massachusetts, the
first chief justice there. The harshness of the laws and the greed of
the new commonwealth had driven into exile men who could be ill spared,
and whose absence showed itself in the lack of balance and of political
steadiness which characterized the early history of the republic, while
the newly-founded colonies, composed almost exclusively of
conservatives, were naturally slow, but sure, in their development. The
men who were willing to give up home, friends and property, for an idea,
are not men to be despised; they are, rather, men for us to claim with
pride and honor as American--men of the same blood, and the same speech
as ourselves; Americans who were true to their convictions and who
suffered everything except the loss of liberty, for their political
faith. We look in vain among the lists of voluntary and banished
refugees from Massachusetts for a name on which rests any tradition of
disgrace or infamy, to which the finger of scorn can be pointed. Can
this be said of the Revolutionary leaders of Massachusetts, the
so-called patriots, to whom the Revolution owes its inception? If the
reader has any doubts on this subject, then let him compare the lives of
the Loyalists, as given in this work, with those of Samuel Adams, John
Hancock, and other Revolutionary leaders. The Loyalists were generally
people of substance; their stake in the country was greater, even, than
that of their opponents; their patriotism, no doubt, fully as fervent.
"There is much that is melancholy, of which the world knows but little,
connected with this expulsion from the land they sincerely loved. The
estates of the Loyalists were among the fairest, their stately mansions
stood on the sightliest hill-brows, the richest and best-tilled meadows
were their farms; the long avenue, the broad lawn, the trim hedge about
the garden, servants, plate, pictures, for the most part these things
were at the homes of the Loyalists. They loved beauty, dignity and
refinement." The rude contact of town meetings was offensive to their
tastes. The crown officials were courteous, well-born and congenial
gentlemen.

"The graceful, the chivalrous, the poetic, the spirits over whom these
feelings had power, were sure to be Loyalists. Democracy was something
rude and coarse, and independence to them meant a severance of those
connections of which a colonist ought to be proudest."

"Hence when the country rose, many a high-bred, honorable gentleman,
turned the key in his door, drove down his tree-lined avenue with his
refined dame and carefully-guarded children at his side, turned his back
on his handsome estate, and put himself under the shelter of the proud
banner of St. George. It was a mere temporary refuge, he thought, and he
promised himself a speedy return when discipline and loyalty should have
put down the rabble and the misled rustics."

"But the return was never to be. The day went against them; they crowded
into ships, with the gates of their country barred forever behind them.
They found themselves penniless upon shores sometimes bleak and barren,
always showing scant hospitality to outcasts who came empty-handed, and
there they were forced to begin life anew. Consider the condition of
Hutchinson, Apthorp, Gray, Clarke, Faneuil, Sewell, Royal, Vassall, and
Leonard, families of honorable note bound in with all that was best in
the life of the Province." "Who can think of their destiny
unpityingly."[51]

[51] Hosmer's "Life of Hutchinson." pages 321, 322.

A man suspected of loyalty to the crown was not left at peace, but was
liable to peremptory banishment unless he would swear allegiance to the
"Sons of Liberty," and if he returned he was subject to forcible
deportation, and to death on the gallows if he returned a second time.

One of the first acts of the revolutionary party when they returned to
Boston after the British evacuation, was to confiscate and sell all
property belonging to Loyalists and apply the receipts to supply the
public needs. The names and fate of a considerable proportion of these
Loyalists and those that preceded and succeeded the Boston emigration,
will be found in succeeding pages. Most of them went to Halifax, Nova
Scotia, and St. John, New Brunswick, where they endured great privation.
Many, however, subsequently went to England and there passed the
remainder of their lives. We find seventy or more of the Massachusetts
Loyalists holding offices of greater or less importance in the
provinces, and many of them were employed in places of high trust and
large influence in various parts of the Empire. They and their sons
filled for more than half a century the chief offices in the Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick judiciary, and they and their descendants must have
contributed in a degree not easily estimated to the elevation and
progress of those provinces.

Men whose fathers, mocked and broken
For the honor of a name.
Would not wear the conqueror's token,
Could not salt their bread with shame.

Plunged them in the virgin forest
With their axes in their hands,
Built a Province as a bulwark
For the loyal of the lands.

Won it by the axe and harrow,
Held it by the axe and sword,
Bred a race with brawn and marrow,
From no alien over-lord.
Gained the right to guide and govern;
Then with labor strong and free
Forged the land a shield of Empire,
Silver sea to silver sea.

--Duncan C. Scott.

In this way the United States, out of their own children, built upon
their borders a colony of rivals in navigation and the fisheries, whose
loyalty to the British crown was sanctified by misfortune. It is
impossible to say how many of these Loyalists would have been on the
Revolutionists' side had the party opposed to the crown been kept under
the control of its leaders. But they were, most of them, of the class of
men that would have the least amount of tolerance for outrage and
rapine, and when we consider how closely they were identified with the
institutions of their native province, and how little remains on record
of anything like rancor or malignity on their part, there can be little
doubt that a considerable proportion of them would have been saved for
the republic but for the very acts which posterity has been foolish
enough to applaud, and for their loss Massachusetts was appreciably the
poorer for more than one or two generations.

It is also admitted by those who are authorities on the subject, that if
it had not been for the brutal and intolerant persecution of the
Loyalists, the ruthless driving of these unfortunate people from their
homes, with the subsequent confiscation of property, the attempt to
throw off the authority of Great Britain at the time of the
Revolutionary War would not have succeeded; that is, people entirely or
at least reasonably content with the previous political condition were
terrorized into becoming patriots by the fear of the consequences that
would follow if they remained Loyalists.

The fact is, that, as far as the Americans were in it, the war of the
Revolution was a civil war in which the two sides were not far from
equality in numbers, in social conditions, and in their manners and
customs. The Loyalists contended all through the war that they were in a
numerical majority, and if they could have been properly supported by
British forces, the war might have ended in 1777, before the French
alliance had given hope and strength to the separatist party. Sabine
computes that there were at least 25,000 Americans in the military
service of the King, at one time or another, during the wars. In New
York, New Jersey, the Carolinas, and Georgia, the Loyalists outnumbered
the Revolutionists. Even in New England, the nursery of the Revolution,
the number was so large and so formidable, in the opinion of the
Revolutionary leaders, that in order to suppress them there was
established a reign of terror, anticipating the famous "Law of the
Suspected" of the French Revolution. An irresponsible tyranny was
established, of town and country committees, at whose beck and call were
the so-called "Sons of Liberty." To these committees was entrusted
absolute power over the lives and fortunes of their fellow citizens, and
they proceeded on principles of evidence that would have shocked and
scandalized a grand inquisitor.[52]

[52] "Essays in American History," 180-181.

The rigorous measures adopted by the new governments in New England
States, and the activity of their town committees, succeeded in either
driving out these Loyalist citizens, or reducing them to harmless
inactivity. In New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, the Carolinas and
Georgia, they remained strong and active throughout the war, and loyalty
was in those states in the ascendancy.

If the Loyalists were really a majority, as they claimed to be, the
disunionists were determined to break them up. Loyalists were tarred and
feathered and carried on rails, gagged and bound for days at a time;
stoned, fastened in a room with a fire and the chimney stopped on top;
advertised as public enemies, so that they would be cut off from all
dealings with their neighbors; they had bullets shot into their
bedrooms, their horses poisoned or mutilated; money or valuable plate
extorted from them to save them from violence, and on pretence of taking
security for their good behavior; their houses and ships burned; they
were compelled to pay the guards who watched them in their houses, and
when carted about for the mob to stare at and abuse, they were compelled
to pay something at every town. For the three months of July, August and
September of the year 1776, one can find in the American archives alone
over thirty descriptions of outrages of this kind, and all this done by
so-called "patriots" in the name of liberty! In short, lynch law
prevailed for many years during the Revolution, and the habit became so
fixed that it has never been given up. It was taken from the name of the
brother of the man who founded Lynchburgh, Virginia.

Wherever the disunionists were most successful with this reign of
terror, they drove all the judges from the bench, and abolished the
courts, and for a long time there were no courts or public
administration of the law, notably in New England.

To the mind of the Loyalists, all this lynching proceeding were an
irrefragible proof not only that the disunionist party were wicked, but
that their idea of independence of a country free from British control
and British law were silly delusions, dangerous to all good order and
civilization. That such a people could ever govern a country of their
own and have in it that thing they were crying so much about,
"liberty," was in their opinion beyond the bounds of intelligent belief.
A recent American writer says: "The revolution was not by any means the
pretty social event that the ladies of the so-called 'patriotic'
societies suppose it to have been. It was, on the contrary, a rank and
riotous rebellion against the long-established authority of a nation
which had saved us from France, built us up into prosperity, and if she
was ruling us today would, I am entirely willing to admit, abolish
lynch-law, negro burning, municipal and legislative corruption, and all
the other evils about which reformers fret." The same writer also says:
"All that saved this country from complete annihilation was the
assistance after 1778 of the French army, fleet, provisions, clothes,
and loans of money, followed by assistance from Spain, and, at the last
moment, by the alliance of Holland, and even with all this assistance
the cause was, even as late as the year 1780, generally believed to be a
hopeless one."[53] "In fact, Washington, at this time, was prepared to
become a guerilla." In case of being further pressed, he said: "We must
retire to Augusta County, in Virginia. Numbers will repair to us for
safety, and we will then try a predatory war. If overpowered, we must
cross the Allegheny Mountains."[54]

[53] "The American Revolution and Boer War," By Sidney Fisher, 1902.

[54] Irving's "Life of Washington," Vol. II., chap. xli.

The question will naturally be asked why, if they were so numerous, were
they not more successful, why did they yield to popular violence in New
England, and desert the country while the contest was going on, Why did
they not hold the Southern States, and keep them from joining the others
in the Continental Congresses, and in the war?

In the first place, a negative attitude is necessarily an inactive one,
and in consequence of this, and the fact that they could not take the
initiative in action, the Loyalists were put at a disadvantage before
the much better organization of the Revolutionary leaders. Though these
were few in number in the South, they were of families of great social
influence, and in the North were popular agitators of long experience.
They manipulated the committee system so carefully that the colonies
found themselves, before they were aware of the tendency of the actions
of their deputies, involved in proceedings of very questionable
legality, such as the boycotting agreement known as the "American
Association," and other proceedings of the Continental Congress.[55] In
regard to the subject of legal attainder and exile, Mr. Sabine remarks,
very moderately and sensibly: "Nor is it believed that either the
banishment or the confiscation laws, as they stood, were more expedient
than just. The latter did little towards relieving the public
necessities, and served only to create a disposition for rapacity, and
to increase the wealth of favored individuals. Had the estates which
were seized and sold been judiciously or honestly managed, a
considerable sum would have found its way to the treasury; but, as it
was, the amount was inconsiderable. Some of the wisest and purest Whigs
of the time hung their heads in shame because of the passage of measures
so unjustifiable, and never ceased to speak of them in terms of
reprobation. Mr. Jay's disgust was unconquerable, and he never would
purchase any property that had been forfeited under the Confiscation Act
of New York."[56]

[55] "Essays in American History," 179. See also "Royalists' Archives,"
Mass. State House.

[56] "North American Review," LIX., page 280.

Judge Curwen, a Salem Loyalist, says: "So infamously knavish has been
the conduct of the commissioners, that though frequent attempts have
been made to bring them to justice and to respond for the produce of the
funds resting in their hands, so numerous are the defaulters in that
august body, the _General Court_, that all efforts have hitherto proved
in vain. Not two pence on the pound have arrived to the public treasury
of all the confiscation."[57]

[57] The "Journal and Letters of Samuel Curwin," 147.

"The Loyalists, to a great extent, sprung from and represented the old
gentry of the country. The prospect of seizing their property had been
one great motive which induced many to enter the war. The new owners of
the confiscated property now grasped the helm. New men exercised the
social influence of the old families, and they naturally dreaded the
restoration of those whom they had dispossessed."

At the close of the war, the Revolutionists committed a great crime.
Instead of repealing the proscription and banishment acts, as justice
and good policy required, they manifested a spirit to place the humbled
and unhappy Loyalists beyond the pale of human sympathy. Hostilities at
an end, mere loyalty should have been forgiven. When, in the civil war
between the Puritans and the Stuarts, the former gained the ascendancy,
and when at a later period the Commonwealth was established, Cromwell
and his party wisely determined not to banish nor inflict disabilities
on their opponents, and so, too, at the restoration of the monarchy, so
general was the amnesty act in its provisions that it was termed an act
of oblivion to the _friends_ of Charles, and of grateful remembrance to
his _foes_. The happy consequences which resulted from the conduct of
_both_ parties, and in both cases, were before the men of their own
political and religious sympathies, the Puritans of the North and the
Cavaliers of the South in America, but neither of them profited by it,
at that time; but since then the wisdom of it has been exemplified by
the happy consequences which have resulted to both parties engaged in
the war of secession, where the United States wisely determined not to
banish, confiscate, or inflict any disabilities on their opponents in
the late seceded states.

The crime having been committed, thousands ruined and banished, new
British colonies founded, animosities to continue for generations made
certain, the violent Revolutionists of Massachusetts, New York and
Virginia, were satisfied: all this accomplished and the statute-book was
divested of its most objectionable enactments, and a few of the
Loyalists returned to their old homes, but by far the greater part died
in banishment.

No one who studies the history of the American Revolution can fail to be
convinced that the persecution of the Loyalists had for its final result
the severance of the North American continent into two nations. The
people who inhabited Nova Scotia prior to the Revolution were largely
New England settlers, who dispossessed the Acadians, and who for the
most part sympathized with the revolutionary movement. But for the
banishment of the Loyalists, Nova Scotia would have long continued with
but a very sparse population, and certainly could never have hoped to
obtain so enterprising, active, and energetic a set of inhabitants as
those who were supplied to it by the acts of the several states hostile
to the Loyalists. The same can also be said of Upper Canada. The hold of
the British government upon the British provinces of North America which
remained to the crown, would have been slight indeed, but for the active
hostility of the Loyalists to their former fellow-countrymen. They
created the state of affairs which consolidated British power on this
continent, and built it up into the Dominion of Canada, which in another
century will probably contain one hundred million inhabitants.

The treaty of peace with Great Britain, like other documents of its
kind, contained provisions of give and take. After signature by the
commissioners in Paris it was ratified with due consideration by the
Continental Congress. The advantages which it secured were not merely of
a sentimental nature, but material. It was justly regarded by
enlightened citizens of the states as a triumph of diplomacy. The credit
of Britain in the bargain was more of the heart than of the head. She
was willing to concede substantial and important benefits in order to
secure the lives and property of the Loyalists who had clung to her and
had sustained her arms. Looking at the matter now, in a cool light, she
blundered into sacrifices that were altogether needless, even with this
aim in view, and knowledge of the knavery that was to follow.

The game was played, and she had lost. North America, in the eyes of her
statesmen, was a strip of eastern seaboard; the great lakes were but
dimly understood; the continent beyond the Mississippi was ignored. She
gave much more than she needed to have given both in east and west, to
attain her honorable end, and what was more immediately distressing, she
received little or no value in return for her liberal concession.

"That each party should hold what it possesses, is the first point from
which nations set out in framing a treaty of peace. If one side gives up
a part of its acquisitions, the other side renders an equivalent in some
other way. What is the equivalent given to Great Britain for all the
important concessions she has made? She has surrendered the capital of
this state (New York) and its large dependencies. She is to surrender
our immensely valuable posts on the frontier, and to yield to us a vast
tract of western territory, with one-half of the lakes, by which we
shall command almost the whole fur trade. She renounces to us her claim
to the navigation of the Mississippi and admits us to share in the
fisheries even on better terms than we formerly enjoyed. As she was in
possession, by right of war, of all these objects, whatever may have
been our original pretensions to them, they are, by the laws of nations,
to be considered as so much given up on her part. And what do we give in
return? We stipulate that there shall be no future injury to her
adherents among us. How insignificant the equivalent in comparison with
the acquisition! A man of sense would be ashamed to compare them, a man
of honesty, not intoxicated with passion, would blush to lisp a question
of the obligation to observe the stipulation on our part."[58] In return
for these advantages which Hamilton informs us Great Britain gave to the
States, Congress had most solemnly undertaken three things, and people,
wearied by the sufferings of our eight years' war, would have gladly
purchased the blessings of peace at a much higher price. The first of
these conditions was that no obstacle or impediment should be put in the
way of the recovery of debts due to British subjects from the citizens
of the Republic; the second that no fresh prosecution or confiscation
should be directed against Loyalists; the third, that Congress should
sincerely recommend to the legislatures of the various states a repeal
of the existing acts of confiscation, which affected the property of
these unfortunate persons. On the last no stress could be laid, but the
first and second were understood by every man, honest or dishonest, in
the same sense as when peace was joyfully accepted. The American states
took the benefits of peace which the efforts of Congress had secured to
them, they accepted the advantages of the treaty which their
representative had signed, they watched and waited until the troops of
King George were embarked in transports at New York for England, and
then proceeded to deny, in a variety of tones, all powers in the central
government to bind them in the matter of the _quid pro quo_. It was not
a great thing which Congress had undertaken to do, or one which could be
of any material advantage to their late enemy. All their promises
amounted to was that they would abstain from the degradation of a petty
and personal revenge, and this promise they proceeded to break in every
particular.

[58] The Works of Alexander Hamilton, by H. C. Lodge, 2d edition, Vol.
IV., page 239.

As Hamilton wisely and nobly urged, the breach was not only a despicable
perfidy, but an impolitic act, since Loyalists might become good
citizens and the state needed nothing more urgently than population. But
no sooner was danger at a distance, embarked on transports, than the
states assumed an attitude of defiance. The thirteen legislatures vied
with one another in the ingenuity of measures for defeating the recovery
of debts due to British creditors. They derided the recommendation to
repeal oppressive acts, and to restore confiscated property, and
proceeded, without regard either for honor or consequences, to pass new
acts of wider oppression and to order confiscation on a grander scale.
There was a practical unanimity in engaging in fresh persecutions of
Loyalists, not merely by the enactment of oppressive civil laws, but by
even denying them the protection afforded by a just enforcement of the
criminal laws. In many districts these unfortunate persons were robbed,
tortured, and even put to death with impunity, and over a hundred
thousand driven into exile in Canada, Florida and the Bahamas.

Measures were passed amid popular rejoicing to obstruct the recovery of
debts due to British merchants and to enable the fortunate Americans to
revel unmolested in the pleasure of stolen fruits. It is remarkable how
at this period public opinion was at once so childish and rotten, and
one is at a loss whether to marvel most at its recklessness of credit or
its unvarnished dishonesty; it was entirely favorable to the idea of
private theft, and the interest of rogues was considered with compassion
by the grave and respectable citizens who composed the legislatures of
the various states. It was the same spirit which had violated the
Burgoyne convention at Saratoga, the same which in later days preached
the gospel of repudiation, greenbackism, silver currency, violated
treaties with the Indians, that produced a "Century of Dishonor."

Meanwhile the policy of breach of faith was producing its natural crop
of inconvenience. Dishonest methods were not the unmixed advantages
which these adherents had supposed, when they engaged upon them in a
spirit of light-hearted cunning. For in spite of all the ill-feeling, a
large demand arose for British goods. For these, specie had to be paid
down on the nail in all cases where wares or material were not taken in
exchange, since no British merchant would now give one pennyworth of
credit, out of respect to the measures of the various states for the
obstruction of the payment of British debts. It was true that Britain
was in no mood to embark upon a fresh war for the punishment of broken
promises. She had surrendered the chief hostage when she evacuated her
strategical position at New York, but she declined to hand over the
eight important frontier posts which she held upon the American side of
the line between Lake Michigan and Lake Champlain. These posts were much
in themselves, and as a symbol of dominion to the Indian tribes. They
were much also as a matter of pride, while their retention carried with
it the whole of the valuable fur trade, which consequently, until 1795,
when they were at last surrendered, brought considerable profits to
British merchants.

To the short-sighted policy which banished the Loyalists may be traced
nearly all the political troubles of this continent, in which Britain
and the United States have been involved. "Dearly enough have the people
of the United States paid for the crime of the violent Whigs of the
Revolution, for to the Loyalists who were driven away, and to their
descendants, we owe almost entirely the long and bitter controversy
relative to our northeastern boundaries, and the dispute about our right
to the fisheries in the colonial seas."

CHAPTER VI.

_THE REVOLUTIONIST._

The American Revolution, like most other revolutions, was the work of an
energetic minority who succeeded in committing an undecided and
fluctuating majority to courses for which they had little love; leading
them, step by step, to a position from which it was impossible to
recede. To the last, however, we find vacillation, uncertainty, half
measures, and, in large classes, a great apparent apathy. There was,
also, a great multitude, who, though they would never take up arms for
the king; though they, perhaps, agreed with the constitutional doctrines
of the revolution, dissented on grounds of principle, policy, or
interest, from the course they were adopting.

That the foregoing is a correct presentation of the case is shown by a
letter written by John Adams, when in Congress, to his wife. He says:

"I have found this congress like the last. When we first came together,
I found a strong jealousy of us from New England, and the Massachusetts
in particular--suspicions entertained of designs of independency, an
American republic, Presbyterian principles, and twenty other
things."[59]

[59] Letters of John Adams to His Wife, Vol. I., p. 45.

It was an open question with many whether a community liable to such
outbreaks of popular fury did not need a strongly repressive government;
and especially when the possibilities of a separation from the mother
country was contemplated, it was a matter of doubt whether such a people
were fit for self-government. Was it not possible that the lawless and
anarchical spirit which had of late years been steadily growing, and
which the "patriotic" party had actively encouraged, would gain the
upper hand, and the whole fabric of society would be dissolved?

In another letter of John Adams to his wife at this time, he gives us an
idea of what the opinion was of the Loyalists concerning the doctrines
taught by the disunionists, and which, he says, "Must be granted to be a
likeness." "They give rise to profaneness, intemperance, thefts,
robberies, murders, and treason; cursing, swearing, drunkenness,
gluttony, lewdness, trespassing, mains, are necessarily involved in
them. Besides they render the populace, the rabble, the scum of the
earth, insolent and disorderly, impudent and abusive. They give rise to
lying, hypocrisy, chicanery, and even perjury among the people, who are
drawn to such artifices and crime to conceal themselves and their
companions from prosecution in consequence of them. This is the picture
drawn by the Tory pencil, and it must be granted to be a likeness."[60]

[60] Letters of John Adams to His Wife, Vol. I., p. 8.

There are several passages in the writings of John Adams that seem to
indicate that he at times had doubts of the righteousness of the course
he had pursued. They were written in his later years, though one refers
to an incident alleged to have occurred during his early manhood. In a
letter to a friend in 1811, he thus moralizes: "Have I not been employed
in mischief all my days? Did not the American Revolution produce the
French Revolution? And did not the French Revolution produce all the
calamities and desolations to the human race and the whole globe ever
since?" But he justifies himself with the reflection: "I meant well,
however; my conscience was as clear as crystal glass, without a scruple
or doubt. I was borne along by an irresistible sense of duty." In his
diary Mr. Adams recalls to mind one incident which occurred in 1775. He
mentions the profound melancholy which fell upon him in one of the most
critical moments of the struggle, when a man whom he knew to be a
horse-jockey and a cheat, and whom, as an advocate, he had often
defended in the law courts, came to him and expressed the unbounded
gratitude he felt for the great things which Adams and his colleagues
had done. "We can never," he said, "be grateful enough to you. There are
now no courts of justice in this province, and I hope there will never
be another." "Is this the object," Adams continued, "for which I have
been contending?" said I to myself. "Are these the sentiments of such
people, and how many of them are there in the country? Half the nation,
for what I know; for half the nation are debtors, if not more, and these
have been in all the countries the sentiments of debtors. If the power
of the country should get into such hands--and there is great danger
that it will--to what purpose have we sacrificed our time, health and
everything else?"[61]

[61] Adams' Works, Vol. II., 420.

Misgivings of this kind must have passed through many minds. To some may
have come the warning words of Winthrop, the father of Boston, uttered
one hundred and fifty years before these events occurred, in which he
said: "Democracy is, among most civil nations, accounted the meanest and
worst of all forms of government, and histories record that it hath
always been of least continuance and fullest of trouble."[62]

[62] Life of Winthrop, Vol. II., 427.

There was a doubt in the minds of many people, which we have often heard
uttered in recent times, with reference to the French people in their
long series of revolutions, and equally so with the Spanish-American
republics with their almost annual revolutions, whether these words of
Winthrop were not correct, and that the people were really incapable of
self-government. It was a doubt which the revolution did not silence,
for the disturbing elements which had their issue in the Shay Rebellion,
The Whiskey Insurrection and the mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line, in
1781, were embers of a fire, smothered, not quenched, which rendered
state government insecure till it was welded into the Federal Union.
There was a widespread dislike to the levelling principles of New
England, to the arrogant, restless and ambitious policy of its
demagogues; to their manifest desire to invent or discover grievances,
foment quarrels and keep the wound open and festering.[63]

[63] See Adams' Works, Vol. II, pp. 350, 410.

Those who rebelled in good faith did so because they feared that the
power of Parliament to tax them moderately to raise money for their own
defence might be used sometime in the future for a less worthy purpose,
and then they would all be "slaves." Their argument led to mob rule and
anarchy, till the adaption of the Federal Constitution, after the close
of the Revolutionary War.

The opinion of such an authority as Lecky on our revolutionary movements
must be worthy of thoughtful attention; and his opinion is this: "Any
nation might be proud of the shrewd, brave, prosperous and highly
intelligent yeomen who flocked to the American camps; but they were very
different from those who defended the walls of Leyden, or immortalized
the field of Bannockburn. Few of the great pages of history are less
marked by the stamp of heroism than the American Revolution and perhaps
the most formidable of the difficulties which Washington had to
encounter were in his own camp."[64] And he concludes his survey of the
movement with these words: "In truth the American people, though in
general unbounded believers in progress, are accustomed, through a kind
of curious modesty, to do themselves a great injustice by the
extravagant manner in which they idealize their past. It has almost
become as commonplace that the great nation which in our own day has
shown such an admirable combination of courage, devotion and humanity in
its gigantic Civil War, and which since that time has so signally
falsified the prediction of its enemies and put to shame all the nations
of Europe by its unparalleled efforts in paying off its national debt,
is of far lower moral type than its ancestors at the time of the War of
Independence. This belief appears to me essentially false. The nobility
and beauty of Washington can, indeed, hardly be paralleled. Several of
the other leaders of the Revolution were men of ability and public
spirit, and few armies have ever shown a nobler self-devotion than that
which remained with Washington through the dreary winter at Valley
Forge. But the army that bore those sufferings was a very small one, and
the general aspect of the American people during the contest was far
from heroic or sublime. The future destinies and greatness of the
English race must necessarily rest mainly with the mighty nation which
has arisen beyond the Atlantic, and that nation may well afford to admit
that its attitude during the brief period of its enmity to England has
been very unduly extolled. At the same time, the historian of that
period would do the Americans a great injustice if he judged them only
by the revolutionary party, and failed to recognize how large a
proportion of their best men had no sympathy with the movement."[65]

[64] Lecky, "American Revolution," p. 230.

[65] Lecky's "American Revolution," p. 375.

Our native historians and the common run of Fourth of July orators have
treated their countrymen badly for a hundred years. They have given the
world to understand that we are the degenerate children of a race of
giants, statesmen, and moralists, who flourished for a few years about a
century ago and then passed away. An impartial examination of the
records would show that we are wiser, better, more benevolent, quite as
patriotic and brave as the standard heroes of 1776. We may give our
ancestors credit for many admirable virtues without attempting to
maintain that a multitude of unlettered colonists, scattered along the
Atlantic coast, hunting, fishing, smuggling, and tilling the soil for a
slender livelihood, and fighting Indians and wild beasts to save their
own lives, possessed a vast fund of political virtue and political
intelligence, and left but little of either to their descendants. The
public is beginning to tire of this tirade of indiscriminate eulogy, and
the public taste is beginning to reject it as a form of defamation. And
so the ripening judgment of our people is beginning to demand portraits
of our ancestors painted according to the command that Cromwell gave the
artist; to paint his features, warts, blotches, and all, and to demand
an account of our forefathers in which we shall learn to speak of them
as they were.

Sabine, in his valuable work, "Loyalists of the American Revolution,"
says: "I presume that I am of Whig descent. My father's father received
his death-wound under Washington, at Trenton; my mother's father fought
under Stark at Bennington. I do not care, of all things, to be thought
to want appreciation of those of my countrymen who broke the yoke of
colonial vassalage, nor on the other hand, do I care to imitate the
writers of a later school, and treat the great and the _successful_
actors in the world's affairs as little short of divinities, and as
exempt from criticism. Nay, this general statement will not serve my
purpose. Justice demands as severe a judgment of the Whigs as of their
opponents, and I shall here record the result of long and patient study.
At the Revolutionary period the principles of unbelief were diffused to
a considerable extent throughout the colonies. It is certain that
several of the most conspicuous personages of those days were either
avowed disbelievers in Christianity, or cared so little about it that
they were commonly regarded as disciples of the English or French school
of sceptical philosophy. Again, the Whigs were by no means exempt from
the lust of land hunger. Several of them were among the most noted land
speculators of their time, during the progress of the war, and, in a
manner hardly to be defended, we find them sequestering and
appropriating to themselves the vast estates of those who opposed them.
Avarice and rapacity were seemingly as common then as now. Indeed, the
stock-jobbing, the extortion, the fore-stalling of the law, the arts and
devices to amass wealth which were practised during the struggle, are
almost incredible. Washington mourned the want of virtue as early as
1775, and averred that he 'trembled at the prospect'--soldiers were
stripped of their miserable pittance that contractors for the army might
become rich in a single campaign. Many of the sellers of merchandise
monopolized (or 'cornered') articles of the first necessity, and would
not part with them to their suffering countrymen, and to the wives and
children of those who were absent in the field, unless at enormous
profit. The traffic carried on with the army of the king was immense.
Men of all descriptions finally engaged in it, and those who at the
beginning of the war would have shuddered at the idea of any connection
with the enemy, pursued it with increasing avidity. The public
securities were often counterfeited, official signatures forged, and
plunder and jobbery openly indulged in. Appeals to the guilty from the
pulpit, the press, and the halls of legislature were alike unheeded. The
decline of public spirit, the love of gain of those in office, the
plotting of disaffected persons, and the malevolence of factions, became
widely spread, and in parts of the country were uncontrollable. The
useful occupations of life and the legitimate pursuits of commerce were
abandoned by thousands. The basest of men enriched themselves, and many
of the most estimable sank into obscurity and indigence. There were
those who would neither pay their debts nor their taxes. The indignation
of Washington was freely expressed. 'It gives me sincere pleasure,' he
said, in a letter to Joseph Reed, 'to find the Assembly is so well
disposed to second your endeavor in bringing those murderers of our
cause to condign punishment. It is much to be lamented that each state,
long ere this, has not hunted them down as pests of society and the
greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America. No punishment, in
my opinion, is too great for the man who can build his greatness upon
his country's ruin.'"

In a letter to another, he drew this picture, which he solemnly declared
to be a true one: "From what I have seen, heard, and in part known,"
said he, "I should in one word say, that idleness, dissipation, and
extravagance seem to have laid fast hold on most; that speculation,
peculation, and an insatiable thirst for riches, seem to have got the
better of every other consideration, and almost every order of men, and
that party disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the
day."

In other letters he laments the laxity of public morals, the "distressed
rumors, and deplorable condition of affairs," the "many melancholy
proofs of the decay of private virtue." "I am amazed," said Washington
to Colonel Stewart, "at the report you make of the quantity of provision
that goes daily into Philadelphia from the County of Bucks."
Philadelphia was occupied at that time by the British army, who paid in
hard money and not in "continental stuff." and mark you! this was
written in January of that memorable winter which the American army
passed in nakedness and starvation at Valley Forge. There was always an
army--on paper. At the close of one campaign there were not enough
troops in camp to man the lines. At the opening of another "scarce any
state in the Union," as Washington said, had an "eighth part of its
quota" in service. The bounty finally paid to soldiers was enormous. The
price for a single recruit was as high sometimes as seven hundred and
fifty, and one thousand dollars, on enlistment for the war, besides the
bounty and emoluments given by Congress. One hundred and fifty dollars
"in specie" was exacted and paid for a term of duty of only five months.
Such were the extraordinary inducements necessary to tempt some men to
serve their country when its vital interests were at issue. Making every
allowance for the effects of hunger and want, for the claims of families
at home, and for other circumstances equally imperative, desertion,
mutiny, robbery, and murder are still high crimes. There were soldiers
of the Revolution who deserted in parties of twenty and thirty at a
time, and several hundred of those who then abandoned the cause fled to
Vermont and were among the early settlers of that state. A thousand men,
the date of whose enlistment had been misplaced, perjured themselves in
a body, as fast as they could be sworn, in order to quit the ranks which
they had voluntarily entered. In smaller parties, hundreds of others
demanded dismissals from camp under false pretexts, and with lies upon
their lips. Some also added treason to desertion, and joined the various
corps of Loyalists in the capacity of spies upon their former friends,
or as guides and pioneers. Many more enlisted, deserted, and re-enlisted
under new recruiting officers for the purpose of receiving double
bounty, while others who placed their names upon the rolls were paid the
money to which they were entitled, but refused to join the army; and
others still who were sent to the hospitals returned home without leave
after their recovery, and were sheltered and secreted by friends and
neighbors, whose sense of right was as weak as their own. Another class
sold their clothing, provisions, and arms to obtain means of indulgence
in revelry and drunkenness; while some prowled about the country to rob
and kill the unoffending and defenceless. A guard was placed over the
grave of a foreigner of rank, who died in Washington's own quarters, and
who was buried in full dress, with diamond rings and buckles, "lest the
soldiers should be tempted to dig for hidden treasure." Whippings,
drummings out of the service, and even military executions were more
frequent in the Revolution than at any subsequent period of our history.

If we turn our attention to the officers we shall find that many had but
doubtful claims to respect for purity of private character, and that
some were addicted to grave vices. There were officers who were
destitute alike of honor and patriotism, who unjustly clamored for their
pay, while they drew large sums of public money under pretext of paying
their men, but applied them to the support of their own extravagance;
who went home on furlough and never returned to the army; and who,
regardless of their word as gentlemen, violated their paroles, and were
threatened by Washington with exposure in every newspaper in the land as
men who had disgraced themselves and were heedless of their associates
in captivity, whose restraints were increased by their misconduct. At
times, courts-martial were continually sitting, and so numerous were the
convictions that the names of those who were cashiered were sent to
Congress in long lists. "Many of the surgeons"--are the words of
Washington--"are very great rascals, countenancing the men to sham
complaints to exempt them from duty, and often receiving bribes to
certify indisposition with a view to procure discharge or furlough"; and
still further, they drew as for the public "medicines and stores in the
most profuse and extravagant manner for private purposes." In a letter
to the governor of a state, he affirmed that the officers who had been
sent him therefrom were "generally of the lowest class of the people,"
that they "led their soldiers to plunder the inhabitants and into every
kind of mischief." To his brother, John Augustine Washington, he
declared that the different states were nominating such officers as were
"not fit to be shoe-blacks." Resignations occurred upon discreditable
pretexts, and became alarmingly prevalent. Some resigned at critical
moments, and others combined together in considerable number for
purposes of intimidation, and threatened to retire from the service at a
specified time unless certain terms were complied with. Many of those
who abandoned Washington were guilty of a crime which, when committed by
private soldiers, is called "desertion," and punished with death.
Eighteen of the generals retired during the struggle, one for
drunkenness, one to avoid disgrace for receiving double pay, some from
declining health, others from weight of advancing years; but several
from private resentments and real or imagined wrongs inflicted by
Congress or associates in the service.

John Adams wrote in 1777: "I am worried to death with the wrangles
between military officers, high and low. They quarrel like cats and
dogs. They worry one another like mastiffs, scrambling for rank and pay
like apes for nuts."[66]

[66] Sabine, Vol. I, pp. 139-150.

"The abandoned and profligate part of our army," wrote Washington, "lost
to every sense of honor or virtue as well as their country's good, are
by rapine and plunder spreading ruin and terror wherever they go,
thereby making themselves infinitely more to be dreaded than the common
enemy they are come to oppose. Under the idea of Tory property, or
property that may fall into the hands of the enemy, no man is secure in
his effects, and scarcely in his person."[67] American soldiers were
constantly driving innocent persons out of their homes by an alarm of
fire, or by actual incendiarism, in order more easily to plunder the
contents, and all attempts to check this atrocious practice had proved
abortive. The burning of New York was generally attributed to New
England soldiers. The efforts of the British soldiers to save the city
were remembered with gratitude, and there is little doubt that in the
city, and in the country around it, the British were looked upon not as
invaders, but as deliverers.

[67] Washington's Works, IV., 118, 119, Lecky, 257.

"Wherever the men of war have approached, our militia have most manfully
turned their backs and run away, officers and men, like sturdy fellows,
and these panics have sometimes seized the regular regiments.

"....You are told that a regiment of Yorkers behaved ill, and it may be
true; but I can tell you that several regiments of Massachusetts men
behaved ill, too. The spirit of venality you mention is the most
dreadful and alarming enemy America has to oppose. It is as rapacious
and insatiable as the grave. This predominant avarice will ruin America.
If God Almighty does not interfere by His grace to control this
universal idolatry to the mammon of unrighteousness, we shall be given
up to the chastisement of His judgments. I am ashamed of the age I live
in."[68]

[68] Letter of John Adams to His Wife, Vol. I., p. 171.

Nor was the public life of the country at that time more creditable. In
the course of the war, persons of small claims to notice or regard
obtained seats in Congress. By force of party disruptions, as was
bitterly remarked by one of the leaders, men were brought into the
management of affairs "who might have lived till the millennium in
silent obscurity had they depended upon their mental qualifications."
Gouverneur Morris was, no doubt, one of the shrewdest observers of
current events in his day, and the purity of the patriotism of John Jay
entitled him to stand by the side of Washington. One day, in a
conversation, thirty years after the second Continental Congress had
passed away, Morris exclaimed: "Jay, what a set of damned scoundrels we
had in that second Congress!" And Jay, as he knocked the ashes from his
pipe, replied: "Yes, we had."

Near the close of 1779, Congress, trying to dispel the fear that the
continental currency would not be redeemed, passed a resolution
declaring: "A bankrupt, faithless republic would be a novelty in the
political world. The pride of America revolts at the idea. Her citizens
know for what purpose these emissions were made, and have repeatedly
pledged their faith for the redemption of them." The rest of the
resolution is too coarse for quotation, even for the sake of emphasis.
In a little more than three months from the passage of that resolution a
bill was passed to refund the continental currency by issuing one dollar
of new paper money for forty of the old, and the new issue soon became
as worthless as the former emission. Indeed, the patriots repudiated
obligations to the amount of two hundred million dollars, and did it so
effectually that we still use the expression, "not worth a continental"
as a synonym for worthlessness.

It is a common belief that scurrilous and indecent attacks upon public
men by American journalists is an evil of modern growth; but this is an
error. A century ago such attacks exceeded in virulence anything that
would be possible today. Among the vilest of the lampooners of that age
were a quartette of literary hacks who for some years were engaged in
denouncing the federalist party and government. Philip Freneau owned
"_The National Gazette_," a journal that Hamilton declared disclosed "a
serious design to subvert the government." He was among the most
virulent assailants of Washington's administration, denouncing not only
the members of the cabinet, except Jefferson, but the chief himself.
Among other charges brought against him, Washington was accused of
"debauching the country" and "seeking a crown," "and all the while
passing himself off as an honest man." Benjamin F. Bache was a grandson
of Dr. Benjamin Franklin. He inherited all his ancestor's duplicity,
love of intrigue, and vindictiveness, but none of his suavity and tact.
Sullen and malevolent of disposition, scarcely could he keep in accord
with men of his own party. He owned and edited "The Aurora," a paper
which in depth of malice and meanness exceeded the journal of Freneau.
He also made vicious attacks upon Washington, both in the "Aurora" and
other publications. Washington's "fame" he declared to be "spurious"; he
was "inefficient," "mischievous," "treacherous," and "ungrateful." His
"mazes of passion" and the "loathings of his sick mind" were held up to
the contempt of the people. "His sword," it was declared, "would have
been drawn against his country" had the British government given him
promotion in the army. He had, it was asserted, "cankered the principles
of republicanism" "and carried his designs against the public liberty so
far as to put in jeopardy its very existence."

William Duane, a man of Irish parentage, assisted Bache in the conduct
of the "Aurora," and upon his death, in 1798, assumed full control of
it. He was responsible for some of the most virulent attacks upon
Washington, published in that paper. Bache and Duane both received
severe castigations, administered in retaliation for abusive articles.

James Thompson Callender, who disgraced Scotland by his birth, was a
shameless and double-faced rascal. A professional lampooner, his pen was
at the service of any one willing to pay the price. He, too, had a fling
at the President, declaring that "Mr. Washington had been twice a
traitor," and deprecating "the vileness of the adulation" paid him.

In this quartette of scoundrels may be added the notorious Thomas Paine,
who, after exalting Washington to the seventh heaven of excellence, upon
being refused by him an office that to confer upon him would have
disgraced the nation, showered upon him the vilest denunciation. "As for
you, sir," he wrote, addressing him, "treacherous in private friendship,
and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide
whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned
good principles, or whether you ever had any." That these attacks upon
members of the government were the direct results of the teachings of
Jefferson there is no room for doubt. That he encouraged and supported
their authors has been proved beyond a doubt. He was one of the worst
detractors of Great Britain. For fifty years he employed his pen in
reviling the mother country. Then occurred one of the most remarkable
instances of political death-bed repentance that the annals of
statecraft have to show. He who had so often asserted that Great Britain
was a nation powerless, decrepit, lost to corruption, eternally hostile
to liberty, totally destitute of morality and good faith, and warned his
countrymen to avoid intercourse with her lest they become contaminated
by the touch; he who had yearned for her conquest by a military despot,
and proposed to burn the habitations of her citizens, like the nests of
noxious vermin, is suddenly found proclaiming "her mighty weight,"
lauding her as the protector of free government, and exhorting his
fellow citizens to "sedulously cherish a cordial friendship with her."
This change of heart was brought about by the announcement by Great
Britain of the so-called "Monroe Doctrine." In Jefferson's letter to
Monroe of October 24, 1823, he said: "The question presented by the
letters you have sent me (the letters of Mr. Rush, reciting Mr.
Canning's offer of British support against the attempt of the "Holy
Alliance" to forcibly restore the revolted Spanish-American colonies to
Spain), is the most momentous that has ever been offered to my
contemplation since that of Independence. And never could we embark
under circumstances more auspicious. By acceding to Great Britain's
proposition we detach her from the bonds, bring her mighty weight into
the scale of free government, and emancipate a continent at one stroke.
With her on our side we need not fear the whole world. With her then we
should most sedulously cherish a cordial friendship."

Alexander Hamilton was a soldier of fortune of the highest type. He was
born on the island of Nevis, in the West Indies. He was of illegitimate
birth; his father was Scotch and his mother French. Endowed with a high
order of intellect, possessed of indomitable energy and passionate
ambition, he went forth into the world determined to win both.[69]
Chance threw him into the colonies at a time when the agitation for
independence was at its height. He landed at Boston in October, 1772;
thence he went to New York, where in his sixteenth year he entered
King's (now Columbia) College. At first he affiliated with the
Loyalists, but soon deserted to the Disunionists, which gave him greater
opportunities of realizing his ambitious dream. As a Loyalist the world
would never have heard of him, but as John Marshall informs us, he ranks
next to Washington as having rendered more conspicuous service to the
United States than any other man in the Revolution. A great orator, a
talented lawyer, a good soldier, master of every field he entered,
punctilious and haughty of temperament, he scorned to bend even to the
proud spirit of Washington. His position on Washington's staff was
literally a secretaryship more civil than military. It was "the
grovelling condition of a clerk," which his youthful genius revolted at.
This caused him to resign his staff appointment. Alexander Hamilton was
the deviser and establisher of the government of the United States. He
it was that framed the Constitution, who urged and secured its adoption
by the original thirteen states at a time when but a rope of sand bound
them together. To Hamilton, more than any other man, is due the fact
that the United States today form a nation. He lived long enough to see
the nation to which he gave political stability submitting itself in
entire respect and confidence to the declaration contained in the most
remarkable document ever written.

[69] In a letter written by Hamilton when he was but thirteen years of
age, employed as a clerk, he declared: "I condemn the grovelling
condition of a clerk to which my future condition condemns me, and would
willingly risk my life, though not my character, to exalt my station."

Like many of his contemporaries he was an _intrigaunt_, injuring his
health and impairing the sanctity of his home, and was destined to meet
his death at the hands of a man more dissolute than himself, and
destitute of his honorable traits of character.

Professor Sumner says: "It is astonishing how far writers kept from the
facts and evidence. This is so much the case that it is often impossible
to learn what was really the matter. The colonists first objected to
internal taxes, but consented to import duties. Then they distinguished
between import duties to regulate commerce, and import duties for
revenue. They seem to have changed their position and to be consistent
in one thing only, to pay no taxes and to rebel." After patiently
examining their pamphlets and discussions, Sumner concludes: "The
incidents of the trouble offer occasion at every step for reserve in
approving the proceedings of the colonists. We therefore come to the
conclusion that the Revolutionary leader made a dispute about the method
of raising a small amount of revenue a pretext for rending an empire
which, if united, might civilize and wisely govern the fairest portion
of the globe."

The foregoing statements are more than corroborated by a letter written
to Washington by Rev. Jacob Duche, a former rector of Christ Church,
Philadelphia, a man of great learning, eloquence, and piety, who was
appointed chaplain to the first Congress. His prayer at the opening of
the session was pronounced not only eloquent, but patriotic in the
extreme. While it was being uttered there was but one man in that whole
assembly who knelt, and that man was George Washington. When Washington
received the letter he immediately transmitted it to Congress. The
letter was in part as follows:--

Philadelphia, 8th October, 1777.

"Sir--If this letter should find you in council or in the field, before
you read another sentence I beg you to take the first opportunity of
retiring and weighing its important contents. You are perfectly
acquainted with the part I formerly took in the present unhappy contest.
I was, indeed, among the first to bear my public testimony against
having any recourse to threats, or indulging a thought of an armed
opposition.

"The current, however, was too strong for my feeble efforts to resist. I
wished to follow my countrymen as far only as virtue and the
righteousness of their cause would permit me. I was, however, prevailed
on, among the rest of my clerical brethren of this city, to gratify the
pressing desires of my fellow citizens by preaching a sermon, and
reluctantly consented. From a personal attachment of nearly twenty
years' standing and a high respect for your character, in private as
well as public life, I took the liberty of dedicating this sermon to
you. I had your affectionate thanks for my performance in a letter,
wherein was expressed, in the most delicate and obliging terms, your
regard for me, and your wishes for a continuance of my friendship and
approbation of your conduct. Further than this I intended not to
proceed. My sermon speaks for itself, and wholly disclaims the idea of
independence. My sentiments were well known to my friends. I
communicated them without reserve to many respectable members of
Congress, who expressed their warm approbation of it then. I persisted
to the very last moment to use the prayers for my Sovereign, though
threatened with insults from the violence of a party.

"Upon the declaration of independence I called my vestry and solemnly
put the question to them whether they thought it best for the peace and
welfare of the congregation to shut up the churches, or to continue the
service without using the prayers for the Royal Family. This was the sad
alternative. I concluded to abide by their decision, as I could not have
time to consult my spiritual superiors in England. They determined it
most expedient, under such critical circumstances, to keep open the
churches that the congregations might not be dispersed, which we had
great reason to apprehend.

"A very few days after the fatal declaration of independence I received
a letter from Mr. Hancock, sent by express to Germantown, where my
family were for the summer season, acquainting me I was appointed
Chaplain to the Congress, and desired my attendance next morning at nine
o'clock. Surprised and distressed as I was by an event I was not
prepared to expect, obliged to give an immediate attendance without the
opportunity of consulting my friends, I easily accepted the appointment.
I could have but one motive for taking this step. I thought the churches
in danger, and hoped by this means to have been instrumental in
preventing those ills I had so much reason to apprehend. I can, however,
with truth declare I then looked upon independence rather as an
expedient, and hazardous, or, indeed, thrown out in _terrorem_, in order
to procure some favorable terms, than a measure that was seriously
persisted in. My sudden change of conduct will clearly evince this to
have been my idea of the matter.

"Upon the return of the Committee of Congress appointed to confer with
Lord Howe I soon discerned their whole intentions. The different
accounts which each member gave of this conference, the time they took
to make up the matter for public view, and the amazing disagreements
between the newspaper accounts, and the relation I myself had from the
mouth of one of the Committee, convinced me there must have been some
unfair and ungenerous procedure. This determination to treat on no other
strain than that of independence, which put it out of his lordship's
power to mention any terms at all, was sufficient proof to me that
independence was the idol they had long wished to set up, and that
rather than sacrifice this they would deluge their country with blood.
From this moment I determined upon my resignation, and in the beginning
of October, 1776, sent it in form to Mr. Hancock, after having
officiated only two months and three weeks; and from that time, as far
as my safety would permit, I have been opposed to all their measures.

"This circumstantial account of my conduct I think due to the friendship
you were so obliging as to express for me, and I hope will be sufficient
to justify my seeming inconsistencies in the part I have acted.

"And now, dear sir, suffer me in the language of truth and real
affection to address myself to you. All the world must be convinced you
are engaged in the service of your country from motives perfectly
disinterested. You risked everything that was dear to you, abandoned the
sweets of domestic life which your affluent fortune can give the
uninterrupted enjoyment of. But had you, could you have had, the least
idea of matters being carried to such a dangerous extremity? Your most
intimate friends shuddered at the thought of a separation from the
mother country, and I took it for granted that your sentiments coincided
with theirs. What, then, can be the consequences of this rash and
violent measure and degeneracy of representation, confusion of councils,
blunders without number? The most respectable characters have withdrawn
themselves, and are succeeded by a great majority of illiberal and
violent men. Take an impartial view of the present Congress, and what
can you expect from them? Your feelings must be greatly hurt by the
representation of your native province. You have no longer a Randolph, a
Bland or a Braxton, men whose names will ever be revered, whose demands
never ran above the first ground on which they set out, and whose truly
glorious and virtuous sentiments I have frequently heard with rapture
from their own lips. Oh, my dear sir, what a sad contrast of characters
now presents! others whose friends can ne'er mingle with your own. Your
Harrison alone remains, and he disgusted with the unworthy associates.

"As to those of my own province, some of them are so obscure that their
very names were never in my ears before, and others have only been
distinguished for the weakness of their undertakings and the violence of
their tempers. One alone I except from the general charge; a man of
virtue, dragged reluctantly into their measures, and restrained by some
false ideas of honor from retreating after having gone too far. You
cannot be at a loss to discover whose name answers to this character.

"From the New England provinces can you find one that as a gentleman you
could wish to associate with, unless the soft and mild address of Mr.
Hancock can atone for his want of every other qualification necessary
for the seat which he fills? Bankrupts, attorneys, and men of desperate
fortunes are his colleagues. Maryland no longer sends a Tilghman and a
Carroll. Carolina has lost her Lynch, and the elder Middleton has
retired. Are the dregs of Congress, then, still to influence a mind like
yours? These are not the men you engaged to serve; these are not the men
that America has chosen to represent her. Most of them were chosen by a
little, low faction, and the few gentlemen that are among them now are
well known to lie on the balance, and looking up to your hand alone to
turn the beam. 'Tis you, sir, and you only, that supports the present
Congress; of this you must be fully sensible. Long before they left
Philadelphia their dignity and consequence were gone; what must it be
now since their precipitate retreat? I write with freedom, but without
invective. I know these things to be true, and I write to one whose own
observation must have convinced him that it is so.

"After this view of the Congress, turn to the army. The whole world
knows that its only existence depends upon you, that your death or
captivity disperses it in a moment, and that there is not a man on that
side--the question in America--capable of succeeding you. As to the army
itself, what have you to expect from them? Have they not frequently
abandoned you yourself in the hour of extremity? Can you have the least
confidence in a set of undisciplined men and officers, many of whom have
been taken from the lowliest of the people, without principle, without
courage? Take away them that surround your person, how very few there
are you can ask to sit at your table! As to your little navy, of that
little what is left? Of the Delaware fleet part are taken, and the rest
must soon surrender. Of those in the other provinces some are taken, one
or two at sea, and others lying unmanned and unrigged in your harbors.

"In America your harbors are blocked up, your cities fall one after
another; fortress after fortress, battle after battle is lost. A British
army, after having passed unmolested through a vast extent of country,
have possessed themselves of the Capital of America. How unequal the
contest! How fruitless the expense of blood! Under so many discouraging
circumstances, can virtue, can honor, can the love of your country
prompt you to proceed? Humanity itself, and sure humanity is no stranger
to your breast, calls upon you to desist. Your army must perish for want
of common necessaries or thousands of innocent families must perish to
support them; wherever they encamp, the country must be impoverished;
wherever they march, the troops of Britain will pursue, and must
complete the destruction which America herself has begun. Perhaps it may
be said, it is better to die than to be made slaves. This, indeed, is a
splendid maxim in theory, and perhaps in some instances may be found
experimentally true; but when there is the least probability of a happy
accommodation, surely, wisdom and humanity call for some sacrifices to
be made to prevent inevitable destruction. You well know there is but
one invincible bar to such an accommodation; could this be removed,
other obstacles might readily be removed. It is to you and you alone
your bleeding country looks and calls aloud for this sacrifice. Your arm
alone has strength sufficient to remove this bar. May Heaven inspire you
with this glorious resolution of exerting your strength at this crisis,
and immortalizing yourself as friend and guardian to your country! Your
penetrating eye needs not more explicit language to discern my meaning.
With that prudence and delicacy, therefore, of which I know you
possessed, represent to Congress the indispensable necessity of
rescinding the hasty and ill-advised declaration of independence.
Recommend, and you have an undoubted right to recommend, an immediate
cessation of hostilities. Let the controversy be taken up where that
declaration left it, and where Lord Howe certainly expected to find it
left. Let men of clear and impartial characters, in or out of Congress,
liberal in their sentiments, heretofore independent in their
fortunes--and some such may be found in America--be appointed to confer
with His Majesty's Commissioners. Let them, if they please, propose some
well-digested constitutional plan to lay before them at the commencement
of the negotiation. When they have gone thus far I am confident the
usual happy consequences will ensue--unanimity will immediately take
place through the different provinces, thousands who are now ardently
wishing and praying for such a measure will step forth and declare
themselves the zealous advocates for constitutional liberty, and
millions will bless the hero that left the field of war to decide this
most important contest with the weapons of wisdom and humanity.

"O sir, let no false ideas of worldly honor deter you from engaging in
so glorious a task! Whatever censure may be thrown out by mean,
illiberal minds, your character will rise in the estimation of the
virtuous and noble. It will appear with lustre in the annals of history,
and form a glorious contrast to that of those who have fought to obtain
conquest and gratify their own ambition by the destruction of their
species and the ruin of their country. Be assured, sir, that I write not
this under the eye of any British officer or person connected with the
British army or ministry. The sentiments I express are the real
sentiments of my own heart, such as I have long held, and which I should
have made known to you by letter before had I not fully expected an
opportunity of a private conference. When you passed through
Philadelphia on your way to Wilmington I was confined by a severe fit of
the gravel to my chamber; I have since continued much indisposed, and
times have been so very distressing that I had neither spirit to write a
letter nor an opportunity to convey it when written, nor do I yet know
by what means I shall get these sheets to your hands.

"I would fain hope that I have said nothing by which your delicacy can
be in the least hurt. If I have, I assure you it has been without the
least intention, and therefore your candor will lead you to forgive me.
I have spoken freely of Congress and of the army; but what I have said
is partly from my own knowledge and partly from the information of some
respectable members of the former and some of the best officers of the
latter. I would not offend the meanest person upon earth; what I say to
you I say in confidence to answer what I cannot but deem a most
_valuable purpose_. I love my country; I love you; but to the love of
truth, the love of peace, and the love of God, I hope I should be
enabled if called upon to the trial to sacrifice every other inferior
love.

"If the arguments made use of in this letter should have so much
influence as to engage you in the glorious work which I have warmly
recommended, I shall ever deem my success the highest temporal favor
that Providence could grant me. Your interposition and advice I am
confident would meet with a favorable reception from the authority under
which you act.

"If it should not, you have an infallible recourse still left--negotiate
for your country at the head of your army. After all, it may appear
presumption as an individual to address himself to you on a subject of
such magnitude, or to say what measures would best secure the interest
and welfare of a whole continent. The friendly and favorable opinion you
have always expressed for me emboldens me to undertake it, and which has
greatly added to the weight of this motive. I have been strongly
impressed with a sense of duty upon the occasion, which left my
conscience uneasy and my heart afflicted till I fully discharged it. I
am no enthusiast; the course is new and singular to me; but I could not
enjoy one moment's peace till this letter was written. With the most
ardent prayers for your spiritual as well as temporal welfare, I am your
most obedient and humble friend and servant,

Jacob Duche."

The estimation in which Mr. Duche was held before he wrote this letter,
by John Adams, who was not particularly friendly to Episcopalians, who
as a class were Loyalists (although Washington was one), is here shown.
Adams says: "Mr. Duche is one of the most ingenuous men, and of best
character, and greatest orator in the Episcopal order upon this
continent; yet a zealous friend of liberty and his country."[70]

[70] Letters of John Adams to His Wife, Vol. I., p. 24.

In the cold light of truth it now seems quite clear that Americans took
up arms before they were in any real danger of oppression, and George
III. was persuaded to concede more than all their reasonable demands,
but yielded too late to save the integrity of the empire.

We are taught in many of our histories that George III. was a tyrant,
seeking to establish despotism, and that Washington rescued and
preserved Anglo-Saxon liberty, not only in America, but wherever it
existed in the British domains; but this is too extravagant a compliment
to the king. We may admit that he was a respectable man in private life,
that he acted on principle, as he understood it, in his public career,
and that he had some princely accomplishments, but was far from a great
man. Certainly he was not in the class of conqueror, nor was he able to
commit "a splendid crime." His mother was ever croaking in his ears:
"George, be a king!" Thackeray gives us a touching account of the king's
last years. All history, he tells us, presents no sadder picture. It is
too terrible for tears. Driven from his throne, buffeted by rude hands,
his children in revolt, his ending was as pitiful and awful as that of
King Lear. In a lucid moment the Queen entered his room and found him
singing and playing on a musical instrument. When he had finished he
knelt and prayed for her and for his family, and for the nation, and
last for himself. And then tears began to flow down his cheeks, and his
reason fled again. Caesar, Henry VIII., and Napoleon tried to establish
a dynasty of despots, and failed. As we glance at the figure of George
III. and recall the traits of his character, we see that Anglo-Saxon
civilization or liberty was in no danger of permanent injury from the
last king of England who tried to reign.

As we review the conflict we are apt to forget that the Americans were
not alone in their efforts to throw off the restraint of law and
authority of the government during the twenty years preceding the
surrender at Yorktown; Wilkes, "Junius," and Lord George Gordon
surpassed the efforts of Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and Crispus Attucks,
to make life unpleasant for King George. Mobs surged about the streets
of London as they did in Boston, defying the law, destroying property,
and disturbing the public peace. The house of Lord Mansfield, chief
justice of England, was wrecked and burned to the ground in the same
manner as the home of Thomas Hutchinson, chief justice of Massachusetts,
was wrecked and pillaged. Both mobs claimed to act "on principle," and
there is a curious likeness in the details of these two acts of
violence. It was an age of insurrection, with no political genius able,
or in a position, to direct the storm. During the Wilkes riots, in 1768,
the civil power in England was reduced to extreme weakness. Lecky tells
us "there were great fears that all the bulwarks of order would yield to
the strain," and Franklin, then in London, said that if Wilkes had
possessed a good character and the king a bad one, Wilkes would have
driven George III. from the throne. In 1780, during the Gordon riots,
chaos came again to London, and all England was threatened with anarchy.
The time was out of joint on both continents, and George III. was not
born to set it right. We may be sure there is something more serious
than glory in all this turmoil that embittered the most beneficent of
civilizing races. Whoever examines the dispute with impartial care, will
probably perceive that the time had come for a new adjustment of the
constitutional relations of the several parts of the British Empire, but
the temper of George III. and the disorderly elements, active both in
England and America, were unfavorable to rational treatment of the great
problem.

Early in the Revolution it was considered necessary, in order to insure
its success, to obtain aid and recognition from the French.

Mr. Silas Deane, of Connecticut, and three agents, were sent to France
to feel the pulse of the king and nation upon the subject. They,
however, neither acknowledged the agents nor directed them to leave the
kingdom.

It was not so with individuals, among whom was M. Beaumarchais, who, on
his own account and credit, furnished the United States with twenty
thousand stand of arms and one thousand barrels of powder of one hundred
pounds weight each. Ten thousand of the muskets were landed at
Portsmouth, N. H., and the remainder in some southern State. The first
opportunity of testing the qualities of the new French muskets occurred
September 19, 1777, which engagement led up to the battle of Saratoga
October 7, which terminated in the convention with Burgoyne October 17,
1777. Major Caleb Stark, the eldest son of Gen. John Stark, who was
present in these actions, says: "I firmly believe that unless these arms
had been thus timely furnished to the Americans, Burgoyne would have
made an easy march to Albany. What then? My pen almost refuses to record
the fact that these arms have never been paid for to this day. When the
war ended, application was made to Congress for payment, which was
refused on the frivolous pretext that they were a present from the
French king. The claim was referred to the United States
attorney-general, who reported in substance that he could find no
evidence of their having been paid for, or that they were presented as a
gift by the court of France.

"Supposing the most favorable plea of Congress to be true, that there
was an underhand connivance by France to furnish the arms, or the king
had thought proper to deny it, is it just or magnanimous for the United
States to refuse payment? Suppose the arms were clearly a 'gift'
bestowed upon us in our poverty, ought not a high-minded people to
restore the value of that gift with ten-fold interest, when their
benevolent friend has become poor, and they have waxed wealthy and
strong?

"Congress, skulking behind their sovereignty, still refused payment. Yet
the cries of Beaumarchais, reduced to poverty by the French Revolution,
have not been heeded."[71]

[71] Memoir of Gen. John Stark, by his son Caleb Stark, pp. 356-7-8.

The action of Congress concerning the Saratoga Convention was equally
base. The whole number of prisoners surrendered by Burgoyne was 5791.
The force of the Americans was, according to a statement which Gates
furnished to Burgoyne, 13,222. The terms of the Convention was that
Burgoyne's troops were to march out of their camp with all the honors of
war, the artillery to be moved to the banks of the Hudson, and there to
be left, together with the soldiers' arms; that a free passage should be
granted the troops to Great Britain, on condition of their not serving
again during the war; that the army should march to the neighborhood of
Boston by the most expeditious and convenient route, and not delayed
when transport should arrive to receive them; that every care should be
taken for the proper subsistence of the troops till they should be
embarked. Although Congress ratified the terms of the Convention entered
into by General Burgoyne and Gates, yet they violated them in the most
perfidious manner. Many Americans now regard this as the most
disgraceful act ever perpetrated by the United States. There was not the
slightest excuse for this treachery. When the British ministry charged
Congress with positive perfidy, Congress added insult to injury by
charging the ministry with "meditated perfidy," for they "believed the
British would break their parole if released." After the arrival of the
troops at Boston they were quartered at Cambridge, where they were
subjected to the most cruel and inhuman treatment. Officers and soldiers
were shot down and bayoneted in the most cold-blooded manner without the
slightest provocation. If the officers resented any insults, they were
sent to Worcester and treated as felons. They were charged the most
exorbitant prices for food. Burgoyne alone was allowed to go home on
parole; all the other officers and men were marched into the interior of
Virginia, where they were kept in confinement for five years.[72]

[72] "Travels Through the Interior Parts of America," by Thomas Aubury.

There is probably not one American in a thousand that knows the origin
and meaning of Washington's advice to his countrymen against entering
into "entangling foreign alliances," and the often quoted phrase:
"French Spoliation Claims," and yet the two are inseparably connected,
and form a most important phase in the early history of the United
States. American historians have passed over this episode, fearing that
it would bring odium on the "Fathers of the Revolution." By the treaty
made by Franklin with France, in which she recognized the United States
and by which means American independence was secured, it was agreed that
the United States should assist France in foreign complications in which
she might be involved, and furthermore to protect her possessions in the
West Indies. This was the first treaty made by the United States. When
the time came for putting these pledges into force, the United States
refused to act.

"The expense of the war of the Revolution was as much, if not more, to
France, than to the United States, and it is a matter of historical
truth that the expenses incurred in this war by France bankrupted the
nation and hurried on the terrible events which convulsed the world from
the commencement of the French Revolution until the battle of Waterloo.
During all this distress and disaster, the Americans were chuckling in
their sleeves, and wasting the treasures of the old world to embellish
the half-fledged cities of the new world. Gratitude is a virtue often
spoken of with apparent sincerity, but not so frequently exhibited in
practice." This is the language of a well-known Revolutionary
officer.[73] Therefore, the United States acted in a most shameful and
disgraceful manner in violating the first treaty she ever entered into,
through which she secured her independence; she did not give the French
that assistance she had agreed to give by treaty, but remained neutral
and indifferent, while England seized upon the larger part of the French
colonies in the West Indies. The base ingratitude of the United States
exasperated the French, so they issued orders to seize and destroy
American property wherever found. Several naval engagements between the
late allies ensued, and 898 vessels were seized by the French government
or were destroyed by its cruisers, prior to the year 1800. Hence, when
Ellsworth, Van Murray and Davie, the commissioners appointed by the
United States to negotiate with France, and to settle the dispute, asked
for damages for the seizure and destruction of American vessels, the
French foreign minister turned upon them with the assertion that in
performing her part of the Franklin treaty of 1778, France had spent
$28,000,000, and had sacrificed the lives of thousands of her people,
simply for the purpose of gaining the independence for the United
States. All it had asked had been the friendship and assistance of the
United States in the manner provided in this treaty. Instead of meeting
these claims and requiting the generosity of France in the way such
conduct deserved, the United States had ignored its obligations, and now
came forward and advanced a petty claim for money, utterly forgetful of
how much France had sacrificed in its behalf.

[73] "Letter of Major Caleb Stark in Memoir of General John Stark," p.
364.

As might be supposed, there was no answer that could be made to this
assertion, and hence the new treaty then drawn up, in which the two
states agreed to renounce respectively whatever pretensions they might
have had to claims one against the other, was ratified by the Senate,
and promulgated by President Jefferson December 21, 1801, thus
relieving France of all responsibility for damages caused by her
cruisers prior to 1800, and throwing the responsibility of liquidating
these demands upon the United States government--a responsibility it
succeeded in avoiding for a hundred years, as it succeeded in avoiding
the demands which the French government could and did make upon it to
defend French West India possessions. These were the "entangling foreign
alliances" referred to by Washington.

Bills granting payment of these claims, which originally amounted to
$12,676,000, passed Congress twice, and were vetoed first by President
Polk and then by President Pierce. If ever there was a just claim
brought before Congress, these French spoliation claims deserve the
title, and it is a historical disgrace to the government of the United
States that the payment of them was delayed for nearly a hundred
years.[74]

[74] During Cleveland's administrations a bill was passed allowing
claimants to present claims for adjudication to the amount of their face
value. If interest was added, they would exceed $100,000,000. The owners
of the 898 vessels destroyed, who were called upon to make this
sacrifice as a means of relieving the government from a great
responsibility, in many cases were reduced to poverty by the duplicity
of the government, and even now with this scant justice, there are many
that find it very difficult to prove their claim, so long a time has
elapsed, and many are dead without legal representation.

CHAPTER VII.

_INDIANS IN THE REVOLUTION._

The writers of American histories severely condemn the British
government for employing Indians in the war of the Revolution as well as
in 1812, and give unstinted praise to the Americans for humanity in
refusing to make use of the warlike but undisciplined and cruel Indian
as an ally in the activities of a military campaign. Either an attempt
is made to suppress the whole truth of this matter, or the writers have
failed in their duty to thoroughly investigate sources of history easily
accessible to the honest historian.

The fact is, that in the incipient stage of the Revolutionary war,
overtures were made by the political disturbers and leading instigators
of trouble to win over to the side of the American party the fiercest,
if not the most numerous Indian nation on the North American continent.

From Concord, on the fourth of April, 1775, the Provincial Congress
thought fit, with cunning prudence, to address the sachem of the
Mohawks, with the rest of the Iroquois tribes, in the following words:

"Brother, they have made a law to establish the religion of the pope in
Canada, which lies near you. We much fear some of your children may be
induced, instead of worshipping the only true God, to pay his due to
images, made with their own hands."[75]

[75] American Archives, series I, p. 1350.

Here, then, a religious reason was advanced, in lieu of the real one,
why the Indians should oppose the British, by whom they had always been
generously treated. The response to the insinuating address was not
encouraging. May it not be assumed that these Indians had already
experienced some of the same kind of love, generosity and good faith, as
later every tribe has received from every government at Washington, from
the days of the first president to the latest, through the past "century
of dishonor."

_Before the 19th of April_, the Provincial Congress had authorized the
enlistment of a company of Stockbridge (Massachusetts) Indians. These
Indians were used by the Americans during the siege of Boston. A letter,
dated July 9, 1775, says: "Yesterday afternoon some barges were sounding
the Charles River near its mouth, but were soon obliged to row off by
our Indians, fifty in number, who are encamped near that place."

[Illustration: COLONEL MIFFLEN'S INTERVIEW WITH THE CAUGINAWAGA INDIANS.

At Watertown during the seige of Boston, the Revolutionists endeavored
to obtain their assistance.]

On the 21st of June, two of the Indians killed four of the regulars with
their bows and arrows, and plundered them. Frothingham says the
British complained, and with reason, of their mode of warfare.

Lieut. Carter, writes July 2, 1775: "Never had the British army so
ungenerous an enemy to oppose. They send their riflemen, five or six at
a time, who conceal themselves behind trees, etc., till an opportunity
presents itself of taking a shot at our advanced sentries, which done,
they immediately retreat."[76]

[76] American Archives. Series I, p. 1350.

During the siege of Boston, John Adams visited Washington's camp at
Watertown, and wrote the following letter to his wife, which goes to
prove the efforts made by the Americans to enlist the Canadian Indians
in their cause, and which they afterwards complained so bitterly of the
British for doing:

"Watertown, 24 January, 1776.

"I dined at Colonel Mifflin's with the general and lady, and a vast
collection of other company, among whom were six or seven sachems and
warriors of the French Caughnawaga Indians, with several of their wives
and children. A savage feast they made of it, yet were very polite in
the Indian style. One of the sachems is an Englishman, a native of this
colony, whose name was Williams, captivated in infancy, with his mother,
and adopted by some kind squaw."[77]

[77] Frothingham Siege of Boston, p. 212. Letters of John Adams to his
Wife Vol. I., p. 79.

Many attempts were made by the Americans to use the Indians. Montgomery
made use of them in his Canadian expedition.

In April, 1776, Washington wrote to Congress, urging their employment in
the army, and reported on July 13th that, without special authority, he
had directed General Schuyler to engage the Six Nations on the best
terms he and his colleagues could procure, and again submitting the
propriety of engaging the Eastern Indians. John Adams thought "we need
not be so delicate as to refuse the assistance of Indians, provided we
cannot keep them neutral." A treaty was exchanged with the Eastern
Indians on July 17, 1776, whereby they agreed to furnish six hundred for
a regiment, which was to be officered by the whites. As a result of
this, the Massachusetts Council subsequently reported that seven
Penobscot Indians--all that could be procured--were enlisted in October
for one year.[78] It is interesting to remember, in this connection,
that the courteous and chivalrous Lafayette raised a troop of Indians to
fight the British and the Tories, though his reputation has been saved
by the utter and almost ludicrous failure of his attempt.[79]

[78] Windsor Nar. and Crit. His. Vol. VI., 655, 657.

[79] Essays in American History, 178.

When all this had been done, it needed the forgetfulness and the blind
hypocrisy of passion to denounce the king to the world for having
"endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless
Indian savage." Yet Americans have never had the self-respect to erase
this charge from a document generally printed in the fore-front of the
Constitution and Laws, and with which every schoolboy is sedulously made
familiar.

The Revolutionists failed to enlist the Indians in their cause, for the
Indian and the Colonist were bitter and irreconcilable foes. The Indian
had long scores to pay, not upon the English nation or the English army,
but upon the American settler who had stolen his lands, shot his sons,
and debauched his daughters. It is well here to remember the speech of
Logan, the Cayuga chief, on the occasion of the signing of the treaty of
peace in 1764, at the close of the Pontiac Conspiracy. Logan said: "I
appeal to any white man to say if ever he entered Logan's cabin hungry
and he gave him not meat; if ever he came cold and naked and he clothed
him not. Such was my love of the white man that my countrymen in passing
my cabin said: 'Logan is the friend of the white man.' I have even
thought to have lived with you but for the injuries you did me last
spring, when in cold blood and unprovoked, you murdered all the
relations of Logan, not sparing even my women and children. There runs
not a drop of my blood in the veins of any living creature. This called
for revenge. I have sought it. I have killed many. I have fully glutted
my vengeance." Logan's family, being on a visit to a family of the name
of Greathouse, was murdered by them and their associates under
circumstances of great brutality and cowardice. It is known that in
revenge, Logan took over 30 scalps with his own hand. And others than
Indians had old scores to wipe out. Many loyalists who desired to be
left alone in peace had been tarred and feathered by their former
friends and fellow-townsmen; were driven from their homes and hunted
like wild beasts; imprisoned, maimed, and compelled to suffer every kind
of indignity. In many cases fathers, brothers and sons were hanged,
because they insisted on remaining loyal to their country. Therefore it
is not to be wondered at that many of these loyalists sought a terrible
revenge against those who had maltreated them. If the loyalists of New
York, Georgia and the Carolinas resolved to join the Indians and wreak
vengeance on their fellow countrymen at Wyoming and Cherry Valley, and
to take part in the raids of Tyron and Arnold, there was a rude cause
for their retaliating. Their actions have been held up to the execration
of posterity as being exceptionally barbarous, and as far surpassing in
cruelty the provocative actions of the revolutionists, Sullivan's
campaign through the Indian country being conveniently forgotten. There
was not much to choose between a cowboy and a skinner, and very little
difference between Major Ferguson's command and that of Marion and
Sumpter. There were no more orderly or better behaved troops in either
army than Simcoe's Queen's Rangers. There can be no doubt that the
action of the loyalists have been grossly exaggerated, or at least dwelt
upon as dreadful scenes of depravity, to form a background for the
heroism and fortitude of the "patriotic" party whose misdeeds are passed
lightly over. The methods of the growth of popular mythology have been
the same in America as in Greece or Rome. The gods of one party have
become the devils of the other. The haze of distance has thrown a halo
around the American leaders--softening outlines, obscuring faults, while
those of the British and the loyalists have grown with the advanced
years.[80]

[80] Essays in American History, 176, 177.

[Illustration: CARTOON ILLUSTRATING FRANKLIN'S DIABOLICAL SCALP STORY.

From an old print in the possession of the Bostonian Society.]

The following brief entry in a diary, will show that among the American
forces savage customs found place: "On Monday, the 30th, sent out a
party for some dead Indians. Toward morning found them, and skinned two
of them from their hips down, for boot legs; one pair for the major, the
other for myself."[81]

[81] Proceedings, N. J. His. Soc. II, 31.

It has been the policy of American historians and their echoes in
England to bring disrepute upon the Indians and the British government
who employed them, and not only to magnify actual occurrences, but
sometimes, when facts were wanting, to draw upon imagination for such
deeds of ferocity and bloodshed as might serve to keep alive the
strongest feelings of indignation against the mother country, and thus
influence men to take the field for revenge who had not already been
driven thither by the impulse of their sense of patriotism. Dr. Franklin
himself did not think it unworthy of his antecedents and position to
employ these methods to bring disrepute on the British. The "deliberate
fiction for political purposes," by Franklin, were written as facts.
Never before was there such diabolical fiction written as his well known
scalp story, long believed and recently revived in several books
purporting to be "authentic history." The details were so minute and
varied as to create a belief that they were entirely true. For a century
supposed to be authentic, it has since been ascertained to be a
publication from the pen of Dr. Franklin for political purposes. It
describes minutely the capture from the Seneca Indians of eight bales of
scalps, which were being sent the governor of Canada, to be forwarded by
him as a gift to the "Great King." The description of the contents of
each bale was given with such an air of plausibility as to preclude a
suspicion that it was fictitious. The following are a few brief
abstracts from this story: "No. 1 contains forty-three scalps of
Congress soldiers, also sixty-two farmers, killed in their houses in the
night time. No. 2 contains ninety-eight farmers killed in their houses
in the day time. No. 3 contains ninety-seven farmers killed in the
fields in the day time. No. 4 contains 102 farmers, mixed, 18 burnt
alive, after being scalped; sixty-seven being greyheads, and one
clergyman. No. 5 containing eighty-eight scalps of woman's hair,
long-braided in Indian fashion. No. 6 containing 193 boys' scalps of
various ages. No. 7, 211 girls' scalps, big and little. No. 8, this
package is a mixture of all the varieties above mentioned, to the number
of 122, with a box of birch bark, containing twenty-nine infants' scalps
of various sizes."[82]

[82] Life of Brandt. Appendix No. 1, Vol. I.

With the bales of scalps was a speech addressed to the "Great King."

One of the most cruel and bloodthirsty acts of the Americans was the
massacre of the Moravian Indians. "From love of peace they had advised
those of their own color who were bent on war to desist from it. They
were also led from humanity, to inform the white people of their danger,
when they knew their settlements were about to be invaded. One hundred
and sixty Americans crossed the Ohio and put to death these harmless,
inoffensive people, though they made no resistance. In conformity with
their religious principles these Moravians submitted to their hard fate
without attempting to destroy their murderers. Upward of ninety of these
pacific people were killed by men who, while they called themselves
Christians, were more deserving of the names of savages than were their
unresisting victims."[83]

[83] Dr. Ramsay's His. U. S., Vol. II., Chapter XIX, pp. 330, 332.

CHAPTER VIII.

_THE EXPULSION OF THE LOYALISTS AND THE SETTLEMENT OF CANADA._

The Huguenots and the proscribed of the French Revolution found
sanctuary as welcome guests in England and the English colonies.

The Moors were well treated when banished from Spain; the Revocation of
the Edict of Nantes was civil death to all Huguenots; the Americans made
the treaty of peace of 1783 worse than civil death to all Loyalists.

The Americans, at the inception and birth of their republic, violated
every precept of Christianity and of a boasted civilization, even to
confiscating the estates of helpless women. For all time it is to be a
part of American history that the last decade of the eighteenth century
saw the most cruel and vindictive acts of spoliation recorded in modern
history.

At the treaty of peace, 1783, the banishment and extermination of the
Loyalists was a foregone conclusion. The bitterest words ever uttered by
Washington were in reference to them: "He could see nothing better for
them than to recommend suicide." Neither Congress nor state governments
made any recommendation that humane treatment should be meted out to
these Loyalists. John Adams had written from Amsterdam that he would
"have hanged his own brother had he taken part against him."[84]

[84] Address to the "United Empire Loyalists," by Edward Harris,
Toronto, 1897.

At the close of the war the mob were allowed to commit any outrage or
atrocity, while the authorities in each state remained apparently
indifferent. An example of Loyalist ill-treatment is to be found in a
letter written October 22, 1783, to a Boston friend, and preserved in
New York City manual, 1870:--

"The British are leaving New York every day, and last week there came
one of the d----d refugees from New York to a place called Wall Kill, in
order to make a tarry with his parents, where he was taken into custody
immediately. His head and eyebrows were shaved, tarred and feathered, a
hog-yoke put on his neck, and a cowbell thereon; upon his head a very
high hat and feathers were set, well plumed with tar, and a sheet of
paper in front with a man drawn with two faces, representing the traitor
Arnold and the devil."

Some American writers have been extremely severe upon Americans who
served in the royal armies. Such condemnation is certainly illogical and
unjust. They must have reasoned they were fighting to save their
country from mob rule, from the domination of demagogues and traitors,
and to preserve to it what, until then, all had agreed to be the
greatest of blessings, the connection with Great Britain, the privilege
of being Englishmen, heirs of all the free institutions which were
embodied in a "great and glorious constitution." If the Loyalists
reasoned in this manner, we cannot blame them, unless we are ready to
maintain the proposition that the cause of every revolution is
necessarily so sacred that those who do not sympathize with it should
abstain from opposing it.

Very early in the Revolution the disunionists tried to drive the
Loyalists into the rebel militia or into the Continental army by fines,
and by obliging them to hire substitutes. The families of men who had
fled from the country to escape implication in the impending war were
obliged to hire substitutes, and they were fined for the misdeeds of the
mercenary whom they had engaged. Fines were even imposed upon neutral
and unoffending persons for not preventing their families from entering
the British service. If the fines were refused, the property was
recklessly sold to the amount of the fine and costs of action. Loyalists
convicted of entering the enemy's lines could be fined as high as 2000
pounds, and even the unsuccessful attempt to enter might be punished by
a fine of 1000 pounds.[85] If the property of the offender failed to
answer for his offence, he became subject to corporal punishment,
whipping, branding, cropping of ears, and exposure in the pillory being
resorted to in some of the states.

[85] "Acts of New Jersey," Oct. 8, 1778, p. 60.

The Disunionists had early a covetous eye upon the property of the
Loyalists. The legislative bodies hastened to pass such laws as would
prevent those suspected of Loyalism from transferring their property,
real or personal, by real or pretended sale. Friends who tried to guard
the property of refugees nailed up the doors that led to the room
containing valuable furniture, but were obliged by bullying committeemen
to remove their barricades and give up their treasures.

The members of one wealthy refugee's family were reduced in their
housekeeping to broken chairs and teacups, and to dipping the water out
of an iron skillet into a pot, which they did as cheerfully as if they
were using a silver urn. The furniture had been removed, though the
family picture still hung in the blue room, and the harpsichord stood in
the passage way to be abused by the children who passed through. These
two aristocratic ladies were obliged to use their coach-house as a
dining-room, and the "fowl-house" as their bed chamber. The picture
continues: "In character the old lady looks as majestic even there, and
dresses with as much elegance as if she were in a palace."[86] This
mansion was General Putnam's headquarters at the battle of Bunker Hill,
and was afterward confiscated.

[86] James Murray, Loyalist, p. 245, 253.

When the treaty of peace was signed, the question of amnesty and
compensation for the Loyalists was long and bitterly discussed. Even
the French minister had urged it. John Adams, one of the commission,
favored compensating "the wretches, how little soever they deserved it,
nay, how much soever they deserve the contrary."[87]

[87] John Adams' Works, Vol. IX., p. 516.

The commission hesitated "to saddle" America with the Loyalists because
they feared the opposition at home, especially by the individual states.
The British demand had been finally met with the mere promise that
Congress would recommend to the states a conciliatory policy with
reference to the Loyalists. This solution neither satisfied the
Loyalists nor the more chivalrous Englishmen. They declared that the
provision concerning the Loyalists was "precipitate, impolitic," and
cruelly neglectful of their American friends.[88] But all of this
cavilling was unreasonable and hasty, for England had gotten for the
Loyalists the utmost attainable in the treaty, and later proved
honorable and generous in the highest degree by compensating the
Loyalists out of her own treasury--an act only excelled in the next
century by the purchase and emancipation of all the slaves in the
British Empire, for which the people of Great Britain taxed only
themselves--the most generous act ever performed by any nation in the
history of mankind.

[88] Stevens' "Facsimiles," 1054.

In spite of the recommendation of Congress which had been made in
accordance with the terms of the treaty, confiscation still went on
actively. Governors of the states were urged to exchange lists of
proscribed persons, that no Loyalists might find a resting-place in the
United States, and in every state they were disfranchised, while in many
localities they were tarred and feathered, driven from town and warned
never to return again. Some were murdered and maltreated in the most
horrible manner. Thousands of inconspicuous Loyalists did, nevertheless,
succeed in remaining in the larger cities, where their identity was
lost, and they were not the objects of jealous social and political
exclusion as in the small town. In some localities where they were in
the majority, the hostile minority was not able to wreak its vengeance.

With the treaty of peace there came a rush for British American
territory. The numbers were increased in Canada to some 25,000 during
the next few years, and those in Nova Scotia and other British territory
swelled the number to 60,000.

Most of these exiles became, in one way or another, a temporary expense
to the British government, and the burden was borne honorably and
ungrudgingly. The care began during the war. The Loyalists who aided
Burgoyne were provided with homes in Canada, and before the close of
1779 nearly a thousand refugees were cared for in houses and barracks
and given fuel, household furniture, and even pensioned with money.
After the peace, thousands of exiles at once turned to the British
government for temporary support. The vast majority had lost but little,
and asked only for land and supplies to start life with. The minority
who had lost lands, offices and incomes, demanded indemnity. As for the
members of the humbler class, the government ordered that there should
be given 500 acres of land to heads of families, 300 acres to single
men, and each township in the new settlements was to have 2000 acres for
church purposes and 1000 for schools. Building material and tools, an
axe, spade, hoe and plow, were furnished each head of a family. Even
clothing and food were issued to the needy, and as late as 1785 there
were 26,000 entitled to rations. Communities were equipped with
grindstones and the machinery for grist and saw mills. In this way
$5,000,000 were spent to get Nova Scotia well started, and in Upper
Canada, besides the three million acres given to the Loyalist, some
$4,000,000 were expended for this benefit before 1787.

But there was a far greater burden assumed by the British government in
granting the compensation asked for by those who had sacrificed
everything to their loyalty. Those who had lost offices or professional
practice were, in many cases, cared for by the gift of lucrative offices
under the government, and Loyalist military officers were put on half
pay. It is said with truth that the defeated government dealt with the
exiled and fugitive Loyalists with a far greater liberality than the
United States bestowed upon their victorious army.

After the peace, over five thousand Loyalists submitted claims for
losses, usually through agents appointed by the refugees from each
American colony. In July of 1783, a commission of five members was
appointed by Parliament to classify the losses and services of the
Loyalists. They examined the claims with an impartial and judicial
severity. The claimant entered the room alone with the commissioners
and, after telling his services and losses, was rigidly questioned
concerning fellow claimants as well as himself. The claimant then
submitted a written and sworn statement of his losses. After the results
of both examinations were critically scrutinized, the judges made the
award. In the whole course of their work, they examined claims to the
amount of forty million of dollars, and ordered nineteen millions to be
paid.

If to the cost of establishing the Loyalists in Nova Scotia and Canada
we add the compensation granted in money, the total amount expended by
the British government for their American adherents was at least thirty
million dollars. There is evidence that the greatest care that human
ingenuity could devise was exercised to make all these awards in a fair
and equitable manner. The members of the commission were of
unimpeachable honesty. Nevertheless there was much complaint by the
Loyalists because of the partial failure of giving the loyal exiles a
new start in life. The task was no easy one--to transfer a disheartened
people to a strange land and a trying climate, and let them begin life
anew. But when, years later, they had made of the land of this exile a
mighty member of the British empire, they began to glory in the days of
trial through which they had passed.

At a council meeting held at Quebec, November 9, 1789, an order was
passed for "preserving a register of the Loyalists that had adhered to
the unity of the empire, and joined the Royal Standard previous to the
treaty of peace in 1783, to the end that their posterity may be
distinguished from future settlers in the rank, registers, and rolls of
the militia of their respective districts, as proper objects for
preserving and showing the fidelity and conduct so honorable to their
ancestors for distinguished benefit and privileges."

Today their descendants are organized as the United Empire Loyalists,
and count it an honor that their ancestors suffered persecution and
exile rather than yield the principle and idea of union with Great
Britain.

The cause of the Loyalists failed, but their stand was a natural one and
was just and noble. They were the prosperous and contended men--the men
without a grievance. Conservatism was the only policy that one could
expect of them. Men do not rebel to rid themselves of prosperity.
Prosperous men seek to conceive prosperity. The Loyalist obeyed his
nature, but as events proved, chose the ill-fated cause, and when the
struggle ended, his prosperity had fled, and he was an outcast and an
exile.

If, when George III. and his government recognized the independence of
the thirteen colonies, the Loyalists had been permitted to remain here
and become, if they would, American citizens, the probabilities are
that, long before this time, an expansion would have taken place in the
national domain which would have brought under its control the entire
American continent north of the United States, an extension brought
about in an entirely peaceful and satisfactory manner. The method of
exclusion adopted peopled Canada, so far as its English-speaking
inhabitants were concerned, with those who went from the United States
as political exiles, and who carried with them to their new homes an
ever-burning sense of personal wrong and a bitter hatred of those who
had abused them.

The indifference shown to treaty obligations by Congress and the states,
and the secret determination to eradicate everything British from the
country, is now known to have been the deliberate, well-considered
policy of the founders of the Republic.

This old legacy of wrongdoing has been a barrier in the way of a
healthful northern development of the United States. The contentions
which gave rise to these hostile feelings have been forgotten, but the
feelings themselves have long outlived the causes which gave rise to
them.

CHAPTER IX.

_THE WAR OF 1812 AND THE ATTEMPTED CONQUEST OF CANADA._

When the Revolutionary War had ended came the long twenty-three years'
war in which Great Britain, for the most part, single-handed, fought for
the freedom of Europe against the most colossal tyranny ever devised by
a victorious general. No nation in the history of the world carried on a
war so stubborn, so desperate, so costly, so vital. Had Great Britain
failed, what would now be the position of the world? At the very time
when Britain's need was the sorest, when every ship, every soldier and
sailor that she could find was needed to break down the power of the man
who had subjugated all Europe except Russia and Great Britain, the
United States, the land of boasted liberty, did her best to cripple the
liberating armies by proclaiming war against Britain in the hour of her
sorest need.

Napoleon was at the height of his power, with an army collected at
Boulogne for the invasion of England. England was growing exhausted by
the contest. Her great Prime Minister, Pitt, had died broken hearted.
Every indication was favorable to the conquest of Canada by the United
States and therewith the extinction of all British interests on the
western continent.

In the motherland it seemed, to the popular imagination, that on the
other side of the Atlantic lived an implacable enemy, whose rancor was
greater than their boasted love of liberty. Fisher Ames, who was
regarded by his party as its wisest counsellor and chief ornament,
expresses this general feeling on their part in a letter to Mr. Quincy,
dated Dedham, Dec. 6, 1807, in which he says: "Our cabinet takes council
of the mob, and it is now a question whether hatred of Great Britain and
the reproach fixed even upon violent men, if they will not proceed in
their violence, will not overcome the fears of the maritime states, and
of the planters in Congress. The usual levity of a democracy has not
appeared in regard to Great Britain. We have been steady in our hatred
of her, and when popular passions are not worn out by time, but
argument, they must, I should think, explode in war."[89]

[89] Life of Josiah Quincy, p. 119.

The action of the United States in declaring war against Great Britain
when she was most sorely pressed in righting for the liberty of mankind
is best set forth in the famous speech of Josiah Quincy, delivered
before Congress on the 5th of January, 1813. It was, as he himself says
of it, "most direct, pointed and searching as to the motive and conduct
of our rulers. It exposed openly and without reserve or fear the
iniquity of the proposed invasion of Canada. I was sparing of neither
language nor illustration." Its author, on reading it over in his old
age, might well say that "he shrunk not from the judgment of after
times." Its invective is keen, its sarcasm bitter, its denunciations
heavy and severe, but the facts from which they derive their sting or
their weight are clearly stated and sustained.

As a means of carrying on the war, he denounces the invasion of Canada
as "cruel, wanton, senseless, and wicked--an attempt to compel the
mother country to our terms by laying waste an innocent province which
had never injured us, but had long been connected with us by habits of
good neighborhood and mutual good offices." He said "that the
embarrassment of our relations with Great Britain and the keeping alive
between this country and that of a root of bitterness has been, is, and
will continue to be, a main principle of the policy of this American
Cabinet."

The Democratic Party having attained power by fostering the old grudge
against England, and having maintained itself in power by force of that
antipathy, a consent to the declaration of war had been extorted from
the reluctant Madison as the condition precedent of his nomination for a
second term of office.

When war against Great Britain was proposed at the last session, there
were thousands in these United States, and I confess to you I was myself
among the number, who believed not one word of the matter, I put my
trust in the old-fashioned notions of common sense and common prudence.
That a people which had been more than twenty years at peace should
enter upon hostilities against a people which had been twenty years at
war, the idea seemed so absurd that I never once entertained it as
possible. It is easy enough to make an excuse for any purpose. When a
victim is destined to be immolated, every hedge presents sticks for the
sacrifice. The lamb that stands at the mouth of the stream will always
trouble the water if you take the account of the wolf who stands at the
source of it. We have heard great lamentation about the disgrace of our
arms on the frontier. Why, sir, the disgrace of our arms on the frontier
is terrestrial glory in comparison with the disgrace of the attempt. Mr.
Speaker, when I contemplate the character and consequences of this
invasion of Canada, when I reflect on its criminality and its danger to
the peace and liberty of this once happy country, I thank the great
Author and Source of all virtue that, through His grace, that section of
country in which I have the happiness to reside, is in so great a degree
free from the iniquity of this transgression. I speak it with pride. The
people of that section have done what they could to vindicate themselves
and their children from the burden of their sin.

Surely if any nation had a claim for liberal treatment from another, it
was the British nation from the American. After the discovery of the
error of the American government in relation to the repeal of the Berlin
and Milan Decrees in November, 1810, they had declared war against her
on the supposition that she had refused to repeal her orders in council
after the French Decrees were in fact revoked, whereas it now appears
that they were in fact not revoked. Surely the knowledge of this error
was followed by an instant and anxious desire to redress the resulting
injury. No, sir, nothing occurred. On the contrary the question of
impressment is made the basis of continuing the war. They renewed
hostilities. They rushed upon Canada. Nothing would satisfy them but
blood.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that while I utter these things, a thousand tongues
and a thousand pens are preparing without doors to overwhelm me, if
possible, by their pestiferous gall. Already I hear in the air the sound
of "Traitor," "British Agent," "British Gold!" and all those changes of
calumny by which the imagination of the mass of men are affected and by
which they are prevented from listening to what is true and receiving
what is reasonable.[90]

[90] Life of Josiah Quincy, pp. 256, 280, 281, 282, 283, 286, 287, 288,
289, 291.

As will be noticed in the foregoing extract from Josiah Quincy's
celebrated speech, New England refused to take any part in the war. In
fact, it must be said in their favor that they refused absolutely to
send any troops to aid in the invasion of Canada. They regarded the
pretexts on which the war had been declared with contemptuous
incredulity, believing them to be but thin disguises of its real object.
That object they believed to be the gratification of the malignant
hatred the slave-holding states bore toward communities of free and
intelligent labor, by the destruction of their wealth and prosperity.

A town meeting was held in Boston at Faneuil Hall on June 11, 1812, at
which it was "Resolved: That in the opinion of this town, it is of the
last importance to the interest of this country to avert the threatened
calamity of war with Great Britain," etc. A committee of twelve was
appointed to take into consideration the present alarming state of our
public affairs, and report what measures, in their opinion, it is proper
for the town to adopt at this momentous crisis.

The committee reported in part as follows: "While the temper and views
of the national administration are intent upon war, an expression of the
sense of this town, will of itself be quite ineffectual either to avert
this deplorable calamity or to accelerate a return of peace, but
believing as we do that an immense majority of the people are invincibly
averse from conflict equally unnecessary and menacing ruin to themselves
and their posterity, convinced as we are that the event will overwhelm
them with astonishment and dismay, we cannot but trust that a general
expression of the voice of the people would satisfy Congress that those
of their representatives who had voted in favor of war, have not truly
represented the wishes of their constituents, and thus arrest the
tendency of their measures to this extremity."

Had the policy of government been inclined towards resistance to the
pretentions of the belligerants by open war, there could be neither
policy, reason or justice in singling out Great Britain as the
exclusive object of hostility. If the object of war is merely to
vindicate our honor, why is it not declared against the first aggressor?
If the object is defense and success, why is it to be waged against the
adversary most able to annoy and least likely to yield? Why, at the
moment when England explicitly declares her order in council repealed
whenever France shall rescind her decrees, is the one selected for an
enemy and the other courted as a conqueror? "Under present circumstances
there will be no scope for valor, no field for enterprise, no chance for
success, no hope of national glory, no prospect but of a war against
Great Britain, in aid of the common enemy of the human race, and in the
end an inglorious peace."

The resolution recommended by the committee was adopted and it was voted
that the selectmen be requested to transmit a copy thereof to each town
in this commonwealth.

At a town meeting held August 6, 1812, the following resolutions were
passed: "That the inhabitants of the town of Boston have learned with
heartfelt concern that in the City of Baltimore a most outrageous
attack, the result of deliberate combinations has been made upon the
freedom of opinion and the liberty of the press. An infuriated mob has
succeeded in accomplishing its sanguinary purpose by the destruction of
printing presses and other property, by violating the sanctuary of
dwelling houses, breaking open the public prison and dragging forth from
the protection of civil authority the victims of their ferocious
pursuit, guilty of no crime but the expression of their opinions and
completing the tissue of their enormities by curses, wounds and murders,
accompanied by the most barbarous and shocking indignities."

"In the circumstances attending the origin, the progress, and the
catastrophe of this bloody scene, we discern with painful emotion, not
merely an aggravation of the calamities of the present unjust and
ruinous war, but a prelude to the dissolution of all free government,
and the establishing of a reign of terror. Mobs, by reducing men to a
state of nature, defeat the object of every social compact. The sober
citizen who trembles in beholding the fury of the mob, seeks refuge from
its dangers by joining in its acclamations. The laws are silenced. New
objects of violence are discovered. The government of the nation and the
mob government change places with each other. The mob erects its horrid
crest over the ruins of liberty, of property, of the domestic relations
of life and of civil institutions."[91]

[91] Boston Town Records, City Document No. 115, pp. 317, 318, 319, 320,
321, 322.

The foregoing is a fair example of the feelings shown in New England
towards this unjustifiable war, and which culminated in the famous
Hartford convention which was accused of designing an organized
resistance to the general government, and a separation of the New
England states from the Union if the war was not stopped. The
resolutions condemning the Baltimore mob also show the change in public
opinion that had taken place in Boston during the thirty-seven years
that had elapsed since the commencement of the Revolution in Boston,
which was inaugurated by mob violence, participated in by many who, by
the strange irony of fate, by these resolutions condemned their own
actions.

Mr. Quincy did not stand alone among his countrymen of that day in a
general championship of Great Britain in the hour of her extremity. The
Reverend John Sylvester, John Gardner, rector of Trinity church, Boston,
a man of great scholarship, among others lifted up his voice in protest
against unfair treatment of Great Britain by the government and people
of the United States.

In a sermon at this time he said: "Though submissive and even servile to
France, to Great Britain we are eager to display our hatred and hurl our
defiance. Every petty dispute which may happen between an American
captain and a British officer is magnified into a national insult. The
land of our fathers, whence is derived the best blood of the nation, the
country to which we are chiefly indebted for our laws and knowledge is
stigmatized as a nest of pirates, plunderers and assassins. We entice
away her seamen, the very sinews of her power.

"We refuse to restore them on application; we issue hostile
proclamations; we interdict her ships of war from the common rights to
hospitality; we have non-importation acts; we lay embargoes; we refuse
to ratify a treaty in which she has made great concessions to us; we
dismiss her envoy of peace who came purposely to apologize for an act
unauthorized by her government; we commit every act of hostility against
her in proportion to our means and station. Observe the conduct of the
two nations and our strange conduct. France robs us and we love her;
Britain courts us and we hate her."

It was during the summer of 1812, when Jefferson truly stated that every
continental power of importance, except Russia, was allied with
Napoleon, and Great Britain stood alone to oppose them, for Russia could
not aid her if she would--her commerce paralyzed, her factories closed,
commerce and her people threatened with famine. It was at this moment of
dire extremity that Madison chose to launch his war message. His action
was eagerly supported by Jefferson, Clay and Calhoun, and the younger
members of his party.

Jefferson wrote to Duane: "The acquisition of Canada this year (1812) as
far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching,
and will give us experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and the
final expulsion of England from the American continent. Perhaps they
will burn New York or Boston. If they do, we must burn the city of
London, not by expensive fleets of Congreve rockets, but by employing a
hundred or two Jack-the-painters, whom nakedness, famine, desperation
and hardened vice will abundantly furnish from among themselves."[92]

[92] "Jack-the-painter" was a miscreant employed by Silas Deane, one of
the U. S. Commissioners to France and the colleague of Dr. Franklin, to
burn the docks at Bristol. He partially succeeded and was hanged for the
crime, a far less infamous one than that advocated by Jefferson, the
champion of the rights of man.

[Illustration: BURNING OF NEWARK, CANADA, BY UNITED STATES TROOPS.

In retaliation for the destruction of the Public landing at Toronto and
Newark, and other villages, the public building at Washington was
burned.]

Three months after making this prediction, the surrender of the United
States invading force to the British General Brock, or as Jefferson
preferred to style it, "the detestable treason of Hull," "excited," he
writes, "a deep anxiety in all breasts." A few months later we find him
lamenting that "our war on the land was commenced most inauspiciously."
This has resulted, he thinks, from the employment of generals before it
is known whether they will "stand fire" and has cost us thousands of
good men and deplorable degradation of reputation.(*) "The treachery,
cowardice, and imbecility of the men in command has sunk our spirits at
home and our character abroad."[93]

[93] Jefferson's Works, Vol. VI., pp. 99, 193, 104.

At the commencement of the war of 1812, the whole number of British
troops in Canada was 4450, supplemented by about four thousand Canadian
militia. With this corporal guard it was necessary to protect a frontier
of over 1600 miles in length. Any part of this line was liable to an
invasion of United States troops whose lines of communication were far
superior. Moreover Great Britain was unable to send reinforcements until
after the fall of Napoleon in June, 1814, when the war was nearly fought
out.

American writers have always severely criticised the British for burning
the public buildings when they captured Washington. Ex-President
Jefferson, who proposed that the criminal classes of London should be
hired to burn that city, stigmatized the burning of Washington as
"vandalism," and declared it would "immortalize the infamy" of Great
Britain. He who could contemplate with equanimity the fearful horrors
that must have resulted from the putting in practice of his monstrous
proposition to burn a city crowded with peaceful citizens, professed to
be horrified at the destruction of a few public buildings by which no
man, woman or child, was injured in person or property. With equal
hypocrisy he professed to believe that no provocation for the act was
given by the United States commanders. Upon this point he was taken to
an account by an open letter from Dr. John Strachan, afterwards Bishop
of Toronto. This letter should be preserved as long as there lives a
British apologist for the acts of the United States in the War of 1812.
In part it was as follows:

"As you are not ignorant of the mode of carrying on the war adopted by
your friends, you must have known it was a small retaliation after
redress had been refused, for burnings and depredations not only of
public but private property, committed by them in Canada." In July, 1812,
General Hull invaded Upper Canada and threatened by proclamation to
exterminate the inhabitants if they made any resistance. He plundered
those with whom he had been in habits of intimacy for years before the
war. Their linen and plate were found in his possession after his
surrender to General Brock. He marked out the loyal subjects of the king
as objects of peculiar resentment, and consigned their property to
pillage and conflagration.

In April, 1813, the public buildings at York (now Toronto) the capital
of Upper Canada, were burned by the troops of the United States contrary
to the articles of capitulation. Much private property was plundered and
several homes left in a state of ruin. Can you tell me, sir, the reason
why the public buildings and library at Washington should be held more
sacred than those at our York?

In June, 1813, Newark came into possession of your army, and its
inhabitants were repeatedly promised protection to themselves and
property by General Dearborne and General Boyd. In the midst of their
professions the most respectable of them, almost all non-combatants,
were made prisoners and sent into the United States. The two churches
were burned to the ground; detachments were sent under the direction of
British traitors to pillage the loyal inhabitants in the neighborhood
and to carry them away captive. Many farm-houses were burned during the
summer and at length, to fill up the measure of iniquity, the whole of
the beautiful village of Newark was consigned to flames. The wretched
inhabitants had scarcely time to save themselves, much less any of their
property. More than four hundred women and children were exposed without
shelter on the night of the tenth of December, to the extreme cold of a
Canadian winter, and great numbers must have perished, had not the
flight of your troops, after perpetrating their ferocious act, enabled
the inhabitants of the country to come to their relief. General McClure
says he acted in conformity with the order of his government.

In November, 1813, your friend General Wilkinson committed great
depredations through the eastern district of Upper Canada. The third
campaign exhibits equal enormities. General Brown laid waste the country
between Chippewa and Fort Erie, burning mills and private houses. The
pleasant village of St. David was burned by his army when about to
retreat. On the 15th of May a detachment of the American army pillaged
and laid waste as much of the adjacent country as they could reach. They
burned the village of Dover with all the mills, stores, distillery, and
dwelling houses in the vicinity, carrying away such property as was
portable, and killing the cattle.

On the 16th of August, some American troops and Indians from Detroit
surprised the settlement of Port Talbot, where they committed the most
atrocious acts of violence, leaving upwards of 234 men, women and
children in a state of nakedness and want.

[Illustration: BURNING OF JAY IN EFFIGY.

For signing the Treaty of 1797 Jay was burned in effigy. Hamilton was
stoned and the British Minister at Philadelphia insulted.]

On the 20th of December, a second excursion was made by the garrison of
Detroit, spreading fire and pillage through the settlements of Upper
Canada. Early in November, General McArthur, with a large body of
mounted Kentuckians and Indians, made a rapid march through the western
part of the London districts, burning all the mills, destroying
provisions and living upon the inhabitants. Other atrocities committed
by the American troops, among them the wanton destruction of a tribe of
Indians, unarmed and helpless, are detailed by Dr. Strachan. He adds,
addressing Jefferson: "This brief account of the conduct of your
government and army will fill the world with astonishment at the
forbearance of Great Britain."

After two years and a half had been expended in vain and puerile attacks
on the "handful of soldiers" with which Great Britain was able to resist
its invasion, combined with such assistance as the patriotic Canadians
were able to afford, it was found that not only Canada could not be
conquered, but that much of the territory of the United States had
passed into the hands of the enemy, with not one foot of that enemy's
territory in their own hands to compensate for the loss.

When the arms of the United States had suffered many reverses and it
became plain that they must accept the best terms from Great Britain
that they could procure, John Adams declared that he "would continue the
war forever rather than surrender one iota of the fisheries as
established by the third article of the treaty of 1783." He boasted that
he had saved the fishermen in that year, and now in 1814 he learned with
dismay that they were again lost to his country, their relinquishment
being one of the terms insisted on by the British commission as the
price of peace.

The Federalists also were not easily satisfied. They admitted that peace
was a happy escape for a country with a bankrupt treasury, and all
resources dissipated. "But what," they asked, "have we gained by a war
provoked and entered into by you with such a flourish of trumpets? Where
are your 'sailors' rights?' Where is the indemnity for our impressed
seamen? How about the paper blockade? The advantages you promised us we
have not obtained. But we have lost nothing? Have we not? What about
Grand Manan and Moose Island and the fisheries and our West Indian
commerce?" So severely did Boston suffer that there were sixty vessels
captured at the entrance to the harbor by one small fishing smack of
Liverpool, Nova Scotia, cruising in Massachusetts Bay.

All who were concerned in the passage of the treaty were the subjects of
the popular wrath. Jay was declared to be an "arch traitor," a "Judas
who had betrayed his country with a kiss," and was burned in effigy in a
dozen cities. Hamilton was stoned; the name of Washington was hooted,
and the British flag dragged in the mud.

Edmund Quincy, in the life of his father, says, "The fall of Bonaparte,
although it occasioned as genuine joy to New England as to the mother
country herself, did not bring with it absolutely unalloyed
satisfaction." There was reason to apprehend that the English
administration, triumphant over its gigantic foe, its army and navy
released from the incessant service of so many years, might concentrate
the whole of the empire upon the power which it regarded as a volunteer
ally of its mighty enemy, and administer an exemplary chastisement. No
doubt many Englishmen felt, with Sir Walter Scott, that "it was their
business to give the Americans a fearful memento, that the babe unborn
should have remembered," and there is as little question that infinite
damage might have been done to our cities and seacoast and to the banks
of our great rivers, had Great Britain employed her entire naval and
military forces for that purpose. But happily the English people wisely
refrained from an expenditure of blood and gold which could have no
permanent good result, and which would only serve to exasperate passions
and to prolong animosities which it was far wiser to permit to die out.
It is not unlikely that the attention of English people had been so
absorbed by the mighty conflict going on at their very doors that they
had not much to spare for the distant and comparatively obscure fields
across the Atlantic, and indeed the sentiments of the English people and
the policy of English governments have never exhibited a spirit of
revengefulness. The American war was but a slight episode in the great
epic of the age. At any rate the English ministry were content to treat
with the American commissioners at Ghent and to make a peace which left
untouched the pretended occasion for the war, over in expressive
silence, and peace was concluded, leaving "sailors' rights" the great
watchword of the war party, substantially as they stood before
hostilities began, except that our fishermen were deprived of the
valuable privilege they enjoyed of catching and curing fish on the
shores of the Gulf of the St. Lawrence.[94]

[94] Life of Josiah Quincy, p. 358.

The news of peace was received in Boston with great joy. It was a day
given up to rejoicing; salutes were fired; the bells rang out their
merriest peals; the volunteer companies with their bands filled the
streets; the school boys took a holiday; the wharves so long deserted
were thronged, and the melancholy ships that rotted along side them were
once more gay with flags and streamers. Thus rejoicing extended all
along the seaboard and far inland, making glad all hearts and none more
glad than those of the promoters of the war in high places and low.[95]

[95] Life of Josiah Quincy, pp. 360, 361.

And so the "war of 1812" ended amid a general joy, not for what it had
accomplished, for the American forces were defeated in their invasion of
Canada, and the United States did not acquire one foot of additional
territory, or the settlement of any of the questions which were the
pretext for the war.

Much that occurred during the war of 1812 has been conveniently
forgotten by American historians, and much that had not occurred,
remembered. By degrees failure was transformed into success. The new
generations were taught that in that war their fathers had won a great
victory over the whole power of Great Britain single handed and alone.
This amazing belief is still cherished among the people of the United
States, to the astonishment of well informed visitors who meet with
evidence of the fact.

CHAPTER X.

_THE CIVIL WAR AND THE PART TAKEN BY GREAT BRITAIN IN SAME._

For the first fifty years after the Revolution, the wealthy aristocratic
slave-holding Southern states governed the Union and controlled its
destiny. The acquisition of Florida and the Louisiana purchase doubled
the area of the United States, and the territory derived from the
Mexican War doubled it again. It was the intention of the South to
extend slavery over this immense territory, but they were checked in the
northern part of it by the enormous European immigration that poured
into it and prevented it from becoming slave territory. Then came the
"irrepressible conflict," the border war in Missouri and "bleeding
Kansas," the battle of Ossawatomie and Harper's Ferry raid, and the
constant pin-pricking of the abolition societies in the North, the
headquarters of which were in Boston.

The presidential election of 1860 showed the South that they had lost
control of the government and that the free states were increasing
enormously in wealth and population, and that, following the example of
Great Britain, it would be only a question of time before they would
insist on abolishing slavery. Then it was that the Southerners decided
to do what their fathers had done eighty-five years before, secede and
become Dis-unionists. They could not believe that there would be any
opposition to their leaving, especially from Massachusetts, that place
that had always been foremost in disunion sentiments. Besides, had not
the Abolitionists said repeatedly in Faneuil Hall, "The Cradle of
Liberty," that if they would leave the Union they would "pave their way
with gold" to get rid of them, and did not the New York Tribune, which
had been the organ of the Abolitionists, and which now declared that "if
the cotton states wished to withdraw from the Union they should be
allowed to do so"; that "any attempt to compel them to remain by force
would be contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence,
and to the fundamental idea upon which human liberty is based," and that
"if the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the
British Empire of three million subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it
would not justify the secession of five million of Southerners from the
Union in 1861." This was quite consistent with the remark of a leading
Abolitionist paper in Boston that "the Constitution was a covenant with
hell." The South also contended that even if they were not justified in
becoming Dis-unionists in 1776, they had established their right to
independence by force of arms and that when they had entered into a
confederation with the other seceding colonies, they had never assigned
any of their rights which they had fought for, that they were sovereign,
independent states, and that the bond that bound them together was
simply for self-protection and was what the name signified "United
States," and not a nation. In proof of this they stated that when the
convention met in Philadelphia in May, 1787, for the purpose of adopting
a constitution for a stronger form of government, the first resolution
presented was, "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that
a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme
legislature, executive and judiciary." This was followed by twenty-three
other resolutions as adopted and reported by the committee in which the
word "national" occurred twenty-six times. Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut
moved to strike out the word "national" and to insert the words
"Government of the United States." This was agreed to unanimously, and
the word "national" was stricken out wherever it occurred, and nowhere
makes its appearance in the Constitution finally adopted. The prompt
rejection of this word "national" is obviously much more expressive of
the intent of the authors of the Constitution than its mere absence from
the Constitution would have been. It is a clear indication that they did
not mean to give any countenance to the idea that the government which
they organized was a consolidated nationality instead of a confederacy
of sovereign members. The question of secession was first raised by men
of Massachusetts, the birthplace of secession. Colonel Timothy Pickering
was one of the leading secessionists of his day. He had been an officer
in the Revolution; afterwards Postmaster General, Secretary of War,
Secretary of State in the cabinet of General Washington and senator from
Massachusetts.

Writing to a friend on December 24, 1803, he says: "I will not despair.
I will rather anticipate a new confederacy exempt from the corrupt and
corrupting influence and oppression of the aristocratic Democrats of the
South. There will be (and our children, at farthest, will see it) a
separation. The white and black population will mark the boundary."[96]

In another letter, written in January 29, 1804, he said: "The principles
of our Revolution point to the remedy--a separation. This can be
accomplished and without spilling one drop of blood, I have little
doubt. It must begin in Massachusetts."[96]

[96] Life of Cabot, p. 491.

In 1811, on the bill for the admission of Louisiana as a state of the
Union, the Hon. Josiah Quincy, a member of Congress from Massachusetts,
said: "If this bill pass, it is my deliberate opinion that it is
virtually a dissolution of this Union; that it will free the states from
other moral obligations, and as it will be the right of all, so it will
be the duty of some definitely to prepare for a separation, amicably, if
they can, violently if they must."

The war between the North and the South produced an abundant crop of
bitter prejudices against the mother country. This sentiment was shared
by the South as well as by the North. Each imagined it had been unfairly
treated by the British Government.

Americans continually point to the period of the Civil war and
triumphantly declare that Englishmen were unfriendly to the United
States at that time. So they were. And Englishmen were unfriendly to the
Confederate states during that time. In fact, Englishmen did exactly
what Americans did at that time--some took the side of the North and
others took the side of the South. This it was their privilege to do.
They simply asserted the right of free men to think as they pleased, and
to express those thoughts freely. But that in so doing they showed
hostility to the United States it is false and foolish to assert. There
was neither unfriendliness nor malice. This hostility to the South, so
far as it existed, was based solely upon the existence of slavery there.
That which existed against the North was based solely upon the belief
that a stronger power was taking advantage of its strength to trample
upon the political rights of a weaker one. Any person living either
North or South at that time cannot deny that they met many examples of
both of these opinions among their respective acquaintances in both
these sections.

At the commencement of the Civil War, the Queen issued a proclamation of
neutrality, forbidding the sale of munitions of war to either party,
warning her subjects against entering any blockaded port for purposes of
trade under penalty of forfeiture of vessel and cargo if captured by
either contestant.

Great Britain, as well as all other civilized powers, granted to the
Confederacy belligerent rights, the same as had been accorded to them by
the United States. Many, through cupidity, were tempted to enter into an
illegal traffic with the seceded states.

A writer at that time says: "It is to the disgrace of our country that
some of the goods smuggled into the Confederacy via Nassau were from
Northern ports, as for example, shiploads of pistols brought from Boston
in barrels of lard." There was also a considerable trade between Boston
and Confederate ports via Halifax during the war, as well as an immense
amount of contraband trade along the border even by the United States
officials, as for example, the exploits of General Benjamin F. Butler
while in command at Norfolk, Va., in 1864. If citizens of the United
States, even those of Massachusetts, the home of the abolitionists,
entered into this traffic, what could be expected of Great Britain with
her mills closed and thousands of operatives obliged to resort to the
poor rates for subsistence, because she was prevented from buying cotton
with which the wharves of the Southern states were loaded down awaiting
shipment. It was claimed by Unionists that the British ministry and
aristocracy, from political and commercial considerations, openly and
heartily sympathized with the South, and that, under the friendly flag
of Great Britain, secessionists and blockade-runners were welcomed and
assisted in the nefarious traffic; that this unfriendliness of the
British government at that time furnished a solid foundation upon which
the rebellion rested their hopes, thereby protracting the war. It
should not be forgotten, however, that the Queen and the royal family
stood faithfully by the Union in the days of its sorest peril, and
refused to listen to the importunities of the French emperor, to
recognize the Southern Confederacy and open the southern ports.

France, having taken advantage of the Civil War, set the Monroe Doctrine
at defiance and conquered Mexico. Her remaining there depended on the
success of the Confederacy, as after events proved. Had Great Britain
listened to France and joined her in recognizing the Southern
Confederacy, the South would have surely succeeded. It is generally
admitted that the strict blockade of the Southern ports is what defeated
the Confederacy. It is due to Great Britain that the United States is
not dismembered. It should be remembered that during the Civil War the
great body of British workmen were on the side of the North. Even in the
cotton famine districts they preferred to starve rather than have the
Southern ports opened whereby they could obtain an abundance of cotton,
thereby relieving their sore necessities.

It is also true that the Confederacy had many friends in Great Britain;
that Gladstone, the great Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far
forgot what was due to his position as to make a speech in which he said
"he expected the liberation of the slaves by their own masters sooner
than from the North; that Jefferson Davis and the leaders of the South
have made an army; they are soon, I understand, to have a navy, but
greater than all this, they have made a nation."

It must be admitted that in building a navy the government connived at
the building of cruisers, such as the Alabama, in British shipyards, for
which they had to pay dearly afterwards. In answer to this speech of
Gladstone, the robust yet tender tones of John Bright's voice rang out
for the Northern cause in the darkest hour of the Civil War. His voice
was heard with no uncertain sound when he uttered his indignant protest
at anything like a reception being tendered Mason and Slidell on their
release. John Bright for a long time sustained the enormous loss of
keeping his mills open at hast half time with no material to work with.
There he stood, all Quaker as he was, praying that the North might not
stay its hand till the last slave was freed, even if no bales of cotton
were sent to relieve his grievious losses protesting against outside
interference. When the day came that marked the passing away of this
venerable patriot, one of earth's greatest and best, an attempt was made
in Congress to pass a vote of sympathy to his family and to the shame
and disgrace of the United States it must be said that Congress refused
to pay even this poor tribute to the memory of the best friend the
United States had in the whole wide world in the hour of her great
distress. This was done because it would be "offensive to the Irish."
John Bright could see no difference between dis-union in the United
States and dis-union in the United Kingdom. He had written to Mr.
Gladstone concerning Parnell, Dillon, O'Brien, etc., saying, "You deem
them patriots; I hold them not to be patriots, but conspirators against
the crown and government of the United Kingdom." These men were
afterwards found guilty of criminal conspiracy and Parnell was received
with honor on the floor of Congress.

Henry Ward Beecher stated that during the American Civil War there were
thousands of mass meetings held in Great Britain in favor of the Union
cause, and not one in favor of the Confederacy.

Jefferson Davis complained bitterly of the action of Great Britain. He
says "The partiality of Her Majesty's government in favor of our enemies
was further evinced in the marked difference of its conduct on the
subject of the purchase of supplies by the two belligerents. This
difference was conspicuous from the commencement of the war."(*) Great
Britain endeavored to deal justly with both parties in the contest, but
pleased neither and was blamed by both. This is probably the best
evidence that can be given to show the impartiality of Great Britain in
the great Civil War, and it is safe to say that there were ten times
more British subjects serving in the Northern armies than there were in
the Southern.

As previously stated, Great Britain has been greatly blamed by American
historians for her treatment of American prisoners of war during the
Revolution, and at Dartmouth prison in the war of 1812. In view of these
facts it will be interesting to see how the Americans treated their
prisoners when at war between themselves in the Civil War of 1861. One
of the worst cases recorded in the history of the world is that of
Andersonville. The first prisoners were received there in March, 1864.
From that time till March, 1865, the deaths were 13,000 out of a total
of 50,000 or 26 per cent. This enormous loss of life was due to the fact
that in order to subjugate the South their crops were destroyed, their
fields devastated, their railroads broken up, which interrupted their
means of transportation, which reduced their people, troops and
prisoners to the most straitened condition for food. If the troops in
the field were in a half-starved condition, certainly the prisoners
would fare worse.(*) The Confederates have been blamed for this enormous
loss of life, but when the facts are examined it is found that it was
due to the cold-blooded policy of the Federal Government, who would not
exchange prisoners for the atrocious reason set forth in the dispatch
from General Grant to General Butler, dated West Point, August 18, 1864.

General Grant says: "On the subject of exchange, however, I differ from
General Hitchcock. It is hard on our men in Southern prisons not to
exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight
our battles. Every man released on parole or otherwise becomes an active
soldier against us at once, either directly or indirectly. If we
commence a system of exchange, which liberates all prisoners taken, we
will have to fight on till the whole South is exterminated. If we hold
those caught, they amount to no more than dead men. At this particular
time to release all rebel prisoners North would insure Sherman's defeat
and would compromise our safety."

What brought forth this letter was a statement made by the Confederate
government concerning the excessive mortality prevailing among the
prisoners of Andersonville. As no answer was received, another
communication was sent on Aug. 22, 1864 to Major General E. A.
Hitchcock, United States Commissioner of Exchange, concerning the same
proposal. But again no answer was made. One final effort was made to
obtain an exchange. Jefferson Davis sent a delegation of prisoners from
Andersonville to Washington. "It was of no avail. They were made to
understand that the interest of the government required that they should
return to prison and President Lincoln refused to see them. They carried
back the sad tidings that their government held out no hope of their
release."[97]

[97] Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. II., p. 606.

Up to this time the mortality among the prisoners had been far greater
in the Northern prisons than in the Southern prisons, notwithstanding
there was an abundance of food and clothing and medical supplies in the
North. In proof of this it is only necessary to offer two facts. First,
the report of the Secretary of War, E. M. Stanton, made on July 19,
1866, shows that of all the prisoners held by the Confederates during
the war, only 22,576 died, while of the prisoners held by the Federal
government, 26,246 died.

Second, the official report of Surgeon General Barnes, an officer of the
U. S. Government, stated that the number of Confederate prisoners in
their hands amounted to 220,000. The number of U. S. prisoners in
Confederate hands amounted to 270,000. Thus out of 270,000 held by the
Confederates 22,000 died, and of the 220,000 Confederates held in the
North, 26,000 died. Thus 12 per cent of the Confederates died in
Northern prisons and only 9 per cent U. S. prisoners died in the
South.[98]

[98] Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. II., p. 606.

CHAPTER XI.

_RECONCILIATION. THE DISMEMBERED EMPIRE RE-UNITED IN BONDS OF
FRIENDSHIP. "BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER."_

It is well known and now acknowledged that for the past hundred years it
has been the deliberate and well considered policy of the United States
to eradicate everything British from the country to the north of us.

During the Canadian rebellion of 1837, as well as during the Fenian raid
of 1866, the American frontier was openly allowed to be made a base of
operation against British North America.

Canada has always claimed that she has been deprived of enormous areas
of territory by the United States through sharp practice and
unjustifiable means, especially in Oregon, Maine and Alaska. The most
notable case of duplicity on the part of the United States was that of
the Northeast boundary settled under the Ashburton Treaty of Washington
in 1842. After a bitter controversy it was left out to arbitration for
the King of the Netherlands to decide. The award was accepted by Great
Britain and rejected by the United States. The question remained in
abeyance for two years, during which there was imminent danger of a
collision and of war. Military posts were simultaneously established and
rashly advanced into the wild country which both parties claimed as
their own. Redoubts and blockhouses were erected at several points.
Reinforcement of troops from either side poured in. The public mind in
the United States became inflamed by the too ready cry of "British
outrage," proclaimed in all quarters by the reckless politicians of both
parties in order to lash the national spirit into fury. The people in
the whole length and breadth of the Union were, to a man, convinced of
the justice of their claim and of the manifest wrong intended by Great
Britain. The Nation at large was ready and anxious for war, and had a
skirmish taken place on the frontier involving the death of a dozen men
during the so-called "Aroostook War," the whole country would have
rushed to war and plunged the two nations into hostilities, the end of
which no man then living could have foreseen.

During this trouble, the English people were quite calm and almost
apathetic. With a vague notion of the locality of the disputed
territory, a total ignorance of the merits or demerits of the dispute,
and a profound contempt of the blustering and abuse of American
politicians and newspapers, they were perfectly content to leave affairs
in the hands of the government.

Finally a joint commission was appointed from the States of Maine and
Massachusetts (both having rights in the disputed territory) and sent to
Washington to negotiate a treaty with Lord Ashburton, a nobleman well
adapted to the occasion from his connection by marriage, and property in
the United States.

The odds were greatly against the British negotiator. His principal
adversary was Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, who in one of his
letters said: "I must be permitted to say that few questions have arisen
under this government in regard to which a stronger or more general
conviction was felt that the country was in the right than this question
of the northeast boundary." He reiterated his own belief in "the justice
of the claim which arose from our honest conviction that it was founded
in truth and accorded with the intention of the negotiators of the
treaty of 1783." The whole of the disputed territory amounted to
6,750,000 acres. At last a compromise was effected which granted to
Great Britain 3,337,000 acres, and to the United States 3,413,000 acres,
and acknowledged the title of England to all the military positions upon
the frontier, and 700,000 acres more was awarded her than was assigned
to her by the King of the Netherlands.

But the decision of the Commissioners suited neither party. The factions
in England pronounced Lord Ashburton to have been sold, and those in
America declared that Webster had been bought. The most violent
opposition to the treaty was made; every part of it was denounced, and
it became at last doubtful if the Senate would ratify it. That final
consummation was, however, suddenly effected in a most remarkable
manner, the Senate coming to its decision by an unexpected majority of
thirty-nine to nine, after several days of secret debate. The sanction
of the Queen and the British government had been given without
hesitation and the people on both sides of the Atlantic were well
satisfied with the termination of the long and virulent dispute, and the
Northeastern Boundary Question would have sunk into the archives of
diplomatic history, but truth like murder will out, and it so happened
that Mr. Thomas Colley Grattan, British Consul for Massachusetts[99]
who, at the request of the commissioners, had accompanied them to
Washington to assist them in their negotiation, had the fortune to
discover after the treaty was signed, the duplicity of the Senate during
their secret debates leading to the ratification of the treaty. He says:
"My informant gave unmeasured expression to his indignation, which he
assured me was fully shared in by his friends, Judge Story and Dr.
Channing. Judge Story expressed himself without reserve on Webster's
conduct as a 'most disgraceful proceeding.'" Other gentlemen of Boston
entirely coincided in these opinions.

[99] For full particulars see his work, "Civilized America," Vol. I,
Chap. XXI, XXII, XXIII.

[Illustration: Map of the Boundary Line between Maine and New
Brunswick.]

"It is obvious to all persons familiar with boundary disputes that the
most important evidence in such disputes is founded on surveys and maps.
Early in the controversy there was a strange disappearance of the one in
the archives of the State Department, that had been transmitted by
Franklin to Jefferson in October, 1790, with the true boundary line
traced on it. It was, therefore, with great astonishment that I learned
from the confidential communication just alluded to that during the
whole of the negotiations at Washington, while the highest functionaries
of the American Government were dealing with Lord Ashburton with seeming
frankness and integrity, pledging their faith for a perfect conviction
of the justice of their claim to the territory which was in dispute. Mr.
Webster had in his possession and had communicated to them
all--President, Cabinet, Commissioners and Senate--the highest evidence
which the case admitted, that the United States had never had a shadow
of right to any part of the territory which they had so pertinaciously
claimed for nearly fifty years. This evidence, as my conscientious
informant told me, was nothing less than a copy of an original map
presented by Dr. Franklin to Count de Vergennes, the Minister of Louis
XVI, on December 6, 1782 (six days after the preliminaries of the treaty
of Paris of 1783 were signed) tracing the boundary, as agreed upon by
himself and the other commissioners, with a strong red line south of the
St. John, and exactly where a similar line appears in an unauthenticated
map discovered in London subsequent to Lord Ashburton's departure on his
mission."

Public attention being aroused by the statements made by the British
Consul to his government, the injunction of secrecy imposed by the
Senate on its members was dissolved, and permission was given for the
publication of the speeches made in secret session of August 17-19,
1842. The most important of those speeches was that of Mr. Rives,
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. His principal argument was
that if they did not sign the treaty, the dispute would be referred to a
second arbitration with very great danger of their losing the whole, Mr.
Webster, the Secretary of State, having sent to him to be laid before
the Senate a communication and a copy of the map presented by Dr.
Franklin to Count de Vergennes. In short, it is exactly the line
contended for by Great Britain except that it concedes more than is
claimed. When this communication was read, Senator Benton informed the
Senate that he could produce a map of higher validity than the one
referred to. He accordingly repaired to the library of Congress and soon
returned with a map which there is no doubt was the one sent by Franklin
to Jefferson already alluded to as having been surreptitiously removed
from the archives of the State Department some years before. The moment
it was examined it was found to sustain, by the most precise and
remarkable correspondence in every feature, the map communicated by Mr.
Webster. Mr. Benton then stated that "if the maps were really authentic
the concealment of them was a fraud on the British, and that the Senate
was insulted by being a party to the fraud," and further that "if
evidence had been discovered which deprived Maine of the title to
one-third of its territory, honor required that it should be made known
to the British."

The sudden acceptance of the treaty was in consequence of the evidence
of the maps, and the conviction of all concerned that a discovery of
their existence before the conclusion of a treaty would have given
irresistible strength to the English claims.

Calhoun said: "It would be idle to suppose that these disclosures would
not weigh heavily against the United States in any future negotiations."

The settlement of the Oregon boundary question again showed American
hatred of England to be chronic. The question finally resolved itself
into whether the threat of 54.40 or fight should be carried out, (a
threat to deprive Canada of access to the Pacific Ocean and the
possession of most of the enormous wheat fields now being developed in
the northwest) or to fight Mexico and extend its boundaries to the South
instead of the north. This latter scheme suited the slaveholders best
who were then in power. The United States government then entered into a
war with Mexico, one of the most unjustifiable contests ever entered
into by a civilized nation. By this war of conquest the United States
nearly doubled its territory. It must be said to the credit of New
England that she would not take any part in this war any more than she
did in the war of 1812.

When confederation of the Canadian provinces occurred in 1867, there was
placed on record in the House of Representatives at Washington that it
was disapproved and that the House regarded the Act of Confederation as
a menace to the United States. For a hundred years after the Revolution
it had been the policy of the United States to force Canada into
annexation, and it was considered that she would be more likely to come
into the Union if she was harrassed by a high tariff, boundary and
fishing disputes, but now it is known to have been all wrong. The
factors worked out just the reverse. Conditions have arrived that were
little foreseen until within ten years. The American people have
recognized the fact that a great change has taken place in Canada which
materially effects the relation between Canada and the United States.
Mr. Root, U. S. Secretary of State, recently said:

"Canada is no longer the outlying northern country in which a fringe of
descendants of royalists emigrating from the colonies when they became
independent of Great Britain, lived and gained a precarious subsistence
from a fertile soil. It has become the home of a great people increasing
in population and wealth. The stirrings of a national sentiment are to
be felt. In their relations to England one can see that while still
loyal to their mother country, still a loyal part of the British Empire,
they are growing up, and, as the boy is to his parents when he attains
manhood, they are a personality of themselves. In their relations to us
they have become a sister nation. With their enormous national wealth,
with their vigor and energy following the pathway that we have followed,
protecting their industries as we have protected ours, proud of their
country as we are proud of ours, they are no longer the little remnants
upon our borders; they are a great and powerful sister nation."

For years after the Civil War there came from the press, from the
lecture platform, and from the political rostrum, the most relentless
abuse of Great Britain and everything British. Lecturers gave their
audiences vivid descriptions of the Revolution and the war of 1812, in
which American valor was always rated high and British brutality was
held up to scorn. These lectures were frequently of thrilling interest
because the speakers were not handicapped by matters so paltry as facts
of history. But the most formidable batteries of wrath were trained
against everything British from the political stump. The iron-lunged
orators told of the iniquity of England, of its infamous tariff laws,
the oppression of Ireland, etc. He was but a poor speaker who could not
enliven a political meeting by twisting the tail of the British lion.
All this is now changed. It was brought about by President Cleveland's
Venezuelian message of December, 1895, and the Spanish War. When the
Venezuelian episode occurred, England was believed to be isolated and
without an ally. It proved that war could be declared against Great
Britain at any time, in ten minutes, upon any pretext. The insolent
message fell upon every one in England, from Lord Salisbury down, as a
bolt from the blue sky. Englishmen were as innocent as babes of
intentional offence to the United States. They had no conception that
there existed in the United States such latent irritation or antagonism
as under the first provocation would lead to an almost open avowal of
national enmity. It, however, happily disclosed the fact that there
still existed in the United States a numerous highly educated and
conservative element (not dissimilar to the vanished Loyalists of the
last century) in which one seldom finds a trace of antagonism to the old
mother country. Following the message, magazine reviews, the public
press, and the pulpit overflowed with a brilliant series of public
utterances and these soon checked the noisy approving outbursts of a
reckless half-educated majority to obtain whose votes at the next
election undoubtedly prompted the presumptuous interference of the chief
of the Republic and the unfriendly tone of his message.

Within three years after the message a wonderful change came over the
people of the United States. The Spanish War had taken place and instead
of finding Great Britain to be the hereditary enemy of the United
States, which they had been taught in the school histories to believe,
it was found that among the great powers of the world, Great Britain was
the only friend which the United States had, and that "blood was thicker
than water." It was discovered that the nations were envious of the
great Republic, and that Britain alone was proud of her eldest daughter.
It was remarked to the writer by a Spanish officer shortly after the
surrender of Porto Rico: "But mind you, this from an old man who has
studied history. You would never have had these islands had not England
stepped in at the beginning of the trouble and said to all the nations
of the world, 'Allow me to present my daughter, America.'" It was found,
too, that the "traditional friendship" of Russia was of but little
account at that time.

It was Russia that eagerly became the spokesman for envious Europe and
gave voice to the words: "Now is the time for us to combine and crush
this huge American monster before she becomes too strong for all of us,
as she is already too strong for any one of us." It was Russia that
planned to have the "concert of Europe" warn us that we were not to pose
as champion of any other American people against any form of misrule by
Europe--and that we were not to dare to meddle in Europe on any pretext.

She failed because England refused to join the league, or to enter with
the other powers into a naval demonstration before Cuba, but so long as
the war lasted with Spain the Russian diplomats kept pounding at every
backdoor in Europe with an insistence that something be done to cut our
comb, or make trouble or lose us the friendship of England. Our people
in Washington know all this. They know also the behavior of the Russian
minister at Washington who thought to poison us against England in the
very days when we were buying in that country and shipping in secret
from that country the vital necessities which the war demanded and which
we had not got; when great steamers were found abandoned off New York
loaded with contraband of war, cannon, arms, ammunition, etc., and towed
into port by United States warships; when coal and ammunition were left
on desert islands in the Philippines by British warships for the use of
the United States navy; when England's fleet at Manila stood ready to
take sides with Dewey and to open fire, to begin war on the Germans
should occasion arise. American naval officers who were there know these
facts to be true, and it is very significant that the Navy Department
has not published the correspondence between it and Admiral Dewey at
that time. We are hated all over the continent of Europe. Paris made a
fete day when she imagined Sampson's fleet was destroyed.

The Germans hate us for taking 3,000,000 fighting men away from them,
and also because we prevented them from purchasing the Philippines from
Spain, and because the Monroe doctrine prevents them from obtaining
colonies or naval stations in the Western Hemisphere. The Austrians hate
us for humiliating Spain. There is not a country to the south of us but
what hates us. Every republic in South America would put a knife in our
back if the opportunity occurs.

Very significant, too, was the reception and banquet given at Windsor
Castle in 1896 by Queen Victoria to the Ancient and Honorable Artillery
Company of Boston--the oldest military organization in the Western
Hemisphere--and the grand reception they received everywhere they went
in England. It was a revelation to the Americans, as every one of them
acknowledged, to receive such marked expression of kindliness and
brotherhood at the old home. It was something they did not expect. The
company more than reciprocated when the parent company, The Honourable
Artillery of London, visited Boston in 1903. Once more were seen armed
British sailors and soldiers marching through Boston's streets under the
British flag, the buildings along the entire route beautifully
decorated, and the visitors received with vociferous welcome wherever
they went. We will hope that something even better and more substantial
may yet come to us, when the United States and Great Britain will be
allied in amity as firm as that which now holds together these federal
states. "Old prejudices should be cast aside; the English-speaking
states recognizing their kinship, should knit bonds together around the
world, forming a kingly brotherhood inspired by beneficence, to which
supreme dominion in the earth would be sure to fall; for whatever may be
said today for other stocks, the 135,000,000 of English-speaking men
have been able to make themselves masters of the world to an extent
which no people has thus far approached.

"If love would but once unite, the seas could never sever. Earth has
never beheld a co-mingling of men, so impressive, so likely to be
frought with noble advantages through ages to come, as would be the
coming together of English-speaking men in one cordial bond."[100]

[100] Short History of Anglo-Saxon Freedom.

The statesmen of Britain and America can do no worthier service than to
find a way by which their strength may be combined to secure the peace
of the world and the betterment of mankind. It is not necessary that
their governments should be unified, or even that any hard and fast
treaty obligation incurred. It is only necessary that they should agree
to be friends and to stand by each other in all that will further these
great objects. They alone of all the nations can do this and that they
ought to do it few will deny. Both must forget certain bitterness born
of the past and certain jealousies growing out of the greatness of both.

What Great Britain is doing for the many peoples under her care and what
this nation is doing for the few outside our borders that we have in
hand we might unitedly do for a great portion of the globe and its
inhabitants. This combination must be strong enough to check certain
highwaymen in international relations and to install a wholesome regard
for human rights. Such an outcome of present friendliness will not be
achieved in a day or generation. But it will come; it must come. Asia
and the continent of Europe may become Chinese or Cossack, but the
English-speaking race shall rule over every other land and all the
islands and every sea.

The present time is a critical period in the life of the American
Republic, and therefore in the life of the world. The impotence of the
federal government to stop strike disturbances, lynchings and
disfranchisements, the growing power of an oligarchial and plutocratic
Senate, and the perils of imperialism are disquieting enough, but worst
of all is the evil of party rule and party strife.

Washington abhorred party and regarded it as a disease which he hoped to
avert by putting federalists and anti-federalists in his cabinet
together. The intuition of the founders of the Republic was that the
president should be elected by a chosen body of select and responsible
citizens, but since the Jacksonian era, nomination and election have
been completely in the hands of the Democracy at large, and the election
has been performed by a process of national agitation and conflict
which sets at work all the forces of political intrigue and corruption
on the most enormous scale, besides filling the country with persons
almost as violent and anti-social as those of the Civil War.

The qualification for public office from that of president down to that
of a member of a city council in national, state or city politics is not
a question of which man is most worthy of public confidence. It is no
longer eminence but availability. The great aim of each party is to
prevent the country from being successfully governed by its rival. Each
will do anything to catch votes and anything rather than lose them.
Government consequently is at the mercy of any organization which has
votes on a large scale to sell, or corporations that will freely
contribute its funds. The Grand Army of the Republic is thus enabled to
levy upon the nation tribute to the amount of a hundred and fifty
million dollars each year, thirty-six years after the war, although
General Grant at the close of the war said that the pensions should
never exceed seven millions each year. And now both parties in their
platform promise their countenance to this exaction.

The recent exposures of the millions contributed by the trusts, tariff
protected industries, life insurance companies, etc., to the campaign
funds has astonished the world. The history of the most corrupt
monarchies could hardly furnish a more monstrous case of financial
abuse, to say nothing of the effect upon national character.

Each party machine has a standing army of wire pullers with an apparatus
of intrigue and corruption to the support of which holders of office
under government are assessed. The boss is a recognized authority, and
mastery of unscrupulous intrigue is his avowed qualification for his
place. The pest of partyism invades all the large cities of the country.
New York is made the plunder of the thieves of one party and
Philadelphia of thieves of the other. It is surely impossible that any
nation should endure such a system forever. A nation which deliberately
gives itself up to government by faction, under the name of party, signs
its own doom. The end may be delayed but it is sure. The American people
undoubtedly have the political wisdom and force to deal with this
crisis, but there is no evidence that these qualities are being brought
to bear on the situation nor is there any great man arisen to lead the
reform.

PART II.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

of the

LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS

with

THE ADDRESSES TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON. THE CONSPIRACY ACT; AND
RESOLUTION, RELATING TO THE BANISHING AND CONFISCATION OF THE
ESTATES OF THE ABSENTEES, AND REFUGEES, AND A LIST OF THE LOYALISTS
THAT WENT TO HALIFAX ON THE EVACUATION OF BOSTON.

The Loyalists of Massachusetts

WHO WERE THE INHABITANTS OF THE NEW ENGLAND COLONIES AT THE TIME OF THE
REVOLUTION?

The first and second chapters of this work treated of the settlement of
Massachusetts and the framing and establishing of that social system and
form of government which through successive generations, the settlers
and their descendants took part, which culminated in the Revolution. The
founders of Massachusetts and of all New England, were almost entirely
Englishmen. Their emigration to New England began in 1620, it was
inconsiderable till 1630, at the end of ten years more it almost ceased.
A people consisting at that time of not many more than twenty thousand
persons, thenceforward multiplied on its own soil, in remarkable
seclusion from other communities, for nearly two centuries. Such
exceptions to this statement are of small account. In 1651 after the
battle of Dunbar, Cromwell sent some four or five hundred of his Scotch
prisoners to Boston, but very little trace of this accession is left.
After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, about one hundred
and fifty families of French Huguenots came to Massachusetts; their
names and a considerable number of their posterity are yet to be found.
A hundred and twenty Scotch-Irish families, came over in 1719 and
settled in Boston, and New Hampshire. Some slight emigrations from it
took place at an early date, but they soon discontinued, and it was not
till after the Revolution that those swarms began to depart, which have
since occupied so large a portion of the territory of the United States.
During that long period their identity was unimpaired. No race has ever
been more homogeneous than this, at the outbreak of the Revolution, and
for many years later. Thus the people of New England was a singularly
unmixed race. There was probably not a county in England occupied by a
population of purer English blood than theirs. Down to the eve of the
war in 1775, New England had little knowledge of the communities which
took part in that conflict with her. Till the time of the Boston Port
Bill, Massachusetts and Virginia, the two principal English settlements,
had with each other scarcely more relations of acquaintance, business,
mutual influence, or common action, than either of them had with Bermuda
or Barbados.

During the latter part of the nineteenth century vast numbers of Irish,
and next to them German, came to New England, so at the time of writing,
1908, it is claimed that one half of the inhabitants of Boston are
Irish, or of Irish parentage. During the past ten years the places of
the Irish are being taken by the Italians, Jews, Portuguese, Greeks,
Armenians, French Canadians, and others. The reader will see from the
foregoing that the contestants in Massachusetts during the Revolutionary
war were a race representing a peculiar type of the Englishmen of the
seventeenth century who, sequestrated from foreign influences formed a
distinct character by their own discipline, and was engaged in a work
within itself, on its own problem, through a century and a half, and
which terminated in the Revolutionary War, that dismembered the Empire.
That the foregoing statement concerning the purity of the race at the
time of the Revolution is a correct one, is shown in the following
biographies of the Loyalists of Massachusetts, for in nearly every case
their ancestry date back to that of the first settlers, through several
generations.

THE ADDRESSERS.

The importance of the following addressers is out of all proportion to
their apparent significance. They are an indispensable genesis to the
history of the Loyalists. For the next seven years the Addressers were
held up to their countrymen as traitors and enemies to their country. In
the arraignments, which soon began, the Loyalists were convicted not out
of their mouths, but out of their addresses. The ink was hardly dry upon
the parchment before the persecution began against all those who would
not recant, and throughout the long years of the war, the crime of an
addresser grew in its enormity, and they were exposed to the perils of
tarring and feathering, the horrors of Simbury mines, a gaol or a
gallows.

ADDRESS OF THE MERCHANTS AND OTHERS OF BOSTON
TO GOV. HUTCHINSON.

_Boston_, May 30, 1774.

We, merchants and traders of the town of Boston, and others, do now wait
on you, in the most respectful manner, before your departure for
England, to testify, for ourselves the entire satisfaction we feel at
your wise, zealous, and faithful administration, during the few years
that you have presided at the head of this province. Had your success
been equal to your endeavors, and to the warmest wishes of your heart,
we cannot doubt that many of the evils under which we now suffer, would
have been averted, and that tranquility would have been restored to this
long divided province; but we assure ourselves that the want of success
in those endeavors will not abate your good wishes when removed from
us, or your earnest exertions still on every occasion to serve the true
interest of this your native country.

While we lament the loss of so good a governor, we are greatly relieved
that his Majesty, in his gracious favor, hath appointed as your
successor a gentleman who, having distinguished himself in the long
command he hath held in another department, gives us the most favorable
prepossessions of his future administration.

We greatly deplore the calamities that are impending and will soon fall
on this metropolis, by the operation of a late act of Parliament for
shutting up the port on the first of next month. You cannot but be
sensible, sir, of the numberless evils that will ensue to the province
in general, and the miseries and distresses into which it will
particularly involve this town, in the course of a few months. Without
meaning to arraign the justice of the British Parliament, we could
humbly wish that this act had been couched with less rigor, and that the
execution of it had been delayed to a more distant time, that the people
might have had the alternative either to have complied with the
conditions therein set forth, or to have submitted to the consequent
evils on refusal; but as it now stands, all choice is precluded, and
however disposed to compliance or concession the people may be, they
must unavoidably suffer very great calamities before they can receive
relief. Making restitution for damage done to the property of the East
India Company, or to the property of any individual, by the outrage of
the people, we acknowledge to be just; and though we have ever
disavowed, and do now solemnly bear our testimony against such lawless
proceedings, yet, considering ourselves as members of the same
community, we are fully disposed to bear our proportions of those
damages, whenever the sum and the manner of laying it can be
ascertained. We earnestly request that you, sir, who know our condition,
and have at all times displayed the most benevolent disposition towards
us, will, on your arrival in England, interest yourself in our behalf,
and make such favorable representations of our case, as that we may hope
to obtain speedy and effectual relief.

May you enjoy a pleasant passage to England; and under all the
mortifications you have patiently endured, may you possess the inward
and consolatory testimonies of having discharged your trust with
fidelity and honor, and receive those distinguishing marks of his
Majesty's royal approbation and favor, as may enable you to pass the
remainder of your life in quietness and ease, and preserve your name
with honor to posterity.

William Blair, John Greenlaw, Theophilus Lillie,
James Selkrig, Benjamin Clark, Miles Whitworth,
Archibald Wilson, William McAlpine, James McEwen,
Jeremiah Green, Jonathan Snelling, William Codner,
Samuel H. Sparhawk, James Hall, James Perkins,
Joseph Turill, William Dickson, John White,
Roberts & Co., John Winslow, jr., Robert Jarvis,
William Perry, Joseph Scott, Thomas Aylwin,
Jas. & Pat. McMasters, Samuel Minot, William Bowes,
William Coffin, Benjamin M. Holmes, Gregory Townsend,
Simeon Stoddard, jr., Archibald McNiel, Francis Green,
John Powell, George Leonard, Philip Dumaresq,
Henry Laughton, John Borland, Harrison Gray,
Eliphalet Pond, Joshua Loring, jr., Peter Johonnot,
M. B. Goldthwait, William Jackson, George Erving,
Peter Hughes, James Anderson, Joseph Green,
Samuel Hughes, David Mitchelson, John Vassall,
John Semple, Abraham Savage, Nathaniel Coffin,
Hopestill Capen, James Asby, John Timmins,
Edward King, John Inman, William Tailor,
Byfield Lynde, John Coffin, Thomas Brinley,
George Lynde, Thomas Knight, Harrison Gray, jr.,
A. F. Phipps, Benjamin Green, jr., John Taylor,
Rufus Green, David Green, Gilbert Deblois,
David Phips, Benjamin Green, Joshua Winslow,
Richard Smith, Henry H. Williams, Daniel Hubbard,
George Spooner, James Warden, Hugh Turbett,
Daniel Silsby, Nathaniel Coffin, jr., Henry Lyddell,
William Cazneau, Silvester Gardiner, Nathaniel Cary,
James Forrest, John S. Copley, George Brinley,
Edward Cox, Edward Foster, Richard Lechmere,
John Berry, Colbourn Burrell, John Erving, jr.,
Richard Hirons, Nathaniel Greenwood, Thomas Gray,
Ziphion Thayer, William Burton, George Bethune,
John Joy, John Winslow, Thomas Apthorp,
Joseph Goldthwait, Isaac Winslow, jr., Ezekial Goldthwaite,
Samuel Prince, Thomas Oliver, Benjamin Gridley,
Jonathan Simpson, Henry Bloye, John Atkinson,
James Boutineau, Benjamin Davis, Ebenezer Bridgham,
Nathaniel Hatch, Isaac Winslow, John Gore,
Martin Gay, Lewis Deblois, Adino Paddock.

ADDRESS OF THE BARRISTERS AND ATTORNEYS OF
MASSACHUSETTS TO GOV. HUTCHINSON, MAY, 30, 1774.

A firm persuasion of your inviolable attachment to the real interest of
this your native country, and of your constant readiness, by every
service in your power, to promote its true welfare and prosperity, will,
we flatter ourselves, render it not improper in us, barristers and
attorneys at law in the province of Massachusetts Bay, to address your
Excellency upon your removal from us with this testimonial of our
sincere respect and esteem.

The various important characters of Legislator, Judge and first
Magistrate over this province, in which, by the suffrages of your
fellow-subjects, and by the royal favor of the best of kings, your great
abilities, adorned with a uniform purity of principle, and integrity of
conduct, have been eminently distinguished, must excite the esteem and
demand the grateful acknowledgements of every true lover of his country,
and friend to virtue.

The present perplexed state of our public affairs, we are sensible, must
render your departure far less disagreeable to you than it is to us--we
assure you, sir, we feel the loss; but when, in the amiable character of
your successor, we view a fresh instance of the paternal goodness of our
most gracious sovereign; when we reflect on the probability that your
presence at the court of Great Britain, will afford you an opportunity
of employing your interests more successfully for the relief of this
province, and particularly of the town of Boston, under their present
distresses, we find a consolation which no other human source could
afford. Permit us, sir, most earnestly to solicit the exertion of all
your distinguished abilities in favor of your native town and country,
upon this truly unhappy and distressing occasion.

We sincerely wish you a prosperous voyage, a long continuation of health
and felicity and the highest rewards of the good and faithful.

We are, sir, with the most cordial affection, esteem and respect,
Your Excellency's most obedient and very humble servants,

Robert Achmuty, Andrew Cazneau, David Ingersoll,
Jonathan Sewall, Daniel Leonard, Jeremiah D. Rogers,
Samuel Fitch, John Lowell, David Gorham,
Samuel Quincy, Daniel Oliver, Samuel Sewall,
William Pynchon, Sampson S. Blowers, John Sprague,
James Putnam, Shearjashub Brown, Rufus Chandler,
Benjamin Gridley, Daniel Bliss, Thomas Danforth,
Abel Willard, Samuel Porter, Ebenezer Bradish,

From the Essex Gazette of June 1, 1775.

_Salem, May 30, 1775._

Whereas we the subscribers did some time since sign an address to
Governor Hutchinson, which, though prompted to by the best intentions,
has, nevertheless, given great offence to our country: We do now
declare, that we were so far from designing by that action, to show our
acquiescence in those acts of Parliament so universally and justly
odious to all America, that on the contrary, we hoped we might in that
way contribute to their repeal; though now to our sorrow we find
ourselves mistaken. And we do now further, declare, that we never
intended the offence which this address occasioned; that if we had
foreseen such an event we should never have signed it; as it always has
been and now is our wish to live in harmony with our neighbors, and our
serious determination is to promote to the utmost of our power the
liberty, the welfare, and happiness of our country, which is inseparably
connected with our own.

John Nutting, N. Sparhawk, Thomas Barnard,
N. Goodale, Andrew Dalglish, Nathaniel Dabney,
Ebenezer Putnam, E. A. Holyoke, William Pickman,
Francis Cabot, William Pynchon, C. Gayton Pickman,

In Committee of Safety, Salem, May 30, 1775.--The declaration, of which
the above is a copy, being presented and read, it was voted unanimously
that the same was satisfactory; and that the said gentlemen ought to be
received and treated as real friends to this country.

By order of the Committee,

RICHARD DERBY, JR., Chairman.

ADDRESS OF THE INHABITANTS OF MARBLEHEAD TO
GOV. HUTCHINSON.

_Marblehead, May 25, 1774._

His Majesty having been pleased to appoint his Excellency the Hon.
Thomas Gage, Esq., to be governor and commander-in-chief over this
province, and you, (as we are informed,) begin speedily to embark for
Great Britain: We, the subscribers, merchants, traders, and others,
inhabitants of Marblehead, beg leave to present your our valedictory
address on this occasion; and as this is the only way we now have of
expressing to you our entire approbation of your public conduct during
the time you have presided in this province, and of making you a return
of our most sincere and hearty thanks for the ready assistance which you
have at all times afforded us, when applied to in matters which affected
our navigation and commerce, we are induced from former experience of
your goodness, to believe that you will freely indulge us in the
pleasure of giving you this testimony of our sincere esteem and
gratitude.

In your public administration, we are fully convinced that the general
good was the mark which you have ever aimed at, and we can, sir, with
pleasure assure you, that it is likewise the opinion of all
dispassionate thinking men within the circle of our observation,
notwithstanding many publications would have taught the world to think
the contrary; and we beg leave to entreat you, that when you arrive at
the court of Great Britain, you would there embrace every opportunity of
moderating the resentment of the government against us, and use your
best endeavors to have the unhappy dispute between Great Britain and
this country brought to a just and equitable determination.

We cannot omit the opportunity of returning you in a particular manner
our most sincere thanks for your patronizing our cause in the matter of
entering and clearing the fishing vessels at the custom-house, and
making the fishermen pay hospital money; we believe it is owing to your
representation of the matter, that we are hitherto free from that
burden.

We heartily wish you, sir, a safe and prosperous passage to Great
Britain, and when you arrive there may you find such a reception as
shall fully compensate for all the insults and indignities which have
been offered you.

Henry Saunders, John Fowle, Thomas Lewis,
Richard Hinkly, Robert Hooper, 3d, Sweet Hooper,
Samuel Reed, John Gallison, Robert Hooper,
John Lee, John Prince, Jacob Fowle,
Robert Ambrose, George McCall, John Pedrick,
Jonathan Glover, Joseph Swasey, Richard Reed,
Richard Phillips, Nathan Bowen, Benjamin Marston,
Isaac Mansfield, Thomas Robie, Samuel White,
Joseph Bubler, John Stimson, Joseph Hooper,
Richard Stacy, John Webb, John Prentice,
Thomas Procter, Joseph Lee, Robert Hooper, jr.

ADDRESS TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON FROM HIS FELLOW
TOWNSMEN IN THE TOWN OF MILTON.

This document which was printed recently in the "History of Milton," was
not a matter of record, and had never been printed before, it had also
failed to meet the searching eye of the antiquarian, and the author said
"it has come down to us in its original manuscript yellow with age."

It will be noticed the signers were obliged to recant, so as to save
their property from being destroyed by the mob, and from personal injury
and insult such as tarring and feathering, etc. It was with such doings
that the "Sons of Despotism" amused themselves, and made converts to the
cause of "liberty." It, however, did not save James Murray and Stephen
Miller, who were banished, and Miller's estate confiscated.

_To_ THOMAS HUTCHINSON _Esquire Late Gov. &c._

SIR,--We the Select Men, the Magistrates and other principal Inhabitants
of the Town of Milton, hearing of your speedy Embarkation for England,
cannot let you leave this Town which you have so long honored by your
Residence without some publick Expression of our sincere wishes for your
health and happiness.

We have been Eye Witnesses, Sir, of your amiable private and useful
publick Life; We have with concern beheld you, in the faithful and
prudent Discharge of your Duty exposed to Calumnies, Trials and
Sufferings, as unjust as severe; and seen you bearing them all with
becoming Meekness and Fortitude.

As to ourselves and Neighbours in particular; altho many of us, in
future Perplexities will often feel the Want of your skillful gratuitous
advice, always ready for those who asked it, we cannot but rejoice for
your Sake Sir, at your being so seasonably relieved by an honourable and
worthy Successor, in this critical and distressful period from the
growing Difficulty of the Government of your beloved native Province.
And we see your Departure with the less Regret, being convinced that the
Change at present will contribute to your and your Family's Tranquility:
possessed as you are of the applause of good men, of the favour of our
Sovereign, and the Approbation of a good Conscience to prepare the Way
to Rewards infinitely ample from the King of Kings; to whose Almighty
protection, We, with grateful hearts commend you and your family.

Signed

SAML. DAVENPORT STEPHEN MILLER BENJAMIN HORTON
JA. MURRAY JOSIAH HOW ZEDAH CREHORE

REPLY OF GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON.

GENTLEMEN

I have received innumerable marks of respect and kindness from the
Inhabitants of the Town of Milton, of which I shall ever retain the
most grateful Remembrance. I leave you with regret. I hope to
return and spend the short remains of my life among you in peace
and quiet and in doing every good office to you in my power.

THO. HUTCHINSON.

* * * * *

Milton, Sept. 21, 1774.--Messrs. Davenport Miller and How were taken to
Task by the Town Meeting for having signed the above address altho it
was never presented or published. They were required by next day to make
an acknowledgement of their offence--And a Committee of fifteen was
chosen to treat with them and Mr. Murray.

Sept. 22. These Culprits attended and made the following
acknowledgement, of which the Committee accepted, requiring them to sign
it and to read it severally before the Town Meeting on the green. This
done the Meeting by some Majority voted it not satisfactory. The
offenders all but Capt. Davenport went home without making any other.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

Whereas We the Subscribers did sign and endeavour to promote among the
Inhabitants of our Town of Milton an Address to Gov. Hutchinson a few
days before his Embarkation for England, which Address contained
Compliments to the Gov. that we did and do still, in our consciences,
believe to be justly due to him; and Whereas we did further believe that
it would be very acceptable to the Town to give them such an Opportunity
of showing their gratitude to the Governor.

Now since the Temper of the Times is such, that what we meant to please
has eventually displeased our Neighbours, We, who desire to live in
peace and good will with them are sorry for it. Witness our hands this
22d. day of Sept. 1774.

Signed

JA. MURRAY SAML. DAVENPORT
STEPHEN MILLER JOSIAH HOW

After the departure of the first three of these, the meeting insisted on
Capt. Davenport's making the following acknowledgement, and that the
committee should have the rest to make it at or before the next
town-meeting on Monday, 3d October:--

Whereas We the Subscribers have given the good People of this Town and
Province in General just Cause to be offended with each of us, in that
unguarded action of ours in signing an address to the late Governor
Hutchinson, for which we are heartily sorry and take this opportunity
publickly to manifest it, and declare we did not so well consider the
Contents. And we heartily beg their forgiveness and all others we may
have offended: Also that we may be restored to their favour, and be made
Partakers of that inestimable blessing, the good Will of our Neighbours,
and the whole Community.

Witness our hands

Milton 22d Sept. signed SAML. DAVENPORT
24 Sept. ---- JOSIAH HOW
25 Sept. ---- JA. MURRAY
25 Sept. ---- STEPHEN MILLER

ADDRESS PRESENTED TO HIS EXCELLENCY GOVERNOR GAGE, JUNE 11TH, 1774,
ON HIS ARRIVAL AT SALEM.

To his Excellency Thomas Gage, Esq., Captain-General, Governor and
Commander-in-Chief of the Province of Massachusetts Bay in New
England, and Lieutenant-General of his Majesty's Forces.

May it please your Excellency:

We, merchants and others, inhabitants of the ancient town of Salem, beg
leave to approach your Excellency with our most respectful
congratulations on your arrival in this place.

We are deeply sensible of his Majesty's paternal care and affection to
this province, in the appointment of a person of your Excellency's
experience, wisdom and moderation, in these troublesome and difficult
times.

We rejoice that this town is graciously distinguished for that spirit,
loyalty, and reverence for the laws, which is equally our glory and
happiness.

From that public spirit and warm zeal to promote the general happiness
of men, which mark the great and good, we are led to hope under your
Excellency's administration for everything that may promote the peace,
prosperity, and real welfare of this province.

We beg leave to commend to your Excellency's patronage the trade and
commerce of this place, which, from a full protection of the liberties,
persons and properties of individuals, cannot but flourish.

And we assure your Excellency we will make it our constant endeavors by
peace, good order, and a regard for the laws, as far as in us lies, to
render your station and residence easy and happy.

John Sargent, John Prince, Benjamin Lynde,
Jacob Ashton, George Deblois, William Browne,
William Wetmore, Andrew Dalglish, John Turner,
James Grant, Joseph Blaney, P. Frye,
Henry Higginson, Archelaus Putnam, Francis Cabot,
David Britton, Samuel Porter, William Pynchon,
P. G. Kast, Thomas Poynton, John Fisher,
Weld Gardner, Samuel Flagg, John Mascarene,
Nathaniel Daubney, Nathan Goodale, E. A. Holyoke,
Richard Nicholls, William Pickman, Jos. Bowditch,
William Cabot, C. Gayton Pickman, Ebenezer Putnam,
Cabot Gerrish, Nathaniel Sparhwak, S. Curwen,
William Gerrish, William Vans, John Nutting,
Rowland Savage, Timothy Orne, Jos. Dowse,
William Lilly, Richard Routh, Benjamin Pickman,
Jonathan Goodhue, Stephen Higginson, Henry Gardner.

THE "LOYAL ADDRESS FROM THE GENTLEMEN AND PRINCIPAL INHABITANTS OF
BOSTON TO GOVERNOR GAGE ON HIS DEPARTURE FOR ENGLAND, OCTOBER 6,
1775," WAS SIGNED AS FOLLOWS:

John Erving, James Selkrig, John Greecart,
Thomas Hutchinson, jr., Archibald Cunningham, Richard Clarke,
Silvester Gardiner, William Cazneau, Benjamin Fanieul, jr.,
Wm. Bowes, David Barton, Thomas Amory,
John Timmins, John Semple, George Brindley,
Nathaniel Coffin, Henry Lawton, Ralph Inman,
John Winslow, jr., William Brattle, Edward Winslow,
Alexander Bymer, John Troutbeck, Benjamin M. Holmes,
Robert Hallowell, Stephen Greenleaf, William Jackson,
Robert Jarvis, William Walter, Richard Green,
David Phips, James Perkins, James Murray,
John Tayler, Phillip Dumaresque, Joseph Scott,
Archibald McNeal, Joshua Loring, jr., Peter Johonnot,
Francis Green, Henry Lloyd, Nathaniel Cary,
Benjamin Davis, William Lee Perkins, Martin Gay,
Thomas Courtney, George Leonard, Samuel Hughes,
John Sampson, Thomas Brinley, William Coffin, jr.,
William Tayler, Daniel Hubbard, Adino Paddock,
John Inman, Samuel Fitch, Andrew Cazneau,
Wm. Perry, John Atkinson, Henry Lindall,
John Gore, Joseph Turill, Theophilus Lillie,
Isaac Winslow, jr., Samuel Hirst Sparhawk, Henry Barnes,
William Dickerson, Ebenezer Brigham, M. B. Goldthwait,
William Hunter, William Codner, Lewis Gray,
Robert Semple, Jonathan Snelling, Nathaniel Brinley,
John Joy, Benjamin Gridley, John Jeffries, jr.,
Gregory Townsend, Gilbert Deblois, Archibald Bowman,
Isaac Winslow, Edward Hutchinson, Jonathan Simpson,
Byfield Lyde, Miles Whitworth, Nathaniel Tayler,
John Love, Daniel McMasters, James Anderson,
Hugh Tarbett, John Hunt, 3d, Lewis Deblois,
Nathaniel Perkins, James Lloyd,
John Powell, William McAlpine,

THE LOYAL ADDRESS TO GOVERNOR GAGE ON HIS DEPARTURE, OCTOBER 14,
1775, OF THOSE GENTLEMEN WHO WERE DRIVEN FROM THEIR HABITATIONS IN
THE COUNTRY TO THE TOWN OF BOSTON, WAS SIGNED BY THE FOLLOWING
PERSONS:

John Chandler, Seth Williams, jr., David Phips,
James Putnam, Charles Curtis, Richard Saltonstall,
Peter Oliver, sen., Samuel Pine, Peter Oliver, jr.,
Jonathan Stearns, Thomas Foster, Edward Winslow, jr.
Ward Chipman, Pelham Winslow, Nathaniel Chandler,
William Chandler, Daniel Oliver, James Putnam, jr.

List of the inhabitants of Boston, who on the evacuation by the
British, in March, 1776, removed to Halifax with the army. Taken
from a paper in the handwriting of Walter Barrell from the
Proceedings of the Mass. Hist. Soc., Vol. 18, page 266.

Lieutenant-Governor Oliver and servants 6

_Council, &c._

Peter Oliver and niece 2
Harrison Gray and family 5
Timothy Ruggles and sons 3
Foster Hutchinson and family 13
Josiah Edson 1
John Murray and family 7
Richard Lechmere 12
John Erving 9
Nathaniel Ray Thomas and son 2
Abijah Willard and two sons 3
Daniel Leonard and family 9
Nathaniel Hatch 7
George Erving 6

_Custom House._

Henry Hulton 12
Charles Paxton 6
Benjamin Hallowel 7
Samuel Waterhouse, _Secretary_ 7
James Porter, _Comptroller Gen'l_ 1
Walter Barrell, _Inspector Gen'l_ 6
James Murray, _Inspector_ 7
William Woolen, _Inspector_ 2
Edward Winslow, _Collector, Boston_ 1
Charles Dudley, _Collector, Newport_ 2
George Meserve, _Collector, Piscataq_ 1
Robert Hallowel, _Comptroller, Boston_, 6
Arthur Savage, _Surveyor, &c._ 6
Nathaniel Coffin, _Cashier_ 4
Ebenezer Bridgham, _Tide Surveyor_ 8
Nathaniel Taylor, _Dep'y Naval Officer_ 2
Samuel Mather, _Clerk_ 3
Samuel Lloyd, _Clerk_ 6
Christopher Minot, _Land Waiter_ 1
Ward Chipman, _Clerk Sol._ 1
Robert Bethel, _Clerk Col._ 1
Skinner, Cookson, and Evans _Clerks_ 3
James Barrick, _Clerk Insp._ 5
John Ciely, _Tidesman_ 4
John Sam Petit, _Tidesman_ 6
John Selby, _Clerk_ 2
Edward Mulhall, _Tidesman_ 1
Hammond Green, _Tidesman_ 1
John Lewis, _Tidesman_ 6
Elkanah Cushman, _Tidesman_ 1
Edmund Duyer, _Messenger_ 3
Samuel Chadwel, Tidesman__ 1
Samuel Sparhawk, _Clerk_ 5
---- Chandler, _Land Waiter_ 1
---- Patterson, _Land Waiter_ 1
Isaac Messengham, _Coxwain_ 1
Owen Richard, _Coxwain_ 1

_Refugees._

Ashley, Joseph 1
Andros, Barret 1
Atkinson, John, _Merchant_ 4
Atkins, Gibbs 1
Ayres, Eleanor 3
Allen, Ebenezer 8
Bowes, William, _Merchant_ 4
Brinley, Thomas, _Merchant_ 3
Burton, Mary, _Milliner_ 2
Bowen, John 2
Blair, John, Baker 1
Bowman, Archibald, _Auctioneer_ 1
Broderick, John 3
Butter, James 2
Brown, Thomas, _Merchant_ 6
Byles, Rev'd Doctor 5
Barnard. John 1
Black, John 7
Baker, John, Jun'r 1
Badger, Rev'd Moses 1
Beath, Mary 4
Butler, Gilliam 1
Brandon, John 2
Brattle, William 2
Coffin, Williamn 2
Cazneau, Andrew, _Lawyer_ 1
Cednor, William 1
Connor, Mrs. 2
Cummins. A. and E. _Milliners_ 3
Coffin, William, Jun'r, _Merchant_ 4
Cutler, Ebnezer 1
Campbel, William 1
Caner, Rev'd Doctor 1
Cook Robert 1
Chandler, John, Esq'r 1
Chandler, Rufus, _Lawyer_ 2
Chandler, Nathaniel 1
Chandler, William 1
Carver, Melzer 1
Cooley, John 4
Courtney, Thomas 11
Carr, Mrs. 3
Deblois, Gilbert 5
Doyley, John 4
Dunlap, Daniel 1
Danforth, Thomas 1
Dumaresq, Philip, _Merchant_ 8
De Blois, Lewis 3
Duncan, Alexander 1
Doyley, Francis 1
Dickenson, Nathaniel 1
Draper, Margaret 5
Dougherty, Edward 2
Dechezzan, Adam 7
Duelly, William 3
Emerson, John 1
Etter, Peter 7
Fisher, Wilfree 4
Foster, Thomas 1
Faneuil, Benjamin, _Merchant_ 3
Fitch, Samuel, _Lawyer_ 7
Foster, Edward, _Blacksmith_ 7
Full, Thomas 5
Foster, Edward, Jun'r 5
Forest, James 7
Flucker, Mrs. 6
Gilbert, Thomas 1
Gallop, Antill 1
Gray, Andrew 1
Gray, John 3
Goldsbury, Samuel 3
Gardiner, Doctor Sylvester 8
Gridley, Benjamin 1
Grison, Edmund 2
Gay, Martin 3
Gilbert, Samuel 1
Grozart, John 1
Gray, Mary 1
Green, Francis 8
Greenwood, Samuel 5
Grant, James 1
Griffith, Mrs. 3
Gore, John 3
Griffin, Edmund 4
Hill, William 17
Hallowel, Rebecca 4
Hall, Luke 1
Henderson, James 5
House, Joseph 1
Hughes, Samuel 1
Hooper, Jacob 2
Hicks, John, _Printer_ 1
Hurlston, Richard 1
Holmes, Benjamin Mulberry 11
Hatch, Hawes 1
Hale, Samuel 1
Hester, John 6
Hutchinsen, Mrs. 7
Horn, Henry 7
Hefferson, Jane 1
Heath, William 1
Jones, Mary 6
Jarvis, Robert 1
Inman, John 3
Joy, John 8
Ireland, John 2
Jefferies, Doctor John 6
Johannot, Peter 1
Jones, Mrs. 4
Knutter, Margaret 4
King, Edward and Samuel 7
Lazarus, Samuel 1
Lovel, John, Sen'r 5
Leonard, George 9
Liste, Mrs. 5
Lillie, Theophilus 4
Lutwiche, Edward Goldston 1
Lyde, Byefield 5
Leddel, Henry 4
Laughton, Henry 5
Lloyd, Henry 10
Linkieter, Alexander 4
Lowe, Charles 2
Loring, Joshua, Jun'r 1
Murray, William 3
Moody, John, Jun'r 1
McKown, John 1
McAlpine, William 2
Moody, John 4
McKown, John (of Boston) 5
Macdonald, Dennis 1
Mackay, Mrs. 1
Mitchelson, David 2
McNeil, Archibald 13
Marston, Benjamin 1
Moore, John 1
Miller, John 5
Mulcainy, Patrick 4
MacKinstrey, Mrs. 12
Morrison, John 1
McMaster, Patrick and Daniel 3
McMullen, Alexander 1
Mitchel, Thomas 1
Mills, Nathaniel 2
McClintock, Nathan 1
Nevin, Lazarus and wife 2
O'Neil, Joseph 4
Oliver, William Sanford 1
Oliver, Doctor Peter 1
Powel, John 8
Philips, Martha 3
Phipps, David 11
Pelham, Henry 1
Putnam, James 7
Paine, Samuel 1
Perkins, Nathaniel 1
Patterson, William 3
Philipps, Ebenezer 1
Paddock, Adine 9
Pollard, Benjamin 1
Patten, George 3
Perkins, William Lee 4
Price, Benjamin 2
Page, George 1
Rummer, Richard 3
Rogers, Jeremiah Dummer 2
Rogers, Samuel 1
Richardson, Miss 1
Rose, Peter 1
Read, Charles 1
Ramage, John 1
Roath, Richard 6
Rhodes, Henry 5
Russell, Nathaniel 3
Richards, Mrs. 3
Ruggles, John and Richard 2
Smith, Henry 6
Sullivan, George 1
Serjeant, John 1
Scoit, Joseph 3
Simonds, William 3
Stow, Edward 4
Sterling, Elizabeth 1
Sterling, Benjamin Ferdinand 1
Simpson, John 5
Simpson, Jonathan, Jun'r 2
Semple, Robert 4
Stayner, Abigail 3
Stearns, Jonathan 1
Savage, Abraham 1
Saltonstal, Leveret 1
Service, Robert 5
Snelling, Jonathan 6
Sullivan, Bartholomew 2
Smith, Edward 4
Spooner, Ebenezer 1
Selknig, James 6
Scammel, Thomas 1
Shepard, Joseph 2
Thompson, James 1
Taylor, Mrs. 5
Terry, Zebedee 1
Terry, William 4
Taylor, William 2
Winslow, Isaac 11
Winslow, Pelham 1
Winslow, John 4
Winslow, Mrs. Hannah 4
Winslow, Edward 1
Williams, Seth 1
Willis, David 4
Wittington, William 3
Warden, William 2
Williams, Job 1
Warren, Abraham 1
Willard, Abel 4
Warden, Joseph 3
Willard, Abijah 1
Whiston, Obadiah 3
Wheelwright, Joseph 1
Winnet, John, Jun'r 1
Wright, Daniel 2
Welsh, Peter 1
White, Gideon 1
Wilson, Archibald 1
Welsh, James 1
Worral, Thomas Grooby 5
----
[927]926

FOR MR. SAMUEL B. BARRELL
From his friend and kinsman,
THEODORE BARRELL

Saugerties Ulster Co.,
New York, Aug. 16, 1841

MANDAMUS COUNSELLORS.

_Salem, Aug. 9, 1774._ The following were appointed by his majesty,
counsellors of this province by writ of mandamas,[101] viz:--

[101] Those whose names are in italics alone took the oath of office.

Col. Thomas Oliver, Lieut. Governor, President; Peter Oliver, _Thomas
Flucker_, _Foster Hutchinson_, Thomas Hutchinson, Jr., _Harrison Gray_,
Judge Samuel Danforth, Col. John Erving, Jr., James Russell, Timothy
Ruggles, _Joseph Lee_, _Isaac Winslow_, Israel Williams, Col. George
Watson, Nathaniel Ray Thomas, Timothy Woodbridge, William Vassall,
_William Browne_, Joseph Greene, _James Boutineau_, Andrew Oliver, Col.
Josiah Edson, Richard Lechmere, _Commodore Joshua Loring_, John
Worthington, Timothy Paine, _William Pepperell_, Jeremiah Powell,
Jonathan Simpson, Col. John Murray, Daniel Leonard, Thomas Palmer, Col.
Isaac Royall, Robert Hooper, Abijah Willard, _Capt. John Erring, Jr._

BANISHMENT ACT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

An Act to prevent the return to this state of certain persons
therein named, and others who have left this state or either of the
United States, and joined the enemies thereof.

Whereas Thomas Hutchinson, Esq., late governor of this state, Francis
Bernard, Esq., formerly governor of this state, Thomas Oliver, Esq.,
late lieutenant governor of this state, Timothy Ruggles, Esq., of
Hardwick, in the county of Worcester, William Apthorp, merchant, Gibbs
Atkins, cabinet maker, John Atkinson, John Amory, James Anderson, Thomas
Apthorp, David Black, William Burton, William Bowes, George Brindley,
Robert Blair, Thomas Brindley, James Barrick, merchant, Thomas Brattle,
Esq., Sampson Salter Blowers, Esq., James Bruce, Ebenezer Bridgham,
Alexander Brymer, Edward Berry, merchants, William Burch, Esq., late
commissioner of the customs, Mather Byles, Jun., clerk, William Codner,
book-keeper, Edward Cox, merchant, Andrew Cazneau, Esq., barrister at
law, Henry Canner, clerk, Thomas Courtney, tailor, Richard Clark, Esq.,
Isaac Clark, physician, Benjamin Church, physician, John Coffin,
distiller, John Clark, physician, William Coffin, Esq., Nathaniel
Coffin, Esq., Jonathan Clark, merchant, Archibald Cunningham,
shop-keeper, Gilbert Deblois, merchant, Lewis Deblois, merchant, Philip
Dumaresque, merchant, Benjamin Davis, merchant, John Erving, Jun. Esq.,
George Erving, Esq., Edward Foster and Edward Foster, Jun., blacksmiths,
Benjamin Faneuil, Jun., merchant, Thomas Flucker, Esq., late secretary
for Massachusetts Bay, Samuel Fitch, Esq., Wilfret Fisher, carter, James
Forrest, merchant, Lewis Gray, merchant, Francis Green, merchant, Joseph
Green, Esq., Sylvester Gardiner, Esq., Harrison Gray, Esq., late
treasurer of Massachusetts Bay., Harrison Gray, Jun., clerk to the
treasurer, Joseph Goldthwait, Esq., Martin Gay, founder, John Gore,
Esq., Benjamin Hallowell, Esq., Robert Hallowell, Esq., Thomas
Hutchinson, Jun., Esq., Benjamin Gridley, Esq., Frederick William Geyer,
merchant, John Greenlaw, shopkeeper, David Green, merchant, Elisha
Hutchinson, Esq., James Hall, mariner, Foster Hutchinson, Esq., Benjamin
Mulbury Holmes, distiller, Samuel Hodges, book-keeper, Henry Halson,
Esq., Hawes Hatch, wharfinger, John Joy, housewright, Peter Johonnot,
distiller, William Jackson, merchant, John Jeffries, physician, Henry
Laughton, merchant, James Henderson, trader, John Hinston, yeoman,
Christopher Hatch, mariner, Robert Jarvis, mariner, Richard Lechmere,
Esq., Edward Lyde, merchant, Henry Lloyd, Esq., George Leonard, miller,
Henry Leddle, book-keeper, Archibald McNeil, baker, Christopher Minot,
tide-waiter, James Murray, Esq., William McAlpine, bookbinder, Thomas
Mitchell, mariner, William Martin, Esq., John Knutton, tallow-chandler,
Thomas Knight, shop-keeper, Samuel Prince, merchant, Adino Paddock,
Esq., Charles Paxon, Esq., Sir William Pepperell, baronet, John Powell,
Esq., William Lee Perkins, physician, Nathaniel Perkins, Esq., Samuel
Quincy, Esq., Owen Richards, tide-waiter, Samuel Rogers, merchant,
Jonathan Simpson, Esq., George Spooner, merchant, Edward Stowe, mariner,
Richard Smith, merchant, Jonathan Snelling, Esq., David Silsby, trader,
Samuel Sewall, Esq., Abraham Savage, tax-gatherer, Joseph Scott, Esq.,
Francis Skinner, clerk to the late council, William Simpson, merchant,
Richard Sherwin, saddler, Henry Smith, merchant, John Semple, merchant,
Robert Semple, merchant, Thomas Selkrig, merchant, James Selkrig,
merchant, Robert Service, trader, Simon Tufts, trader, Arodi Thayer,
late marshal to the admiralty court, Nathaniel Taylor, deputy naval
officer, John Troutbeck, clerk, Gregory Townsend, Esq., William Taylor,
merchant, William Vassal, Esq., Joseph Taylor, merchant, Joshua Upham,
Esq., William Walter, clerk, Samuel Waterhouse, merchant, Isaac Winslow,
merchant, John Winslow. jr., merchant, David Willis, mariner, Obadiah
Whiston, blacksmith, Archibald Wilson, trader, John White, mariner,
William Warden, peruke-maker, Nathaniel Mills, John Hicks, John Howe,
and John Fleming, printers, all of Boston, in the county of Suffolk,
Robert Auchmuty, Esq., Joshua Loring, Esq., both of Roxbury, in the same
county, Samuel Goldsbury, yeoman, of Wrentham, in the county of Suffolk,
Joshua Loring, jr., merchant, Nathanial Hatch, Esq., both of Dorchester,
in the same county, William Brown, Esq., Benjamin Pickman, Esq., Samuel
Porter, Esq., John Sargeant, trader, all of Salem, in the county of
Essex, Richard Saltonstall, Esq., of Haverhill, in the same county.
Thomas Robie, trader, Benjamin Marston, merchant, both of Marblehead, in
said county of Essex, Moses Badger, clerk, of Haverhill, aforesaid,
Jonathan Sewall, Esq., John Vassal, Esq., David Phipps, Esq., John
Nutting, carpenter, all of Cambridge, in the county of Middlesex, Isaac
Royall, Esq., of Medford, in the same county, Henry Barnes, of
Marlborough, in said county of Middlesex, merchant, Jeremiah Dummer
Rogers, of Littleton in the same county, Esq., Daniel Bliss, of Concord,
in the said county of Middlesex, Esq., Charles Russell, of Lincoln, in
the same county, physician, Joseph Adams, of Townsend, in said county of
Middlesex, Thomas Danforth, of Charlestown, in said county, Esq., Joshua
Smith, trader of Townsend, in said county, Joseph Ashley, jr.,
gentleman, of Sunderland, Nathaniel Dickenson, gentleman, of Deerfield,
Samuel Bliss, shopkeeper, of Greenfield, Roger Dickenson, yeoman, Joshah
Pomroy, physician, and Thomas Cutler, gentleman, of Hatfield, Jonathan
Bliss, Esq., of Springfield, William Galway, yeoman, of Conway, Elijah
Williams, attorney at law, of Deerfield, James Oliver, gentleman, of
Conway, all in the county of Hampshire, Pelham Winslow, Esq., Cornelius
White, mariner, Edward Winslow, jr., Esq., all of Plymouth, in the
county of Plymouth, Peter Oliver, Esq., Peter Oliver, jr., physician,
both of Middleborough, in the same county, Josiah Edson, Esq., of
Bridgewater, in the said county of Plymouth, Lieutenant Daniel Dunbar,
of Halifax, in the same county, Charles Curtis, of Scituate, in the said
county of Plymouth, gentleman, Nathaniel Ray Thomas, Esq., Israel
Tilden, Caleb Carver, Seth Bryant, Benjamin Walker, Gideon Walker, Zera
Walker, Adam Hall, tertius, Isaac Joice, Joseph Phillips, Daniel White,
jr., Cornelius White, tertius, Melzar Carver, Luke Hall, Thomas Decrow,
John Baker, jr., all of Marshfield, in the said county of Plymouth,
Gideon White, jr., Daniel Leonard, Esq., Seth Williams, jr., gentleman,
Solomon Smith, boatman, all of Taunton, in the county of Bristol, Thomas
Gilbert, Esq., Perez Gilbert, Ebenezer Hathaway, jr., Lot Strange, the
third, Zebedee Terree, Bradford Gilbert, all of Freetown, in the same
county, Joshua Broomer, Shadrach Hathaway, Calvin Hathaway, Luther
Hathaway, Henry Tisdel, William Burden, Levi Chace, Shadrach Chace,
Richard Holland, Ebenezer Phillips, Samuel Gilbert, gentleman, Thomas
Gilbert, jr., yeoman, both of Berkley, in the said county of Bristol,
Ammi Chace, Caleb Wheaton, Joshua Wilbore, Lemuel Bourn, gentleman,
Thomas Perry, yeoman, David Atkins, laborer, Samuel Perry, mariner,
Stephen Perry, laborer, John Blackwell, jr., laborer, Francis Finney,
laborer, and Nehemiah Webb, mariner, all of Sandwich, in the county of
Barnstable, Eldad Tupper, of Dartmouth, in the county of Bristol,
laborer, Silas Perry, laborer, Seth Perry, mariner, Elisha Bourn,
gentleman, Thomas Bumpus, yeoman, Ephraim Ellis, jr., yeoman, Edward
Bourn, gentleman, Nicholas Cobb, laborer, William Bourn, cordwainer, all
of Sandwich, in the county of Barnstable, and Seth Bangs, of Harwich, in
the county of Barnstable, mariner, John Chandler, Esq., James Putnam,
Esq., Rufus Chandler, gentleman, William Paine, physician, Adam Walker,
blacksmith, William Chandler, gentleman, all of Worcester, in the county
of Worcester, John Walker, gentleman, David Bush, yeoman, both of
Shrewsbury, in the same county, Abijah Willard, Esq., Abel Willard,
Esq., Joseph House, yeoman, all of Lancaster, in the said county of
Worcester, Ebenezer Cutler, trader, James Edgar, yeoman, both of
Northbury, in the same county, Daniel Oliver, Esq., Richard Ruggles,
yeoman, Gardner Chandler, trader, Joseph Ruggles, gentleman, Nathaniel
Ruggles, yeoman, all of Hardwick, in the said county of Worcester, John
Ruggles, yeoman, of said Hardwick, John Eager, yeoman, Ebenezer Whipple,
Israel Conkay, John Murray, Esq., of Rutland, in said county of
Worcester, Daniel Murray, gentleman, Samuel Murray, gentleman, Michael
Martin, trader, of Brookfield, in the said county of Worcester, Thomas
Beaman, gentleman, of Petersham, in the same county, Nathaniel Chandler,
gentleman, John Bowen, gentleman, of Princeton, in the said county of
Worcester, James Crage, gentleman, of Oakham, in the same county, Thomas
Mullins, blacksmith, of Leominster, in the said county of Worcester,
Francis Waldo, Esq., Arthur Savage, Esq., Jeremiah Pote, mariner, Thomas
Ross, mariner, James Wildridge, mariner, George Lyde, custom house
officer, Robert Pagan, merchant, Thomas Wyer, mariner, Thomas Coulson,
merchant, John Wiswall, clerk, Joshua Eldridge, mariner, Thomas Oxnard,
merchant, Edward Oxnard, merchant, William Tyng, Esq., John Wright,
merchant, Samuel Longfellow, mariner, all of Falmouth, in the county of
Cumberland, Charles Callahan, of Pownalborough, in the county of
Lincoln, mariner, Jonas Jones of East Hoosuck, in the county of
Berkshire, David Ingersoll, of Great Barrington, Esq., in the same
county, Jonathan Prindall, Benjamin Noble, Francis Noble, Elisha Jones,
of Pittsfield, in the said county of Berkshire, John Graves, yeoman,
Daniel Brewer, yeoman, both of Pittsfield, aforesaid, Richard Square, of
Lanesborough, in the said county of Berkshire, Ephraim Jones, of East
Hoosuck, in the same county. Lewis Hubbel, and many other persons have
left this state, or some other of the United States of America, and
joined the enemies thereof and of the United States of America, thereby
not only depriving these states of their personal services at a time
when they ought to have afforded their utmost aid in defending the said
states, against the invasions of a cruel enemy, but manifesting an
inimical disposition to the said states, and a design, to aid and abet
the enemies thereof in their wicked purposes, and whereas many dangers
may accrue to this state and the United States, if such persons should
be again admitted to reside in this state:

Sect. 1. Be it therefore enacted by the Council and House of
Representatives, in general court assembled, and by the authority of the
same, that if either of the said persons, or any other person, though
not specially named in this act, who have left this state, or either of
said states, and joined the enemies thereof as aforesaid, shall, after
the passing this act, voluntarily return to this state, it shall be the
duty of the sheriff of the county, and of the selectmen, committees of
correspondence, safety, and inspection, grand jurors, constables, and
tythingmen, and other inhabitants of the town wherein such person or
persons may presume to come, and they are hereby respectively empowered
and directed forthwith to apprehend and carry such person or persons
before some justice of the peace within the county, who is hereby
required to commit him or them to the common gaol within the county,
there in close custody to remain until he shall be sent out of the
state, as is hereinafter directed; and such justice is hereby directed
to give immediate information thereof to the board of war of this state:
and the said board of war are hereby empowered and directed to cause
such person or persons so committed, to be transported to some part or
place within the dominions, or in the possession of the forces of the
king of Great Britain, as soon as may be after receiving such
information: those who are able, at their own expense, and others at the
expense of this state, and for this purpose to hire a vessel or vessels,
if need be.

Sect. 2. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if
any person or persons, who shall be transported as aforesaid, shall
voluntarily return into this state, without liberty first had and
obtained from the general court, he shall, on conviction thereof before
the superior court of judicature, court of assize and general gaol
delivery, suffer the pains of death without benefit of clergy.--[_Passed
September, 1778._]

WORCESTER RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO THE ABSENTEES AND REFUGEES.

The following votes were passed by the citizens of Worcester, May 19,
1783, and contain the substance of their doings relative to the
refugees:

Voted,----That in the opinion of this town, it would be extremely
dangerous to the peace, happiness, liberty and safety of these states to
suffer those who, the moment the bloody banners were displayed,
abandoned their native land, turned parricides, and conspired to involve
their country in tumult, ruin and blood, to become subjects of and
reside in this government; that it would be not only dangerous, but
inconsistent with justice, policy, our past laws, the public faith, and
the principles of a free and independent state, to admit them ourselves,
or have them forced upon us without our consent.

Voted,----That in the opinion of this town, this commonwealth ought,
with the utmost caution, to naturalize or in any other way admit as
subjects a common enemy, a set of people who have been by the united
voice of the continent, declared outlaws, exiles, aliens and enemies,
dangerous to its political being and happiness.

Voted,----That while there are thousands of the innocent, peaceable and
defenceless inhabitants of these states, whose property has been
destroyed and taken from them in the course of the war, for whom no
provision is made, to whom there is no restoration of estates, no
compensation for losses; that it would be unreasonable, cruel and
unjust, to suffer those who were the wicked occasion of those losses, to
obtain a restitution of the estates they refused to protect, and which
they abandoned and forfeited to their country.

Voted,----That it is the expectation of this town, and the earnest
request of their committees of correspondence, inspection and safety,
that they, with care and diligence, will observe the movements of our
only remaining enemies; that until the further order of government, they
will, with decision, spirit and firmness, endeavor to enforce and carry
into execution the several laws of this commonwealth, respecting these
enemies to our rights, and the rights of mankind; give information
should they know of any obtruding themselves into any part of this
state, suffer none to remain in this town, but cause to be confined
immediately, for the purpose of transportation according to law, any
that may presume to enter it.

CONFISCATION ACT.

CONSPIRACY ACT.

An Act to confiscate the estates of certain notorious conspirators
against the government and liberties of the inhabitants of the late
province, now state, of Massachusetts Bay.

Whereas the several persons hereinafter mentioned, have wickedly
conspired to overthrow and destroy the constitution and government of
the late province of Massachusetts Bay, as established by the charter
agreed upon by and between their late majesties William and Mary, late
King and Queen of England, etc., and the inhabitants of said province,
now state, of Massachusetts Bay; and also to reduce the said inhabitants
under the absolute power and domination of the present king, and of the
parliament of Great Britain, and, as far as in them lay, have aided and
assisted the same king and parliament in their endeavors to establish a
despotic government over the said inhabitants:

Sect. 1. Be it enacted by the Council and House of Representatives, in
General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, that Francis
Bernard, baronet, Thomas Hutchinson, Esq., late governor of the late
province, now state, of Massachusetts Bay, Thomas Oliver, Esq., late
lieutenant governor, Harrison Grey, Esq., late treasurer, Thomas
Flucker, Esq., late secretary, Peter Oliver, Esq., late chief justice,
Foster Hutchinson, John Erving, jr., George Erving, William Pepperell,
baronet, James Boutineau, Joshua Loring, Nathaniel Hatch, William
Browne, Richard Lechmere, Josiah Edson, Nathaniel Rae Thomas, Timothy
Ruggles, John Murray, Abijah Willard, and Daniel Leonard, Esqs., late
mandamus counsellors of said late province, William Burch, Henry Hulton,
Charles Paxon, and Benjamin Hallowell, Esqs., late commissioners of the
customs, Robert Auchmuty, Esq., late judge of the vice-admiralty court,
Jonathan Sewall, Esq., late attorney general, Samuel Quincy, Esq., late
solicitor general, Samuel Fitch, Esq., solicitor or counsellor at law to
the board of commissioners, have justly incurred the forfeiture of all
their property, rights and liberties, holden under and derived from the
government and laws of this state; and that each and every of the
persons aforenamed and described, shall be held, taken, deemed and
adjudged to have renounced and lost all civil and political relation to
this and the other United States of America, and be considered as
aliens.

Sect. 2. Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all the goods
and chattels, rights and credits, lands, tenements, and hereditaments of
every kind, of which any of the persons herein before named and
described, were seized or possessed, or were entitled to possess, hold,
enjoy, or demand, in their own right, or which any other person stood or
doth stand seized or possessed of, or are or were entitled to have or
demand to and for their use, benefit and behoof, shall escheat, enure
and accrue to the sole use and benefit of the government and people of
this state, and are accordingly hereby declared so to escheat, enure and
accrue, and the said government and people shall be taken, deemed and
adjudged, and are accordingly hereby declared to be in the real and
actual possession of all such goods, chattels, rights and credits,
lands, tenements and hereditaments, without further inquiry,
adjudication or determination hereafter to be had: any thing in the act,
entitled, "An act for confiscating the effects of certain persons
commonly called absentees," or any other law, usage, or custom to the
contrary notwithstanding; provided always, that the escheat shall not be
construed to extend to or operate upon, any goods, chattels, rights,
credits, lands, tenements or hereditaments, of which the persons afore
named and described, or some other, in their right and to their use,
have not been seized or possessed, or entitled to be seized or
possessed, or to have or demand as aforesaid, since the nineteenth day
of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
seventy-five.--[_Passed April 30, 1779. Not revised._]

STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

An Act for confiscating the estates of certain persons commonly called
absentees.

Whereas every government hath a right to command the personal service of
all its members, whenever the exigencies of the state shall require it,
especially in times of an impending or actual invasion, no member
thereof can then withdraw himself from the jurisdiction of the
government, and thereby deprive it of the benefit of his personal
services, without justly incurring the forfeiture of all his property,
rights and liberties, holden under and derived from that constitution of
government, to the support of which he hath refused to afford his aid
and assistance: and whereas the king of Great Britain did cause the
parliament thereof to pass divers acts in direct violation of the
fundamental rights of the people of this and of the other United States
of America; particularly one certain act to vacate and annul the charter
of this government, the great compact made and agreed upon between his
royal predecessors and our ancestors; and one other act, declaring the
people of said states to be out of his protection; and did also levy war
against them, for the purpose of erecting and establishing an arbitrary
and despotic government over them; whereupon it became the indispensable
duty of all the people of said states forthwith to unite in defence of
their common freedom, and by arms to oppose the fleets and armies of the
said king; yet nevertheless, divers of the members of this and of the
other United States of America, evilly disposed, or regardless of their
duty towards their country, did withdraw themselves from this, and other
of the said United States, into parts and places under the acknowledged
authority and dominion of the said king of Great Britain, or into parts
and places within the limits of the said states, but in the actual
possession and under the power of the fleets or armies of the said king;
thereby abandoning the liberties of their country, seeking the
protection of the said king, and of his fleets or armies, and aiding or
giving encouragement and countenance to their operations against the
United States aforesaid:

Sect. 1. Be it enacted by the Council and House of Representatives, in
General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, that every
inhabitant and member of the late province, now state, of Massachusetts
Bay, or of any other of the late provinces or colonies, now United
States of America, who, since the nineteenth day of April, Anno Domini
one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, hath levied war or
conspired to levy war against the government and people of any of the
said provinces or colonies, or United States; or who hath adhered to the
said king of Great Britain, his fleets or armies, enemies of the said
provinces or colonies or United States, or hath given to them aid or
comfort; or who, since the said nineteenth day of April, Anno Domini one
thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, hath withdrawn, without the
permission of the legislative or executive authority of this or some
other of the said United States, from any of the said provinces or
colonies, or United States, into parts and places under the acknowledged
authority and dominion of the said king-of Great Britain, or into any
parts or places within the limits of any of the said provinces,
colonies, or United States, being in the actual possession and under the
power of the fleets or armies of the said king; or who, before the said
nineteenth day of April, Anno Domini one thousand seven hundred and
seventy-five, and after the arrival of Thomas Gage, Esq., (late
commander-in-chief of all his Britannic Majesty's forces in North
America,) at Boston, the metropolis of this state, did withdraw from
their usual places of habitation within this state, into the said town
of Boston, with an intention to seek and obtain the protection of the
said Thomas Gage and of the said forces, then and there being under his
command: and who hath died in any of the said parts or places, or hath
not returned into some one of the said United States, and been received
as a subject thereof, and (if required) taken an oath of allegiance to
such states, shall beheld, taken, deemed and adjudged to have freely
renounced all civil and political relation to each and every of the said
United States, and be considered as an alien.

Sect. 2. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all
the goods and chattels, rights and credits, lands, tenements,
hereditaments of every kind, of which any of the persons herein before
described were seized or possessed, or were entitled to possess, hold,
enjoy or demand, in their own right, or which any other person stood or
doth stand seized or possessed of, or are or were entitled to have or
demand to and for their use, benefit and behoof, shall escheat, enure
and accrue to the sole use and benefit of the government and people of
this state, and are accordingly hereby declared so to escheat, enure and
accrue.--[_Passed April 30, 1779. Not revised._]

BIOGRAPHIES

OF THE

LOYALISTS _of_ MASSACHUSETTS

THOMAS HUTCHINSON.

GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 1771-4.

Among all the loyalists of the revolted colonies, there was none so
illustrious, through his position and abilities, as Thomas Hutchinson,
Governor of Massachusetts. No public man of this State was ever subject
to more slander, personal abuse, and misrepresentation than he, and no
son of Massachusetts ever did so much to benefit and advance the best
interests of the State; beyond all question he was the greatest and most
famous man Massachusetts has ever produced.

Descended from one of the oldest and most noted of Massachusetts
families, he was not one of the first members of it to acquire
prominence, that distinction belongs to the celebrated Ann Hutchinson,
wife of William Hutchinson who came over in 1634, "that woman of ready
wit and bold spirit," more than a match for her reverend and magisterial
inquisitors, and who won to her side men even of such power as John
Cotton and Sir Henry Vane. She was finally banished and with her
followers went to live under the protection of the Dutch, at Long Island
where she and all of her family except one child were killed by the
Indians[102], her husband having died the year previous.[103] Her
grandson, Elisha Hutchinson, became the first chief justice under the
old charter and afterwards assistant and commander of the town of
Boston. His son, Col. Thomas Hutchinson, was of scarcely less note. He
it was who seized Captain Kidd when he resisted the officers of justice
sent against him, and was the father of Governor Thomas Hutchinson. He
was a wealthy merchant, and councillor who made his native town a sharer
in his prosperity by founding the North End Grammar School. He lived in
the North Square in the finest house in Boston. Here his son, the future
governor, was born Sept. 9, 1711 and the two, father and son, occupied
it for more than sixty years, till it was sacked by the mob in 1765.

[102] This was Colonel Edward H. Hutchinson who was killed by the
Indians during King Philip's war. He was father of Elisha Hutchinson.

[103] William Hutchinson was the first grantee of East Milton, where the
Governor afterwards resided. He settled in Boston on the "Old Corner
Bookstore" lot, corner of School and Washington streets. William
Hutchinson was the grandson of John Hutchinson, Mayor of Lincoln,
England.

When five and a half years old the boy was sent to the school
established by his father, and at the age of twelve went thence to
Harvard College. He graduated in 1727, and three years after he took the
degree of Master of Arts. He then became a merchant--apprentice in his
father's counting room. At the age of twenty-one, he had amassed by his
own efforts £500. He married Margaret Sanford, daughter of the Governor
of Rhode Island. In 1735 he joined the church, in 1737 he became
selectman of Boston, and four months later, was elected Representative
to the General Court. At the age of twenty-six, he entered upon his
wonderful career, so strangely and sadly varied. When he stepped into
leadership, he seemed simply to come to his own, for since the
foundation of Massachusetts Bay there had been no time when some of his
name and line had not been in the front.

From the first he is set to deal with questions of finance; as early as
June 3, 1737, he is appointed to wrestle with a tax bill, and before the
end of the year he is settling a boundary dispute with New Hampshire,
and it was a mark of confidence when in 1740 he was appointed, being
then 29, to go to England to represent the case to men in power. A far
more memorable service than this had already been entered upon by him,
and was resumed upon his return in which he was thoroughly successful in
spite of great difficulties, it also having a close relation with the
coming into being of the United States.

New England was at this time cursed with an irredeemable paper currency.
Democracies never appear to so poor advantage as in the management of
finances, and no more conspicuous instance in point can be cited, than
that of provincial New England, throughout the first half of the 18th
century. The Assembly, the members of which were simply the mouthpieces
of the towns, surrendered their private judgment and became submissive
to the "Instruction" which they received at the time of their election,
was uniformly by a large majority, in favor of an irredeemable paper
currency. Before the enormous evils which early became apparent and
constantly grew in magnitude, the Assembly was impotent. Widows and
orphans, classes dependent on fixed incomes, were reduced to distress,
creditors found themselves defrauded of their just dues, till almost
nothing was left, a universal gambling spirit was promoted. The people
saw no way to meet the evil but by new, and ever new issues of the
wretched script, until with utter callousness of conscience, men
repudiated contracts voluntarily entered upon, and recklessly discounted
the resources of future generations by placing upon them the obligations
their own shoulders should have borne. The action of the Council in
which the higher class was represented was uniformly more wise, and
honorable, than that of the lower House during this period of financial
distress, and it is especially to be noted that King and Parliament
threw their influence on the right side, and sought repeatedly to save
the poor blind people from themselves. The right of the home government
to interfere in colonial affairs was then never questioned.
Massachusetts would dodge if she could, the government mandates, but the
theories of a later time, that Parliament had no jurisdiction over sea
and that the King, having granted the charter, had put it out of his
power to touch the provincial policy, in these days found no expression.

The Revolution was now preparing, the Colonies were chafing under
restrictions imposed beyond the ocean for their own benefit. It is now
generally admitted, that this was one of the first causes of the
Revolution, perhaps the most potent of all causes. In all this time of
distress no figure is apparent so marked with traits of greatness as
that of Thomas Hutchinson. All the Colonies were infected with the same
craze, but no other man in America saw the way out. Franklin, level
headed though he was, elaborately advocated paper money, turning a good
penny in its manufacture.[104] The father of Samuel Adams was one of the
directors of the iniquitous "Land Bank" and the part taken by Hutchinson
in causing Parliament to close it, was what led to the undying hatred of
Samuel Adams towards Hutchinson, and the Government. When "Instructions"
were reported in Town Meeting, Hutchinson was immediately on his feet,
and declared he would not observe them, there were immediately cries
"Choose another Representative." This could not be done during the
session; he consistently threw his influence on the hard money side, and
so far lost popularity that he was dropped in 1739. He was, however,
elected again in 1742, and was Speaker in 1746-7-8.

[104] A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper
Currency.

What saved the province from financial ruin at this time was the capture
of Louisburg. This warlike enterprise of Shirley led the country to
increase its debt to between two and three million dollars, but the
paper money was so depreciated at the close of the war that £1,200 was
equal to only £100 sterling. Parliament very generously voted to
reimburse the Province for the expense it had gone to in this war, and
voted to pay £183,649, 2s 7 1-2d sterling.

Mr. Hutchinson, who was then Speaker of the House of Representatives,
considered this to be a most favorable opportunity for abolishing bills
of credit, the source of so much iniquity, and for establishing a stable
currency of gold and silver for the future. £2,200,000 would be
outstanding in bills in the year 1749 £180,000 sterling at eleven for
one, which was the rate at that time, would redeem all but £220,000. It
was therefore proposed that Parliament should ship to the Province
Spanish dollars, and apply same to redeem the bills, and that the
remainder of the bills should be met by a tax on the year 1749. This
would finish the bills. The Governor approved of the bill prepared by
Mr. Hutchinson but when the Speaker laid the proposal before the House,
it was received with a smile; for a long time the fight was hopeless,
many weeks were spent in debating it.

The large class of debtors preferred paper to anything more solid.
Others claimed that though the plan might have merit, the bills must be
put an end to in a gradual way, a "fatal shock" would be felt by so
sudden a return to a specie basis. When the vote was taken the bill was
decisively rejected. The chance of escaping from bondage seemed to be
irrecoverably gone. A motion to reconsider having been carried, the
conviction overtook some men of influence, and the bill for a wonder
passed. The Governor and Council were prompt to ratify, and while the
people marvelled, it was done. The streets were filled with angry men
and when it was reported that Hutchinson's home was on fire there were
cries in the street "Curse him, let it burn." His fine home at Milton, a
recent purchase, many thought should be protected by a guard. The
infatuation was so great, the wish was often expressed that the ship
bringing the treasure might sink. Many doubted whether the treasure
would really be sent, and this uncertainty perhaps helped the adoption
of the bill.

But the treasure came, seventeen trucks were required to cart from the
ship to the Treasury, two hundred and seventeen chests of Spanish
dollars, while ten trucks, conveyed one hundred casks of coined copper.
At once a favorable change took place. There was no _shock_ but of the
pleasantest kind, a revulsion of popular feeling followed speedily,
until Hutchinson, from being threatened at every street corner, became a
thorough favorite. Twelve years after this time Hutchinson wrote, "I
think I may be allowed to call myself the father of the present fixed
medium." There is no doubt of it. He alone saw the way out of the
difficulty, and nothing but his tact, and persistency, pushed the
measure to success. This is admitted by his enemy, John Adams, who
thirty years after Hutchinson's death said, "If I was the witch of
Endor, I would wake the ghost of Hutchinson, and give him absolute power
over the currency of the United States, and every part of it, provided
always that he should meddle with nothing but the currency. As little as
I revere his memory, I will acknowledge that he understood the subject
of coin and commerce better than any man I ever knew in this country. He
was a merchant, and there can be no scientific merchant, without a
perfect knowledge of a theory of a medium of trade."[105] Hutchinson, in
the third volume of his history of Massachusetts, remarks that the
people of Massachusetts Bay were never more easy and happy, than in 1749
when, through the application of the Louisburg reimbursement to the
extinction of the irredeemable bills, the currency was in an excellent
condition. It excited the envy of the other colonies where paper was the
principal currency.

[105] Curwen's Journal p. 456.

In 1750 he was again elected to the Assembly and "he was praised as much
for his firm" as he had before been abused for "his obstinate
perseverance." He was made chairman of a commission to negotiate a
treaty with the Indians of Casco Bay. He also settled the boundary
question with Connecticut, and Rhode Island, as he had done previously
with New Hampshire. Massachusetts became greatly the gainer by this
settlement of its boundaries. The present boundaries of Massachusetts
are those established by Hutchinson. In 1752 he was appointed Judge of
Probate, and Justice of the Common Pleas, for the County of Suffolk. In
the spring of 1754 he lost his wife. With her dying voice and with eyes
fixed on him she uttered three words, "Best of husbands." He loved her
tenderly; twenty years later, taking thought for her grave, as we shall
see later on in this article (where his countrymen could not let her
bones rest in peace, but they must desecrate her grave on Copps Hill.)

"In 1754 he was sent as delegate to the Convention held in Albany, for
the purpose of Confederating the Colonies, the better to protect
themselves from the French. Hutchinson and Franklin were the leading
minds of the body. To these two the preparation of important papers was
confided and plans made to prevent the 'French from driving the English
into the sea.'"

In 1758 Hutchinson became Lieutenant Governor. The excellent financial
condition produced by Hutchinson's measure ten years previous, still
continued, and was made even better than before. Quebec had fallen, and
Canada was conquered by the English, and the mother country, made
generous by success, sent over large sums of money to reimburse the
Colonies for the share they had taken in bringing about the brilliant
success, the result was that the taxes became a burden of the lightest
ever before known.

In 1760 Chief Justice Sewall died. Hutchinson was appointed his
successor by Governor Bernard. James Otis, Sr., then Speaker of the
Assembly, desired the place. James Otis, Jr., a young vigorous lawyer,
who was soon to arrive at great distinction, vigorously espoused his
father's cause. Hutchinson warned the Governor of trouble, in case the
Otises were disappointed. Bernard however, saw the risk of this, and
declared he would in no case appoint Otis, but named Hutchinson instead.
At once the younger Otis vowed vengence, a threat which he soon after
proceeded to execute by embarrassing the Governor, including the new
Chief Justice also in his enmity. Though before friends of government,
the Otises now became its opposers, and as the younger man presently
developed power as an unequalled popular leader, he became a most
dangerous foe. "From so small a spark," exclaimed Hutchinson, "a great
fire seems to have been kindled." Henceforth the two men are to have no
feelings for each other, but dread and hatred. An agitation began
between these two men, destined before it closes, to affect most
profoundly the history of the whole future human race.

In February, 1761, Hutchinson just warming to his work as Chief Justice,
was a principal figure in the disturbance about "Writs of Assistance" or
"Search Warrants." The customs taxes were evaded the whole country over,
in a way most demoralizing. The warehouses were few indeed in which
there were no smuggled goods. The measures taken for tariff enforcement
were no more objectionable than those employed today. Freedom to be sure
is outraged when a custom-officer invades a man's house, his castle, but
high tariff cannot exist without outrages upon freedom. A change had
come about; the government had declared the laws must be enforced, and
it lay upon Hutchinson to interpret the laws and see to this
enforcement. The position of the Chief Justice was an embarrassing one.
His own proclivities were for free trade; his friends had been concerned
in contraband commerce, according to the universal practice in the term
of slack administration. Hutchinson was as yet a novice in the Chief
Justiceship, but he made no mistake in postponing his decision, and have
the Court wait till the English practice could be known. When news came
from England, a form was settled on as near to that employed in England,
as circumstances would permit. Writs were issued to custom-house
officers, for which application should be made to the Chief Justice by
the Surveyor-General of the customs.[106] Before this determination was
reached James Otis made his memorable plea against "Writs of
Assistance," one of the epoch-making events in the history of America.
John Adams afterward said, "I do say in the most solemn manner, that Mr.
Otis's oration against Writs of Assistance breathed into this nation the
breath of life."

[106] For further matter concerning the Writs of Assistance and James
Otis see p. 34.

Hutchison's popularity from now begins to wane, and the main hand in
this was no doubt the teachings of James Otis whose phrase "no taxation
without representation" was used as a rallying cry. Boston at once
elected him as its Representative in the Assembly, and his leadership
thus was scarcely broken even when he became insane. At last he became a
great embarrassment to his party, from the fact that, although his wits
were gone, the people would still follow him. Peter Oliver, who
succeeded Hutchinson as Chief Justice is quoted by John Adams as saying
to him, that Otis would at one time declare of the Lieutenant Governor,
"that he would rather have him than any man he knows in any office"; and
the next hour represent him as "the greatest tyrant and most despicable
creature living."[107]

[107] Adams' Diary, June 5th, 1762.

Hutchinson was now known as a "prerogative man," ready to defer to the
home government in important things, but there was as yet no definite
line drawn between prerogative men and patriots. Otis always scouted the
idea of independence of the Colonies as disloyal folly, his successor,
Samuel Adams, was the first to preach disloyalty and secession. Otis, as
Moderator in Town Meeting in Boston, in 1763, spoke eloquently of the
British empire and constitution. He said, "The true interests of Great
Britain and her plantations are mutual, and what God in his providence
has united, let no man dare pull asunder." As to parliamentary
supremacy, Otis was much more emphatic than Hutchinson. He said, "the
power of Parliament is uncontrollable, but by themselves, and we must
obey. Forcibly resisting the Parliament and the King's laws is high
treason. Therefore let the Parliament lay what burdens they please upon
us; we must, it is our duty, to submit, and patiently to bear them till
they will be pleased to relieve us."[108]

[108] Rights of the British Colonies.

Otis conceded to Parliament supremacy, but insisted that the Colonies
should have representatives there. Hutchinson considered representation
there impracticable, and while conceding supremacy, thought it should be
kept well in the background, while the Colonies managed for themselves.
Great Britain has really always held to this position even to the
present day--"Although the general rule is that the legislative assembly
has the sole right of imposing taxes in the Colony, yet when the
imperial legislature chooses to impose taxes according to the rule of
law they have a right to do it." So decided the English judge Blackburn
in 1868 in a case when Jamaica was involved.[109] Mansfield's position
that the Colonies were _virtually_ represented in Parliament was an
entirely reasonable one. Parliamentary supremacy in the British empire
is, indeed kept well in the background at the present moment, but let
any great emergency arise, such as some peril to the mother country. If
the Colony should remain apathetic, or in any way render aid and comfort
to the enemy, the dependency would be as arbitrarily ridden over by the
fleets, and armies, as in the days of George III. So long as America
remained dependent, parliamentary supremacy was necessary. It would only
be got rid of by such a declaration as that of 1776. This, Hutchinson
was not ready for nor any other person in the Colonies until many years
after this time, except one man, Samuel Adams, who said taxation without
representation was tyranny and representation was impossible.

[109] Yonge Const. His. of Eng. p. 66. See also Todd, Parl. Gov. in the
British Colonies 1899.

The correctness of the position of Hutchinson in the case of the Writs
of Assistance have been maintained and exhibited in detail by so high an
authority as the late Horace Gray, Esq., for many years Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and at the time of his decease
justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.[110] A currency
dispute took place in 1762 as regards the parity between gold and
silver. Hutchinson represented the Council and Otis the House, the
former, true to the policy which had already been of such advantage, set
himself once more against a course certain to lead to a disastrous
depreciation. This financial controversy led to further unpopularity,
and lost him not only a great number of friends, but the House while
reducing the allowance to the Superior Court in general, refused to make
any allowance to him whatever as Chief Justice. After the great war with
France, which was waged mainly for the benefit of the Colonies, it was
found that England had a debt of £140,000,000 instead of £70,000,000
which it had before the war. England also had paid the Colonies vast
sums of money as previously stated, expenses incurred in protecting
themselves from the French. The American civil and military
establishments before the war was £70,000 per annum, it was now
£350,000. George Grenville, Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that the
Colonies ought to contribute towards it; he did not expect them to raise
the whole, but a portion of it, and did not intend to charge them with
any interest on the national debt, although it was largely incurred on
their behalf.

[110] See Quincy, Massachusetts Reports 1761-1772. Appendix 1.

In February, 1765, he laid a bill before Parliament for further
defraying the expenses of protecting the colonies and he proposed to
charge certain stamp duties in said colonies. The agents of the several
colonies had an interview with him and tried to dissuade him from it. He
replied that he had considered the whole case and believed the colonies
should contribute something to the mother country to pay for their
protection, every penny of which would be spent in the colonies, and
that he knew of no better way than a stamp tax. "If," he said, "you can
tell of a better, I will adopt it." Benjamin Franklin, proposed that the
demand for money should be made in the old constitutional way in the
form of a requisition to the Assembly of each province. Can you agree,
rejoined Grenville, on the proportion that each colony should raise. The
question touched the heart of the difficulty, the agents were obliged to
answer in the negative, and the interview speedily closed, a few days
later the fatal Bill passed,--one of the most momentous legislative Acts
in the history of mankind.

The position of Hutchinson was a trying one; he favored neither the
issuance of the Writs of Assistance nor the Stamp Act. The whole course
of the government he disapproved of he had been ready to cross the ocean
to remonstrate for the Colony, against the impolitic treatment. On the
other hand, the disloyal tone which daily grew rife about him, was
utterly against his mind, he saw no outcome for it but independence, a
most wise forecasting of the situation, in fact there was no middle
ground. Independence seemed to him and to every man then, except Sam
Adams, a calamity. If that was to be avoided, there was nothing for it
but to admit the supremacy of Parliament.[111] But the Province, to
which he had been like a father, was growing away from him, and before
the summer ended, he was to receive a blow as ruthless, and ungrateful,
as it was possible to give. He was at this time a Judge of the highest
Judicial Court, a member of the Council, and Lieutenant Governor at the
same time. He had performed the duties of these incompatible offices to
the satisfaction of the community, as is shown in the writings of John
Adams before he became Hutchinson's enemy. He says, "Has not his merits
been sounded very high by his countrymen for twenty years? Have not his
countrymen loved, admired, revered, rewarded, nay, almost adored him?
Have not ninety-nine in a hundred of them really thought him the
greatest and best man in America? Has not the perpetual language of many
members of both Houses and of a majority of his brother-counselors been,
that Mr. Hutchinson is a great man, a pious, a wise, a learned, a good
man, an eminent saint, a philosopher etc? Nay, have not the affections
and the admiration of his countrymen arisen so high as often to style
him the greatest and best man in the world, that they never saw, nor
heard, nor read of such a man--a sort of apotheosis like that of
Alexander and that of Cæsar while they lived?"[112]

[111] For further information concerning the Stamp Act, see p. 37.

[112] John Adams, Diary, March 17, 1766.

It is not possible to give a more glowing eulogy in the English language
of a person, than this written by John Adams, the successor of
Washington as second President of the United States, but it could
scarcely be less. The regularity of his life, his sympathy for the
distressed, his affability, his integrity, his industry, his talents for
business, and the administration of affairs, his fluency, and grace, as
public speaker. His command of temper, and courteousness under
provocation, united to form a rare man, and to give him influence. In a
country where literary enterprise was very uncommon, he had devoted a
great part of his life to investigating the history of his native
province, busy though he was in so many places, in behalf of the public,
he found time to carry it forward. In 1764 was published in Boston the
first volume of his "History of Massachusetts Bay," a carefully studied
work quite unparalleled in the meagre colonial literature, and is still,
and will always remain, of the first authority respecting the beginning
of New England. In 1767 came the second volume. He had access to
original papers such as no person now possesses which were of the
highest historical value. Writing to a friend in England in 1765, he
said, "I think from my beginning the work until I had completed it,
which was about twelve months, I never had time to write two sheets at a
sitting without avocations by public business, but forced to steal a
little time in the morning and evening while I was in town, and leave it
for weeks together so I found it difficult to keep any plan in my mind."

In his third volume, written twenty years later and not published till
1828, more than forty years after his death, the heat of the fight is
still in the heart beating behind the pen, in painting the portraits of
his contemporaries. Otis, Sam Adams, Hancock and others, the men who
bore him down after the fiercest possible struggle. His portrait drawing
is by no means without candor, and one wonders that the picture is no
darker. His presentment is always clear and dignified; his judgment of
men and events are just. It is the work of the thoughtful brain whose
comments on politics, finance, religion, etc., are full of intelligence
and humanity.

And now Hutchinson approaches the most crucial period of his life. As
seen in a previous chapter after the passing of the Stamp Act, and the
adoption of the Patrick Henry Resolves, the people grew riotous and
treason was talked of openly. The first great riot was on August 14,
1765. In the morning the effigies of Andrew Oliver, the Stamp agent, and
Lord Bute the former prime minister, were hung on an elm tree, on the
corner of what is now Washington and Essex streets, in the evening they
were taken down, carried as far as Kilby street, where a new government
building was torn down by the mob, who, taking portions of the wood-work
with them, proceeded to Fort Hill, where they burnt the effigies in
front of the home of Mr. Oliver and committed gross outrages on his
premises which were plundered and wrecked.[113]

[113] See page 40 for a more full description.

On the evening of the 26th the riots recommenced with redoubled fury.
Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson, also Chief Justice, the second person in
rank in the colony and a kinsman of Oliver, was made a mark for the most
unmeasured outrage. The story is best told in the words of the victim in
a letter to a friend.

To Richard Jackson, Boston, Aug. 30, 1765.

My Dear Sir--I came from my house at Milton the 26 in the morning.
After dinner it was whispered in the town there would be a mob at
night, and that Paxton, Hallowell, the custom house, and admiralty
officers' houses would be attacked; but my friends assured me that
the rabble were satisfied with the insult I had received, and that
I was become rather popular. In the evening, whilst I was at supper
and my children round me, somebody ran in and said the mob were
coming. I directed my children to fly to a secure place, and shut
up my house as I had done before, intending not to quit it; but my
eldest daughter repented her leaving me, hastened back and
protested that she would not quit the house unless I did. I
couldn't stand against this, and withdrew with her to a neighboring
house, where I had been but a few minutes before the hellish crew
fell upon my house with the rage of devils, and in a moment with
axes split down the doors and entered. My son being in the great
entry heard them cry 'Dam him, he is upstairs, we'll have him.'
Some ran immediately as high as the top of the house, then filled
the rooms below and the cellar, and others remained without the
house to be employed there. Messages soon came one after another to
the house where I was to inform me the mob were coming in pursuit
of me, and I was obliged to retire through yards and gardens to a
house more remote, where I remained until 4 o'clock, by which time
one of the best finished houses in the Province had nothing
remaining but the bare walls and floors.

Not content with tearing off all the wainscot and hangings, and
splitting the doors to pieces, they beat down the partition walls;
and although that alone cost them near two hours, they cut down the
cupola or lanthorn and they began to take the slate and boards from
the roof, and were prevented only by the approaching daylight from
a total demolition of the building. The garden house was laid flat,
and all my trees, etc., broke down to the ground. Such ruin was
never seen in America. Besides my plate and family pictures,
household furniture of every kind, my own, my children, and
servants, apparel, they carried off about £900 sterling in money
and emptied the house of everything whatsoever, except a part of
the kitchen furniture, not leaving a single book or paper in it,
and have scattered or destroyed all the manuscripts and other
papers I had been collecting for thirty years together, besides a
great number of public papers in my custody. The next evening, I
intended to go to Milton with my children, but meeting two or three
small parties of the ruffians who I suppose had concealed
themselves in the country, and my coachman hearing one of them
say, 'There he is'! my daughters were terrified, and said they
should never be safe, and I was forced to shelter them that night
at the Castle.[114]

[114] Mass. His. Soc. Vol. XXVI, p. 146.

[Illustration: Governor Hutchinson's House Destroyed by the Mob.]

Josiah Quincy, then twenty-one years old, writing in his diary Aug. 27,
1765, says that Hutchinson's life "it is more than probable, was saved
by his giving way to his eldest daughter and leaving the house." He
described "the coming into court the next day of the stripped Chief
Justice, clothed in a manner which would have excited compassion from
the hardest heart. Such a man in such a station, thus habited, with
tears starting from his eyes, and a countenance which strongly told the
inward anguish of his soul,--what must an audience have felt, whose
compassion had before been moved by what they knew he had suffered, when
they heard him pronounce the following words which the agitation of his
mind dictated, "Gentlemen,--There not being a quorum of the Court
without me, I am obliged to appear. Some apology is necessary for my
dress; indeed, I had no other. Destitute of everything,--no other shirt;
no other garment but what I have on; and not one in my whole family in a
better situation than myself. The distress of a whole family around me,
young and tender infants hanging about me, are infinitely more
insupportable than what I feel for myself, though I am obliged to borrow
part of _this_ clothing.

"Sensible that I am innocent, that all the charges against me are false,
I can't help feeling: and although I am not obliged to give an answer to
all the questions that may be put to me by every lawless person, yet I
call God to witness--and I would not, for a thousand worlds, call my
Maker to witness to a falsehood--I say I call my Maker to witness, that
I never, in New England or Old, in Great Britain, or America, neither
directly or indirectly, was aiding, assisting or supporting--in the
least promoting or encouraging--what is commonly called the Stamp Act;
but, on the contrary, did all in my power, and strove as much as in me
lay, to prevent it. This is not declared through timidity, for I have
nothing to fear. They can only take away my life, which is of but little
value when deprived of all its comforts, all that was dear to me, and
nothing surrounding me but the most pressing distress.

"I hope the eyes of the people will be opened, that they will see how
easy it is for some designing, wicked man to spread false reports to
raise suspicion and jealousies in the minds of the populace, and enrage
them against the innocent, but if guilty, this is not the way to
proceed. The laws of our country are open to punish those who have
offended. This destroying all peace and comfort and order of the
community--all will feel its effects; and all will see how easily the
people may be deluded, inflamed and carried away with madness against an
innocent man. I pray God give us better hearts." The Court then
adjourned to October 15th.

Why Hutchinson should have fallen into such great disfavor, it is not
easy to say. Gordon, a writer of Whig leaning, but a fair minded witness
of all that occurred suggests that there were some who still
entertaining rancor towards him for doing away with paper money in 1748,
for, as we have seen, his position in 1762 on the currency was not
popular. Moreover the mob was led on to the house by a secret influence,
with a view to the destruction of certain public papers known to be
there relating to the grant of the New Plymouth Company on the Kennebec
River.[115] Hutchinson himself speaks on having given rise to animosity
against him for having taken certain depositions in the interest of
government, before him in his character of Chief Justice to which his
name was signed. They were purely official acts; for the depositions he
had no responsibility whatever, but the unreasoning mass of the people
confused him with others. There was nothing in his course at the time of
the Writs of Assistance, at which the people needed to feel aggrieved.
He was with the people in opposing the external taxes, also in
disapproving the Stamp Act. Now that they were imposed, he to be sure
thought nothing would answer but submission, but certainly in his
declaration here he was nothing like so emphatic as James Otis, who
still remained the popular idol. Otis had said in May, "It is the duty
of all humbly and silently to acquiesce in all the decisions of the
supreme legislature." In private talk he was still more vigorous in his
utterances. He said to Hallowell, "That Parliament had a right to tax
the Colonies, and he was a d----d fool who denied it and that this
people never would be quiet till we had a Council from home, till our
charter was taken away, and till we had regular troops quartered upon
us."[116] Hutchinson had never expressed his thoughts anywhere near so
definitely as this.

[115] His. of Am. Rev., Vol. I., p. 180.

[116] John Adams' Diary, Jan. 16, 1776.

The inhabitants of Boston and the Province were generally ashamed of the
outrage upon Hutchinson, but the mob still dared to show its hand.
Though in the first rush of feeling many of the rioters were sent to
jail, they were afterwards set free. The chief actor seems to have been
a shoemaker, named Mackintosh, who, though arrested, was presently
discharged; Hutchinson declares this was through the interference of men
of good position, who feared that a confession from him would implicate
them. Hutchinson's demand of the legislature for compensation for the
destruction of his home, was at last effectual. He is said to have
received £3,194, 17s. 6d., a fair indemnity. The Act had attached to it
for a "rider" pardon to all who had taken part in the disturbance
connected with the Stamp Act. Bernard hesitated to sign the Act; but was
finally induced to do so by his earnest wish to have Hutchinson receive
justice. When the Act was sent to England, the King disallowed it; such
lawlessness could not be condoned, even that a faithful official might
receive his rights. But the money had been paid before the news of the
King's displeasure arrived.

A period of lawlessness now followed. Riots were absolutely unpunished,
for no jury would convict the rioters. Governor Bernard wrote that his
position was one of utter, and humiliating impotence, and that the first
condition of the maintenance of English authority in Massachusetts was
to quarter a powerful military force at Boston.

Two regiments arrived Sept. 28, 1768. Shortly before their arrival the
people gathered together in an immense meeting, and voted that a
standing army could not be kept in the province without its consent. On
the arrival of the troops everything was done by the people to provoke
and irritate them. A perfect reign of terror was directed against all
who supported the government. Soldiers could not appear in the streets
without being the objects of the grossest insults. A press eminently
scurrilous and vindictive was ceaselessly employed in abusing them. They
had become as Samuel Adams boasted 'the objects of the contempt even of
women, and children.' Every offence they committed was maliciously
exaggerated and vindictively prosecuted, while in the absence of
martial law, they were obliged to look passively on the most flagrant
insults to authority. At one time the "Sons of liberty" in a procession
a mile and a half long marched around the State House, to commemorate
their riots against the Stamp Act, and met in the open fields to chant
their "liberty song" and drink "strong halters, firm blocks, and sharp
axes, to such as deserve them." At another an informer, who was found
guilty of giving information to revenue officers, was seized by a great
multitude, tarred and feathered, and led through the streets of Boston,
which was illuminated in honor of the achievement.

A printer who had dared to caricature the champions of freedom was
obliged to flee from his house, to take refuge among the soldiers, and
ultimately to escape from Boston in disguise. Merchants who had ventured
to import goods from England were compelled by mob violence to give them
up to be destroyed, or to be re-embarked. A shopkeeper who sold some
English goods, found a post planted in the ground with a hand pointing
to his door, and when a friend tried to remove it, he was stoned by a
fierce mob through the streets. A popular minister delighted his
congregation by publicly praying "that the Almighty would remove from
Boston the English soldiers."[117]

[117] Lecky's Am. Rev. Chapt. XI., p. 127.

These outrages led to the so-called Boston Massacre, more fully
described in a previous chapter.[118] None of the mobs of that time of
mobs was more brutal and truculent than that which provoked the firing
of the group of baited men, standing their ground with steady
discipline, among the clubs and missiles resorted to now, to enforce the
usual foul and blasphemous abuse. Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson
fulfilled at this time with complete adequacy the functions of chief
magistrate, for Governor Bernard was at this time in England. Hutchinson
was at once in the street, in imminent danger of having his brains
dashed out, expostulating, entreating that order might be
preserved.[119] It was a fine exhibition of power and courage. His
standing in the east balcony of the State House, with the snow reddened
beneath by the blood of the killed, with the regiments kneeling in rank
ready for street firing, and several thousand of enraged men on the
other side on the point of rushing into the fight, he was able to hold
both parties in check. His prompt arrest of Captain Preston and the
squad which had done the killing, was his full duty; and it is to the
credit of the troop that the officer and his men in the midst of the
exasperation gave themselves quietly into the hands of the law. Instead
of a bloody battle, there was substituted a well-ordered civil process,
due delay being observed that the passion of both sides might subside
and the evidence, pro and con be calmly weighed. A mild and just verdict
was the outcome, to which all submitted. Men they were, all of the same
stock, for the time being fallen into antagonism, seeing things
differently. All, however, bore themselves like Englishmen, showing the
quality which has made the Anglo-Saxon race a mighty one.

[118] Boston Mobs, page 43.

[119] Mass. A. His. Vol. XXXI., p. 491. Witness at the trial of the
soldiers said "He stood close behind him, and one of the mob lifted up a
large club over my head, and was going to strike, but he seized him by
the arm and prevented it."

Since the departure of Bernard there had been no session of the
legislature. In March one took place that was the cause of a new dispute
between the Lieutenant Governor and the legislature, which was destined
to be long and important. It was as to how far the chief magistrate
could be bound by royal instruction. Hutchinson says the Assembly was
prorogued to meet at Boston March 14th, 1770, but before the time
arrived there came a further signification of the King's pleasure that
it should be held at Cambridge, unless the Lieutenant Governor had more
weighty reasons for holding it at Boston, than those which were
mentioned by the Secretary of State against it.[120] On the 15th of
March therefore the legislature met in the "Philosophy Room" in Harvard
College, in Cambridge.

[120] Hutchinson His. Vol. III., p. 280.

Remonstrances were passed by the Council and the House against the
removal to which Hutchinson replied "That the King by his prerogative
could remove the legislature from the 'Town House in Boston' did not in
his mind admit of a doubt and therefore he disregarded the
remonstrance." Soon after the Massacre, Hutchinson begged the Earl of
Hillsborough, the Colonial Secretary, to allow him to resign. He said,
"I must humbly pray that a person of superior powers of body and mind
may be appointed to the administration of the government of this
Province. I shall faithfully endeavor to support such person according
to the best of my abilities, and I think it not improbable that I may be
capable of doing his Majesty greater service in the Province, even in a
private station than at present."[121] Instead of accepting his
resignation he was appointed Governor in March, 1771, and his wife's
brother-in-law, Andrew Oliver, being at the same time commissioned
Lieutenant Governor, and Thomas Flucker Secretary.

[121] M. A. Hist. Vol. XXVI., Mar. 27 to Hillsboro.

At his inauguration while the Assembly and the Congregational ministers
were silent, there were many congratulations, among them Harvard
College. The students singing in Holden Chapel the anthem, "Thus saith
the Lord from henceforth, behold! all nations shall call ye blessed; for
thy rulers shall be of thine own kindred, your nobles shall be of
yourself, and thy governors shall proceed from the midst of thee."

April 1, 1771, he writes to Colonel Williams of Hatfield. "It's certain
all the valuable part of the town have shown me as much respect
personally, as in my public character, as I could desire. Two Adamses,
Phillips, Hancock, and two or three others, who, with the least reason
have been the most injurious, are all of any sort of consideration who
stand out."[122] Again on April 19, 1771, in a letter to Hillsboro,
referring to the Town Meeting he says, "In these votes, and in most of
the public proceedings of the town of Boston, persons of the best
character and estate have little or no concern. They decline attending
Town Meetings where they are sure of being outvoted by men of the lowest
order, all being admitted, and it being very rare that any scrutiny is
made into the qualification of voters."[123]

[122] M. A. Hist. Vol. XVII., p. 131.

[123] M. A. Hist. Vol. XXVII., p. 151.

The hopes Hutchinson and the friends of government were never brighter
since the troubles began with the government, than in the spring of
1771. Among Hutchinson opponents men like Andrew Eliot, thought "it
might be as well not to dispute the legal right of Parliament." Otis
too, pursued a strong reactionary course and when on May 29 the
legislature met, at his instance, while the remonstrance was passed as
had become usual, against the removal of the legislature from Boston,
the clause was struck out which denied to the crown the right to remove.
The principle so long contended for was then sacrificed, the right of
prerogative to infringe the charter at this point was acknowledged, and
it would be easy to proceed on the ground that the crown might take what
liberties it pleased with the charter. Otis's change was indeed
startling. Samuel Adams was going on in the old road, when Otis started
up, and said they had gone far enough in that way, the Governor had an
undoubted right to carry the court where he pleased, and moved for a
committee to represent the inconveniences of sitting there, and for an
address to the Governor. He was a good man; the minister said so, and it
must be so: and moved to go on with the business, and the House voted
everything he moved for.[124]

[124] John Adams' Works, Vol. II., p. 266.

"Serious as was the defection of James Otis that of Hancock was even
more so. His wealth, popular manners and some really strong qualities
made his influence great. Samuel Adams had exploited Hancock, with all
his consummate art ever since his appearance in public life, making him
a powerful pillar of the popular cause. Contemptuous allusions to
Hancock as little better than an ape, whom Samuel Adams led about
according to his will, have come down from those times."[125] Such
things were flying in the air and Hancock was feeble enough to be moved
by them, if they came to his ears. Whatever may have been the reason,
Hancock forsook his old guide, voted with the party of Otis for the
acknowledgment of Hutchinson's right to convene the legislature where
and when he choose. Hancock's defection at this time from the Whig cause
seemed imminent, and when Hutchinson fled to England, three years later
and his papers fell into the hands of his enemies, it was found
necessary to suppress certain documents, belonging to this time as it is
supposed they compromised Hancock, who in 1774 was once more firmly on
the side of the Colonies.

[125] Hosmer's Life of Thomas Hutchinson p. 213.

Samuel Adams probably never experienced a greater mortification than
when, as a member of a committee, he waited, by command of the House,
upon Hutchinson to present an address acknowledging the right of the
Governor to remove the General Court "to Housantonic in the western part
of the Province," if he desired, nor, on the other hand, did the
Governor ever enjoy a greater triumph. Hutchinson must have felt that he
was even with his chief adversary for the humiliation of the preceding
year, the driving out of the regiments. Adams felt his defeat keenly,
but gave no sign of it, he saw his influence apparently on the wane, but
was as unremitting as ever in his attempts to retrieve lost ground. But
for him the revolutionary cause at this time must have gone by the
board.

The revulsion was not long in coming. Before Hutchinson had time to
restore the repentant legislature to the town house in Boston, the
hearts of the members became hardened against him. When it became known
that the decision of the king had been made for the support of the
Massachusetts town officials from the revenue of the Colony by warrants
drawn on the Commission of Custom, the wrath of the people became heavy,
and the voice of Samuel Adams led the discontented. The Governor was
paid £1500 sterling, instead of £1000, annually, which he was paid when
dependent on the people. Hutchinson now plainly announced that he should
now receive his salary from the King. The House protested in its usual
temper, the set of the opposition being so powerful that several of the
Loyalists withdrew disheartened. But in the midst of the fault-finding
"Sons of Liberty", he received a mark of confidence from the General
Court at which he was greatly pleased, as he had a right to be. We have
already seen him as the principal figure in settling the boundary lines
on the sides of New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut. The
boundary line on the side of New York, not settled in 1767, and still in
dispute, were equally in need of adjustment, and although his principles
were popularly denounced, and the scheme was already in progress which
was to drive him from his native land and deprive him of all his
possessions in it, yet none but he could be trusted to undertake the
delicate negotiations upon which the welfare of the Province
depended.[126]

[126] The details are in Mass. Archives marked Colonial. Vol. IV. pp.
335-344.

The journal of the proceedings in the handwriting of the Governor, is
still extant. With William Brattle, Joseph Hawley, and John Hancock,
Hutchinson journeyed to Hartford, where on May 18, 1773, they discussed
the matter with Governor Tyron, John Watts, William Smith, R. R.
Livingston, and William Nicoll, Commissioners from New York. The New
York men, although more compliant than the negotiators of seven years
ago, were still disposed to exact hard concessions, to which all the
commissioners but Hutchinson were about prepared to agree. Hutchinson,
however, while diplomatic, was unyielding, insisting upon what had been
substantially the demand of 1767. At last it was conceded, establishing
for all time as a part of the Bay State the beautiful county of
Berkshire. This alone should entitle him to a monument by the State of
Massachusetts. He alone, it is said, prevented the giving up by
Massachusetts of her claim to western lands; these were retained and
afterwards sold for a large sum.[127]

[127] N. E. His. and Gen Reg., Vol. I., p. 310.

It was a great victory for the Governor, the Massachusetts Commissioners
had been left free to do what seemed to them best, but they cordially
acknowledged that success belonged to him.

On the return to Boston, the legislature was in session and the assembly
authorized him to transmit the settlement to Lord Dartmouth, Secretary
of State, at once, without formally laying it before them. They trusted
him entirely. Hutchinson with some pride declared that "no previous
instance of a like confidence of our Assembly in a Governor can be found
in Massachusetts history."[128] This transient favor, and trust,
aggravated for him the force of the blow he was so soon to receive. How
bitter the home coming of Hutchinson was, the following extract from a
letter to Sir Francis Bernard, the late Governor will show:

[128] Hutchinson His. Vol. III., p. 391, 392.

June 29, 1773. "After every other attempt to distress me they have at
last engaged in a conspiracy which has been managed with infinite art,
and succeeded beyond their own expectation. They have buzzed about for
three or four months a story of something that would amaze everybody as
soon as the elections were over, it was said in the House something
would appear in eight and forty hours, which, if improved aright, the
Province might be as happy, as it was fourteen or fifteen years ago.
These things were spread through all the towns of the Province, and
everybody's expectations were raised. At length upon motion the gallery
was ordered to be cleared and the doors shut. Mr. Samuel Adams informed
the House that seventeen original letters had been put in his hands,
written to a gentleman in England by several persons from New England,
with an intention to subvert the constitution. They were delivered to
him on condition that they should be returned, not printed, and no
copies taken. If the House would receive them on these terms, he would
read them. They broke through the pretended agreement, printed the
resolves, and then the letters, which effrontery was never known before.
The letters are mere narratives which you well know to be true, as
respects remarks upon the Colonies, and such proposals as naturally
follow from the principles which I have openly avowed; but by every
malversation, which the talents of the party in each House, could
produce they have raised the prejudices of the people against me, and it
is generally supposed all the writers were concerned in one plan, though
I suppose no one of them ever saw or knew the contents of the letters of
any others unless by accident."

After three weeks spent, the House resolved to address the King, to
remove the Governor and Lieutenant Governor.[129] The name of the person
to whom the letters were written was erased from all of them, but they
appear to be all Mr. Thomas Whatley's six from the Governor, four from
the Lieutenant-Governor, one from Rogers, and one from Auchmuty and the
remainder from Rhode Island and Connecticut.

[129] M. A. His. Vol. XXVII., p. 502, etc.

The affair of the Hutchinson Letter created great excitement both in
America and England, an affair in which the best men of Massachusetts
Bay were concerned, including Franklin, then the agent of his native
Province, although a citizen then of Pennsylvania; a shade has rested
therefrom upon the character of Franklin, which cannot yet be said to
have been explained away. Is it creditable that those wary, able men,
Franklin, Samuel Adams, Bowdoin, John Adams, Samuel Cooper, and others,
really thought the very quiet statements contained "in the letters in
which there was no sentiment which the Governor had not openly expressed
in his addresses to the Legislature, was a danger and menace to the
welfare of the colony?"[130] The only explanation is that they had
persuaded themselves that Hutchinson was so dangerous that if conduct
thoroughly above board would not answer, he must be cast out by
questionable means. Mr. Winthrop justifies their conduct by believing
that it may be classed among what Burke calls "irregular things done in
the confusion of mighty troubles, not to be justified on
principle."[130] When the printed copies of the letter arrived in
England they excited great astonishment. Thomas Whatley was dead.
William Whatley, his brother, and executor was filled with a very
natural consternation, at a theft which was likely to have such
important consequences, and for which public opinion was inclined to
make him responsible. He in turn suspected a certain Mr. Temple, who had
been allowed to look through the papers of his deceased brother, for the
purpose of perusing one relating to the colonies, and a duel ensued in
which Whatley was severely wounded. Mr. Temple continued to be
suspected. A letter of Jan. 4, 1774, says: "Although when they first
came abroad his own brother said: Whoever sent them was a d----d
villian."[131]

[130] New Eng. Hist. and Gen. Reg. I., p. 307.

[131] Hosmer's Life of Hutchinson, p. 274

Franklin then for the first time, in a letter to a newspaper, disclosed
the part he had taken. He stated that "he, and he alone, had obtained
and transmitted to Boston the letters in question, that they had never
passed into the hands of William Whatley, and that, therefore, it was
impossible, either that Whatley could have communicated them, or that
Temple could have taken them, from his papers." There is some reason to
believe that the original owner had left them carelessly in a public
office, whence they had been stolen, but the mystery was never
decisively solved.

"In England Franklin's conduct was regarded with the utmost severity.
For the purpose of ruining honorable officials it was said, their most
confidential letters, written years before to a private member of
Parliament, who had at that time no connection with Government, had been
deliberately stolen; although the original thief was undiscovered, the
full weight of the guilt and dishonor rested upon Franklin. He was
perfectly aware that the letters had been written in the strictest
confidence, that they had been dishonestly obtained without the
knowledge of the person who received them, or the person who wrote them,
and that their exposure would be a deadly injury to the writers. Under
these circumstances he sent them to a small group of politicians whom he
knew to be the bitterest enemies of the Governor, and one result was a
duel in which the brother of the man whose private papers had been
stolen, was nearly killed. Any man of high and sensitive honor, it was
said, would sooner have put his hand into the fire than have been
concerned in such a transaction."[132]

[132] Lecky's Am. Rev., pp. 149, 150.

When the petition for the removal of Hutchinson and Oliver arrived the
Government referred it to the Committee of the Privy Council that the
allegations might be publicly examined with counsel on either side. The
case exerted an intense interest which had been rarely paralleled. No
less than thirty-five Privy Councillors attended; among the
distinguished strangers who crowded the Bar were Burke, Priestley and
Jeremy Bentham, Dunning and Lee, who spoke for the petitioners; they
appear to have made no impression; while on the other side Wedderburn,
the Solicitor-General, made one of his most brilliant but most virulent
speeches, which was received with boundless applause.

After a brief but eloquent eulogy of the character and services of
Hutchinson he passed to the manner in which the letters were procured,
and turning to Franklin, who stood before him he delivered an invective
which appeared to have electrified his audience. "How the letters 'came
into the possession of anyone but the right owner's,'" he said, "is still
a mystery for Dr. Franklin to explain, and they could not have come into
his hands by fair means. Nothing will acquit Dr. Franklin of the charge
of obtaining them by fraudulent or corrupt means, for the most malignant
of purposes, unless he stole them from the person who stole them. I
hope, my Lords, you will brand this man for the honor of this country,
of Europe, and of mankind.... Into what country will the fabrication of
this iniquity hereafter go with unembarrassed face? Men will watch him
with a jealous eye. They will hide their papers from him, and lock up
their escritoires. Having hitherto aspired after fame by his writings,
he will henceforth esteem it a libel to be called a man of
letters--_homo trium literarum_. But, he not only took away those papers
from our brother, he kept himself concealed, till he nearly occasioned
the murder of another. It is impossible to read his account, expressive
of the coolest, and most deliberate malice, without horror."

[Illustration: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

He stood there, conspicuous and erect, and without moving a muscle, was
compelled to hear himself denounced as a thief, or the accomplice of
thieves.]

The scene was a very strange one, and it is well suited to the brush or
an historical painter. Franklin was now an old man, sixty-seven, the
greatest writer, the greatest philosopher America had produced, a member
of some of the chief scientific societies in Europe, the accredited
representative of the most important of the colonies of America, and for
nearly an hour, and in the midst of the most distinguished of living
Englishmen, he was compelled to hear himself denounced as a thief or the
accomplice of thieves. He stood there conspicuous, and erect, and
without moving a muscle, amid the torrent of invective, but his apparent
composure was shared by few who were about him. Fox, in a speech which
he made as late as 1803, reminded the House how on that memorable
occasion, "all men tossed up their hats, and clapped their hands, in
boundless delight, at Mr. Wedderburn's speech." The committee at once
voted that the petition of the Massachusetts Assembly was "false,
groundless, and scandalous and calculated only for the seditious purpose
of keeping up a spirit of clamor and discontent in the province." The
king and Council confirmed the report and Franklin was ignominiously
dismissed from his office of Postmaster.[133] From this time Franklin
and his friends had a deep personal grudge against the British
Government.

As the autumn deepened Hutchinson interpreted as favorable to himself
the symptoms he perceived of the mood of the people. Oct. 16, 1773, he
writes, "I now see so great a change in the people wherever I travel
about the country, that I have reason to think I shall rather gain than
lose by the late detestable proceedings, and my friends express stronger
attachments to me than ever." This was only a brief Indian summer of
favor before the outbreak, not now distant, of a storm more cold and
pitiless than ever, for a crisis was now at hand more threatening than
any that had preceded it. As shown in a previous chapter,[133] after the
repeal of the Stamp Act in order to pacify the colonists, a duty was
placed on tea, and other imports, which the colonists had always
admitted to be a valid Act of the Parliament. No revenue probably had
ever been expected from it. It was felt that the principle that
Parliament might tax must be maintained; the cost of collection was
greater than the proceeds. Instead of paying 12d per pound export duty
from England, only 3d per pound was to be charged, when imported by the
East India Company to the Colonies, thereby making a saving to the
colonists of 9d per pound which would make tea cheaper than that
smuggled in from the Dutch colonies.[134]

[133] Lecky's Am. Rev. pp. 150, 151, 152.

[134] See p. 47, for further information concerning the Stamp Act and
the Tea Tax.

The project of sending the tea, was decided on in May, 1773, and
Massachusetts was the Colony where the crisis was to come. The
consignees were important persons. Two of them were Thomas and Elisha
Hutchinson, sons of the Governor, a third was the Governor's nephew
Richard Clarke, father-in-law of Copley, the painter, a fourth was
Benjamin Faneuil, a nephew of Peter Faneuil, deceased, a fifth Joshua
Winslow, also of a memorable family. These held bravely to the task that
had been set for them, putting their property and lives in jeopardy
until finally they were driven to seek refuge in the Castle. Of those
opposed to them Samuel Adams was the chief, followed by Hancock,
Bowdoin, Dr. Thomas Young, Dr. Joseph Warren, Dr. Benjamin Church,
Josiah Quincy, John Scollay, and others who lent their hands to action
and their heads to counsel. Historic truth also compels the statement
that the man put forward to do the disreputable work for them was
"Captain Mackintosh" leader of the South End toughs in street fights
with the North Enders, leader of the rioters in the destruction of the
Governor's home in August, 1765. For his part in that affair he had
never been punished, and now seems to have been rather a popular pet. He
was styled the "First Captain-General of Liberty-Tree," and managed the
illumination, hanging of effigies, etc. Long afterwards, in speaking of
the Tea Party he said, "It was my chickens that did the job."[135]

[135] Francis Drake. "Tea Leaves." Introd. p. CXXVII.

An attempt was made to cause the consignees to resign their commissions
under "Liberty Tree;" this they refused to do and in consequence they
were mobbed in their houses, windows and doors were smashed and amid a
tempest of missiles their lives and persons were in great danger.
Hutchinson set himself against the "Sons of Liberty," "his course not
showing one sign vacillation from first to last, but throughout bearing
the marks of clear, cold, passionless inflexibility."[136]

[136] Richard Frothingham.

Another American writer says, "To candid men, the letters he wrote in
those days of struggle ought to have interest, as well as the
declarations of those who have portrayed him as the disgraced minion of
a tyrant."[137] Another writer, referring to his action at this time,
says, "We can at this day well afford to mete out this tardy justice to
a man, whose motives and conduct have been so bitterly and
unscrupulously vilified and maligned as have been those of Thomas
Hutchinson."[138]

[137] Hosmer's Life of Hutchinson, p. 299.

[138] Francis S. Drake. Tea Leaves. Int. LXIII.

At last, in December, 1773, three ships laden with tea arrived at
Boston, and what followed has been told a thousand times, with all
possible elaborations by those who fully sympathize with the tea mob.
The cold facts are that "Captain Mackintosh" and "his chickens,"
disguised as Mohawk Indians, instigated by Samuel Adams, John
Hancock[139] and other leading "patriots" flung the whole cargo
consisting of 342 chests, into the harbor. In the course of the violent
proceedings this year the Council, the militia, and the company of
cadets, had been vainly asked to assist in maintaining the law and
order. The sheriff was grossly insulted, the magistrates could do
nothing, and as usual, the crowning outrage of the destruction of the
tea was accomplished with perfect impunity, and not a single person
engaged in it was in any way molested, but every soul in Boston knew the
penalty must fall, as certain as night follows day. "The news of these
events convinced most intelligent Englishmen, that war was imminent, and
that taxation of America could only be enforced by the sword. Popular
opinion in England, which had supported the repeal of the Stamp Act,
was now opposed to further concession, England, it was said, had
sufficiently humiliated herself. The claim and the language of the
colonial agitators excited profound and not unnatural indignation, and
every mail from America brought news that New England at least was in a
condition of virtual rebellion, that Acts of the British Parliament were
defied and disobeyed with the most perfect impunity, that the
representatives of the British Government were habitually exposed to the
grossest insults, and reduced to the most humiliating impotence."

[139] Hancock's uncle made his large fortune by smuggling tea. See
Hutchinson His., Vol. III., p. 297.

The time for temporising, it was said, was over. It was necessary to
show that England possessed some real power of executing her laws and
the ministers were probably supported by a large majority of the English
people, when they resolved to throw away the scabbard, and to exert all
the power of Parliament to reduce Massachusetts to obedience.[140] The
measures that were taken were very stringent. By one Act, the harbor of
Boston was legally closed. "The Custom House officers were removed to
Salem. All landing, lading, and shipping of merchandise in Boston harbor
was forbidden, and English men-of-war were appointed to maintain the
blockade. The town which owed its whole prosperity to its commercial
activity was debarred from all commerce by sea and was to continue under
this ban, till it had made compensation to the East India Company for
the tea which had been destroyed, and had satisfied the crown that trade
would for the future be safely carried on in Boston, property protected,
laws obeyed, and duties regularly paid."[141] By another Act, Parliament
was to remodel the charter of Massachusetts, the Council or Upper
Chamber was now to be appointed as in most of the other colonies of
America by the crown. The judges and magistrates of all kinds, including
the sheriffs, were to be appointed by the royal governor. Jurymen were
to be summoned by the Sheriffs. That these Acts of the British
Parliament at this time was necessary is beyond question, for there was
a mob in revolutionary Boston at this time, scarcely less foul-mouthed,
pitiless, unscrupulous, than that which roared for the blood of the
Bourbons in revolutionary Paris, or that of the Commons of later times.
Mackintosh and his crew were unmistakably in evidence, certainly not
restrained, but connived at by the better men, so that those just as
conscientious and patriotic, who tried by lawful ways to oppose, found
destruction for their property imminent, and could feel that their lives
were secure only when they had fled down the harbor to the Castle.

[140] Lecky's Am. Rev., pp. 154, 164, 165, 166.

[141] 14 George III., c. 19, 45.

John Adams was one of the very few "patriots" who really disowned and
opposed mob violence; not only did he defend the soldiers for killing
some of the mob, but in a letter to his wife, he said: "mobs I do and
will detest."[142]

[142] Letters of John Adams, Vol. 1., p. 13.

[Illustration: (View from Governor Hutchinson's Field.)]

On May 10th, 1774, news reached Boston of the passing of the Boston Port
Bill, and the penalties the Tea-Party had brought upon the town. General
Gage, who was to command four regiments and a powerful fleet arrived
three days later. A military governor was now to succeed the civilian,
it being understood that Hutchinson, after the disturbances were
quelled, should return to power; in the meantime he was to go to
England, and help the King with personal counsel.[143] Hutchinson's work
in America was done. It may be asked, why did he remain in office in all
these years, up to this time, enforcing laws with which he had no
sympathy, the instrument of a policy he disliked, wrecking in the minds
of many of his countrymen the honorable name which for forty years he
had been establishing. It was certainly not for emolument. It was not
for fame, for instead of credit he had long received only abuse. He kept
hoping against hope, that the home government would become wiser, that
the supremacy of Parliament, having once been recognized, should be
allowed to sink out of sight, the Colonies being allowed to control
themselves as British Colonies do at the present time. He hoped that in
his own land the question of taxation would be less hotly contested by
the people. These things gained, the glorious empire of England might
remain undivided, mother and daughter remaining in peace together, an
affectionate headship dwelling in one, a filial and loving concession of
precedence in the other. To attain such a consummation seemed to the
Governor a thing worth suffering and striving for. To bring this about,
as is shown by all his acts, and all his words, he contended year after
year, sacrificing to his aim his reputation, his fortune, at last,
hardest of all, his citizenship, dying in exile of a broken heart.

[143] Hutchinson Hist. Vol. III., p. 458.

Before leaving Boston he received a most complimentary address signed by
the principal inhabitants of that and other towns endorsing this course
and conduct; they were known as "Addressers," and were afterwards
persecuted and subjected to many indignities from their fellow townsmen.

June the 1st, 1774, he turned away from his beautiful mansion and
extensive farm, and walked down Milton Hill, to the Lower Mills, nodding
and smiling to his neighbors on this side and that, it is said, whether
Whig or Tory, he was good friends with all. He was in a cheerful mood on
that day when he left his home forever, for had not the best people of
the Province approved of him, and had shown him strong marks of favor in
their addresses. It is very evident, as shown in all his writing, that
he was greatly attached to his beautiful country home and to his Milton
neighbors, with whom he was a favorite. He mingled with them in social
life, and worshipped with them in the same church. His residence on
Milton Hill is situated in one of the pleasantest places in the vicinity
of Boston. It is the same to-day as it was when the Governor resided
there, with the exception that the house has been remodeled, and the
surrounding estates, now the homes of millionaires, have been greatly
improved by art. It is situated on the crest of Milton Hill--a
drumlin--to the south of which, across a beautiful valley are the Blue
Hills, called by the Indians the "Massachusetts" or the place of the
great hills, and from which the state has derived its name. They appear
like mountains rising through the atmosphere charged with fragrant mist
from the intervening blossoming fields, which give them a blue
appearance, and soften all their ruggedness into beauty.

The mansion faces the north on the road leading to Plymouth; across the
road in front of the home is an extensive field sloping towards the
green waving marshes that line the banks of the beautiful Neponset
river, winding its course to the harbor, which bears upon its bosom many
picturesque islands and in the remote distance is seen the rocky
Brewsters, on which is situated the white lighthouse, marking the edge
of the ocean.[144]

[144] Several wealthy citizens of Milton have recently purchased this
field donated it to the State as a public reservation to be known as the
"Governor Hutchinson Field."

On that beautiful spring morning as the Governor walked down the hill he
had no thought of a lasting absence, though martial law for a time was
to be tried he was still Governor; meantime his salary was continued and
he was about to give an account of his stewardship to his royal master.
At the foot of the hill he crossed the river and there met his
carriage, next year to be confiscated, and appropriated to the use of
Washington. In it he rode to what is now South Boston Point; then
embarking in a boat, he was rowed to the Castle, on Castle Island, the
last bit of Massachusetts earth to feel his footfall. From here he
embarked on the warship Minerva, which was to convey him to England,
where he arrived July 1st, and was immediately received by the King, who
during the interview said, "I believe you generally live in the country,
Mr. Hutchinson, what distance are you from town?" Mr. Hutchinson
replied, "I have lived in the country. Sir, in the summer for 20 years,
but except the winter after my house was pulled down, I have never lived
in the country in the winter until the last. My house is 7 or 8 miles
from Town, a pleasant situation, and most gentlemen from abroad say it
has the finest prospect from it they ever saw, except where great
improvements have been made by art to help the natural view."[145]

[145] Hutchinson Diary, Vol. II., pp. 164, 165.

[Illustration: (Governor Hutchinson's House on Milton Hill.)]

He often afterwards was at Court, and was treated with the greatest
kindness by both King and Queen. A baronetcy was offered him, which he
declined because of insufficient means to support the title, his
property in America having been confiscated. He was however handsomely
pensioned. He does indeed write under date of September 1st, 1778, "The
changes in the last four or five years of my life make the whole scene,
when I look back upon it appear like a dream or other delusions. From
the possession of one of the best houses in Boston, the pleasantest
house and farm at Milton, of almost any in the world and one of the best
estates in the Colony of Rhode Island, with an affluent income, and a
prospect of being able to make a handsome provision for each of my
children at my death--I have not a foot of land at my command, and
personal estate of £7000 only, depending on the bounty of Government for
a pension, which, though it affords a present ample provision for
myself, and enables me to distribute £500 a year among my children, yet
is precarious, and I cannot avoid anxiety. But I am still distinguished
by a kind Providence from my suffering relations, friends, and
countrymen in America as well as from many of them in England, and have
great reason to be thankful that so much money is yet continued to
me."[146]

[146] Diary and Letters of H. Vol. II., p. 216.

[Illustration: (Inland View from Governor Hutchinson's House.)]

The Governor's diary in England is a profoundly pathetic record of a man
broken-hearted by his expatriation. His sons and daughters and their
families to the number of twenty-five were all dependent upon him. "He
is glad he has a home for them, when so many fellow-exiles are in
want." As Hutchinson was by far the ablest and most eminent of his
party, so his sufferings were especially sharp. His name was held to be
a stigma. Hutchinson Street in Boston became Pearl Street. The town of
Hutchinson in the heart of the Commonwealth, cast off its title as that
"of one who had acted the part of a traitor and parricide," substituting
for it that of Barre, the liberal champion in Parliament.

The honorable name he had made through forty years of self-denying
wisely directed public service, was blotted out, for generations it was
a mark for obloquy. His great possession and large estate were
confiscated, and to the shame of his countrymen be it said, they did not
spare even his family tomb. It was sold by the State and the bones of
his ancestors, some of the greatest men of the colony, and those of his
wife and children were thrown out. The old stone with the Hutchinson
crest on it still remains over the tomb in Copp's Hill burial ground
with the name of the new owner of the tomb rudely marked on it. Could
the governor have had a premonition of what was going to happen when he
wrote to his son, Feb. 22, 1775, that he wished to have a new tomb built
at Milton, and the remains of his wife, deceased twenty-one years, to be
tenderly removed from Copp's Hill and deposited therein, with space for
himself, and bade him "leave the wall or any ornament or inscription
till I return, and the sooner it is finished the better."

His son Thomas had left Milton and retired to Boston before he received
his father's letter. Hostilities immediately followed, and were
succeeded by the confiscation of the estates of the loyalists. Hence
this cherished design of the governor was never carried out. Again on
May 15th, 1779, he writes in his diary, "And though I know not how to
reason upon it, I feel a fondness to lay my bones in my native soil and
to carry those of my dear daughter with me." Again he writes, "The
prospect of returning to America and laying my bones in the land of my
forefathers for four preceding generations, and if I add the mother of
W. H. it will make five, is less than it has ever been." Then at last
this entry is found. "Sept. 16, 1779. Stopped at Croydon, went into the
church, looked upon the grave of my dear child, inquired whether there
was room for me, and was informed there was." He was indeed sinking
fast, and his end was rapidly approaching. A few months later, June 3,
1780, as he was walking down the steps of his house to his coach, going
for his morning drive, he fell into the arms of his servant, and with
one or two gasps he resigned his soul to God, who gave it. He was buried
at Croydon on the 9th of June. It would scarcely be possible for a human
life to close among circumstances of deeper gloom. Utter destruction had
overtaken his family. His daughters and his son dispirited, dropped
prematurely at the same time with him into the grave. His son "Billy"
died on Feb. 20. A child of Elisha's died on June 25th, and his daughter
Sarah died on the 28th. In daily contact with him was a company of
Loyalist exiles, once men of position and wealth, now discredited,
disheartened, and in danger of starvation. The country he loved and had
suffered so much for, had nothing for him but contumely. To a man like
Hutchinson public calamity would cause a deeper pang than private
sorrow. No more threatening hour for England has probably ever struck
than that in which the soul of this great and good man passed away. It
had become apparent that America was lost, a separation that might be
fatal to the empire, and which her hereditary enemies were hastening to
make the most of. To America herself the rending seemed to many certain
to be fatal.

While the members were thus being torn away, destruction seemed to
impend at the heart. At the moment of his death, London was at the mercy
of the mob, in the Gordon riots. The city was on fire in many places, a
drunken multitude murdered, right and left, laying hands even upon the
noblest of the land. Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of England, because
he had recommended to the mercy of a jury, a priest arrested for
celebrating mass, saved his life with difficulty, his home with all his
possessions going up in flames. What a remarkable coincidence this was
with what happened to the governor when he was Chief Justice of
Massachusetts. The exile's funeral passed on its way through smoke, and
uproar, that might easily have been regarded as the final crash of the
social structure. No one foresaw then what was immediately to come; that
England was to make good her loss twice over, that America was to become
the most powerful of nations, that the London disorders were on the
surface merely, and only transient. In Hutchinson's latest
consciousness, every person, every spot, every institution dear to his
heart must have seemed to be overwhelmed in catastrophe. Such was the
end of a life thoroughly dutiful and honorable.[147]

[147] Hosmer's Life of Hutchinson, p. 349.

On the death of Cromwell, his body was buried in Henry VII chapel, and
after the restoration it was disinterred and gibbeted at Tyburn, and
then buried under the gallows, the head being placed on a pike over
Westminster Hall, where Cromwell had Charles I condemned to death. And
now nearly two and one-half centuries since this event occurred a
beautiful monument of Cromwell has been erected by Parliament on the
lawn a few feet from Westminster Hall where the above events took place.
Will the city of Boston ever do likewise and erect a statue to Governor
Hutchinson in some public place as a slight atonement for the obloquy
cast upon his name, the desecration of his family tomb, and as a
recognition of the great services he rendered his native state, for
certainly he was one of the worthiest sons that Massachusetts has ever
produced, and there should be some memorial in the place of his birth,
to record his private virtues, his historical labors, his high station,
his commanding influences, and his sorrows, which have an interest,
which none acquainted with his life can fail to feel.

The following list of estates belonging to Thomas Hutchinson situated
at, and near Boston, taken from him under the Conspiracy and
Confiscation Acts comprises nineteen parcels of land. The state
received for them £98,121, 4s or about $490,000. His mansion house on
the corner of Fleet and Hanover Streets brought £33,500. The Governor
owned other valuable real estate in Rhode Island and other parts of
Massachusetts, particularly in that part now the State of Maine. He was
probably the wealthiest person in the state of Massachusetts at the
commencement of the Revolutionary War. The author is indebted to the
late John T. Hassam, A. M., for the list of Confiscated Estates in
Suffolk County contained in this work, giving the name of the purchaser
at the sale, the Lib. and folio of the record and a brief description of
the confiscated estates. It was originally printed in the proceedings of
the Mass. His. Soc. for May, 1895.

LIST OF GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON'S CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY AND
TO WHOM SOLD.

To Joseph Veasey, Dec. 27, 1779; Lib. 131, fol. 21; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, Fish St. W., land purchased by Thomas
Stephenson N.; passageway E; heirs of William Graves S.

To Samuel Broome, July 24, 1780, Lib. 131, fol. 233; Land, 43 A. 2
qr. 34 r., in Milton, a back lane E., Mr. Ivers and Milton River
N., Stephen Badcock and a brook N.W.; lane to Stephen Badcock S.W.;
road to Milton meeting-house S.E.----Land, 33 A. 1 r., mansion
house and barn in Milton road to Braintree E., heirs of William
Badcock S.E. and S.W., road to Milton meeting-house N.W.----14 A. 3
qr. 3 r. in Milton, road to Braintree S.W., Robert Williams S.E.;
heirs of William Badcock N., Milton River N.E.----Woodland, 48 A. 1
qr. 9 r., in Milton, road by Moses Glover's N.W.; Braintree town
line S.E.; John Bois S.W.; John Sprague N.E.----Tillage land, 17 A.
2 qr. 27 r., and salt marsh, 16 A. 14 r. adjoining, in Dorchester,
lower road from Milton bridge to Dorchester meeting-house W.;
Hopestill Leeds N.E.; John Capen and others E.; Amariah Blake and
the river N., Ebenezer Swift, Daniel Vose and a creek S.----Salt
marsh, 2 A. 3 qr. 9 r., near the Hummucks in Dorchester, Levi
Rounsavel N.; Robert Swan and Madam Belcher S., the river
W.----Salt marsh, 7 A., in Dorchester, Billings Creek S. and W.;
Robert Spurr N.; Henry Leadbetter S.E. and E.----One undivided
third of 8 A. salt marsh in Dorchester, held in common with Timothy
Tucker and Joseph Tucker. Billings Creek S.; Nathan Ford
W.----Woodland, 33 1-2 A. 9 r. in Braintree.

To John Hotty. Aug 8, 1780, Lib. 131, 161, fol. 247; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, Fish St. W., land purchased by Parsons
and Sargeant N.; passageways E. and S.

To Ebenezer Parsons, Daniel Sargent, Feb. 25, 1783; Lib. 137, fol.
95; Land and dwelling-house in Boston, Fish St. W.; passageways N.
and E., land purchased by Thomas Stephenson S.----Land and
dwelling-house, Fish St. W.; land purchased by John Hancock N.;
Thomas Hutchinson E.; land purchased by John Hotty S.----Land,
store, block-maker's shop, and other work places near the above,
passageways S.; W. and E; Thomas Hutchinson N.----Flats, dock,
wharf and stores near the above passage W.: dock N.; sea E.; dock
S.----Flats, dock and wharf adjoining the above-described wharf,
John Brick S.; passageways W. and N.; dock N., the sea E.

To Ebenezer Parsons, Daniel Sargeant, Feb. 25, 1783; Lib. 137, fol.
99; Land and dwelling-houses in Boston, Fish St. W.; land purchased
by said Parsons and Sargeant S.; passage N.; passage E.; land
purchased by said Parsons and Sargeant S.; passage W.; then running
W. and S.

To Thomas Stephenson, Mar. 13, 1783; Lib. 137, fol. 161; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, Fish St. W.; land purchased by Parsons
and Sargent N.; passage E.; land purchased by Joseph Veasey S.

To Enoch Brown, Oct. 14, 1784; Lib. 145, fol. 126; Land and brick
dwelling-house in Boston, Middle St. W.; Fleet St. N.; street from
Clark's Square to Fleet St. E.; Lady Franklin S.

THOMAS HUTCHINSON.

Eldest son of Governor Hutchinson. He was born in Boston in 1740. He
married Oct. 10, 1771, Sarah, daughter of Lieut. Governor Andrew Oliver.
He was Judge of the Probate Court for the County of Suffolk. He was
Mandamus Councillor, and an Andresser of General Gage. He and his family
were in Boston during the blockade, and bombardment. At the evacuation,
they went aboard ship with their two children, when the third child was
born, as they were leaving for England. Dr. Peter Oliver, the second son
of Chief Justice Oliver, refers to this matter in his Diary, as follows:
"We remained blocked up in Boston till the beginning of March, 1776,
when we were ordered to embark. Tommy Hutchinson's family and mine went
aboard the Hyde Pacquet for England, March 25th, 1776, we set sail for
England. The day before we set sail from Nantasket, Tommy's wife was
delivered of a boy which had not a drop of milk during the whole
passage, was much emaciated, and no one thought it would have lived. The
lady well. As to myself, I was sick 21 days without any support; reduced
almost to a skeleton. Seven children on board ship, and the eldest not 6
years old."

The child born aboard ship was baptised Andrew, after its mother's
father, Lieut. Gov. Andrew Oliver. It grew up, married, left children,
was an eminent surgeon, and after a long life, died Dec. 23, 1846, aged
70 years. He was the father of the late Peter Orlando Hutchinson, great
grandson of the Governor who edited the two volumes of the Diary of
Governor Hutchinson, published in 1883. He was a local antiquary, of
local repute, and a gentleman of great kindness of heart. He was a
bachelor, and died at Sidmouth, Devon, Oct. 1st, 1897, aged 87, and was
the last of his generation.

His last words at the end of the second volume, are as follows: "If in
these volumes, I have anywhere said anything of my American friends that
is untrue, or too harsh for the occasion, I regret it should have been
so, and I willingly withdraw it altogether. I need not apologise for any
unkind remarks that may have been made by the Governor, though most
concerned, for he made none; and when they have made reparation for all
the slander and misrepresentation which they have persistently heaped
upon him during the last 120 years, then--we shall be quits. It is time
to bury the hatchet. Farewell."

Thomas Hutchinson, the subject of this sketch, writing to his brother
under date of Nov. 15th, 1788, alluded to the trying position in which
the Loyalists were placed, he says, "We will give a little attention to
a large and suffering body of people whose only crime had been that of
fidelity to the Mother country. Driven out of the land of their
adoption, they fled back to the land of their ancestors, where most of
them were strangers. Some pressed their claims for relief from the
English Government; others applied to the American Courts for recovery
of the estates themselves, while others despairing of success, gave up
everything for lost, and sat down resigned to their fate. Sir Francis
Bernard lost the valuable Island of Mount Desert, and Sir William
Pepperell lost miles of coast line, stretching away from Kittery Point
to Saco, extending miles into the interior."

"These unfortunate people were very difficultly placed--if they had
joined the American party, they would have been Rebels to England, but
when the war was over and they applied for the restitution of their
estates they were told they were Rebels to America."

Writing again under date of 1789, he said: "We proceeded to Exeter, and
I have taken a house at a mile from the town, but in the neighborhood,
the house furnished, and has every convenience about it, with about six
acres of land--mowing, orchard, and garden stocked with fruit trees. I
could have had my house and garden without the land, at £45, and am to
pay £60 per ann. for the whole. The last year my orchard produced 20
hhds of cyder."

Thus the family became settled in a respectable looking old house built
in the Queen Anne style, known as East Wonford near Heavitree church,
where it still stands. The rent appears to be extraordinarily low. He
would not bind himself to a lease, for he still had hopes of returning
to America, but the return was never to be. The Hutchinsons had very
little chance of a favorable hearing in Massachusetts, and their large
fortune there was forever lost to them. The family seems to have been
content with their new home, for in another letter to his brother of May
19, 1791, Thomas says:--"After eighteen months residence, we continue to
think this a very agreeable part of England; and perhaps I could not
have made a better pitch than I have done."

Thomas Hutchinson, son of the Governor, died in 1811, and his wife in
1802. They were deposited in a vault in the middle of Heavitree church.
The church was pulled down in 1843 and a new one erected on the same
site.

Thomas, his eldest son, grandson of the Governor, was born in America in
1772, brought to England by his father in 1776, he was a
Barrister-at-Law, resided during the early years of his career at No. 14
New Boswell Court, Lincoln's Inn, London, and after that in Magdalen
Street, Exeter. He married twice, had three sons and one daughter. He is
buried in the N. W. corner of Heavitree churchyard. A stone with the
following inscription marks the spot: "Underneath this stone Lie the
mortal remains of Thomas Hutchinson, Barrister-at-Law, who departed this
life the 12th of November 1837, aged 65."

Mary Oliver Hutchinson, daughter of Thomas Hutchinson, and granddaughter
of the Governor, was born in America, Oct. 14, 1773, and was brought to
England by her father in 1776, married Captain W. S. Oliver, R. N.,
grandson of Lieut. Governor Andrew Oliver, at Heavitree, in Oct. 1811.
She died at East Tergnmouth, Devon, July 11th, 1833, leaving one son and
two daughters of whom more presently.

William Hutchinson, son of Thomas and grandson of the Governor, was born
in England, June 14, 1778. He entered the church and was pastor for some
time at Heavitree and Colebrook, Devon. He had two sons and three
daughters. Rev. William Hutchinson, died May 3rd, 1816.

ELISHA HUTCHINSON.

Son of Governor Hutchinson, was born Dec. 24, 1745, at Boston. He
graduated at Harvard College in 1762. His wife Mary was the eldest
daughter of Colonel George Watson of Plymouth, Mass. He was the
commercial partner of his brother Thomas. They were the consignees of
one-third of the tea. Their names were given to the East India Company
by a London correspondent, who solicits the consignment for them,
without mentioning their connection with the Governor, although the
historian Bancroft falsely asserts that he had a pecuniary interest in
the shipment, of which there is not the slightest evidence.[148] He
accompanied his father to England in 1774, leaving his wife in America,
with the intention of rejoining her in a few months, but it was three
years before she could join him in England. Having reached his 80th year
he died at Tutbury, June 24, 1824, having had issue three daughters and
two sons. His son John, born Sept. 21, 1793, was perpetual curate of
Blurton near Trentham, Co. Staff. Percentor and Canon of Lichfield,
Editor of Vol. 3 of Gov. Hutchinson Hist. of Mass., in 1828. He married
his cousin Martha Oliver Hutchinson, May 10th, 1836. He died April 27,
1865, at Blurton, having had issue two daughters and one son, John
Rogers, born March 6, 1848, who married Ruth Hombersley, Oct. 19, 1882,
at Kirk Ireton, Derbyshire.

[148] Tea Leaves, p. 324.

FOSTER HUTCHINSON.

Was brother of Governor Hutchinson, and one of the last judges of the
supreme court of Massachusetts. He graduated at Harvard University in
1743. He accepted the appointment of mandamus councillor in 1774 and
soon after was compelled to take refuge in Boston. He was proscribed and
banished and his estates were confiscated. He left Boston at the
evacuation in 1776, and with his family of twelve persons went to
Halifax. He died in Nova Scotia in 1799. His son, Foster, an Assistant
Judge of the Supreme Court of that Colony died in 1815, and his daughter
Abigail deceased at Halifax, July 1843, aged seventy-four years. Foster
and his brother Thomas had a dry goods store in 1765 below the "Swing
Bridge" near what is now the corner of Hanover and Salem streets.

CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO FOSTER HUTCHINSON ET AL IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Ebenezer Parsons, Daniel Sargent, Feb. 25, 1783; Lib. 137, fol.
95; Land and dwelling-house in Boston, Fish St. W.; passageways N.
and E.; land purchased by Thomas Stephenson S.----Land and
dwelling-house, Fish St. W.; land purchased by John Hancock N.;
Thomas Hutchinson E.; land purchased by John Hotty S.----Land,
store, block-maker's shop and other work places near the above,
passageways S.; W. and E.; Thomas Hutchinson N.----Flats, dock,
wharf and stores, near the above, passage W.; dock N.; sea E.; dock
S.----Flats, dock and wharf adjoining the above described wharf,
John Brick S.; passageways W. and N.; dock N.; the sea E.

To John Codman, Jr., Sept. 25, 1783; Lib 140, fol. 4; Land, wharf
and dock in Boston. Town Dock N.; heirs of William Clarke deceased
W.; heirs of Benjamin Andrews S.; passage from the Town Dock to
Green's wharf E.

ELIAKIM HUTCHINSON.

As previously stated, the ancestor of Governor Hutchinson who emigrated
to Boston was William Hutchinson, grandson of the Mayor of Lincoln; he
had a brother Richard in business in London whose son Eliakim also
settled at Boston. There is nothing to show that Richard ever came to
this country, and when William and his wife Anne was expelled from
Boston, the lot which had been granted to him in 1634, now known as the
"Old Corner Bookstore," which then extended to the City Hall lot, was
sold by his son Edward to Richard Hutchinson of London, linen-draper.
This was the father of Eliakim. The subject of this notice was the great
grandson of the emigrant. He was born in 1711 and married Elizabeth,
eldest daughter of Governor Shirley. He was a member of the Governor's
Council and Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas for Suffolk
County. In 1764 he purchased from his father-in-law "Shirley Hall," the
finest estate in Roxbury. In 1746 Governor Shirley bought thirty-three
acres of land and erected this palatial mansion on it. Its oaken frame
and other materials, even the bricks, it is said, were brought from
England, at a vast expense. It has been removed from its original
location, and is now occupied as a tenement house, yet, notwithstanding
the vicissitudes it has undergone, it is extremely well preserved. One
of the peculiarities of "Shirley Place," as the governor styled it, is
its double front. From the upper windows a fine view is obtained of the
city, harbor and islands. Each front was approached by a flight of stone
steps flanked by an iron railing of an antique and rustic pattern.
Entering the northern or proper front, you find yourself in a spacious
hall of grand proportions. To the right a broad staircase leads to a
balcony extending around to the left where two doors open into the guest
chambers in which Washington, Lafayette, Franklin, Daniel Webster and
many other celebrated men have from time to time been accommodated. From
the balcony the musicians entertained the company at the table in the
hall. The carved balusters around the staircase and gallery are of three
different patterns, and the rail surmounting them is inlaid at the top.
The base of the balustrade and staircase, is also adorned with a carved
running vine. To the right and left of the hall are doors leading into
the reception room, parlors, etc. Upon great occasions the two halls
were thrown into one by opening the folding doors between. Washington
paid a visit to Governor Shirley in March 1756, to relate to him the
circumstances of his son's death who was killed at the battle of the
Monongahela. In a letter to his friend and patron Lord Fairfax, he says,
"I have had the honor of being introduced to several governors,
especially Mr. Shirley, whose character and appearance, have perfectly
charmed me." The next time Washington visited "Shirley Place" it was not
as a guest, but as an enemy.

Governor Shirley was a man of great industry and ability, thoroughly
able, enterprising, and deservedly popular. He was a strong advocate of
prerogative and in 1756 advised the ministry to impose a stamp tax in
America. In February, 1755, he was made a major-general, with
superintendence of military operations in the Northern Colonies. It was
then, after the disastrous defeat and death of General Braddock, that
Major Washington came to report it to him, and he was superseded both in
his command and his government, and ordered to England. Triumphantly
vindicating himself from the charges against him, he was made a
lieutenant-general in 1759, and was governor of the Bahamas from 1758 to
June 1769 when he returned to Roxbury, residing with his son-in-law in
the mansion built by him until his death, March 24, 1771, and was
interred in the burying ground of King's Chapel, which edifice he caused
to be built while governor.

Judge Eliakim Hutchinson died in June, 1775. He had a high standing at
the bar, being well versed in his profession, and enjoyed a good
reputation as a general scholar, and as a man of high moral and
religious principles. He was early imbued with principles favorable to
the government, but was never a bitter, nor even a warm partisan.

His patrimonial inheritance, aided by industry enabled him to acquire a
handsome fortune, one of the largest in the province. He adhered to
government from the beginning of the controversy, but the moderation of
his conduct, his superior fitness for his office, and the confidence in
his integrity, secured him public favor through the stormy period, which
commenced soon after his appointment to the Governor's Council. But this
was an unpardonable offence in the eyes of the "Sons of Despotism." It
was however unsolicited, unexpected and accepted with great reluctance,
and although he died before actual hostilities had scarcely commenced,
yet his large and valuable estate was confiscated. That portion of it in
Suffolk County was inventoried at £21,400, Shirley Place with eighty
acres of land was valued at £12,000. During the siege of Boston the
mansion was used as a barracks by the Revolutionary troops and was
greatly injured thereby.

It was purchased from the State by John Read, and then passed through
many hands, and in 1819 was purchased by Governor Eustis, who passed
the remainder of his days there, dying in 1825. Among the guests that
accepted his hospitality was John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel
Webster, Aaron Burr, and John Calhoun.

Judge Hutchinson's wife left Boston at the evacuation, and went to
England. She died at London in 1790.

WILLIAM HUTCHINSON, son of Eliakim Hutchinson, graduated at Harvard
College in 1762. He went to the Bahamas when his grandfather Shirley
became Governor of same. In 1771 William Hutchinson was appointed Judge
of the Admiralty Court of the Bahama Islands. He died in England in
1790.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO ELIAKIM HUTCHINSON IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To William McNeill, Archibald McNeill. Feb. 21, 1782; Lib. 134,
fol. 27; Land in Boston, Cow Lane E., Howe's ropewalk S.; W. and
S.; Milk St. W.; Palmer's pasture N.

To Edward Compton Howe, June 17, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 22; Land in
Boston, Milk St. N., Mr. McNeil E. and S.; McNeil's ropewalk E.;
Cow Lane S.; ropewalk of Ferister and Torrey W.

To John Read, Sept. 9, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 196; Land 37A., in
Roxbury, bounded by the road from Roxbury to Dorchester, the brook
and salt water creek between Roxbury and Dorchester, the way to the
clay pit and by the lands of John Howes, John Humphrey, John
Williams, Aaron White, James White, Caleb Williams, Samuel Warren,
Joseph Clapp, Isaac Williams and Benjamin Williams.----Woodland 13
A., in Roxbury, Elijah Wales S.; widow Bourne and heirs E.; Noah
Davis W. and N.----Right of William Shirley Esq., to the clay pits
above mentioned called the Town of Roxbury clay pits.----23 1-2 A.
in Roxbury, John Williams N.; Aaron White, Samuel Cheney, John
Hawes, widow Warren and heirs of Joseph Warren W.; Nehemiah Munroe
S; town way from Dorchester brook to Braintree road E.----Pasture
land, 19 A., in Roxbury, Daniel Holbrook N.; Braintree road W.;
James White S.W.; said town way S. and E.----22 A., in Roxbury,
said town way N.W.; John Williams and ---- Swan S.; John Humphrey
E. John Williams N.E.----Salt marsh and upland, 20 A., in Roxbury,
heirs of Benjamin Williams S.W.; town creek between Roxbury and
Dorchester S.E.; Joseph Curtis N.

To John Lucas, Edward Tuckerman. Oct. 4. 1782; Lib. 136, fol. 22;
Land in Boston, on Dock Square and Cooper's Alley, bounded by lands
of Thomas Green, Joshua Blanchard, widow Apthorp, John Newell,
William Greenleaf, Jonathan Simpson and heirs of Thomas Young.

To Nathan Spear, March 1. 1783; Lib. 137, fol. 131; Land in Boston,
passageway from the Town Dock to Green's wharf W.; Jonathan
Williams, William Hyslop, Nathaniel Correy, Alexander Hill, heirs
of John Gould, of Anthony Stoddard, and of John Walker deceased N.;
the end of the wharf E.; the dock between said wharf and Green's
wharf S.

To Francis Bigelow, April 3, 1783; Lib. 137 fol. 260; Land in
Boston on Milk St.; bounded by a passageway and by land of said
Bigelow, said Hutchinson and Mr. Bourne.

To Joseph Russell, July 12, 1783; Lib. 139. fol. 75; Land in Boston
near Fort Hill, Gridley's Lane S.; Cow Lane E.; land of Town of
Boston and of heirs of Andrew Oliver N.; Thomas Palmer W.

To Thomas Green, Feb. 18, 1784: Lib 141. fol. 136; Land in Boston.
Dock Square S.; Eliakim Hutchinson W.; Mr. Blanchard N.; Thomas
Green E.; N. and E.

To Thomas Walley, Aug. 28, 1784: Lib. 144. fol. 172; Land and
buildings in Boston, Cross St. S.; Thomas Walley W.; widow Holmes
N.; Samuel Ellinwood E.

To Samuel Emmons, Jr., Victor Blair. Dec. 24, 1792; Lib. 174. fol.
183; Land in Boston, Milk St. and Cow Lane, between a highway and
ropewalk of Farreter and Torrey.

To Jeffery Richardson, May 17, 1793; Lib. 176, fol. 8; Land in
Boston. Cow Lane S.E.; Samuel Emmons N.E.; Thomas Davis S.W.;
extending towards Milk St. N.W.

To Jeffery Richardson, Dec. 15, 1795; Lib. 182, fol. 27;
Confirmation of above.

To Martin Brimmer, Apr. 13, 1796;, Lib. 183, fol. 37; Flats and
wharf in Boston, Minot's T N.; flats towards the town W.; wharf and
flats of William Davis S.; the channel E.

[Illustration: ANDREW OLIVER.

Born in Boston, 1707. Lieutenant Governor 1770-4. Died in Boston, March,
1774.]

ANDREW OLIVER.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 1770-1774.

The Oliver family are among the most prominent of the early colonial
families. Thomas Oliver came from Bristol in 1632. He was one of the
founders, and Elder of the First Church in Boston.[149] His son Peter
born in England in 1622 and died in Boston in 1670, was a prominent
merchant, and commander of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company
in 1669 and was one of the founders of the Old South Church. Peter's son
Daniel married Elizabeth, the daughter of Andrew Belcher, who was the
father of Governor Jonathan Belcher.

[149] He lived on Washington Street; his lot extended north from Spring
Lane, including the head of Water Street.

ANDREW OLIVER, son of Daniel Oliver, a member of the Council, and
brother of Peter Oliver, the Chief Justice. He graduated at Harvard
College in 1724. He was a representative from Boston, member of the
council and Secretary of the Province. In 1765, soon after receiving the
appointment of Stamp Collector, without his solicitation, he not
approving of the Act, he became very unpopular. The rough population
which abounded about the wharves and shipyards, whose movements were
directed by persons of higher rank and larger views of mischief, grew
riotous, and with the usual want of discrimination shown by mobs, were
not slow to lift their hands against even their best friends. The houses
of the Custom and Admiralty officials were attacked, which culminating
in an extraordinary outrage against Andrew Oliver, which led John Adams
to exclaim, "Has not the blind undistinguishing rage of the rabble done
that gentleman irreparable injustice"?[150] He was hung in effigy, a
drunken crowd carrying the effigy through the Town House, even while the
Governor and Council were in session. The building he had fitted for the
transaction of business was destroyed. Taking a portion of it for a
fire, the mob proceeded to Fort Hill where Mr. Oliver lived and burned
his effigy in a bonfire before his home; they then went to work on the
barn, fence, garden, and dwelling house. After breaking all the windows
they entered the house and damaged and destroyed his furniture,
completely wrecking this beautiful mansion. The business being finished,
the "Sons of Despotism" proceeded to the Province-house, gave three
huzzas and dispersed. On the day following the riot, Mr. Oliver resigned
his office. In writing to a friend he says, "I was persuaded to yield in
order to prevent what was coming on the second night." This action of
the mob caused intense suffering both to himself and family.[151]

[150] John Adams' Diary, Aug. 15, 1765.

[151] See page 40 for account of the riot.

In 1770, Mr. Oliver was appointed Lieutenant Governor. In 1773, several
letters which he had written to persons in England, and which were
obtained surreptitiously by Franklin and sent to Boston, created much
excitement and abuse of the writers.[152] In addition to the assaults
at home, he was accused in England by Arthur Lee who signed himself
Junius Americanus with the grave crime of perjury. "Scarce any man ever
had a more scrupulous and sacred regard for truth, and yet, to such a
degree did the malignant spirit of party prevail as to cause this man in
the public papers in England, to bring against him a charge of perjury.
The Council of Massachusetts Bay, from whose votes and resolves this
writer attempted to support the charge, by vote which they caused to be
printed, repaired the injury as well as they could, but a consciousness
of his innocence and integrity, however, together with the reproaches
most injuriously cast upon him by the resolves of the council and house,
in which he was treated as the determined enemy of the liberties of his
country, the interest whereof according to the best of his judgment
(which was much superior to that of his most virulent persecutors) he
always had at heart, affected his spirits and evidently accelerated his
death."[153] Mr. Oliver was now advanced in life, and unable to endure
the disquiet and misery caused by his position in affairs at so troubled
a period, soon sunk under the burden. After a short illness he died at
Boston in March 1774, aged 67. By the testimony of foes as well as
friends, he was a most useful and estimable man, modest, indefatigable,
well-cultured, soundly sensible. He had been the most beloved member of
a family greatly beloved, and no charge could be brought against him
except that in his political principles he sided with the Government. He
was a liberal benefactor to his ALMA MATER in books, ancient
manuscripts, and anatomical preparations. At his funeral the mob was
again in evidence. The House of Representatives withdrew from the
procession because a certain punctilio was neglected. The mob of Boston
ran after the funeral train hooting and in an unseemly way hilarious,
gave three cheers when the mourners came out of the graveyard, his
brother the Chief Justice, intrepid as he was, did not dare to be
present, because his life was threatened. Had he died before this
violent spirit was raised, he would have been revered by all orders and
degrees of men in the Province.

[152] See page 162, 163 concerning Hutchinson and other letters
abstracted by Franklin.

[153] Curwin's Journal, pp. 462, 463.

He was a man of large wealth for those days. The inventory of his real
estate was as follows:

The Mansion House and Buildings situated near Fort Hill.

The Brick School House near Griffin's Wharf.

A Warehouse on Long Wharf.

A right in said Wharf.

The Buildings and Land etc., on Oliver's Dock.

A Brick House on Union Street with a small Wooden Shop adjoining and
Land belonging thereto.

A Dwelling House and about three Acres of Land at Dorchester.

[Illustration: ANDREW OLIVER MANSION, WASHINGTON STREET, DORCHESTER.

Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, 1770-74.]

The last named building is the only one now in existence, and the
following description of it at the time of writing, may be interesting
to the reader.

Lieut. Governor Oliver's country house in Dorchester is situated on the
corner of Washington and Park streets. In the old deeds it is described
as being "On the Road leading to Milton." The house appears the same as
in the olden times. Not one whit has the estate changed outside of the
interior of the great house. The broad acres that surround it still
spread out before and behind it, the same drives are lined with great
English Elms as in the old days; no finer old mansion house of the
colonial period is to be found in New England, none is richer in
memories of olden times. Here Lieut. Gov. Andrew Oliver entertained the
finest of the land, where gentlemen in powdered wigs and ladies in fine
old silks used to dance the minuet, and where the negro slaves used to
be happy in their own way. It was sold by John J. Spooner, administrator
of the estate of Andrew Oliver, to Col. Benjamin Hichborn, and was used
by him as a summer residence. In 1817 it went into the hands of his
brother, Samuel Hichborn, who entertained there Gen. Lafayette, and
Presidents Jefferson, and Munroe. For many years it was owned and
occupied by the famous chocolate manufacturer, Walter Baker. At the
decease of Mrs. Baker, it was purchased by the Colonial Club who now
occupy it as a club house.

THOMAS OLIVER.

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, 1774-1775.

Thomas Oliver was born in Antigua and graduated at Harvard College in
1753, he was the son of Robert Oliver, a wealthy planter from Antigua
who settled in Dorchester. His parentage is unknown, there were Olivers
in Dorchester as early as 1637, and he may have descended from
them.[154] He brought with him from Antigua his wife Anne and one son,
Thomas, the subject of this notice. He purchased a number of pieces of
land of which 30 acres had been the property of Comfort Foster, on this
homestead lot he built in 1745 a fine mansion, on what is now known as
Edward Everett square. Tradition records, that he brought many slaves
with him, and when they were given wheelbarrows in which to carry the
dirt, in ignorance of their proper use they carried them upon their
heads, in just the same manner as the writer has seen negroes at the
present time carry burdens on their heads on the "Pope's Head" estate in
Antigua where these slaves came from. In Dorchester Robert Oliver had
born to him sons, Isaac and Richard, and a daughter, Elizabeth, who
became the wife of John Vassall, Jr. He died December 20, 1762. "The
Post Boy" contained the following brief obituary: "Thursday morning
last died at his seat in Dorchester, in the 63d year of his age, Col.
Robert Oliver. A Gentleman of extensive Acquaintance, remarkable for his
Hospitality to All, was kind to the Poor, and in his Military Character,
beloved and esteem'd, his Family and Neighbours, have met with a great
Loss in this Bereavement; His Remains are to be interr'd Tomorrow at 3
o'clock in the Family Tomb at Dorchester." About two years before this
Thomas, his eldest son, had married Elizabeth, daughter of Col. John
Vassall of Cambridge, making a double connection by marriage between
these two families. Closely allied with them by marriage were the
Royalls, all three families being probably originally of New England,
then resident in Antigua and Jamaica, and returning here to enjoy their
acquired wealth. All three families built houses which have lasted to
our time: Royall in Medford, Vassall in Cambridge and Oliver in
Dorchester.

[154] Sabine says Dorchester. Dorchester Record says Thomas Oliver, the
son of Robert Oliver, Esqr., and Ann, his wife, was born Jan. 5, 1733-4
at ye Island of Antigua.

Thomas Oliver remained for several years in Dorchester after his
father's death. He inherited a large estate from his grandfather, James
Brown, and from his great-uncle, Robert Oliver. He then began life under
the most favorable auspices. His father-in-law was John Vassall of
Cambridge, who married the daughter of Lieutenant-Governor Spencer
Phips. Being a man of fortune he did not mingle in the stormy political
contests of that period until a day fatal to his peace and quiet, when
he accepted the office of Lieutenant-Governor. He has been represented
as a mild, peaceable person, and gentlemanly in deportment. In 1766 he
removed to Cambridge and built the fine mansion recently occupied by
James Russell Lowell. He sold his Dorchester mansion to Richard
Lechmere, who was the uncle by marriage of Oliver's wife, he having
married May Phips, whose sister Elizabeth married Col. John Vassall, who
died in 1741. In 1771 the mansion passed into the hands of John Vassall,
a son of the Colonel, who was a Loyalist, and his property was
confiscated. It was sold by the State to John Williams; it afterwards
passed into the possession of Oliver Everett in 1792, and here his son
Edward Everett was born in 1794. The house was torn down in 1900 and the
square in front of it, previously known as the Five Corners, was named
Edward Everett Square. On the opposite side of the square on a part of
the same estate in a small park is situated a house built by one of the
earliest settlers, about 1640, owned and occupied by the Dorchester
Historical Society.

Thomas Oliver was the last Royal Lieutenant-Governor and President of
the Council of Massachusetts. He received his appointment from the Crown
in 1774, after the decease of Andrew Oliver, who was of a totally
distinct family; it is understood that the King thought he was
appointing Chief Justice Peter Oliver, a brother of Andrew, a much more
active man in the politics of the times.

[Illustration: THOMAS OLIVER AND JOHN VASSALL MANSION, DORCHESTER.

It stood on the north side of Edward Everett square. A bronze tablet
marks its site. Edward Everett was born here April 11, 1794. (see p.
183.)]

His appointment as Councillor was by the King's writ of mandamus which
was held, was contrary to the charter. This made him an object of
popular resentment. He detailed the course pursued against him, in
consequence of being sworn into office in the following narrative dated
September 7, 1774, which as throwing light on the transaction of the
times is inserted entire:

"Early in the morning" (of September 2d), said he, "a number of
inhabitants of Charlestown called at my house to acquaint me that a
large body of people from several towns in the county were on their way
coming down to Cambridge; that they were afraid some bad consequences
might ensue, and begged I would go out to meet them, and endeavor to
prevail on them to return. In a very short time, before I could prepare
myself to go, they appeared in sight. I went out to them, and asked the
reasons of their appearance in that manner; they respectfully answered,
they 'came peaceably to inquire into their grievances, not with design
to hurt any man.' I perceived they were landholders of the neighboring
towns, and was thoroughly persuaded they would do no harm. I was desired
to speak to them; I accordingly did, in such a manner as I thought best
calculated to quiet their minds. They thanked me for my advice, said
they were no mob, but sober, orderly people, who would commit no
disorders; and then proceeded on their way. I returned to my house. Soon
after they had arrived on the Common at Cambridge, a report arose that
the troops were on their march from Boston; I was desired to go and
intercede with his Excellency to prevent their coming. From principles
of humanity to the country, from a general love of mankind, and from
persuasions that they were orderly people, I readily undertook it; and
is there a man on earth, who, placed in my circumstances, could have
refused it? I am informed I am censured for having advised the general
to a measure which may reflect on the troops, as being too inactive upon
such a general disturbance; but surely such a reflection on a military
man can never arise but in the minds of such as are entirely ignorant of
these circumstances. Wherever this affair is known, it must also be
known it was my request the troops should not be sent, but to return; as
I passed the people I told them, of my own accord, I would return and
let them know the event of my application (not, as was related in the
papers, to confer with them on my own circumstances as President of the
Council). On my return I went to the Committee, I told them no troops
had been ordered, and from the account I had given his Excellency, none
would be ordered. I was then thanked for the trouble I had taken in the
affair, and was just about to leave them to their own business, when one
of the Committee observed, that as I was present it might be proper to
mention a matter they had to propose to me. It was, that although they
had a respect for me as Lieutenant-Governor of the Province, they could
wish I would resign my seat. I told them I took it very unkind that they
should mention anything on that subject; and among other reasons I
urged, that, as Lieutenant-Governor, I stood in a particular relation to
the Province in general, and therefore could not hear anything upon that
matter from a particular county. I was then pushed to know if I would
resign when it appeared to be the sense of the Province in general; I
answered, that when all the other Councillors had resigned, if it
appeared to be the sense of the Province I should resign, I would
submit. They then called for a vote upon the subject, and, by a very
great majority, voted my reasons satisfactory. I inquired whether they
had full power to act for the people, and being answered in the
affirmative, I desired they would take care to acquaint them of their
votes, that I should have no further application made to me on that
head. I was promised by the Chairman, and a general assent, it should be
so. This left me entirely clear and free from any apprehensions of a
farther application upon this matter, and perhaps will account for that
confidence which I had in the people, and for which I may be censured.
Indeed, it is true, the event proves I had too much; but reasoning from
events yet to come, is a kind of reasoning I have not been used to. In
the afternoon I observed large companies pouring in from different
parts; I then began to apprehend they would become unmanageable, and
that it was expedient to go out of their way. I was just going into my
carriage when a great crowd advanced, and in a short time my house was
surrounded by three or four thousand people, and one quarter part in
arms. I went to the front door, where I was met by five persons, who
acquainted me they were a Committee from the people to demand a
resignation of my seat at the Board. I was shocked at their ingratitude
and false dealings, and reproached them with it. They excused themselves
by saying the people were dissatisfied with the vote of the Committee,
and insisted on my signing a paper they had prepared for that purpose. I
found that I had been ensnared, and endeavored to reason them out of
such ungrateful behavior. They gave such answers, that I found it was in
vain to reason longer with them; I told them my first considerations
were for my honor, the next for my life; that they might put me to death
or destroy my property, but I would not submit. They began then to
reason in their turn, urging the power of the people, and the danger of
opposing them. All this occasioned a delay, which enraged part of the
multitude, who, pressing into my back yard, denounced vengeance to the
foes of their liberties. The Committee endeavored to moderate them, and
desired them to keep back, for they pressed up to my windows, which then
were opened: I could from thence hear them at a distance calling out for
a determination, and, with their arms in their hands, swearing they
would have my blood if I refused. The Committee appeared to be anxious
for me, still I refused to sign; part of the populace growing furious,
and the distress of my family who heard their threats, and supposed them
just about to be executed, called up feelings which I could not
suppress; and nature, ready to find new excuses, suggested a thought of
the calamities I should occasion if I did not comply: I found myself
giving way, and began to cast about to contrive means to come off with
honor. I proposed they should call in the people to take me out by
force, but they said the people were enraged, and they would not answer
for the consequences. I told them I would take the risk, but they
refused to do it. Reduced to this extremity, I cast my eyes over the
paper, with a hurry of mind and conflict of passion which rendered me
unable to remark the contents, and wrote beneath the following words:
'My house at Cambridge being surrounded by four thousand people, in
compliance with their commands, I sign my name, THOMAS OLIVER,' The five
persons took it, carried it to the people, and, I believe, used their
endeavors to get it accepted. I had several messages that the people
would not accept it with those additions, upon which I walked into the
court-yard, and declared I would do no more, though they should put me
to death. I perceived that those persons who formed the first body which
came down in the morning, consisting of the landholders of the
neighboring towns, used their utmost endeavors to get the paper received
with my additions; and I must, in justice to them, observe, that, during
the whole transaction, they had never invaded my enclosures, but still
were not able to protect me from other insults which I received from
those who were in arms. From this consideration I am induced to quit the
country, and seek protection in the town."

[Illustration: REVOLUTIONISTS MARCHING TO CAMBRIDGE.

To oblige Lieutenant-Governor Thomas Oliver to resign from the Council
Board.]

The document presented to Mr. Oliver on the 2d of September, and which
he signed, was as follows: "I, Thomas Oliver, being appointed by his
Majesty to a seat at the Council Board, upon, and in conformity to the
late Act of Parliament, entitled an 'Act for the better regulation of
the Province of Massachusetts Bay,' which being a manifest infringement
of the Charter rights and privileges of this people, I do hereby, in
conformity to the commands of the body of this county now convened, most
solemnly renounce and resign my seat at said unconstitutional Board, and
hereby firmly promise and engage, as a man of honor and a Christian,
that I never will hereafter, upon any terms whatsoever, accept a seat at
said Board on the present novel and oppressive plan of Government." To
this, the original form, he added the words above recited. Judge
Danforth and Judge Lee, who were also Mandamus Councillors and Mr.
Phipps, the sheriff, and Mr. Mason, clerk of the county, were compelled
to submit to the same body, and make written resignations.

Governor Oliver, as stated by himself, went into Boston, and made
assurances both to General Gage and to the Admiral on the station, which
prevented a body of troops from being sent to disperse the large body of
people who assembled at Cambridge on this occasion; and to these
assurances it was owing, undoubtedly, that the day passed without
bloodshed. But for the peaceable demeanor of those whom he met in the
morning,--the landholders of the neighboring towns,--the first collision
between the King's troops and the inhabitants of Massachusetts, would
have occurred, very likely, at Cambridge, and not at Lexington. A
detachment was sent to the former town the day before, to bring off some
pieces of cannon, and from this circumstance arose, principally, the
proceedings related by Governor Oliver. Indignant because the "redcoats"
had been sent upon such an errand, thousands from the surrounding
country assembled in the course of the day, (September 2d.) armed with
guns, sticks, and other weapons; and when the Lieutenant-Governor's
promise on his return from Boston, rendered it certain that they would
not be opposed by the troops, they exacted from every official who
lived at Cambridge full compliance with their demands, as has been
stated.

From this period Governor Oliver lived in Boston, until March, 1776,
when at the evacuation he accompanied the Royal Army to Halifax, and
took passage thence to England.

His mansion near Mt. Auburn is the house in which he resided at the time
he was mobbed by four thousand Disunionists. When Benedict Arnold with
his Connecticut Company arrived at Cambridge just after the fight at
Lexington, they were quartered in this house. After Bunker Hill the
house became a hospital and the dead were buried in the opposite field.
The mansion was afterwards the residence of Governor Gerry, and at a
later period was owned and occupied by Prof. James Russell Lowell, which
made it still more famous under the name of "Elmwood."

He was proscribed and banished in 1778 and in the year following was
included in the Conspiracy Act, and his large estate confiscated. Though
he forfeited his estates in Massachusetts, he was better situated
financially than most of his fellow sufferers, for he was wealthy from
his professions in the West Indies, still owned by his descendants. He
was a studious man and lived in retirement in England. He died at
Bristol, Nov. 29, 1815, aged 82, and left six daughters.

PETER OLIVER.

CHIEF JUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Peter Oliver, son of Daniel Oliver and brother of Andrew Oliver, the
Lieutenant Governor, born in 1713, married Mary, daughter of William
Clark. His son Peter, Jr., married Sarah, daughter of Governor
Hutchinson. Peter Oliver, Sr., graduated from Harvard College in 1730.
He received the degree of L.L. D. He was appointed to the supreme bench
of the province, September 15, 1756.

An affair happened at the close of the year 1773, which drove Adams and
all his factions into madness. It was a grant from the King of a salary
to the judges of the Supreme Court. The Assembly had endeavoured to keep
the judges in absolute dependence upon their humor and because they
found them rather too firm to coincide with their views in the
subversion of government, they made them the object of their resentment.
The judges of the Court had the shortest allowance from the General
Assembly of any publick officers, even their Doorkeeper had a large
stipend. The judges' travel on their circuits were from 1100 to 1500
miles in a year. Their circuit business engrossed seven months of the
year during the extremes of heat and cold in a severe climate. For all
their service, the highest grant made to them was £120 sterling per
year, and it had been much less; the Chief Justice had £30 sterling
more.

His Majesty taking the cases of the judges into consideration, and from
his known justice and benevolence, ordered their salaries to be paid out
of his revenues in America, such salaries as would keep them above want,
and below envy. The judges upon hearing of His Majesty's intention of
such a grant had agreed to accept it, but four of them who lived at and
near the focus of tarring and feathering, the town of Boston flinched in
the day of battle, they were so pelted with soothings one day, and with
curses and threatenings the next, that they prudentially gave the point
up. The Chief Justice was now left alone in the combat, his brethren had
but lately been seated on the Bench. He had been 17 years in the
service, and had sunk more than £2000 sterling in it. He had offered not
to accept of the grant (if His Majesty would permit him to do so),
provided the Assembly would reimburse him one-half of his loss in their
service, and for this he would resign his seat on the Bench. The Chief
Justice very luckily lived at Middleborough, about 30 miles from Boston,
or perhaps he would have followed suit of his brethren in giving up the
King's grant. A message was sent to him by the Lower House signed
"Samuel Adams, Clerk," requiring him to make explicit answer whether he
would accept of the King's grant, or of their grant. He replied that he
should accept the King's grant. Nothing less than destruction now
awaited him. Col. Gardner, who was afterwards killed at Bunker Hill,
declared in the General Assembly, that he himself would drag the Chief
Justice from the Bench, if he should sit upon it.

The Assembly voted that he had rendered himself obnoxious to the people,
as an enemy, and immediately presented a petition for his removal.
Articles of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors were exhibited,
which Gov. Hutchinson refused to countenance. The grand jury at
Worcester on April 19th following, presented to the court a written
refusal to serve under the Chief Justice, considering it illegal for him
to preside until brought to answer to the above mentioned charges. He
became a refugee in 1775, and died at Birmingham, England, in October
1791, aged 79.[155] Of the five judges of the Superior Court of
Massachusetts at the commencement of the Revolution, four remained
loyal, viz., Peter Oliver, Edmund Trowbridge, Foster Hutchinson, and
William Browne. The Revolutionary member of the Court was William
Cushing. Judges at this time wore swords, ermine robes, etc., while on
the Bench.

[155] Curwin's Journal, p. 516.

DR. PETER OLIVER. Second son of Chief Justice Oliver, of Massachusetts,
graduated at Harvard University in 1761. He dwelt at Middleborough,
Plymouth County. He had practised in Scituate in early life, was one of
the eighteen country gentlemen who were driven into Boston and who were
Addressers of General Gage in 1775. He was proscribed and banished in
1778, and became a refugee in England, where he died at Shrewsbury, in
Sept. 1822, aged eighty-one.

DANIEL OLIVER, son of Chief Justice Oliver, a learned and accomplished
lawyer of Worcester County, graduated at Harvard College in 1762. A
refugee loyalist of the Revolution, he died at Ashted, Warwickshire, May
6, 1826, aged 82. His father was an antiquarian, and copied with his own
hand Hubbard's manuscript History of New England, which the son refused
the loan of to the Massachusetts Historical Society for publication in
their Collection.[156]

[156] Curwin's Journal, p. 510.

Sabine says that it was Doctor Oliver who refused to lend his copy or at
least to permit a transcript of such parts of it as were missing in the
American manuscript. In consequence, we have "Hubbard" mutilated at the
beginning, and at the end. At this time, 1814, when the Massachusetts
Historical Society with the aid of the Legislature desired to publish
that work, there was a very bitter feeling towards the United States on
account of the war at that time existing between the two countries.

ANDREW OLIVER of Salem, son of Lieutenant Governor Oliver, graduated at
Harvard College in 1749. Studied law. Was often a representative to the
assembly and a judge of the Court of Common Pleas. He was one of the
founders of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of
the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia; he was considered
one of the best scholars of his day, and possessed fine talents. Judge
Oliver was never fond of public life, but ardently attached to his books
and friends. He was honored with a commission of mandamus councillor,
which he declined. He married Mary, daughter of Chief Justice Lynde, and
many of his descendants are now living here, for although Judge Oliver
was a loyalist, he was the only member of his family that was not driven
out of his country in consequence of the Revolution.

PETER OLIVER of Salem, the son of Lieutenant Governor Andrew Oliver, was
an Addresser of Gage in 1775 and was proscribed and banished in 1778. He
became a surgeon in the British Army, and died at London in April, 1795.
His widow afterwards married Admiral Sir John Knight, and died in 1839.

BRINLEY SYLVESTER OLIVER, another son of Andrew Oliver, graduated at
Harvard in 1774. Later became a surgeon in the British service; was also
purser on the Culloden at the battle of the Nile. He died in 1828.

[Illustration: SIR FRANCES BERNARD

Born in 1712 at Brightwell England. Governor of Massachusetts from 1760
to 1769. Died in England June 16, 1779. From Copley's painting in
Fiske's American Revolution.]

A third son, WILLIAM SANFORD OLIVER, in 1776 accompanied the Royal Army
to Halifax. He settled at St. John, New Brunswick, at the peace, and was
the first Sheriff of the county. His official papers are dated at Parr
or Parr-town, by which names St. John was then known. In 1792, he held
the office of Marshal of the Court of Vice-Admiralty of New Brunswick.
At the time of his death, he was Sheriff of the County of St. John, and
Treasurer of the Colony. He died at St. John in 1813, aged 62. His son,
William Sanford Oliver, was a grantee of St. John in 1783, but left New
Brunswick about 1806, and entered the Royal Navy. He rose to the
position of Captain and was married at Heavitree, in October, 1811, to
Mary Oliver Hutchinson, the daughter of Thomas Hutchinson, Jr., who
was brought to England in 1770 by her father and mother, when she was
but three years of age. He was put on the retired list in 1844, and died
in England the next year, aged 71.

SIR FRANCIS BERNARD.

GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS FROM 1760 TO 1769.

Sir Francis Bernard was descended from Godfrey Bernard of Wansford in
Yorkshire, who in the 13th century was a large landowner, whose clearly
defined armorial bearings were the first of the family entered in the
Heralds College.

Francis, the only child of the Rev. Francis Bernard was baptized July
12th, 1712, in the church of Brightwell in Berkshire. He was unfortunate
in losing his father three years later. He became a scholar of St.
Peter's College in 1725, and was admitted as a student to Christ Church,
Oxford, later. In 1733 he entered himself a member of the Middle Temple
and was called to the Bar in 1737, and soon after settled at Lincoln as
a provincial counsel. Four years later he married Amelia, daughter of
Stephen Offley, Esq., of Norton Hill, Derbyshire. In 1744 he was elected
Steward of the City of Lincoln and Deputy Recorder of Boston. In 1745 he
was appointed Receiver-General of the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln. In
1750 he was admitted Procter of the Consistory Court of the Diocese. The
years that Francis Bernard spent at Lincoln were probably some of the
happiest in his life. He was fortunate in his domestic relations, was
doing well in his profession, and his many accomplishments which were
always at the service of his friends, rendered him a general favorite in
society.

In 1758 Mr. Bernard decided to seek a larger field for the support of
his now large family. He was on intimate terms with the second Viscount
Barrington, and his brothers and sisters; they were his wife's first
cousins. It was thus through his influence that Francis Bernard received
the office of Governor of New Jersey. The new world afforded an opening
for his sons which meant much to the father. Mr. and Mrs. Bernard and
four of their children left England in April, 1758. On his arrival in
New Jersey, he entered into negotiations with the Indians. The war at
the time raged between England and France rendering the positions of the
Indians peculiarly important. By his address and tact he conciliated the
Indians, and kept them steadfast in their allegiance to England,
Governor Pownall of Massachusetts being appointed to South Carolina. Mr.
Bernard was appointed as his successor. His residence in New Jersey was
remembered as a time of happiness by the governor and his wife. His life
was gladdened by a sense of the good he was able to achieve, and he was
hopeful for the future, the page written by Thomas Bernard, his son, of
this period reads like a pleasant fairy tale, but it was soon ended.
Notwithstanding the supposed indignity offered to the colony of
Massachusetts by the appointment of three officers of State by the
Crown, the Constitution remained exceedingly democratic. Thomas Bernard
gives a sketch of its leading features in which he depicts the colony as
forming one of the freest communities in the world.

Governor Bernard reached Boston August 2nd, 1760. He was received with
great parade and ceremony. At Dedham he was met by Lieutenant-Governor
Hutchinson, several of the Council, and Brigadier-General Isaac Royal
and the troops escorted him to his residence at the Province House in
Boston. The Militia was drawn up in the main streets, and salutes were
fired from all the forts and ships in the harbor, and the Governor and
his family were entertained at a great dinner at Fanueil Hall, was then
escorted to the State House, and to the Kings Chapel where the Governors
were in the habit of attending.

Governor Bernard's nine years' administration in Massachusetts was
during one of the most interesting periods in American history. When he
arrived at Boston he found affairs on an apparently peaceful and
prosperous footing. He stayed till all was in turmoil, and left only
just before the storm broke. The first part of his administration was
very agreeable. Soon after his arrival Canada was surrendered. The
General Court in an address to the Governor declared that without the
assistance of England the colonies must have fallen a prey to the power
of France, and that without the money sent from England the burden of
the war would have been too great to bear. For this relief the colonists
gave warm thanks to the king and to parliament, and made the Governor a
present of the great island of Mount Desert, and voted a costly monument
in Westminster Abbey to Lord Howe, who had fallen in the campaign
against Canada.

Much harmony prevailed for two or three years, but this happy and
prosperous commencement did not continue. Governor Bernard was soon
classed with those who were desirous of strengthening the authority of
the government.

Shortly after Bernard's appointment, Chief Justice Sewall died on
September 11. He was a great loss to the Province and it was a
misfortune that his death occurred just at this time. Colonel Otis, as
he was generally called, desired to succeed to this office. It was
believed that he and his son were not friendly to the government.
Governor Bernard, who had no doubt studied the affairs in Massachusetts,
considered Colonel Otis to be wholly unsuited to the position of a Chief
Justice, and determined not to appoint him. Thomas Hutchinson, the
Lieutenant-Governor, an able and intelligent man, was appointed to the
important office of Chief Justice. Governor Bernard had at once realized
Hutchinson's qualities and said many years later, when they were both
living in England, that he had never repented appointing Hutchinson
Chief Justice.[157]

[157] Hutchinson's Diary & Letters. Vol. 1, p. 195.

Lynde, the senior judge, who did not care particularly to succeed
Sewall, appears to have been satisfied with the appointment of
Hutchinson, also Gridley, the leader of the Bar, and apparently all
possible rivals, save Colonel Otis. Hutchinson discharged the duties of
his new office in the most satisfactory manner. He proved himself to be
efficient, and always kind, as evinced by his special attention to the
claims of the helpless.

At this time, there were mutterings of a possible storm, and at this
critical moment, in October of 1760, George II died. Just previous to
his death Mr. Pitt, Secretary of State, sent a dispatch to the Governor
touching on the trade of England and her American colonies. The
organized system of smuggling that existed in the Colonies caused the
Custom House officers to apply for the "writs of assistance," that were
frequently employed in England.

So far the Governor's course had been hampered only by factious
opposition from the chief offenders, but this opposition assumed
formidable dimensions when the question of "writs of assistance" was
brought forward. The rights of the Custom House officers to demand such
help was tried before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. "The verdict
was in their favor, but public opinion was strongly excited, and James
Otis, the lawyer who opposed the Custom House officers, gained great
popularity."[158] Notwithstanding Otis' eloquence, the case as already
said was decided against his clients on the point of law. Governor
Bernard was only performing his duty when he was active in promoting
seizures for illicit trade.

[158] Doyle's History of America, Ch. XVIII.

In speaking of his early life in Boston, Julia Bernard, Governor
Bernard's youngest daughter, mentions their home in Boston as "the
Government House." She says that they employed both black and white
servants, and speaks of the formalities that existed while the family
lived there. "In Boston, none of the family, grown up brothers excepted,
ever walked out in the town. We had a large garden, but it seemed rather
a confinement." She also speaks of her father's home at Jamaica Pond.
"This residence we usually moved to in May I think, and here we enjoyed
ourselves extremely. We ran pretty much at liberty; there was no form or
ceremony. My father was always on the wing on account of his situation.
He had his own carriage and servants, my mother hers; there was a town
coach, and a whiskey for the young men to drive about. I was used from a
child to ride on horseback, and from childhood none of us had any fear
of anything." Speaking of these days she says, they "all seemed great,
enlightened, and enjoyable."

In describing her parents Julia Bernard says: "My father, though not
tall, had something dignified and distinguished in his appearance and
manner; he dressed superbly on all public occasions. My mother was tall,
and a very fine woman. Her dresses were ornamented with gold and silver,
ermine, and fine American sable."

The Province House was visited about the middle of the nineteenth
century by Nathaniel Hawthorne, who has written interesting but
melancholy pages on the subject.[159]

[159] For description of House, see "The Bernards of Abington and Nether
Winchendon," by Mr. N. Higgins, Vol. I. p. 285.

The Province or Government House occupied by Sir Francis Bernard was
situated nearly opposite the head of Milk street. It was purchased by
the Colonial Legislature in 1716, of the widow of Peter Sargent, who
built it. It was a magnificent building, no pains had been spared to
make it not only elegant, but also spacious and convenient. It stood
back some distance in its ample lot, and had the most pleasant and
agreeable surroundings of any mansion in town. It was of brick, three
stories in height, with a high roof and lofty cupola. The house was
approached over a stone pavement and a high flight of massive stone
steps, and through a magnificent doorway. Two stately oaks of very large
size, reared their verdant tops on either side of the gate separating
the grounds from the highway, and cast a grateful shade over the
approach, through the beautiful grass lawn in front of the mansion.

After the evacuation of Boston the Province House and all other
Government property was confiscated and became the property of the
State. In 1811 the State gave the property to the Massachusetts General
Hospital who leased it for ninety-nine years. Stores were erected in
front of it. In 1864 it was destroyed by fire and only the walls are all
that remain of the Old Province House. The engraving shown here was made
from a sketch of it taken a short time before it was leased and altered.
The Royal Arms, and the Indian vane are on exhibition in the Old State
House.

Sir Francis Bernard's country mansion was situated on the southwest side
of Jamaica Pond, fronting on Pond street, now a part of the Boston Park
system. This was and still is a most lovely spot. The mansion house was
surrounded with an estate of sixty acres. Here, but for the gathering
clouds which darkened the political horizon, the remaining years of this
scholarly and able representative of the government might have been
passed in the enjoyment of all that seemed the most enjoyable in life--a
delightful home, set in a lovely landscape, and the esteem and regard of
the people he had governed. His extensive and beautiful grounds were
filled with choice fruit trees, plants and shrubs including one hundred
orange and lemon trees besides fig, cork, cinnamon and other rare
exotics.

[Illustration: OLD PROVINCE HOUSE.]

After Bernard went to England, it was occupied by the second Sir William
Pepperell, until he too was driven out by the disunionists. Then came
the siege and the occupation of loyalist dwellings by the
revolutionists, this being the quarters of Col. Miller of Rhode Island,
in the summer of 1775. Afterwards it was used as a hospital for the camp
at Roxbury. The soldiers who died were buried on elevated ground some
distance back from the buildings. The governor's hot house was taken by
Major Crane and converted into a magazine for the artillery. Confiscated
by the State in 1779, it was bought by Martin Brimmer, a Boston
merchant, who died here in 1804. Capt. John Prince purchased it in 1806,
in 1809 took down the old house, a part of which had stood one hundred
and forty-one years, and no doubt many a bumper of good wine had been
drunk to the health of the seven sovereigns of Great Britain, who had
reigned during that period.

Captain Prince made a road through the property from Pond to Perkins
street, now known as Prince street; the whole estate was divided up into
good sized building lots, on which many elegant residences have since
been erected. In front of one of them are some fine large English elms
probably planted by Gov. Bernard. One of them measures twenty-five feet
in circumference.[160]

[160] The Town of Roxbury. Francis S. Drake.

Governor Bernard soon after his arrival in Massachusetts became much
interested in Harvard College, and his interests extended far beyond the
formalities required of him in his official capacity. "Having regard to
the Governor's delight in Latin verse, it is not surprising that he
should have endeavored to refine and soften the somewhat rugged type of
student which Harvard then produced." He suggested that the college
should follow the custom established in the English universities, of
writing poetical tributes in commemoration of public events. Thirty-one
poems were written. Of these nine were by the Governor himself in Greek
and Latin, and the others owed their existence to the stimulus of prizes
offered by him. It was a difficult undertaking for him to start this
custom. A recent writer (Mr. Goddard) styles this volume, indeed, "the
most ambitious typographical and literary work attempted on the
continent previous to the Revolution, etc."

Governor Bernard's interest and exertion for the development of the
material resources of his province should have won him lasting
gratitude. He encouraged with all his power the manufacture of potash,
the cultivation of hemp and flax on waste lands, and the carriage of
lumber to British markets.

The Province prospered under Bernard during these years preceding the
Stamp Act, and peace came through his ability and guidance. Mr.
Hutchinson writes: "If at the expiration of that term he had quitted the
government, he would have been spoken of as one of the best of the New
England Governors." His son Thomas, also remarked upon his popularity
during these five out of the nine years he presided as Governor of
Massachusetts. The House of Representatives, conscious that Mr. Bernard
had expended a considerable sum of his own money in improving the
castle, and for other public benefits, passed a resolution that the
island of Mount Desert, lying on the northeastward of Penobscot Bay, be
granted to him and his heirs and assigns. The Council at once concurred
in the grant. The confirmation of the Assembly's grant of Mount Desert
was contained in a letter from the English Lords of Trade, dated May 21,
1763.

In July, 1763 [writes Thomas Bernard], orders were transmitted to the
American Governors for carrying into strict execution the laws of trade,
at the same time notifying the new authority which had been delegated to
commanders of the King's ships stationed in America, to seize all
vessels concerned in any prohibited commerce. These were followed by
further orders for improvement of the revenue, and for suppression of
all clandestine and illicit trade with foreign nations; with directions
for the Governors to transmit such information as they had to
communicate on the subject.[161]

[161] Life of Sir Francis Bernard.

Governor Bernard was compelled in the discharge of his official
functions to enforce these commands, but he lost no time in
remonstrating. His letter to the Earl of Egremont, Secretary of State,
contains a plea for the indulgence granted, or tacitly allowed up to
that time, with regard to wine and fruit, especially lemons, which he
considered necessary to health in the climate of Massachusetts. This
letter was followed by another addressed to the Lords Commissioners for
Trade and Plantations, in which he entreats that the duties imposed by
the Molasses Act may at least be reduced in the interest of England as
well as of America, since it had been, and would be evaded, and its end
to a large extent defeated. He continues: "this Act has been a perpetual
stumbling block to the Custom House officers, and it will be most
agreeable to them to have it in any way removed."[162]

[162] "The Bernards of Abington and Nether Winchendon," by Mr. Napier
Higgins.

It was not until Bernard left America that the colonists knew of his
protest to the government. A large number evidently were satisfied at
his good will and perhaps suspected that he interceded in their favour,
so their regard for him survived the trial of the new orders from
England.

In the midst of this agitation, the smallpox broke out in the capital,
and the Governor was compelled to move the General Assembly to
Cambridge. Here in January, 1764, another misfortune occurred. Harvard
Hall was burned to a heap of ruins, the only one of the ancient
buildings which still remained. Of five thousand volumes, only a hundred
were saved, and of John Harvard's books, but a single one.

The Governor at once appealed to the Assembly and obtained a vote for
reconstruction. He set the example of contributing towards a new library
by the gift of some of his own books; he also drew the architectural
design for the new building and superintended its execution.
Subscriptions were made both in England and America for the erection of
the new hall.

In June 1763, a confederation of several Indian tribes had suddenly and
unexpectedly swept over the whole western frontier of Pennsylvania and
Virginia, had murdered almost all the English settlers, and through
unusual skill captured every British fort between the Ohio and Lake
Erie, and had closely blockaded Fort Detroit and Pittsburg. After
desperate fighting, the troops under Amherst succeeded in repelling the
invaders and secured the three great fortresses of Niagara, Detroit and
Pittsburg. The severe fighting appears to have been done by the English
troops. Massachusetts seemed to be fatigued from the late war and could
give no help when aid was asked. Connecticut finally sent 250 men. Peace
was signed in September, 1764, the war having lasted fourteen months,
months of extreme horror. The credit of the war belonged to the English
soldiers, another great service rendered to the colonies by England.

England felt that the colonies should help share the great expense of
the late wars. George Grenville as First Lord of the Treasury, and
Chancellor of the Exchequer, signalized his period of administration by
the Stamp Act. On the 10th of March the House of Commons on the motion
of the Minister, passed a variety of resolutions respecting certain
duties on foreign goods imported into the British colonies of America.

Grenville remarked in his honest way to the colonial agents in London,
"I am not, however, set upon this tax. If the Americans dislike it, and
prefer any other method, I shall be content. Write therefore, to your
several colonies, and if they choose any other mode, I shall be
satisfied, provided the money be but raised."[163]

[163] Samuel Adams (Hosmer) Ch. VI.

The British Government gave the colonies a year to deliberate, and the
House of Representatives trusted Governor Bernard to plead for the
colonists. When the members met again on January 10, 1765, the Governor
honestly stated how much he had done. On January 14 began in the British
Parliament the vehement and eloquent debates, ending in a majority of
both Houses declaring in favour of the Stamp Act. The Ministry seems to
have paid no attention to Governor Bernard's suggestion. His "Principles
of Law and Polity" were ignored and also the Petition of the Assembly.
On March 22, 1765, the Stamp Act received the Royal Assent, and England
and her colonies were divided.

When the Colonists learned that the hated act had been passed, they
became defiant. Riots soon took place in Boston, and Secretary Oliver,
who was appointed by the British government as Stamp Distributor, was
hung in effigy. This was during the summer of 1765 when the first cargo
of stamps was daily expected. Then came the attack upon Mr. Oliver's
house, and the complete destruction of Mr. Hutchinson's home.[164]

[164] For further information concerning the Stamp Act, see pp. 40, 41,
42.

During the warm months the Governor and his family were in the habit of
residing at the castle. They were there when the stamps were expected
and during the riotous times in Boston. The night that Hutchinson's home
was destroyed seems to have made a deep impression on Julia Bernard,
then in her sixth year. She afterwards wrote:

"While the family was resident at Castle William, my father came one
night in his barge from Boston and brought Lieutenant-Governor
Hutchinson, his sister, and two daughters, whom he had thus rescued from
the fury of the mob. They had forced the house; the family fled for
their lives; my father's barge was in waiting for him and he took them
under his protection. The house was stripped of everything, and pulled
down that night. They had nothing but what they had on. I can remember
my mother getting them out clothes, and ordering beds to be prepared.
Terror and distress sat upon their countenances."

Governor Bernard assured the people he had their interest at heart, but
his road was a difficult one, and he was greatly worried over the
performance of his duty. Because he represented the government, he was
abused and insulted, and finally felt that he had no real authority, but
was totally in the hands of the people. His son quotes his father's
words: "Although I have never received any orders concerning the Stamp
Act until this day, nor even a copy of the Act, I have thought it my
duty to do all I could to get it carried into execution. And I must say
in so doing I have exerted all possible spirit and perseverance.... I
have made great sacrifices to his Majesty's service upon this occasion.
My administration, which before was easy, respectable, and popular, is
rendered troublesome, difficult, and dangerous, and yet there is no
pretext to charge me with any other offence than endeavoring to carry
the Stamp Act into execution; but that is here an high crime never to be
forgiven." The struggle was carried on without intermission, but towards
the end of April, Boston was delighted by the news of the repeal of the
Stamp Act. "Letters published in England," writes Hutchinson, "Allowed
that Governor Bernard's letters to the Ministry, and the petition from
the Council and House in 1764, which had been drawn by the
Lieutenant-Governor, forwarded the repeal. But they had no merit with
the prevailing party, because they solicited the repeal as a matter of
favour, and not as a claim of right."

Great rejoicings now took place in the city and for a while Governor
Bernard's life became a little easier.

In August 1768, the King offered the Governor a Baronet's title, which
he accepted. Rule and order was vanishing in Massachusetts. On September
28, 1768, two regiments from Halifax with artillery, arrived off Boston,
and the vessels which brought them, cast anchor in Nantasket Roads, a
few miles below Castle William. The troops were landed on Saturday,
October 1, and on Saturday, October 15, General Gage arrived with his
officers to look after the quartering of the troops himself, a difficult
problem to solve in this divided community. Thus was the Governor
placed, trying to fulfil his duty to England, and yet always with the
best interest of the people at heart. Commodore Hood wrote to Mr.
Stephens, Secretary to the Admiralty on November 25, 1768, stating that
"The General [Gage] and Governor Bernard have been lately burnt in
effigy, in a most public manner."

All through the next winter a fierce controversy raged in the newspapers
regarding England and her colonies. Samuel Adams was the most prolific
and forcible writer, and his contributions went also to newspapers at a
distance. In the spring of this year the Governor became "Sir Francis
Bernard of Nettleham, in the county of Lincoln, Baronet." The patent
bears the date April 5, 1769. The King had ordered the expense of the
patent to be paid out of his privy purse, and this according to the
Governor's son, was a compliment seldom offered.

The grant of the baronetcy was accompanied by an order summoning Sir
Francis Bernard to proceed to England and there report on the state of
his province. Ere long the Governor and the whole body of loyalists were
struck with consternation by the intelligence that General Gage had
ordered the removal of the troops from Boston. They considered this
extremely dangerous.

On the 4th of January, 1770, a town meeting was held by which every one
was declared an enemy who had in any way assisted in obtaining or
retaining troops. Sir Francis Bernard was making preparations for his
departure, and this of course, was intended as a parting shot. He
yielded to the advice of friends to attend the Harvard Commencement as
usual and Mr. Hutchinson says that, "When he had gone through it without
any insult worth notice from the rude people, who always raise more or
less tumult on that day, he thanked his friends for their advice." It is
satisfactory to think that his last public appearance in Massachusetts
was at Harvard, the institution he had always felt such a deep interest
in.

A few days before the Governor departed, he received a circular from the
Earl of Hillsborough announcing the intended repeal of the duties on
glass, paper and paint, and one of his last acts of administration
consisted in making this intention known, and the assurance of the good
will of the British Government for the American colonies. Governor
Bernard then bequeathed the administration to Lieutenant-Governor
Hutchinson and made his last farewells.

"He embarked on board the Rippon, a man-of-war ordered from Virginia to
convey him, and sailed for England. Instead of the marks of respect
commonly shown, in a greater or less degree, to governors upon their
leaving the province, there were many marks of public joy in the town of
Boston. The bells were rung, guns were fired from Mr. Hancock's wharf,
Liberty Tree was covered with flags, and in the evening a great bonfire
was made upon Fort Hill."[165] The Governor sailed on August 1, 1769, a
sad ending to nine years of laborious and anxious administration.
Perhaps there were some staunch friends with him to the last in whose
sympathy he found consolation for sights and sounds which must have
jarred upon his feelings, and were of set purpose arranged to aggravate
his sorrow in parting, for an indefinite time, from his nearest and
dearest. Hosmer, the biographer and eulogist of Samuel Adams, speaks of
Francis Bernard as "an honourable and well-meaning man, and by no means
wanting in ability."

[165] Hutchinson Hist. Mass., Vol. III., p. 253.

Thomas Bernard, who accompanied his father, states that he was
graciously received in England and by George III. A petition arrived
from the colonies asking for a new governor, it concludes:

"Wherefore we most humbly entreat your Majesty that his Excellency Sir
Francis Bernard, Baronet, may be forever removed from the government of
this province, and that your Majesty would be graciously pleased to
place one in his stead worthy to serve the greatest and best Monarch on
earth."

The Governor's resignation soon followed. His life was filled with much
anxiety for the financial welfare of his family as during his eleven
years of residence in America, his private fortune had not been
increased. He received a pension, but many troubles arose which greatly
taxed his physical and mental strength. Mrs. Bernard and the remaining
members of her family, moved from their country home at Jamaica Pond,
which was afterwards occupied by Sir William Pepperell, to a new
residence called the Cherry House, which the Governor caused to be built
on a lot of land containing about 30 acres on the "Road leading to
Castle William" at Dorchester Neck, now South Boston. The Governor
probably selected this location on which to build his house on account
of its nearness to Castle Island, to which he and his family could take
refuge in case of mob violence.[166] John Bernard's name continued for
some time to head the list of proscribed traders and his position,
entailing loss, insult, and even danger, must have been a constant
source of apprehension to his relatives. After learning that her husband
had definitely resigned, Lady Bernard prepared to join him in England.
Many of their household possessions were sold at the Province house on
September 11. Just before the vessel sailed, young Francis Bernard died
November 20, 1770, at the age of twenty-seven, and is probably buried
beside his brother Shute in the burial ground of the King's Chapel at
Boston. Mrs. Bernard was accompanied by four of her children, Amelia,
William, Scrope and Julia.

[166] One lot of 26½ acres was purchased of John Baker et al. in
1762. Lib. 98, Fol. 113. Another lot adjoining same, of 3 acres of James
Baker in 1764. Lib. 102, Fol. 39. During a raid made by the "Ministerial
Troops" from the Castle on Feb. 13th, 1776, nearly all the houses on the
Neck were burnt; among them was "An House and Stable and Barn belonging
to Francis Bernard burnt; valued at £100.00," also damage done "by our
Soldiers," £40.00. (See New Eng. Gen. Reg. Jan. 1897.) This tract of
land extended from Fourth street (Way leading to Castle William) to
Dorchester Bay, M street running through the center of it. The writer's
father in 1858 purchased a portion of this land, and it was here he
spent his boyhood days. After the war another house was erected on the
site of the one burnt; its location was on Fourth street between M and N
streets. The writer remembers that a boyhood companion that lived there
picked up in the garden an English guinea.

Sir Francis took a house in the vicinity of Hampstead and for a while
the family was united, the children from America joining those in
England. The two youngest had never seen their eldest sisters, Jane and
Frances, who had remained in the mother country. A short time later, Sir
Francis suffered from a paralytic stroke and his recovery was partial
and imperfect. Realizing this, he applied for leave to resign his
appointment to Ireland, having been appointed to the Irish Board of
Commissioners. This was granted him in 1774, and his former pension
restored to him. The vigor of his mental faculties is evinced by the
fact that on July 2, 1772, he went to Oxford and received the degree of
D. C. L. and from Christ Church the honour of having his picture by
Copley among other illustrious students in the Hall of that society.

After a stay at Nether Winchendon, the family removed to the Prebendal
House at Aylesbury, and now for a short period enjoyed comparative
peace. The colonies were in open revolt. Soon after Governor
Hutchinson's arrival in England, he resumed his habits of friendly
intercourse with Sir Francis Bernard and his family. Thomas Bernard
studied for the Bar, and William and Scrope were sent to Harrow. Jane,
the eldest daughter, married Charles White, a barrister, in 1774. Fanny,
the third daughter, became greatly attached to her newly found sister
Julia, and proved herself very capable with her pen. Scrope later
entered Christ Church at Oxford and William embarked for Canada. John
left England for America probably in 1775. William, who was a Lieutenant
in the army, was drowned before reaching Canada. He was on board a
provision ship bound for Quebec which took fire, and he, with some
others, took to a boat which overset and they all were drowned. This
cast a gloom over the family, from which the father and mother never
fully recovered.

A London visit of Sir Francis and Lady Bernard in March, 1777, is
mentioned by Governor Hutchinson.

"8th.--Sir Francis and Lady came to town last evening, and dined with us
to-day, with Paxton, Dr. Caner, Chandler, and Boucher."

Later came Lady Bernard's death and Hutchinson in his "Dairy," 1778,
says:

"2nd.--Lady Bernard died last week, the 20th. [May], at Aylesbury.
Paxton was there on a visit. She had been in poor health several months,
but took an airing the day before the night in which she died, or rather
towards morning."

This remarkable woman was married to Sir Francis Bernard thirty-seven
years and had shared every vicissitude of his career. She had felt the
cares of his agitated public life in America and had seen him gradually
broken down by much trouble, not the least of which was the final blow
received in England at the hands of supposed friends.

Thomas, who was now eight and twenty, relieved his father from business
cares, and became a worthy head to the family. News reached England of
the act of banishment. John Bernard had reached America before the
Declaration of Independence and lived in a remote part of Maine, but his
name does not appear among the proscribed. News of the Confiscation Act
did not reach Sir Francis before his death, and Thomas says that his
last days were free from anxiety on that ground. He died believing in
the honesty of America.

The engagement of Julia Bernard about this time to the Rev. Joseph
Smith, brought a gleam of happiness into the family.

On June 21, Hutchinson writes:

"A gentleman, who knew me and asked how I had been since he last saw me,
informed me Saturday morning, as I was taking my morning walk, that he
went to Aylesbury a day or two before, and that Sir Francis Bernard died
Wednesday night, the 16, [1779], which has since been confirmed."

He suffered from several complaints, and an epileptic fit more violent
than any he had had before, hastened the end. He died surrounded by his
children, within a month of completing his sixty-seventh year, and was
buried by the side of Lady Bernard in a vault under Aylesbury church.
Sir Francis Bernard's memory was held in high honor by his children, and
by none more tenderly than Thomas, his father's companion and confidant.
After his father's death, Thomas wrote:

"May his children contemplate with pleasure and confidence, the talents
and probity of their father, and, soothed with the memory of his
virtues, forget the return which those virtues have received! And may
they, by retracing the events of his life, strengthen and fortify their
minds, that if ever they should be called to such a trial as he
underwent, they may imitate him in the conscientious and honourable
discharge of their duty, and in integrity of life."[167]

[167] Life of Sir Francis Bernard, by One of his Sons.

SIR JOHN BERNARD, on the death of his father, succeeded to the Baronetcy
in 1779. When, in 1769, Sir Francis was recalled from the government, he
possessed a large landed estate in Maine of which the large island of
Mount Desert, which was given him by the Colony, and afterwards
confirmed by the Crown, was a part. He also owned Moose Island, now
Eastport, and some territory on the mainland. John, at the time of his
departure, had an agency for the sale and settlement of these and other
lands, and until the war commenced, was in comfortable circumstances. In
order to hold his property and prevent its confiscation, he remained in
the country, and therefore it could not be claimed that he was an
absentee, or a refugee, and as he did not take any part in the
controversy, it could not be claimed that he was an enemy to the new
government. His place of residence during the war appears to have been
at Bath, Machias, and at Pleasant Point, a few miles from Eastport. An
unbroken wilderness was around him. The only inhabitants at the head of
the tidewater of the St. Croix were a few hunters and Indians. He lived
in a small hut built by himself, with no companions but a dog.
Robbinston and Perry were uninhabited, Eastport contained but a single
family, yet at the spot now occupied by the remnant of the Passamaquoddy
Indians, he attempted to make a farm. He had been bred in ease and
refinement, had hardly done a day's laborious work in his life, yet he
believed he could earn a competence by labor. He told those who saw him
that "other young men went into the woods, and made themselves farms,
and got a good living, and he saw no reason why he could not." But he
cut down a few trees, became discouraged, and after the confiscation of
the property of Sir Francis in 1778, he was in abject poverty, and the
misfortune of himself and family seemed to have unsettled his mind.
After the peace, he lived at Pleasant Point, and occasionally went to
Boston. His abject condition in mind and estate rendered him an object
of deep commiseration, and his conduct during hostilities having
entitled him to consideration, the Legislature of Massachusetts restored
to him one half of his father's estate, which included one half of the
island of Mount Desert, and an estate in Boston consisting of wharves,
land, and flats, which he sold for £600 to Wm. Allen. Of his subsequent
history while he continued in the United States, but little is known.
Later in life he held offices under the British Crown at Barbadoes and
St. Vincent. He died in the West Indies in 1809 in his sixty-fifth year,
without issue, and was succeeded by his brother Thomas.

SIR THOMAS BERNARD, the third surviving son of Sir Francis, succeeded
his brother John to the Baronetcy. He took his degree from Harvard
College in 1767. After he took up his residence in England, much of his
time was devoted to institutions of benevolence in London, and he wrote
several essays with a design to mitigate the sorrows, and improve the
condition of the humbler classes of English society. The University of
Edinburgh conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Laws. He married a
lady of fortune who died in 1813 while preparing to go to church.

Sir Thomas' account of his father's life makes him stand out perhaps the
most prominent of Sir Francis' children. His death occurred in England
in 1818. The Baronetcy of Sir Francis Bernard now stands in the name of
Morland.

The following is a list of Sir Francis Bernard's confiscated property in
Suffolk County situated in what is now South Boston, and Jamaica Plain,
together with the name of the purchasers. He had also much property in
Maine, including one half of Mount Desert island, that was confiscated.

CONFISCATED PROPERTY OF SIR FRANCIS BERNARD SITUATED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY.

To Martin Brimmer, Aug. 18, 1779; Lib. 130 fol. 178; Farm, 50 A.,
mansion house and barn in Roxbury, highway to Benj. Child S.E.;
Jamaica Pond N.E.; Joseph Winchester N.W.;, Samuel Griffin and
school lands S.W.; the hill N.; Samuel Griffin W.; S W; W. and
S.W.--Wood lot in Roxbury, 12 A. 3 qr. 36 r., Sharp and Williams S;
land of heirs of William Douglas deceased W.; land of heirs of
Edward Bromfield deceased N. land of heirs of Elizabeth Brewer
deceased E.----Wood lot in Roxbury, 2A. 1 qr 17 r, highway W.:
Capt. Baker S.; John Harris E.; Mr. Walter N.----Salt marsh in
Roxbury, 3 A. 1 qr., John Williams S., creek N.W.; Robert Pierpoint
N; creek to Dorchester E.

To William Allen, Jan. 2, 1781; Lib. 132 fol. 76; Land in
Dorchester, 25 A. 3 r., road to Point of Dorchester Neck N.; land
of town of Dorchester and Richard Withington deceased E; said
Withington, James Baker, Samuel Blake deceased and James Blake S.;
Jonathan [Clap] W.----Salt marsh in Dorchester. 2 A. 3 qr., Sir
Francis Bernard N.; salt marsh of Richard Withington deceased E.;
James Blake W; the sea S.

SIR WILLIAM PEPPERELL.

BARONET OF KITTERY, MAINE.

William Pepperell was a native of Tavistock near Plymouth in Devon, who
at the age of twenty-two, about the year 1676, emigrated to the Isle of
Shoals, and became a fisherman. He acquired property and removed to
Kittery on the mainland, where he died in 1734, leaving an only son of
his own name, who continued the business of fishing, amassed great
wealth, and arrived at great honors. It is interesting and instructive
to trace the rising steps of the Pepperell family, from a destitute
young fisherman to the princely affluence and exalted station, civil,
political, and military, to which his son arrived. It throws light upon
the early history of the infant colonies, the character of the early
settlers, the nature of their occupations, their commerce, the
condition, and relative importance of places of trade, and the influence
of the times, and events, in forming the character and shaping the
fortunes of the illustrious subject of this memoir. The name once so
celebrated, has in America long since become extinct, and but for its
record in the page of history, would ere this have passed into oblivion.
To account for this curious fact, it will be necessary to give a more
extended notice of the history of the family than would otherwise seem
necessary.

While a fisherman at the Isle of Shoals, Pepperell had frequent occasion
to sail to Kittery Point for the purpose of traffic, and for the
purchase and repair of boats. A shipwright there named John Bray
welcomed him to his home, and supplied his wants. He had a daughter
Margery, who had arrived at the age of seventeen when she first saw Mr.
Pepperell, who was smitten with her youthful charms. At the time of this
marriage Mr. Pepperell removed from the Shoals to Kittery Point, where
Mr. Bray gave him the site of the present Pepperell mansion. The south
part of this structure was built by him and the north part by his son
Sir William, who was born here in 1696, and here dwelt the two families
till the decease of the father in 1734, which left the son's family sole
occupants till 1759. The home has since been curtailed in its dimensions
by the removal of ten feet from each end of the building. It was during
this period of little more than half a century that the largest fortune,
then known in New England, was gradually accumulated. The principal
business of the Pepperells was done in the fisheries. They sometimes had
more than one hundred small vessels at a time on the Grand Banks.
Ship-building was also a very extensive branch of industry on the
Pascataqua, and its tributary streams. The Pepperells built many vessels
and sent them to the West India islands, laden with lumber, fish, oil,
and live stock, to exchange for cargoes of rum, sugar, and molasses, for
home consumption; others to European markets to exchange for dry goods,
wine, and salt, and to sell both vessel and cargo. To the Southern
colonies fish was sent in exchange for corn, tobacco, and naval stores.
Mills were erected by them on the small rivers, and lumber and
ship-timber, were floated down to Kittery Point, and Newcastle, to be
shipped to European and American ports.

Sir William was his only son. About 1727 he was elected a member of the
Council of Massachusetts, and held a seat in that body by annual
election for thirty-two years, until his death. He was also selected to
command a regiment of militia, and being fond of society, rich, and
prosperous, was highly popular, and possessed much influence. With a
vigorous frame, firm mind, and great coolness, when in danger, he was
well fitted for his residence in a country exposed to ferocious enemies.

The Treaty of Utrecht which secured Nova Scotia to the British Crown,
gave France undisputed right to Cape Breton. Here they built the city of
Louisburg at enormous cost, and protected it with fortresses of great
strength. The walls of the defences were formed with bricks brought from
France, and they mounted two hundred and six pieces of cannon. The city
had nunneries, and Palaces, gardens, and squares, and places of
amusement, and was designed to become a great capital, and to perpetuate
French dominion, and the Catholic faith in America. Twenty-five years of
time and six million dollars in money were spent in building, arming,
and adorning this city, "The Dunkirk of the New World." That such a plan
existed, at so early a period of our history, is a marvel, and the
lovers of the wonderful may read the works of Parkman which contain
accounts of its rise, and ruin, and be satisfied that "truth is
sometimes stranger than fiction."

The possession of this stronghold by the French was a source of
continual annoyance to the New England fishermen, and at last became
intolerable. Situated as it was directly off the fishing grounds, it
meant destruction to the fishing interest every time there was a war
with France. At last its capture was seriously conceived and undertaken.
Governor Shirley, in 1744, listening to the propositions made to him on
the subject, submitted them to the Legislature of Massachusetts, and
that body in secret session, the first ever held in America, authorized
a force to be raised, equipped, and sent against it, and the command was
conferred upon Colonel William Pepperell. His troops consisted of a
motley assemblage of fishermen, and farmers, sawyers, and loggers, many
of whom were taken from his own vessels, mills, and forests. Before such
men, and others hardly better skilled in war, in the year 1745,
Louisburg fell. The achievement is the most memorable in the Colonial
annals. For this great service Colonel Pepperell was created a Baronet
in 1746. After the fall of Louisburg, he went to England and was
presented at Court. In 1759 he was appointed Lieutenant-General. He died
the same year at his seat at Kittery, aged sixty-three years, and was
buried in the large and beautiful tomb erected in 1734 which was placed
near the mansion home. His children were two, Andrew, a son who
graduated at Harvard University in 1743, and died March 1, 1751, aged
twenty-five, and a daughter, Elizabeth, who married Colonel Nathaniel
Sparhawk. Lady Pepperell, who was Mary Hirst, daughter of Grove Hirst of
Boston, and granddaughter of Judge Sewall of Massachusetts, survived
until 1789. Mrs. Sparhawk bore her husband five children, namely
Nathaniel, William Pepperell, Samuel Hirst, Andrew Pepperell, and Mary
Pepperell. Sir William, her father, soon after the decease of her
brother, executed a will, by which after providing for Lady Pepperell,
he bequeathed the bulk of his remaining property to herself, and her
children. Her second son was made the residuary legatee, and inherited a
large estate. By the terms of his grandfather's will he was required to
procure an Act of the Legislature to drop the name of Sparhawk, and
assume that of Pepperell. This he did on coming of age, and was allowed
by a subsequent Act, to take the title of Sir William Pepperell,
Baronet. He received the honors of Harvard University in 1766,
subsequently he visited England, and became a member of the Council of
Massachusetts. In 1774 when that body was recognized under the Act of
Parliament, he was continued, under the mandamus of the King, and
thereby incurred the wrath of the disunionists, who at a county
congress, held at Wells, York County, Maine, on the 16th of Nov. 1774,
declared a boycott against him, and denounced him in the following
manner: "The said William Pepperell, Esq., hath, with purpose to carry
into force, Acts of the British Parliament, made with apparent design to
enslave the free and loyal people of this country, accepted, and now
holds, a seat in the pretended Board of Councillors in this Province, as
well as in direct repeal of the charter thereof, as against the solemn
compact of kings, and the inherent right of the people. It is therefore
Resolved, that said William Pepperell, Esq. hath thereby justly
forfeited the confidence, and friendship of all true friends to American
liberty, and with other pretended councillors, now holding their seats
in like manner, ought to be detested by all good men, and it is hereby
recommended to the good people of this country, that as soon as the
present leases made to any of them by said Pepperell, are expired, they
immediately withdraw all connection, commerce, and dealings, from him,
and they take no further lease, or conveyance of his, farms, mills, or
appurtenances thereunto belonging (where the said Pepperell is the sole
receiver and appropriator of the rents and profits), until he shall
resign his seat, pretendedly occupied by mandamus. And if any persons
shall remain, or become his tenants, after the expiration of their
present leases, we recommend to the good people of this country, not
only to withdraw all connections, and commercial intercourse with them,
but to treat them in the manner provided by the third resolve of this
Congress."

The Baronet not long after this denouncement retired to Boston. His
winter residence was on Summer street, near Trinity church, and his
country residence was an estate on the southerly side of Jamaica Pond
containing sixty acres, which he leased from Sir Francis Bernard. In
1775 he arrived in England under circumstances of deep affliction. Lady
Pepperell, who was Elizabeth, daughter of Hon. Isaac Royall, of Medford,
having died on the passage. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished, and
the year following was included in the Conspiracy Act. In May, 1779, the
Committee on confiscated estates offered for sale "his large and elegant
house, gardens, and other accommodations, &c., pleasantly situated on
Summer street, Boston, a little below Trinity church." His vast domain
in Maine, the largest owned by any individual in New England, though
entailed upon his heirs, was confiscated. This estate extended from
Kittery to Saco, with a coast line of upwards of thirty miles, and
extending back many miles into the interior, and, for the purposes of
farming and lumbering, was of great value, and the water power and mill
privileges, rendered it even at the time of the sequestration, a
princely fortune. His possessions were large in Scarboro, Elliot,
Berwick, Newington, Portsmouth, Hampton and Hubbardston. In Saco alone
he owned 5,500 acres, including the site of that populous town and its
factories. A large portion of this property was purchased by Thomas
Cutts who had served as a clerk in Sir William's counting room. He was
active during the revolution, was a noted merchant, president of a bank,
colonel of a regiment, senator in the Massachusetts Legislature, and one
of the founders of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He died in 1821.

All of Sir William's brothers were loyalists and were forced to leave
the country, and their vast domains passed into other hands. A life
interest or dower right in the Saco lands was enjoyed by Lady Mary
Pepperell, the widow of the first Sir William and her daughter, Mrs.
Sparhawk, which was devised to them by the Baronet's will. In exchange
for the right thus arising, the State afterwards assigned two-ninths in
absolute property to Lady Pepperell and her daughter, by a deed executed
in 1788. This small portion of this great estate was saved through these
ladies residing in the country during the war, the "sons of despotism"
could hardly tar and feather two defenceless women, or drive them forth
as they did their sons and brothers, and make absentees or refugees of
them.

Thus the princely fortune of Pepperell, that required a century to
construct, from the foundation laid by John Bray the shipwright to the
massive structure raised by the fisherman William Pepperell and
completed by his son Sir William, fastened and secured though it was, by
every instrument that his own skill and the best legal counsel could
devise to give stability and perpetuity, was in a brief hour overthrown,
and demolished by the confiscation act of 1778. So complete was the
wreck that two of his daughter's grandsons, were saved from the
almshouse by the bounty of some persons on whom they had no claim for
favor.

Never before in the history of this country has there been a more
conspicuous fall of a family from a high estate. There has always been a
doubt as to the legality of the Confiscation Act, as far as the
remainder or reversionary interest, of the first Sir William was
concerned, since it is apparently clear that the life-interest of the
second Sir William could only be, or by the statute actually was,
diverted and passed to the State.[168]

[168] This question was decided in the case of Roger Morris of New York
who married Mary, daughter of Frederick Phillips, who it is said had
previously refused George Washington, the estate which belongs in right
to his wife was confiscated, and that the whole interest should pass
under the Act Mrs. Morris was included in the attainder. Humanity is
shocked that a woman was attainted of treason, for no crime but that of
clinging to the fortunes of the husband whom she had vowed on the altar
never to desert. However, in the year 1809, their son, Captain Henry
Gage Morris of the Royal Navy, in behalf of himself and his two sisters,
sold their reversionary interest to John Jacob Astor of New York for the
sum of £20,000 sterling. In 1828 Mr. Astor made a compromise with the
State of New York by which he received for the rights thus purchased by
him, the large sum of five hundred thousand dollars, having obtained a
judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States affirming the
validity and perfectibility of his title.

After the death of the first Sir William, his widow, Lady Pepperell,
caused a neat house to be erected near that of her daughter, and the
village church which still remain. Here she died in 1789 after being a
widow thirty years.

This house came into the possession of Captain Joseph Cutts. He was a
large ship owner and a successful merchant. Ruined by Mr. Jefferson's
embargo, and the war of 1812, he lost his reason, and his two sons also
went insane. One fell by his own hand in Lady Pepperell's bedchamber,
the other was so violent at times that it was necessary to chain him.
Under these misfortunes the daughter Sally's reason gave way. The town
allowed a small sum for the board of her father, and her brother. Her
home even was sold to satisfy a Government claim for duties owed by her
father. It would seem that the doom of the Pepperells was transmitted to
all who should inhabit this house. Surely a blight seemed to have fallen
upon it which consumed the lives and fortunes of a family until its evil
destiny was fully accomplished.

The old mansion built by the first Colonel Pepperell, and enlarged by
his son, is plain in its architecture, and contained a great many rooms
before it was curtailed ten feet from each end. It was well adapted to
the extensive domains and hospitalities of its former owners. The lawn
in front extends to the sea, and the restless waves over which Sir
William successively sought fortune and fame, still glitter in the
sunbeams, and dash around the disconsolate abode. The fires of
hospitality are extinguished. It is now occupied by the families of poor
fishermen who do not like to be troubled with visitors or strangers. The
hall is spacious and well finished; the ceiling is ornamented, and the
richly carved bannisters bear traces of former elegance. The large hall
was formerly lined with some fifty portraits of the Pepperell and
Sparhawk families and of the companions in arms of Sir William, such as
Admiral Sir Peter Warren Commodore Spry and others. We have now no
sympathy with the joyous acclamations once bestowed on these successful
victors returning from the field of glory to be crowned with laurels.
The American people feel no desire to perpetuate the fame of their
achievements, although characterized at the time by patriotism as pure,
and disinterested as any exhibited since this government was formed.
Patriotism in those days implied loyalty and fidelity to the king of
England, but how changed the meaning of that word in New England after
the Declaration of Independence? Words and deeds before deemed
patriotic, were now traitorous, and so deeply was the idea of their
moral turpitude impressed on the public mind, as to have tainted popular
opinion concerning the heroic deeds of our ancestors performed in the
king's service, in the French wars, but criticism of this is apt to
produce what Coleridge declared the cold waters of reason thrown on the
burning embers of democracy inevitably produced--namely a hiss. The
Revolution absorbed and neutralized all the heroic fame of the
illustrious men that preceded it. The extinction of their fame was not
more remarkable than the wreck of their fortunes. The Penns, Fairfaxes,
Johnsons, Phillips, Robinsons and Pepperells were stripped of their
immense possession, by confiscation, who up to that time had been but
little less than hereditary noblemen and viceroys of boundless domains.

[Illustration: THE PEPPERELL MANSION.]

During the Revolution the Baronet was treated with great respect and
deference by his fellow exiles in England. His home in London was open
for their reception, and in most cases in which the Loyalists from New
England united in representations to the ministry or to the throne, he
was their chairman or deputed organ of communication. He was allowed
£500 sterling per annum by the British Government, and this stipend,
with the wreck of his fortune, consisting of personal effects, rendered
his situation comfortable, and enabled him to relieve the distress of
the less fortunate. And it is to be recorded in respect for his memory,
that his pecuniary benefactions were not confined to his countrymen who
were in banishment, for their loyalty, but were extended to his
countrymen who were disloyal, who languished in England in captivity
sharing with them the pension which he received from the government,
after their government had despoiled him of all his great possessions.
It is to be remembered, too, that his private life was irreproachable,
and that he was among the founders of the British and Foreign Bible
Society.

In 1779 the Loyalists then in London formed an Association, and Sir
William was appointed President. The first meeting was held at Spring
Garden Coffee House, May 29th, 1779, and the next at the Crown and
Anchor, in the Strand on the 26th. About ninety persons met at this
place composed of Loyalists from each Colony. A Committee appointed at
this meeting, on July 6th, reported an Address to the King. In this
document it is said, that, "notwithstanding your Majesty's arms have not
been attended with all the effect which those exertions promised, and
from which occasion has been taken to raise an indiscriminate charge of
disaffection in the Colonists, we beg leave, some of us from our own
knowledge, and others from the best information, to assure your Majesty
that the greater number of your subjects in the Confederated Colonies,
notwithstanding every art to seduce, every device to intimidate, and a
variety of oppressions to compel them to abjure their sovereign,
entertain the firmest attachment and allegiance to your Majesty's sacred
person and government. In support of those truths, we need not appeal to
the evidence of our own sufferings; it is notorious that we have
sacrificed all which the most loyal subjects could forego, or the
happiest could possess. But, with confidence, we appeal to the struggles
made against the usurpations of Congress, by Counter Resolves in very
large districts of country, and to the many unsuccessful attempts by
bodies of the loyal in arms, which have subjected them to all the rigors
of inflamed resentment; we appeal to the sufferings of multitudes, who
for their loyalty have been subjected to insults, fines, and
imprisonments, patiently enduring all in the expectation of that period
which shall restore to them the blessings of your Majesty's Government;
we appeal to the thousands now serving in your Majesty's armies, and in
private ships-of-war, the former exceeding in number the troops enlisted
to oppose them; finally, we make a melancholy appeal to the many
families who have been banished from their once peaceful habitations; to
the public forfeiture of a long list of estates; and to the numerous
executions of our fellow-citizens, who have sealed their loyalty with
their blood. If any Colony or District, when covered or possessed by
your Majesty's troops had been called upon to take arms, and had
refused; or, if any attempts had been made to form the Loyalist militia,
or otherwise, and it had been declined, we should not on this occasion
have presumed thus to address your Majesty; but if, on the contrary, no
general measure to the above effect was attempted, if petitions from
bodies of your Majesty's subjects, who wished to rise in aid of
Government, have been neglected, and the representations of the most
respectable Loyalists disregarded, we assure ourselves that the equity
and wisdom of your Majesty's mind will not admit of any impressions
injurious to the honor and loyalty of your faithful subjects in those
Colonies."

Sir William Pepperell, Messrs. Fitch, Leonard, Rome, Stevens, Patterson,
Galloway, Lloyd, Dulaney, Chalmers, Randolph, Macknight, Ingram, and
Doctor Chandler, composing a committee of thirteen, were appointed to
present this Address. At the same meeting it was resolved, "That it be
recommended to the General Meeting to appoint a Committee, with
directions to manage all such public matters as shall appear for the
honor and interest of the Loyal in the Colonies, or who have taken
refuge from America in this country, with power to call General
Meetings, to whom they shall from time to time report." Of this
Committee, Sir Egerton Leigh, of South Carolina, was Chairman. This body
was soon organized. On the 26th of July, Mr. Galloway, of Pennsylvania,
who was a member of it, reported rules for its government, which, after
being read and debated, were adopted. The proceedings of this Committee
do not appear to have been very important; indeed, to meet and
sympathize with one another, was probably their chief employment. On the
2d of August, it was, however, "Resolved, That each member of the
Committee be desired to prepare a brief account of such documents,
facts, and informations, as he hath in his power, or can obtain,
relating to the rise, progress, and present state of the rebellion in
America, and the causes which have prevented its being suppressed, with
short narratives of their own, stating their facts, with their remarks
thereon, or such observations as may occur to them; each gentleman
attending more particularly to the Colony to which he belongs, and
referring to his document for the support of each fact." This resolution
was followed by another, having for its design to unite with them the
Loyalists who remained in America, in these terms: "Resolved, That
circular letters be transmitted from the Committee to the principal
gentleman from the different Colonies at New York, informing them of the
proceedings of the General Meeting, the appointment and purposes of this
Standing Committee, and requesting their co-operation and
correspondence."

August 11, 1779, at a meeting of the Committee, report was made that
General Robertson had been "so obliging as to undertake the trouble of
communicating to our brethren in New York our wishes to have an
institution established there on similar principles to our own, for the
purpose of corresponding with us on matters relative to the public
interests of British America." Whereupon it was resolved, that, in place
of the circular letter resolved upon on the 2d, "a letter to General
Robertson, explanatory of our designs and wishes, and entreating his
good offices to the furtherance of an establishment of a Committee at
New York, be drawn up and transmitted." At the same meeting, (August
11th,) Sir William Pepperell stated that Lord George Germain had been
apprised of the proceedings of the "Loyalists for considering of
American affairs in so far as their interests were concerned, and that
his Lordship had been pleased to declare his entire approbation of their
institution."

The framing of the letter to General Robertson, above mentioned, seems
to have been, now, the only affair of moment, which, by the record,
occupied the attention of the Association. It may be remarked, however,
that agreeably to the recommendation above stated, a Board of Loyalists
was organized at New York, composed of delegates from each Colony.
Another body, of which the Baronet was President, was the Board of
Agents constituted after the peace, to prosecute the claims of Loyalists
to compensation for their losses by the war, and under the Confiscation
Acts of the several States. Sir James Wright, of Georgia, was first
elected, but at his decease, Sir William was selected as his successor,
and continued in office until the Commissioners made their final report,
and the commission was dissolved. Sir William's own claim was of
difficult adjustment, and occupied the attention of the Commissioners
several day. In 1788, and after Mr. Pitt's plan had received the
sanction of Parliament, the Board of Agents presented an Address of
thanks to the King for the liberal provision made for themselves and the
persons whom they represented, which was presented to his Majesty by the
Baronet. On this occasion, he and the other Agents were admitted to the
presence, and "all had the honor to kiss his Majesty's hand." As this
Address contains no matter of historical interest, it is not here
inserted. But some mention may be made of West's picture, the "Reception
of the American Loyalists by Great Britain in 1783," of which an
engraving is here shown. The Baronet is the prominent personage
represented, and appears in a voluminous wig, a flowing gown, in advance
of the other figures, with one hand extended and nearly touching the
crown, which lies on a velvet cushion on a table, and holding in the
other hand, at his side, a scroll or manuscript half unrolled.

The full description of this picture is as follows: "Religion and
Justice are represented extending the mantle of Britannia, whilst she
herself is holding out her arm and shield to receive the Loyalists.
Under the shield is the Crown of Great Britain, surrounded by Loyalists.
This group of figures consists of various characters, representing the
Law, the Church, and the Government, with other inhabitants of North
America; and as a marked characteristic of that quarter of the globe, an
Indian Chief extending one hand to Britannia, and pointing the other to
a Widow and Orphans, rendered so by the civil war; also, a Negro and
Children looking up to Britannia in grateful remembrance of their
emancipation from Slavery. In a Cloud, on which Religion and Justice
rest, are seen in an opening glory the Genii of Great Britain and of
America, binding up the broken fasces of the two countries, as
emblematical of the treaty of peace and friendship between them. At the
head of the group of Loyalists are likenesses of Sir William Pepperell,
Baronet, one of the Chairmen of their Agents to the Crown and Parliament
of Great Britain; and William Franklin, Esq., son of Dr. Benjamin
Franklin, who, having his Majesty's commission of Governor of New
Jersey, preserved his fidelity and loyalty to his Sovereign from the
commencement to the conclusion of the contest, notwithstanding powerful
incitements to the contrary. He was arrested by order of Congress and
confined for two years, when he was finally exchanged. The two figures
on the right hand are the painter, Mr. West, the President of the Royal
Academy, and his lady, both natives of Pennsylvania."

[Illustration: RECEPTION OF THE AMERICAN LOYALISTS IN ENGLAND.]

Sir William continued in England during the remainder of his life. He
died in Portman Square, London, in December, 1816, aged seventy.
William, his only son, deceased in 1809. The baronetcy was inherited by
no other member of the family, and became extinct. His daughters were
Elizabeth, who married the Rev. Henry Hutton, of London; Mary, the
wife of Sir William Congreve; and Harriet, the wife of Sir Charles
Thomas Palmer, Baronet.

[Illustration: ARREST OF WILLIAM FRANKLIN BY ORDER OF CONGRESS.

THE LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY, SON OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN]

NATHANIEL SPARHAWK, brother of the second Sir William Pepperell, was
born August, 1744. Graduated at Harvard University in 1765. He was an
Addresser to Gov. Gage and went to England where he remained till 1809,
when he returned, and died in Kittery, 1814. His two sons never married,
and were by the kindness of their neighbors saved from the almshouse, on
account of their noble ancestor, being great grandsons of the elder Sir
William Pepperell.

SAMUEL HIRST SPARHAWK, also brother to Sir William Pepperell, graduated
at Harvard University in 1771, an Addresser to both Hutchinson and Gage.
Subsequently he went to England with his family of four persons. He died
at Kittery, August 29, 1789, aged thirty-eight. He left an only
daughter, Miss Harriet Hirst Sparhawk, who at his request was adopted by
his sister in Boston, wife of Dr. Jarvis, with whom she lived till the
death of that lady in 1815. She afterwards lived at Portsmouth, and
expended one hundred dollars in repairing the old Pepperell tomb. She
was the last Sparhawk living of Pepperell blood, in America.

ANDREW SPARHAWK, the fourth son of Colonel Sparhawk, married a Miss
Turner. Was a Loyalist and went to England with his brothers, where his
wife died soon after their arrival, and he died there in 1783, leaving
no children.

MARY PEPPERELL SPARHAWK, married Dr. Charles Jarvis of Boston, and after
his death, she passed the remainder of her days at Kittery Point near
the village church, and nearly opposite the residence of her
grandmother, Lady Pepperell's dwelling, built after the Baronet's death.
She died in 1815.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO SIR WILLIAM PEPPERELL IN
SUFFOLK COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Thomas Russell, Jan. 2., 1783; Lib. 136, fol. 203; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, Summer St. S.; Benjamin Goldthwait E.;
heirs of Benjamin Cunningham deceased N.; Samuel Whitwell
W.----Land and Buildings, Summer St. N.; widow Jones W. and N.;
Joseph Balch W.: John Rowe and Thomas Thompson S.; said Thompson
W.; John Rowe S.; Zachariah Brigdon E.

JOHN SINGLETON COPLEY

AND HIS SON

LORD LYNDHURST, LORD CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.

John Singleton Copley of Boston was the son of Richard Copley of County
Limerick, who married Mary Singleton, of Deer Park, County Clare. Her
father was of a Lancashire house of that name which had settled in
Ireland in 1661.

Richard and Mary came to Boston in 1736, and their son John was born
July 3rd, 1737. The father went to the West Indies and died there about
the time of the birth of his son.

The widow of Richard Copley married Peter Pelham, an engraver and
artist, by whom she had one son, Henry Pelham, who followed his father's
profession. Peter Pelham died in 1751. John S. Copley became one of the
most famous painters of his time. Without instruction, or master, he
drew and painted, and "saw visions" of beautiful forms and faces which
he transferred to canvass. His pictures show up the features and the
figures of the aristocracy of Boston, of a time when there were
aristocrats here, so that it has been frequently said that one of these
ancestral portraits is a Bostonian's best title of nobility.

Major George Washington visited Boston in 1755 and sat to young Copley
for a miniature. In 1766 Copley sent, without name or address, an
exquisite portrait of his half brother, Henry Pelham, known as the "Boy
and the Flying Squirrel," to Benjamin West, a fellow countryman then
settled in London with a request to have it placed in the Exhibition
Rooms of the Society of British Artists. The attention and admiration
excited by this wonderful painting were such that the friends of the
artist wrote most warmly to persuade him to go to England for the
pursuit of his vocation, and West extended to him a pressing invitation
to his own home. In 1769 he married Susannah Farnum, daughter of Richard
Clarke, a wealthy merchant of Boston, and agent of the East India
Company for their trade in that town. The tie between the artist and his
wife was peculiarly close. We constantly meet her familiar lineaments
through the whole course of Copley's works. Now Mary by the manger, with
the Divine Infant at her breast, in "The Nativity," again in "The Family
Picture" and in the fabled scene of Venus and Cupid, or in the female
group in "The Death of Major Pierson," dissolved in an agony of grief,
and fear, as they escape from the scene of violence and death.

The locality associated with his married life in Boston was a solitary
house on Beacon Hill, chosen with his keen perception of picturesque
beauty. His prophecy has been fully verified that the time would come
when that situation would become the favorite site for the homes of the
wealthy. Singular as it may appear the site selected by Copley was the
same as that selected by William Blackstone, the first settler of
Boston. In after years Copley's thoughts fondly reverted to his early
home--his farm, he called it--which contained 11 acres on the southwest
side of Beacon Hill, now bounded by Charles, Beacon, Walnut, and Mt.
Vernon streets, Louisburg Square and Pinckney street.

In 1771 Copley wrote that he was earning a comfortable income. At this
time, he moved in the best society, where his courtly manners and genial
disposition made him a general favorite. He was now approaching the
crucial period of his life. He saw the approaching storm that was soon
to break and deluge his country in blood. He was peculiarly situated,
and in a trying position. It is said that his sympathies were at first
with the revolutionists, and he acted as an intermediary between them
and his father-in-law, Richard Clarke,[169] to whom the tea was
consigned, but when the infuriated mob destroyed the tea, and attacked
the warehouse, and residence of Mr. Clarke, forcing him to flee for his
life, Copley could no longer tolerate mob rule. His case was like that
of many others of whom it is said "persecution made half of the king's
friends." These outrages occurred in December 1773. Less than two years
afterwards he wrote to his wife, from Italy, July 1775: "You know years
ago I was right in my opinion that this would be the result of the
attempt to tax the colony; it is now my settled conviction that all the
power of Great Britain will not reduce them to obedience. Unhappy and
miserable people, once the happiest, now the most wretched. How warmly I
expostulated with some of the violent 'Sons of Liberty' against their
proceedings, they must remember; and with how little judgment, in their
opinion, did I then seem to speak! But all this is past; the day of
tribulation is come, and years of sorrow will not dry the orphan's
tears, nor stop the widow's lamentations, the ground will be deluged in
the blood of its inhabitants before peace will again assume its dominion
in that country."[170] Copley embarked for England, June 1774, six
months after his father-in-law was driven out of Boston by the mob, and
one year before the conflict with the mother country commenced. Leaving
his aged mother, his favorite brother, his wife and children behind him,
he went to prepare a place of refuge for them from the impending storm.
Probably the desire to visit Europe and behold the work of the great
masters of the art he loved so well had something to do with leaving his
native land, to which he was never to return. After travelling and
studying two years on the Continent, he went back to London, and was
soon joined by his family. Then began a career of uninterrupted success.
He became the fashion, and many of the nobility sat to him as did also
three of the princesses, daughters of George III. Following the fashion
of the day he took up historical painting, which included the death of
Major Pierson and the death of Chatham (both now in the English National
Gallery): The siege of Gibraltar, now in the Guild Hall of London, and
Charles I demanding in the House of Commons, the surrender of the five
impeached members, which now hangs in the Boston Public Library. "The
death of Major Pierson" in repelling the attack of the French at St.
Helier's, Jersey, on the 6th of January 1781, was painted in 1783 for
Alderman Boydell, for his gallery. When this was dispersed it was bought
back by Copley, and remained in the house in George Street till Lord
Lyndhurst's death, when it was purchased for the National Gallery for
1500 guineas. The woman flying from the crowd in terror, with the child
in her arms, was painted from the nurse of Mr. Copley's family; the
figure between her and the wall, with the upraised arm, is Mrs. Copley;
the boy running by the nurse's side is young Copley.

[169] Tea Leaves 322, 323, 327, 329.

[170] Life of Copley, p 62.

Copley was an Addresser of Hutchinson in 1774, the year he left Boston,
and in 1776, on his return from Italy to London, he became a member of
the Loyalist club, for weekly conversation and a dinner. He died at his
residence in George Street, London, Sept. 9, 1815, aged seventy-eight
and was buried in the tomb belonging to Governor Hutchinson's family in
the parish church at Croydon, near London. Copley had one son and two
daughters who lived to maturity.

[Illustration: JOHN SINGLETON COPLEY

Born in Boston July 3, 1737. Painter to the King. Died in London Sept.
9, 1815.]

JOHN SINGLETON COPLEY, the younger, was born in Boston May 20, 1772, was
early destined for his father's profession, and, accordingly he attended
the lectures of Sir Joshua Reynolds, and Barry, at the Royal Academy.
He, however, had no inclination to follow in his father's footsteps. He
threw off his instructors, impatiently declaring that he would not be
known as the "son of Copley the painter" but it should be "Copley, the
father of the Lord Chancellor." So early did he prognosticate his own
future eminence. He was entered 1790 at Trinity College, Cambridge. In
the mathematical tripos of 1794, was second wrangler, sickness alone
preventing him from obtaining the highest honor of the year. He was also
Smith's Prizeman, won the King William prize, and, the following year,
was appointed a "travelling bachelor" with a grant for three years of a
£100 a year, and, a month later, was elected a fellow of Trinity,
improved the opportunity to visit Boston, the town of his birth, with
the ulterior view of regaining the family estates on Beacon Hill, owned
by his father before leaving Boston, more than twenty years before. For
although Copley was an Absentee, or Refugee, and therefore had laid
himself liable to the confiscation of his property, yet, through his
well known sympathy with the Revolutionists before the commencement of
open war, and through the assistance of some of his friends, his
property, which consisted of the largest landed estate in Boston, had
not been confiscated. There were however several real estate speculators
who had profited largely by purchasing the confiscated estates of the
Loyalists for a mere trifle who determined to possess themselves of
Copley's property. Jonathan Mason, and Harrison Grey Otis, made a
contract with Gardiner Green, who was Copley's agent, to purchase the
same, without adequate authority from the owner. When the deed was sent
to him for execution he refused to sign it. A bill in equity was
bought to enforce the contract of sale. Copley executed a power of
attorney to his son, when he went to Boston, giving him authority to
settle the case. He arrived in Boston Jan. 2nd, 1796, and wrote to his
father: "The business cannot come on till May. If you can make yourself
a subject of the United States you are clear. If otherwise I am not yet
sufficiently informed to say what may be the result, if you are decreed
an alien, but take courage." He wrote again in February 27, 1796,
saying, "I have, my dear sir, concluded my negotiations with Messrs.
Mason, Otis, and others. I have acted for the best. I was very strongly
of the opinion that the event of the contest would be in favor of the
plaintiffs. Your counsel agreed with me in their sentiments upon that
head.[171] A compromise became, therefore, necessary, and for the
consideration of $18,450 a deed of release was given, dated February 22,
1796, recorded in Lib. 182, fol. 184, Suffolk Deeds."[172]

[171] Life of Copley, p. 141.

[172] Gleaner Articles, p. 196.

No deed of any lands in Boston within a century will compare with this
in importance and interest. Taking into consideration the upland, beach,
and flats, this purchase is at a considerably less rate than $1,000 per
acre. That the son acted wisely his letters prove, but the transaction
was one of deepest regret to the whole family, and embittered the
remainder of the artist's life.

In a letter to his mother from Boston, the young man says: "Shall I
whisper a word in your ear? The better people are all aristocrats. My
father is too rank a Jacobin to live among them. Samuel Adams is
superannuated, unpopular and fast decaying in every respect." Again he
wrote to his mother from Philadelphia: "_I have become a fierce
Aristocrat._ This is the country to cure your Jacobins. Send them over
and they will return quite converted. The opposition here are a set of
villains. Their object is to overset the government, and all good men
are apprehensive lest they should be successful. A great schism seems to
be forming, and they already begin to talk of a separation of the States
north of the Potomac from those on the southern side of the river."[173]
He was a visitor at Mount Vernon and spent a week as a guest of the
first President of the young Republic.

[173] Life of Copley. p. 140, 145.

After nearly two years spent in the new United States, John Singleton
Copley, the younger, returned to what had now become the settled home of
the Copley family. He commenced a long course of study and systematic
preparation for a life which was to become of the most distinguished,
among the most famous men of the first half of the 19th century. Called
to the bar in 1804 he, with no other influence than that of his own
commanding talents, soon ranked among the leading men of his profession
and that at a time when an unusually large number of great advocates
were at the English bar.

But it was not at the bar only, or when on the bench at the head of the
judiciary of England that this son of Boston distinguished himself. In
both houses of Parliament, as Copley or Lyndhurst, he was an
acknowledged leader of men.

Copley took his seat in the House of Commons as member for Yarmouth in
the Isle of Wight, in March 1818, and until his removal to the House of
Lords, nine years later, sat continuously as a member. Meanwhile
promotion, professionally and politically, was constantly growing. In
1819, he was made a king's sergeant (at large) and chief justice of
Chester. In June of the same year he was appointed Solicitor General
(with knighthood), five years later became Attorney General. In 1826 he
succeeded Lord Gifford as Master of the Rolls, a high judicial office,
which at that time and for many years after did not compel the vacating
of a seat in Parliament.

The town Council of Bristol unanimously elected him in the same year
Recorder of that city.

In April 1827 in his 55th year on the retirement of Lord Chancellor
Eldon, the ambition of his life was realized. The great prize of the
legal profession was offered to him by the express desire of the king
and with it of course a peerage, Sir John Singleton Copley became Baron
Lyndhurst of Lyndhurst in the County of Hampshire and, for nearly forty
years thereafter remained to adorn the House of Lords by his high
talents, his noble character, and his fervid eloquence.

Lyndhurst's first Chancellorship, was not of long duration. From 1830 to
1834 we find him occupying the chiefship of the Court of Exchequer. He a
strong tory, had been honored by a whig ministry, in his appointment to
the office of Lord Chief Baron. This dignified and permanent position he
resigned again to became Chancellor following the passing of the Reform
Bill. As Lord Chancellor once more, and for the third time, from 1841 to
1846 he was a member of the ministry of Sir Robert Peel. The fame of the
great jurist and statesman had become as precious to the citizens of
Breton, as it was to the mother country. Here in Massachusetts he was
born, and from his American parents received the first vivid impression
of childhood. The reminiscences of his youth however, were
always-accompanied by a heartfelt effusion of gratitude that his lot was
cast in England. To London he was especially attached, and used to say
"that every product known to man, every wonder of art, and skill, which
the civilized world produced, could be found there."[174]

[174] Life of Copley, p. 126.

He was called the "Nestor of the House of Lords." His speeches were
remarkable for their clearness, vigor, and force, even when he had
reached nearly to his ninetieth year. A portrait of Lord Lyndhurst in
his Chancellor robes is in the portrait gallery of the New York
Historical Society. Lord Lyndhurst died October, 1863, in his 92nd year.
Leaving no male heirs, his title died with him.

[Illustration: LORD LYNDHURST, LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.

Born in Boston May 20, 1772. Son of John Singleton Copley. Died in
London Oct. 12, 1863.]

He married Sarah Geray, daughter of Charles Brunsden, and widow of
Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas, who fell at Waterloo. He was the father of
Sarah Elizabeth, Susan Penelope, and Sophia Clarence. His second wife,
Georgiana, daughter of Lewis Goldsmith, bore him a single child,
Georgiana Susan.

His Lordship's eldest sister, Elizabeth Clarke, born in Boston, 1770,
was educated at a boarding school at Clapham, London, and married
Gardiner Greene of Boston, a man of high social standing and business
position, who had come to Boston from Demerara after the Revolution,
where he had accumulated a large fortune. While on a visit to London in
July, 1800, he married Miss Copley. She died at Boston in 1866, aged 95
years. In her will she left to Harvard College a collection of proof
copies of all of Copley's historical paintings. Her daughter, Martha B.
Greene, born in 1812, married Charles Amory and wrote the Life of John
Singleton Copley, and to this valuable work we are indebted for much of
the information we have given in this biographical notice. She died in
1880 leaving many descendants.

KING HOOPER OF MARBLEHEAD.

Marblehead is a rough peninsular, projecting into the Bay, with craggy
shores, and a narrow harbor a mile and a half in length and a half mile
wide. It is distant about eighteen miles from Boston.

From its peculiar adaptation to fisheries and commerce, though very
limited in territory, this place was once famous for the hardihood and
daring enterprise of its citizens. It was the principal fishing port in
all the colonies, and now it does not contain one single fisherman that
goes to the "Banks," but it has since become the principal yachting
centre in the United States if not in the world; frequently there will
be seen gathered here more than five hundred yachts of all classes and
descriptions.

It was naturally a wilderness of rock, with here and there a green
valley or glade just fitted for a little garden, where the mariner
perched his pretty nest, on the adjacent cliff. No herds or flocks
ranged on this barren place. A Marbleheader ploughed only the deep for
his living, his pasture lay afar off on the Banks of Newfoundland, or
the Georges, and his harvest whitened the shores with their wide spread
fish flakes. Even at this day, with its cluster of antique dwellings and
rough trapesian streets, this seaport has an odd look, like some ancient
town in England. But in this secluded spot, where stands the dilapidated
fortresses of Sewall and Lee, several eminent men, merchants, mariners
and lawyers, were born and educated, who became staunch loyalists. They
were sincere in their convictions and had the courage to declare them in
defiance of a rough and turbulent population. They could not view the
revolutionary proceedings of their townsmen without deep concern, and
doing all in their power to dissuade their fellow-citizens from the
course they had taken, they protested that the entire policy of the
colonies was suicidal and that the town had been guilty of treason by
its action. With a sincere belief that these rebellious acts of the
colonists must sooner or later bring disaster and ruin upon the country,
and death and imprisonment to the leaders, they entreated their friends
and neighbors to recede from their position before it was too late, but
in vain. It was voted in town meeting that they "ought not to be
indulged in their wickedness" and that a committee should be chosen to
attend to the conduct of these ministerial tools and Jacobites, that
effectual measures might be taken "either for silencing them or
expelling them from the community". What brought about this action of
the Revolutionists was the address to Governor Hutchinson on his
departure for England signed by thirty-three of the principal citizens
of the town. Among these names there were five of the name of Hooper,
chief of whom was "King Hooper," the principal merchant in the town. He
had a high reputation for honor and integrity in his business dealings
and for his benevolence.

ROBERT HOOPER, the first to appear in Marblehead, is first mentioned in
Massachusetts records as master of a shallop hired of Mr. Moses
Maverick, a wealthy business man of Marblehead, in 1663. From a
deposition he made in court, he was born about 1606. This would make him
old enough to have been the father of John, Robert and Henry Hooper, the
other very early residents of Marblehead. He died after 1686.

ROBERT HOOPER, supposed to be the son of the aforesaid, was born as
early as 1655. Married Dec. 4, 1684, Anna, daughter of Peter and Hannah
Greenfield. Hannah was a daughter of John and Ann Devereux. He was an
inn keeper and died about 1689.

GREENFIELD HOOPER, son of the aforesaid, was born about 1686. He resided
at Marblehead, was a merchant. He also had a "workshop," with loom for
weaving. He married, Jan. 16, 1706, Alice, daughter of Andrew Tucker,
Sr., and received a share of his real estate. He died about October 1,
1747.

[Illustration: KING HOOPER MANSION, DANVERS.

At his elegant mansion in Danvers, Robert Hooper entertained General
Gage, who made it his headquarters in 1774.]

ROBERT HOOPER, known as "King Hooper," was born at Marblehead, June 26,
1709, son of the aforesaid Greenfield Hooper. He was married four times.
Was a merchant who rose from poverty to apparently inexhaustible wealth,
engrossing for years a large part of the foreign fishing business of
Marblehead, which was very extensive about the year 1760. For awhile he
purchased all the fish brought into that port, sent it to Bilboa and
other parts of Spain and received gold and silver in return, with which
he purchased goods in England. He owned lands in Marblehead, Salem,
Danvers, and an extensive tract at Lyndeborough, N. H., and elsewhere.
He had a large and elegant house at Marblehead, and also a mansion at
Danvers, where he did "royal" entertaining, rode in a chariot like a
prince, and was ever after known as "King Hooper." He was one of the
wealthiest and most benevolent men in the colony. He presented
Marblehead with a fire engine in 1751.[175]

[175] Hooper Genealogy. Curwen's Journal. History of Marblehead.

At his elegant house in Danvers he entertained General Gage for some
time in 1774, and was an Addresser of Hutchinson the same year. He was
appointed representative to the General Court in 1775, and declined a
seat in the Governor's council in 1759 on account of deafness. He was
one of thirty-six persons appointed as mandamus councillors of the
province in 1774, at the beginning of the agitation that led to the
Revolution, and was one of the twelve that did not accept of the honor,
his deafness previously referred to being probably the reason, for he
was a staunch loyalist. This, together with his age and known
generosity, prevented his being driven forth from the town; it however
did not prevent the loss of his great property, for when he died in 1790
he was insolvent. In a letter dated Marblehead, March 17, 1790,
addressed to his granddaughter Ruth, the wife of Lewis Deblois, a Boston
loyalist residing at St. John, N. B., he says: "But as you justly
observe we have been and still are 300 miles distance from each other
and my advanced age make it doubtful whether I may ever see you more in
this world, your parting from me was next to burying you, there is
nothing would give more pleasure than to hear of the health and
prosperity of every branch of my family." This truly great and honorable
man died, a little more than a month after writing this letter. He died
May 20, 1790, aged 81 years.

JOSEPH HOOPER, son of the aforesaid, was born at Marblehead, May 29,
1743, married Oct. 30, 1766, Mary, daughter of Benjamin and Lucy
(Devereux) Harris of Newburyport, Nov. 20, 1746. She died at Newburyport
Oct. 3, 1796.

He graduated from Harvard College in 1763, was a merchant in his native
town, carrying on a foreign trade. He built the mansion in Marblehead
afterwards occupied by Chief Justice Sewall. He was an Addresser of
Governor Hutchinson in 1774. Being an ardent loyalist he was forced to
leave his home in 1775 and go to England. He became a paper manufacturer
at Bungay, Suffolk, England, where he died in 1812. The Marblehead
Revolutionary committee recorded May 8th, 1781, that "they believed he
had voluntarily gone over to our enemies," that is he was a loyalist,
and proceeded to administer on his affairs. One third share was set off
to his wife June 9, 1783, and the balance confiscated and sold. He had
two sons and two daughters.

ROBERT HOOPER, son of King Hooper, was born at Marblehead, Feb. 9, 1746,
married May 23, 1769, Anna, daughter of Richard and Jemima Corwell. He
was an Addresser of Governor Hutchinson, but evidently made peace with
the Revolutionists and was allowed to remain. He died about 1781 at
Marblehead. "He had usually traded beyond the sea."

SWEET HOOPER, son of King Hooper. Married at Boston, Aug. 4, 1779, Mary,
daughter of Hector McNeil. He was an Addresser of Governor Hutchinson,
but was allowed to remain. He was a merchant at Marblehead, died
October, 1781.

ROBERT HOOPER, 3d. as described in the Addressers to Governor
Hutchinson, was probably a son of Deacon Robert Hooper, cousin to the
aforesaid Hoopers. He was born at Marblehead 1757, and married Sept. 21,
1777, Elizabeth, daughter of Rev. Nathaniel Whittaker of Salem. In 1794
he sold his two-sixths of the mansion house, etc., which had belonged to
his father, the late Deacon Robert Hooper. He removed to Lexington,
Maine, was master of Limerick Academy. He died May 11, 1836.

WILLIAM BOWES.

Nicholas Bowes of Cambridge, Mass., married 26 June, 1684, Sarah
Hubbard, who died 26 Jan. 1686, and for second wife married 6 May, 1690,
Dorcas Champney, and a third wife, Martha Remington, of Cambridge, June
21, 1718. It is claimed that he was descended from Sir Martin Bowes,
Lord Mayor of London. Nicholas Bowes, son of the preceding was born at
Boston, Nov. 2nd, 1706. He graduated at Harvard College as M. A., was
minister at Bedford from 1730 to 1754. He married Lucy Hancock, the aunt
of John Hancock, the Revolutionary Governor of Massachusetts. Their son

WILLIAM BOWES, was born at Boston, 3 December 1734. He married Ann
Whitney, March 22, 1761, who died Jan. 2, 1762. His second wife was Mary
Stoddard, whom he married Oct. 30, 1769, and who died 9 May, 1774. He
was a merchant and had inherited in 1764 a large property from his
uncle, Thomas Hancock, one of the wealthiest merchants in Boston. He was
an Addresser of Governor Hutchinson in 1774, and of General Gage in
1775. At the evacuation of Boston he went to Halifax with his family of
four persons. In 1788 he was proscribed and banished, and his estates
confiscated. He died near London, April, 1805. His eldest son,

WILLIAM BOWES, born at Boston, 15 Oct. 1771, lived in England and died
near London 10 June, 1850, aged 79. He married Harriet Troutbeck,
daughter of Rev. John Troutbeck, born at Boston 1 Oct. 1768, and died in
England, 14 January, 1851, aged 82. Their children were Emily Bowes born
1806, Edmund Elford Bowes, born 1808, M. A. Trinity College. Cambridge.
Arthur Bowes, born 1813. All born and living in England in 1856.

Sarah Bowes, daughter of William Bowes, Sr., was born at Boston, Jan.
31, 1773, and died in England. July 1850, unmarried.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO WILLIAM BOWES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Richard Driver. Feb. 16, 1782, Lib. 134, fol. 23; Land in
Boston, Fitch's Alley W.; Margaret Phillips N., Corn Court E.
Andrew Oliver S.

To Mungo Mackey. June 11, 1783; Lib. 139, fol. 16. One fourth of
land, brick distill house and other buildings in Boston, Cambridge
St. N.; George St E. heirs of John Guttridge deceased S.; Belknap
St. W.

To Robert Jenkins, Feb. 16, 1784; Lib. 141, fol. 132; Land and
buildings in Boston. Wilson's Lane W.; Dock Square N.; Arnold and
Samuel Wells E. heirs of Charles Hammock deceased S.

To James Welch. Nov. 6, 1784; Lib. 145, fol. 250; Land in Boston.
Wings Lane N., Nathan Frazier and heirs of Charles Apthorp deceased
E.; said heirs S.; E.; S. and W.

GENERAL TIMOTHY RUGGLES.

THOMAS RUGGLES of Nazing, Essex County, England, was born in Sudbury,
Suffolk County, England, in 1584. He came to Roxbury, Massachusetts, in
1637 and was freeman May 22, 1639. He married in Nazing, England, Mary
Curtis. He died in Roxbury, November 16, 1644, and his wife died in
1674, leaving four children.

His son Samuel was many years selectman, representative, and captain of
the Roxbury company. His son Samuel succeeded his father in the several
offices named and in company with seven other persons purchased, Dec.
27, 1686, for £20, from John Nagers and Lawrence Nassawano, two noted
Indians, a tract of land containing by estimation 12 miles long north
and south and eight miles wide east and west. This purchase is now known
as the town of Hardwick, Mass. His son, the Rev. Timothy Ruggles, was
born in Roxbury, Massachusetts November 3., 1685, and married Mary
White, the daughter of Benjamin and Susanna White. He graduated from
Harvard College in 1707, and was ordained pastor of the Rochester church
in 1710, which office he held until his death which occurred October 26,
1768. He was a great worker in the community and much beloved.

GENERAL TIMOTHY RUGGLES, born in Rochester, Mass., October 20, 1711,
eldest son of Rev. Timothy Ruggles, one of the fifth generation of
Ruggles in America, graduated at Harvard College in 1732 and commenced
practicing law in Rochester. He represented his native town in the
provincial assembly at the age of 25, and procured the passing of a bill
still in force prohibiting sheriffs from filing writs. He removed to
Harwich about 1753 on to the lands bought by his grandfather from the
Indians. In 1757 he was appointed judge and in 1762 Chief Justice of the
Court of Common Pleas, which he held till the Revolution. He was also
surveyor-general of the king's forest, an office of profit, attended
with but little labor. Besides professional employment he was engaged in
military and political occupation.

In 1756 almost immediately before Mr. Ruggles' appointment to the
bench, he accepted a Colonel's Commission in the forces raised by his
native province for service on the frontier of Canada. In the campaign
which followed, he served under the command of Sir William Johnson, and
did good service in the expedition against Crown Point. In September of
the same year he was second in command under that leader at the battle
of Lake George, in which the French under Baron Dieskau, met a signal
defeat, after very severe fighting, in which he distinguished himself
for coolness, courage and ability, and so highly were his services
esteemed on that occasion that he was promoted to the position of General
of Brigade and placed under the command of the Commander-in-Chief.

In 1758 he commanded the Third Division of the Provisional troops under
Abercrombie, in the unsuccessful attack upon Ticonderoga. He also served
with distinction and courage in the campaign of 1759-1760. In the winter
of 1762 while the belligerent forces on both sides were in winter
quarters, he had the honor to be chosen speaker of the House of
Representatives. On the passing of the Stamp Act in 1765 delegates were
chosen by the legislature of the various colonies, to seek out some
relief from immediate and threatened evils, by a representation of their
grievances to the king and parliament. Gen. Ruggles was chosen as one of
the delegates from Massachusetts. The Stamp Act Congress met at New
York, Oct. 19, 1765, and General Ruggles was elected president of same.
An address to the king was voted and certain resolves framed setting
forth the rights of the colonies, and claiming an entire exemption from
all taxes, excepting those imposed by the local assemblies. Gen. Ruggles
refused his concurrence in the proceedings for which he was censured on
his return by the House of Representatives, and was reprimanded by the
speaker who occupied his place. John Adams, who claimed relationship
with Ruggles before his defection found nothing in his character but
what was noble and grand. "Ruggles' grandeur" he wrote, "consists in the
quickness of his apprehension, steadiness of his attention, the boldness
and strength of his thoughts and his expressions, his strict honor,
conscious superiority, contempt of meanness, etc." He was, he said, a
man of genius and great resolution. At an early period of the Disunion
propaganda. Ruggles, conceiving that the course of the British
Government was neither politic nor just, and believing that the Disunion
leaders honestly intended to bring about a reform, joined hands with
them and as previously stated he was elected President of the Stamp Act
Congress, but on the discovery of the real aim of that body, he refused
to proceed any further on the road to Disunion and left the Congress.
Adams then suddenly discovered, "an inflexible oddity about him, which
has gained him a character for courage and probity, and that at
Congress." "His behavior was very dishonorable" and governed by
"pretended scruples and timidities" and ever since he was "held in utter
contempt and derision by the whole continent." But fifty years later,
when no advantage could be gained by blackening the character of this
brave and honest man, he remembered he was a high-minded man, an
exalted soul acting in scenes he could not comprehend.[176] General
Ruggles was a staunch, independent and fearless supporter of the
government, a son of Massachusetts of which she should be proud.

[176] Diary and Letters of John Adams.

An extract from the "History of the County of Annapolis, Nova Scotia,"
says, "The conduct of Mr. Ruggles as a military commander has been
highly praised by most competent judges. Few men in the province were
more distinguished and few more severely dealt with in the bitter
controversies preceding the Revolution. His appearance was commanding
and dignified, being much above the common size; his wit was ready and
brilliant; his mind clear, comprehensive and penetrating; his judgment
was profound and his knowledge extensive; his abilities as a public
speaker placed him among the first of the day; and had he embraced the
popular sentiments of the times, there is no doubt he would have ranked
among the leading characters of the Revolution."

By pen and tongue, in the halls of the Legislature, and on the platform,
he declared against rebellion and bloodshed; General Ruggles was a good
scholar and possessed powers of mind of a very high order. Many
anecdotes continue to be related of him in the town of his nativity,
which show his shrewdness, his sagacity, his military hardihood and
bravery. As a lawyer he was an impressive pleader and in parliamentary
debate able and ingenious. He remained in the army until 1760, the last
three years being Brigadier General under Lord Amherst.

As the Revolutionary quarrel progressed he became one of the most
violent supporters of the ministry and he and Otis as leaders of the two
opposing parties were in constant collision in the discussion of the
popular branch of government. In 1774 he was named a Mandamus
Councillor, which increased his unpopularity to so great a degree that
his house was attacked by night and his cattle were maimed and poisoned.
General Ruggles tried to form a plan of combining the Loyalists against
the Disunionists after the model of similar associations formed in other
colonies. On December 22, 1774, he sent a communication to the "Printers
of the Boston Newspaper" concerning the forming of an Association "and
if attended to and complied with by the good people of the province
might put it in the power of anyone very easily to distinguish such
loyal subjects to the king and are to assert their rights to freedom, in
all respects consistent with the laws of the land from such rebellious
ones as under the pretence of being friends of liberty, are frequently
committing the most enormous outrages upon the persons and the property
of such of his Majesty's peaceable subjects who for want of knowing whom
to call upon, in these distracted times for assistance, fall into the
hands of bandits, whose cruelties surpass those of savages."

The "Association" consisted of a preamble and six articles. The
principal were the first and third, which provided "That we will upon
all occasions, with our lives and fortunes, stand by and assist each
other in the defence of life, liberty and property, whenever the same
shall be attacked or endangered by any bodies of men, riotously
assembled upon any pretence, or under any authority not warranted by the
laws of the land." And "That we will not acknowledge or submit to the
pretended authority of any Congress, Committees of Correspondence, or
any other unconstitutional assembly of men, but will at the risk of our
lives if need be, oppose the forcible exercise of all such authority."

The Association did not succeed, the Loyalists were not inclined to such
organization, nor fitted for secret intrigue without which it could not
have succeeded in combatting the measures of the Disunionists. They were
slow to join, and inefficient in action. No good was accomplished by
this association and the Disunionists proceeded on their way triumphant.

When the appeal to arms had been finally decided on by the Disunionists,
the popular excitement was at a fearful height, and all those who had
counselled moderation, either in demand or action, were declared to be
enemies to their country and traitors to the cause of liberty, and as
such worthy of death. No man in Massachusetts was regarded as so
inimical to the cause of rebellion as General Ruggles, whose known and
recognized ability, great energy, and unflinching courage made him an
object of fear as well as dislike.

They denounced him as malignant and openly threatened his life. In
consequence of this violence he was forced, with his family and such of
his neighbors as remained loyal, to seek safety and refuge from his
dwelling house which he had built in Harwich by joining the British
forces in Boston. On the very day of the battle of Lexington, a body of
Loyalists formed in Boston, composed of tradesmen and merchants. They
are spoken of as "the gentlemen volunteers," or Loyal American
Association. They were placed under the command of Brigadier General
Ruggles. During the siege of Boston they were joined by other Loyalist
companies, Loyal Irish Volunteers, Captain James Forrest, Royal
Honorable Americans, Colonel Gorham. After the evacuation of Boston he
was in Long Island for a while and in 1783 he was an exile from his
native province in his old age, but still as vigorous as he was loyal.
His extensive estates in Harwich were confiscated, but were made up to
him subsequently by the crown. He was living at Digby or Annapolis in
the year of 1783, and made an application for a grant of land in that
portion of the province. "In the following year the grant was issued.
The undismayed grantee commenced a labor at the age of more than seventy
years, which few, if any of the young men of to-day would voluntarily
undertake. The work of chopping down the forests and clearing the lands
for crops and of preparation for building went on simultaneously and
rapidly under his direction.

"Two young men, Stromach and Fales, were employed to work with him for a
limited number of years and receive their pay in land. They did their
work, and he paid them, and their descendants are now the occupiers of
many a fair home in the beautiful township of Wilmot."

General Ruggles' four daughters were married before the Revolution
broke out and their husbands probably adhered to the Colonial side, for
they never came to Nova Scotia. Three of his sons followed him into
exile and settled in that country, Timothy, John, and Richard. It may
not be without use to remark that for much the greater part of his life,
General Ruggles ate no animal food, and drank no spirituous or fermented
liquors, small beer excepted, and that he enjoyed health to his advanced
age. This remarkable leader of men died in 1795. The "Royal Gazette" in
August, 1795, said of him that "the district of county in which he lived
will long feel the benefits resulting from the liberal exertions he made
to advance the agricultural interests of the Province." It was also said
of General Timothy Ruggles that he was one of the best soldiers in the
colonies.

He was buried to the eastward of the chancel of the (then new) church,
lately known as the "Pine Grove Church," in Central Wilmot, near the
present village of Middleton,--a church toward the erection of which he
was a considerable contributor.

Numerous descendants of General Ruggles are to be met with in Nova
Scotia. There is a street and church in Roxbury named after this
illustrious family.

JOHN RUGGLES, son of General Ruggles of Harwich, Mass., was proscribed
and banished in 1778. He settled in Nova Scotia and died there in 1795.
His widow Hannah, only daughter of Dr. Thomas Sackett of New York, died
at Wilmot, N. S. in 1839, aged 76. His only son, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY AMHERST
RUGGLES of the Nova Scotia Fencibles died at the same place in 1838 at
the age of 56.

TIMOTHY RUGGLES, another son of the General, was a member of the House
of Assembly of Nova Scotia for many years. He died at N. S. in 1831.
Sarah, his widow, died at that place in 1842, aged 92.

RICHARD RUGGLES, son of the General, was born at Rochester, Mass., in
1774 and died at Annapolis in 1832.

THE FANEUIL FAMILY OF BOSTON.

The Faneuils were Huguenot refugees from La Rochelle, France. When they
came to America they brought with them considerable wealth in jewels and
money. From their coat of arms we should judge they dated back as far as
the crusades, as the crossed palm branches can have no other meaning.

There is a paper extant in the French language and written by Benjamin
Faneuil the elder. It is a family record in which he states that in 1699
he married Ann Bureau; then follows the birth of Peter Faneuil,
afterwards the birth of three daughters. This paper was left by Benjamin
Faneuil the younger, and is now in the possession of his great-grand-son
George A. Bethune, M. D., Boston (1884). They first settled near New
Rochelle, N. Y., and in 1699 Benjamin Faneuil was given the freedom of
the city of New York. In Valentine's "History of New York," P. 219, we
read in a list of the principal merchants of the city the name of
Benjamin Faneuil the third in the list.

Andrew, the brother of Benjamin settled in Boston and made an immense
fortune as a merchant. His wife was born in Holland and was a very
beautiful woman.

Andrew Faneuil had no children that lived to maturity. He adopted two
sons of his brother Benjamin of New York--Peter, born in 1701, and
Benjamin the younger, born in 1702. Benjamin Faneuil the younger,
married the daughter of Dr. John Cutler from a noted German family.
Andrew Faneuil was offended about this marriage and left most of his
fortune to his nephew Peter Faneuil. Peter Faneuil died five years after
his uncle and left no will, and his brother Benjamin was declared sole
heir to his fortune.

Benjamin Faneuil the elder is buried on the north side of Trinity church
in New York City and the gravestone is in good preservation. His brother
Andrew lived in a splendid house at the corner of Somerset and Beacon
Streets, Boston; the house after his death was owned and occupied by
Gardner Greene. From that home in Boston Andrew Faneuil was buried,
having a most imposing funeral. (See Memorial Hist. of Boston). His tomb
is in the graveyard at the south side of the common.

Benjamin Faneuil the younger, and Mary Cutler, had two sons neither of
whom left descendants, and a daughter. He lived at one time in Boston at
the corner of Washington and Summer Streets, and later in Brighton. He
was stone blind for twenty years and lived to be eighty-four years of
age. He was an admirable character and greatly beloved. His daughter
entertained General Washington at their home during the seige of Boston,
and General Lee was with him. Benjamin Faneuil admired Washington and he
told him so, emphatically, whether a Whig or not. But he also told
General Lee who was an Englishman that he had his "head in the noose"
for he was a very decided old man and had to state his opinions under
any circumstances.

Peter Faneuil possessed his uncle's estate only about five years but
during that time he lived in sumptuous style at the corner of Somerset
and Beacon Streets in the house that Andrew built. He gave great sums to
charity and Faneuil Hall was but one of his gifts to the city. Every
charity of that day has his name down for a large sum. To Trinity church
he gave a £100 for an organ and a donation to support the families of
the deceased clergy of that church. It became so large that it was
divided between Trinity church and Kings Chapel, and has done much good.
There is a fine portrait of Peter Faneuil still extant; it was given to
the Antiquarian Society of Boston by his niece, Miss Jones, and is a
better picture than the one in Faneuil Hall.

Peter Faneuil was a careful business man, but was always generous. At
the time of the erection of Faneuil Hall there was no market house then
in the town, and so he erected a building one hundred feet in length by
forty feet in width. Besides the market there were several rooms for
town officers, and a hall which would contain one thousand persons. On
the completion of the building the first public oration held there was a
funeral eulogy delivered in honor of its donor, Peter Faneuil, March 14,
1743 by Master Lovell of the Latin School, and was "Recorded by Order of
Town."[177] The Hall was dedicated to Liberty and Loyalty to the King in
the following words, "May Liberty always spread its Joyful Wings, over
this Place. And may Loyalty to a King under whom we enjoy this Liberty
ever remain our Character." That the building should ever be used by
conspirators against the King, and become synonymous for disloyalty to
the King, was the very last purpose that its founder intended it to be
used for, yet by the strange irony of fate Faneuil Hall became known to
the world as the "Cradle of Liberty" in which the Revolution was rocked.
The town also voted to purchase the "Arms of Peter Faneuil and Fix them
up in Faneuil Hall." Only a few years passed when the very people he had
so benefited by his bounty tore down his "Arms" and portraits, and
showed the most violent marks of disrespect to the memory of him who had
been their best friend, but it was unreasonable violence that moved the
mob who called themselves patriots. Faneuil Hall is a permanent memorial
of the Huguenots of Boston and with the exception of a few crumbling
gravestones it is the only visible monument of their residence here.

[177] See Boston Town Records 1742 to 1757. pp. 14, 15, 16. Printed by
the City of Boston.

Peter Faneuil died in 1742 and left his vast fortune to his two nephews,
Peter and Benjamin Faneuil the younger, the latter being an eminent
merchant and was one of the consignees of the tea that was destroyed by
the mob. The following letter sent to him by the "patriots" at that time
undoubtedly expresses the feelings and the sentiment of those who formed
the "Boston Tea Party." The letter he said was found in his entry.

"Gentlemen, It is currently reported that you are in the extremest
anxiety respecting your standing with the good people of this Town
and Province, as commissioners of the sale of the monopolized and
dutied tea. We do not wonder in the least that your apprehensions
are terrible, when the most enlightened humans and conscientious
community on the earth view you in the light of tigers or mad dogs,
whom the public safety obliges them to destroy. Long have this
people been irreconcilable to the idea of spilling human blood, on
almost any occasion whatever, but they have lately seen a
penitential thief suffer death for pilfering a few pounds, from
scattering individuals you boldly avow a resolution to bear a
principal part in the robbing of every inhabitant of this country,
in the present and future ages of every thing dear and interesting
to them. Are there no laws in the Book of God and nature that
enjoin such miscreants to be cut off from among the people, as
troublers of the whole congregation. Yea, verily, there are laws
and officers to put them into execution, which you can neither
corrupt, intimidate, nor escape, and whose resolution to bring you
to condign punishment you can only avoid by a speedy imitation of
your brethren in Philadelphia. This people are still averse to
precipitate your fate, but in case of much longer delay in
complying with their indispensable demands, you will not fail to
meet the just rewards of your avarice and insolence. Remember,
gentlemen, this is the last warning you are ever to expect from the
insulted, abused and most indignant vindicators of violated liberty
in the Town of Boston.

Thursday evening 9 o'clock,
Nov. 4. 1773. O. C. Secy, per order.

To Messrs. the Tea Commissioners,
Directed to B---- F---- Esq."[178]

[178] Tea Leaves pp. 292-3.

The Faneuils did not lack patriotism. They counselled prudence until the
country was prepared for action in a constitutional way. They were
entirely opposed to mob violence, and their patriotism took a reasonable
practical form, looking to the best interests of all. Further they had
no angry feelings against the English; they had too recently been
received and protected by them when their own country turned them out.
They always spoke of the English as a great nation. They admired their
liberality as to religious opinions in which France was wanting.

BENJAMIN FANEUIL the elder previously referred to, the father of Peter
and Benjamin, the younger, and Mary died at Cambridge in 1785 aged 84.

PETER FANEUIL his son, who shared with his brother the vast fortune left
them by their uncle went to Canada at the outbreak of the Revolution and
then to the West Indies.

BENJAMIN FANEUIL found that it was necessary for his safety to leave
Boston. He went to Halifax with the fleet when Boston was invaded on
March 17, 1776, he afterwards went to England where he had $300,000 in
English funds, with which he entertained his friends, the less fortunate
refugees. In writing to a friend he said, "When we shall be able to
return to Boston I cannot say, but hope and believe it will not exceed
one year, for sooner or later America will be conquered, that you may
depend on." He, however, was destined never to return but was proscribed
and banished. He resided at Bristol where he died in 1785. His wife Jane
was the daughter of Addington Davenport. The Faneuil name has become
extinct; there are, however, numerous descendants through the female.
Mary Faneuil, daughter of Benjamin Faneuil the elder became the wife of
George Bethune, Oct. 13, 1754, and died in 1797, leaving many
descendants. Mary Ann Faneuil, sister of Peter, who built the hall,
married John Jones, who died at Roxbury in 1767, and whose son Edward
died in Boston in 1835 at the age of 83. She was a loyalist, and resided
for some time in Windsor, Nova Scotia. A letter from her son dated at
Boston, June 23, 1783, advising her if desirous of returning, not to
come directly to Boston, as the law was still in force; but first to
some other State and thence to Boston.[179]

[179] Dealings with the Dead, p. 510.

THE COFFIN FAMILY OF BOSTON.

ADMIRAL SIR ISAAC COFFIN, SIR THOMAS ASTON COFFIN, ADMIRAL
FROMAN H. COFFIN, GENERAL JOHN COFFIN.

The name of Coffin is widely spread over this continent; thousands take
pride in tracing their descent from Tristram Coffin of Alwington, which
extends along the Severn Sea, south of the boundary between Somerset and
Devon, fronting the broad Atlantic.

The Coffins came over with William the Conqueror and settled there in
1066. It is said that the name Coffin was a corruption or translation of
Colvinus, signifying a basket or chest, and that from the charge of the
King's treasure, such employment, like royalty itself, being hereditary,
the name became attached to the family. In 1085, according to the
"Doomsday Book," Alwington was possessed by David De la Bere, and that
the heiress of that name brought it to the Coffins. On a subject less
grave this might be suspected for a jest but the authority is proof.
Tristram came over to New England in 1642 and settled at Salisbury, and
also at Haverhill and Newbury. He resided at these places for sixteen
years and then went to Nantucket, which at that time was a dependency of
New York. For 80 pounds he and his associates bought of the Indians a
large part of the island. Tristram's third son, James, was Judge of the
Court of Common Pleas and of Probate. James' son, Nathaniel, married the
daughter of William Gayer, and niece of Sir John Gayer. William, the
eldest son of Nathaniel, born 1699, removed to Boston and became
proprietor of the Lunch of Grapes Tavern in 1731. It was situated on
King street at the corner of Mackerel lane, the site now occupied by the
Exchange building, on the corner of State and Kilby streets. It was a
tavern from 1640 to 1760, when the Great Fire swept everything away.

The Coffins were strong in numbers and near neighbors, along the
principal thoroughfare, now Washington street, dwelt twenty families,
descended from William Coffin, or their near kinfolk, who lived in
constant intercourse. The patriarch, at four score, his vigor hardly
abated, lived on this street near his son's house. His daughter,
Elizabeth, married her cousin, Thomas C. Amory, who had bought the house
opposite her father's, at the corner of Hollis street, built by Governor
Belcher for his own use. He was one of the organizers of Trinity church
in 1734 and was one of the first wardens of same. He lived in honor and
affluence till he died in 1774, just before the war broke out, which
saved him from witnessing the exile and widespread confiscation that
awaited his sons. His children and their children counted about sixty
when he died, but of his descendants bearing the name of Coffin, all
have died out in Massachusetts. He had four sons, all staunch Loyalists,
William, Nathaniel, John and Ebenezer. The daughters, Mrs. De Blois,
Mrs. Amory, and Mrs. Dexter, married into the best families of Boston,
and through love for their husbands took the other side. The sons were
proscribed and banished by an Act of the Massachusetts Legislature.

WILLIAM COFFIN, JR., the eldest son of William, was born in Boston,
April 11th, 1723. He was an Addresser of General Gage, was proscribed
and banished. He accompanied the Royal Army to Halifax in 1776 on the
evacuation of Boston.

SIR THOMAS ASTON COFFIN, Baronet, son of William, Jr., was born at
Boston, March 31, 1754. He graduated at Harvard College in 1772. He was
for a long time Secretary to Sir Guy Carleton, by whose side he sat in
the last boat which left Castle Garden on the evacuation of New York,
25th Nov., 1783. When Sir Guy Carleton became Lord Dorchester and
Governor of Quebec, 1784, Coffin accompanied him and by his influence
was appointed in 1804 Secretary and Comptroller of Accounts of Lower
Canada. At another part of his life he was Commissary General in the
British Army. He went to England and died in London in 1810, very
wealthy. He was grandfather to Mrs. Bolton, wife of Col. Bolton, R. A.,
who took an active part in the Red River Expedition of 1870.

WILLIAM COFFIN, the second son of William Coffin, Jr., was born in
Boston, 1758, and died at Kingston, Canada, in 1804.

EBENEZER COFFIN, the third son of William Coffin, Jr., was born at
Boston, 1763, went to South Carolina where he acquired property as a
merchant and planter and was the father of Thomas Aston Coffin of
Charleston, South Carolina, whose descendants, with an hereditary
instinct, distinguished themselves by their chivalrous devotion to a
failing cause in the late Confederate war.

NATHANIEL COFFIN, second eldest son of William, was born in Boston in
1725, graduated at Harvard College in 1744, received in 1750 an honorary
degree at Yale. Brought up a merchant, he was early appointed King's
Cashier of the Customs and acquired considerable property. He resided on
the corner of Essex and Rainsford Lane, now Harrison avenue. The tide
washed up to the garden wall. Near by in front, on what is now called
Washington street, was the "Liberty Tree," where Captain Mackintosh and
his "chickens," met to plan outrages upon loyal citizens.

In August, 1767, a flagstaff was erected which went through and above it
highest branches. A flag hoisted on this was the notice for the
assembling of the "Sons of Liberty" for action. In 1775, his son
Nathaniel, and his friends cut it down, much to the disgust of
Mackintosh who was known as the "First Captain General of Liberty Tree."
On the building occupying its site is a stone bas-relief of the tree
with an inscription on it. Nathaniel Coffin held one of the most
lucrative positions under the crown, his acquaintances and friends were
naturally among the government officials and the better class of the
community. He had much to lose if he severed from his fealty to the
mother country and, banishment and confiscation would be the penalty, if
the disunionists succeeded.

NATHANIEL COFFIN was the last Receiver General and Cashier of his
Majesty's Customs at the Port of Boston, he was an addressor of
Hutchinson in 1774 and of Gage in 1775. With his family of three persons
he accompanied the Royal Army to Halifax in 1776 and in July of that
year embarked for England in the ship Aston Hall. In May, 1780, while
returning, he died the day before the vessel arrived at New York. His
wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Barnes of Boston.

NATHANIEL COFFIN, JR., son of the aforesaid, was born in Boston in 1749.
Was an Addresser of Hutchinson in 1774 and a Protester against the
disunionists the same year. He was brought up to the bar, and succeeded
well in his profession. As he took a prominent part on the side of the
Government; and caused the "Liberty Tree" to be cut down, he was obliged
to fly, or he would have been tarred and feathered. He employed a negro
to assist him in cutting it down. A thousand dollars reward was offered
by the Revolutionists for the offender, the darky informed against him,
and he had to leave.[180] He was at New York in 1783, and was one of the
petitioners for lands in Nova Scotia. At a subsequent period he was
appointed Collector of Customs at the island of St. Kitt's and filled
that position for thirty-four years. He died in London in 1831, aged 83.

[180] "Memoir of General John Coffin." By Captain Henry Coffin. R. N.,
1880, p. 17.

WILLIAM COFFIN, second son of Nathaniel, the Cashier. An Addresser of
Hutchinson in 1774; went to Halifax in 1776, proscribed and banished,
1778. Assisted his brother in destroying the "Liberty Tree." He had
three sons in the British service. After the peace, he was at St. John,
New Brunswick, a prosperous merchant.

GENERAL JOHN COFFIN, the third son of Nathaniel, the Cashier, was born
in Boston, 1756, was sent to sea at a very early age, and at the age of
eighteen was in command of a ship. In 1775, while his ship was in
England, she was engaged by the government to take troops to America. He
had on board nearly a whole regiment with General Howe in command of the
troops, who was ordered out to supersede General Gage at Boston. The
vessel arrived at Boston June 15th. Mr. Coffin landed the regiment on
June 17th at Bunker Hill, and the action having already commenced, he
was requested by the Colonel, "to come up and see the fun," the only
weapon at hand being the tiller of his boat; he immediately, to use a
nautical phrase, "unshipped it," and with equal determination, commenced
"laying about" him, and "shipped" the musket, powder and belt of the
first man he knocked down. He bore an active part and distinguished
himself during the rest of the action. In consideration of his gallant
conduct he was presented to General Gage after the battle and made an
ensign on the field, shortly after he was promoted to a lieutenancy,
but still retained the command of his ship. He was promised by General
Howe on his arrival at Boston the command of 400 men, if he would go to
New York and raise them. He accordingly went to New York when Boston was
evacuated March 17, 1776, where he raised among the Loyalists a mounted
rifle corps, called the "Orange Rangers," of which he was made
Commandant, and from which he exchanged into the New York Volunteers in
1778. He took part in the defeat of Washington in the battle of Long
Island in 1777 and went with that corps to Georgia in 1778. Here he
raided a corps of partisan cavalry, composed chiefly of loyal planters.
At the battle of Savannah, at that of Hobkerk's Hill, and the action of
Cross Creek near Charleston, and on various other occasions, his conduct
won the admiration of his superior.

At the battle of Eutaw Springs which he opened on the part of the King's
troops, his gallantry and good judgment attracted the notice and remark
of General Greene, the Revolutionary leader, one of General Washington's
ablest lieutenants. Major Coffin with 150 infantry and 50 cavalry
averted the advance on Eutaw. Colonel William Washington, a
distinguished partisan leader, with numerous cavalry rashly dashed
forward; he lost most of his officers and many of his men, and his horse
was shot under him, and he would have been slain had not Major Coffin
interposed, who took him prisoner. These two men, who had known each
other well in private life, rode back to camp to share the same meal and
the same tent.

In the Southern colonies the Revolutionists and Loyalists, waged a war
of extermination, the partisans on both sides, seldom gave quarter or
took prisoners. At the close of the conflict in Virginia Lord Cornwallis
made him a gift of a handsome sword, accompanied by a letter conferring
on him the rank of Major Brevet. Whilst Coffin was attached to
Cornwallis, he was able to be of great service to him, but the bravery,
not to say the extraordinary sagacity mingled with audacity of one man,
could not save the army. Lord Cornwallis' army cooped up in Yorktown by
a superior army of French and Americans, and blockaded by a French
fleet, was in danger of starvation, and Coffin stood almost alone in
successful forays, in which he frequently eluded the whole American and
French army, and returned laden with the fruits of his success. In one
of these raids he accidentally came to the house of a wealthy planter
whose daughter was to be married that day. He quietly surrounded the
house with his troops and knocking at the door, sent in word that he
wished to speak with the proprietor. On presenting himself, the
gentleman was courteously made aware of his condition. He was told not
to make any noise, but to order sufficient turkeys, ham, wine and other
provisions to be put up, to satisfy his men; if this was done no harm
would happen, but on the contrary, if any resistance was attempted,
everything and everybody in the house would be destroyed. Coffin's
character and resolution were well known, so the planter thought it best
to graciously comply with the mandate. A large quantity of provisions
was thus secured.

Captain Coffin supped with the wedding party, danced with the bride, and
left in safety, taking care that no alarm should be given, and reached
Cornwallis without accident by daylight.

Even when the enemy held Charleston, during which time he ran very great
risks of being taken prisoner, he went to see Miss Ann Matthews,
daughter of William Matthews, Esq., of St. John's Island, to whom he was
eventually married in 1781. On the occasion of one visit, the house was
searched for him by authority, and the gallant soldier took refuge under
Miss Matthews' ample dress. At that time ladies wore hoops and they must
have been of considerable size, when Major Coffin, who stood six feet
two and was proportionately stout, could successfully conceal himself
under one. At the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, that portion of
his army consisting of native Americans, he failed to obtain special
terms for, in the articles of capitulation. He, however, availed himself
of the conceded privilege of sending an armed ship northerly, without
molestation, to convey away the most obnoxious of them. Major Coffin
determined not to be taken by the Revolutionists who had offered $10,000
for his head, so he cut his way through the lines, and reached
Charleston, attracted by the charms of Miss Matthews. When Charleston
was evacuated Major Coffin made his way up to New York, crossed the
Hudson, having eluded all attempts at his capture and presented himself
at headquarters, to the great astonishment of his friends in the British
Army. Sir Guy Carleton, Commander-in-chief, appointed him Major of the
King's American Regiment, vacant by the death of Major Grant.

Previous to the evacuation of New York, and probably in view of it,
Major Coffin and others who were feared and disliked by the victorious
Revolutionists, and were, therefore, thrust out beyond the pale of
redemption, were sent by the British Government, to New Brunswick. At
twenty-seven he laid down his sword and took up his axe, accompanied by
a wife delicately nurtured in a wealthy family and a warm climate, and
four negroes, one woman and three men, all brought from Charleston. They
arrived in October, 1783, when there were but two persons in or near the
harbor of St. John. Mr. Symonds and Mr. White, fur-traders, kindly
supplied the newcomers with provisions, and they immediately commenced
clearing and felling timber. During the first winter they suffered great
hardships, particularly Mrs. Coffin. His first mishap was the loss of
his boots in crossing a swamp, now the market place of the city of St.
John. Having selected some lots of ground fronting the harbor, he
proceeded to explore the interior of the country. An ascent of about
twelve miles up the beautiful St. John, opened out a rich and lovely
landscape-hill and dale, magnificent woods, rivers and lakes, swarming
with game and fish.

In this fine and fertile locality Major Coffin purchased for a trifle a
tract of land from Colonel Grazier, to whom it had been granted by
Government. Four men were sent up there to build a house, and in the
following May, 1784, he and his wife and four black servants, took
possession of their new residence, and called it Alwington Manor, after
the family estate in Devonshire, which belonged to them in the time of
William the Conqueror. Two of the men, and the woman, proved to be good
and faithful servants, and when the slaves were emancipated, still
remained with the family.

Settlers soon flocked into the province. Ten years' residence, with
Major Coffin's activity, aided by his willing men, made it a respectable
and desirable settlement. He was made a Magistrate of the county and in
due time a Member of the Provincial Parliament, and of the Legislative
Council, which offices he filled till within a few years of his death.

In June, 1794, His Royal Highness, the Duke of Kent, the father of Queen
Victoria, who was then Governor of Nova Scotia, stopped at Alwington
Manor.

Although retired from active employ, he still remained in the service on
half pay, and in 1804 he was advanced to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
In 1805 he went to England, where he was received with much distinction,
and was presented to the King by the commander-in-chief.

The war of 1812 aroused all the warlike instincts of the old partisan;
he snuffed the battle afar off, and at once offered to raise a regiment
for home service. He soon had 600 men ready for service, which enabled
the Government to send the 104th regiment to Canada, then hardly pressed
by invasion. At the peace of 1815 he was promoted to the rank of
Major-General, and the regiment disbanded and General Coffin returned to
half pay once more.

He for many years alternated in his residence between England and New
Brunswick. He was the oldest General in the British Army when he died in
1838, aged 82, at the house of his son, Admiral T. Coffin, in King's
County, New Brunswick.

Those who knew the General well in his later days, recall with
affectionate recollection the noble presence and generous character of
the chivalrous old soldier, a relic of the days in which giants were in
stature and in heart, true to his king and country, a humble Christian
and an honest and brave man, who united to the heroism of a Paladin the
endurance of the pioneer, and when he could no longer serve his Prince
in the field, served him still better by creating a new realm of
civilization and progress in the heart of primeval forest. His name will
ever be held in honor in New Brunswick.

[Illustration: ADMIRAL SIR ISAAC COFFIN.

Born in Boston, 1759. Died in England, June 23, 1839. From a painting in
possession of the Boston Atheneum.]

Eight of the children of General and Mrs. Coffin, all natives of New
Brunswick, lived to make their way in the world, thanks to a grateful
government and helpful country. The eldest son, General Guy Carleton
Coffin, died in 1856, a General of the Royal Artillery; John Townsend
Coffin, the second eldest, entered the British Navy as midshipman in
1799 and became admiral in 1841. Under the will of his uncle, Sir Isaac
Coffin, he became the owner of the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence. He died in 1882. Henry Edward Coffin, the third son, became a
lieutenant in the British Navy in 1814 and an Admiral in 1856. He
died in 1881. The eldest daughter, Caroline, married the Hon. Charles
Grant of Canada, afterwards Baron de Longueuil; their son, the present
Baron, married a daughter of Lewis Trapmane of Charleston, S. C. The
second daughter married General Sir Thomas Pearson, K. C. B., an officer
much distinguished in Canada during the war of 1812.

A third married Colonel Kirkwood of the British Army and went to live in
Bath, England.

A fourth married John Barnett, Esq., also an officer in the British
Army, who subsequently occupied a high official position in the Island
of Ceylon.

The fifth, Mary, married Charles R. Ogden, Esq., Attorney-General, Lower
Canada.

ADMIRAL SIR ISAAC COFFIN was the fourth son of Nathaniel, the Cashier.
He was born in Boston in 1759. At eight years of age he entered the
Boston Latin School. He was a diligent student in a class that embraced
numerous celebrities and when in Parliament he acknowledged himself
indebted to the methods and discipline of the Boston schools for his apt
classical quotations, then a mode much in vogue in that august
assemblage. His constitution was, however, too vigorous, his animal
spirits too buoyant for scholarship alone to mark his schoolboy days. He
led the sports of the playground and was the leader on the 5th of
November, the anniversary of the Gunpowder plot. Boston was a pleasant
place to dwell in, broad stretches of tree or turf, sloping pastures,
and blooming gardens, surrounded the abodes of the wealthy. Tide water
fresh from the ocean, spread nearly around the peninsular. Beyond these
basins, wooded heights of considerable elevation lifted themselves above
boundless tree tops. For fishing, or shooting, rowing, sailing, or
swimming, coasting or skating, Boston with its environs of lake, and
orchard, was then the paradise for boys. It was a capital school for his
play hours, and the old Latin,--the oldest school in the
country,--dating from 1635, for his studies of a graver sort. There
fifteen of his cousins were his school mates, a host of his own
celebrities and four--Scheaffe, Moreland, Mackay, and Ochterlony--who
became baronets, or generals by military service in England, he was well
placed for development nor were his opportunities neglected. At the
commencement of the Revolution Isaac was too young to enter into it, or
to realize what it meant, but long before he entered, at the age of
fourteen, the British navy, he no doubt had formed opinions of his
own.[181] It was doubtless of advantage to him, quickening his faculties
and maturing his character, that such events were transpiring about him
at this plastic period. His sense of justice and right and of what
freedom signified, proved in his subsequent career that these advantages
had not been without effect.

[181] It is a singular fact that all persons of American birth that were
in the navy remained loyal. Washington came very near entering the navy
as midshipman and going with his brother Lawrence under Admiral Vernon
to the attack on Cartagena. His trunk was packed and he was all ready to
depart when his mother prevailed upon him to remain. Had he gone he
would have remained loyal, or his case would have been the exception.

At the age of fourteen Isaac entered the Royal navy under the auspices
of Rear Admiral Montague. By him he was confided to the care of
Lieutenant William Hunter, at that time commanding the Brig Gaspee and
who then spoke of his pupil, "Of all the young men I ever had the care
of, none answered my expectations equal to Isaac Coffin. He pleased me
so much that I took all the pains in my power to make him a good seaman,
and I succeeded to the height of my wishes, for never did I know a young
man acquire so much nautical knowledge in so short a time." After
serving on the Gaspee he served as midshipman on the Kingfisher,
Captain, Diligent, Fowey, Le Pincon and the Sybl, frigate. In 1779
Coffin, now Lieutenant, went to England and joined the Adamant. His next
appointment was to the London of 98 guns, the flagship of Rear Admiral
Graves on the coast of America, from her he removed into the Royal Oak
where he acted as signal lieutenant in the action off Cape Henry, March
16, 1781. By following such traces the naval histories of Great Britain
afford of these several ships, we can reasonably conjecture the part
Coffin took in the Revolutionary War. We learn what duties were
performed by him on each of them, and we have no reason to doubt, from
his rapid promotions, of his efficiency and zeal. We know that his
patron, Admiral Montague, protected the rear of Howe's retreat from
Boston in 1776, that the ships were often engaged with the enemy, and
that they captured several valuable prizes in which action he
participated. The events of the first four years of the war from 1775 to
1779 are sufficiently familiar. D'Estraing's repulse at Savannah and
Prescott's evacuation of Newport in 1779, its reoccupation by Tiernay in
July 1780. The reduction of Charleston, defeat of Gates at Camden.
Capture at sea of Henry Laurens, president of Congress. After the
surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown to the combined French and American
armies and French fleet, De Grasse hastened to the West Indies intending
to join the Spaniards, and capture Jamaica and drive the English out of
the West Indies. After the battle of March 16 at Cape Henry, on the
return to New York, the Royal Oak took several valuable prizes, and then
went to Halifax for repairs. In the middle of June a vessel arrived from
Bristol with the remains of his father, who died the day before. Having
held an important government position, his obsequies in New York on
Broadway showed due regard to his memory. Isaac was placed soon after in
command of Avenger, the advanced post of the British up the North River,
which he held during the autumn till he exchanged with Sir Alexander
Cochrane, for the Pocahontas and joined Admiral Hood at Barbados and
served on his flagship, the Barfleur. Soon after Coffin joined him he
learned that De Grasse was at St. Kitts, after an engagement there in
which the French lost one thousand men, Hood joined Lord Rodney's fleet.

For two days the hostile fleets manoeuvered in sight of each other near
Dominica. In number the fleets were equal, in size and complement of
crew the French were immensely superior; they had twenty thousand
soldiers on board to be used in the conquest of Jamaica; a defeat at
this time would be England's ruin. The English Admiral was aware that
his country's fate was in his hands. It was one of those supreme moments
which great men dare to use and weak ones tremble at. At seven in the
morning, April 12, 1782, the signal to engage was flying at the masthead
of the Formidable Rodney's flagship. The Admiral lead in person and in
passing through the enemy's line engaged the Glorieux, a 74, at close
range. He shot away her masts and bowsprit and left her a bare hull. All
day long the cannons roared and one by one the French ships struck their
flags or fought till they sank. The carnage on them was terrible,
crowded as they were with troops. Fourteen thousand were reckoned as
killed besides the prisoners. The Barfleur, Hood's flagship, on which
was Coffin engaged the "Ville de Paris," the flagship of the French
Admiral, the pride of France, and the largest ship in the world. After
fighting valiantly all day, after all hope was gone, and a broadside
from the Barfleur had killed sixty men, she surrendered. Her decks above
and below were littered over with mangled limbs and bodies. It was said
when she struck there were but three men on the upper deck unhurt, the
Count was one. The French fleet was totally destroyed, and on that
memorable day Yorktown was avenged, and the British empire was saved.
Peace followed but it was peace with honor. The American Colonies were
lost but England kept her West Indies. The hostile strength of Europe
all combined had failed to wrest Britannia's ocean sceptre from her. She
sat down, maimed and bleeding, but the wreath had not been torn from her
brows. She was and is still the sovereign of the seas. After the battle
Captain Coffin went in his sloop to Jamaica, where through the influence
of Hood, he was appointed by Lord Rodney captain of the Shrewsbury, of
74 guns; he was then only 22 years of age. This indicated the estimate
of both Hood and Rodney of the value of his services in the late famous
battle. Peace soon came, but there was much to discourage him. His
family was broken up. The remains of his father lay in their last
resting place in New York. The Shrewsbury was paid off, and he was put
out of commission. He was his own master with abundance of prize money.
Many of his family and friends from Boston had taken up their abode in
London, and the refugee loyalists formed there a large circle. They all
liked Isaac, a handsome young fellow with pleasant ways, generous and
unpretending and loaded with laurels. He was held in high estimation by
the great naval celebrities and by the public, their attention might
have turned the head of one less sensible.

Sir Guy Carleton, who had been created Lord Dorchester, could hardly
have saved Canada for the Crown in 1775 without the aid of the Coffins,
was now appointed Governor of Canada. It was probably at his request
that Isaac was appointed to the command of the Thisbe, to take him and
his family and suite to Quebec in 1786. While on his way up the river
to Quebec the Thisbe was becalmed off the Magdalen Islands, and struck
by their appearance, perhaps the more attractive from the autumnal
splendor, Coffin requested, probably not in very serious earnest, that
Lord Dorchester as representative of the Crown, would bestow them on
him. This request seemed reasonable to the governor, and eventually
letters patent were granted to him on the Islands. The records recite
the grant of the islands to him for his zeal and unremitting persevering
efforts in the public service. At Sir Isaac's death he left the island
by will to his nephew, Admiral John T. Coffin, who died in 1882. On his
return to Europe he was employed in many branches of the service. In
1794 he was in charge of the Melampus frigate, in 1796 he was resident
commissioner of Corsica. From Elba he removed to Lisbon, to take charge
of the naval establishment there for the next two years. He was then
dispatched to superintend the arsenal at Port Mahon when Minorca fell
into the hands of the British, and from there to Nova Scotia, in the
Venus frigate. At Halifax and afterwards at Sheerness, as resident
commissioner, he was employed till April 1804, when appointed rear
admiral he hoisted his flag on the Gladiator, and the following month
was created a baronet.

March, 1811, he married Elizabeth Browne, but within a few years
satisfied of their utter incompatibility, they very amicably, on both
sides, arranged for independence of each other. She was said to be
addicted to writing sermons at night to the disturbance of the slumber
of her rollicking spouse. The fault was certainly not hers, for she was
a clever and exemplary woman. She lived nearly as long as he did, but
they rarely met, though he made repeated overtures to reconciliation,
some rather amusing. It is the reasonable ambition of all Englishmen,
whose conditions and circumstances justify such aspirations, to be
permitted to take part in the legislation and government of the country,
and when Sir Isaac's health and peace rendered active service in the
navy no longer desirable, his wish was gratified by his return to
Parliament in 1818 for the borough of Ilchester for which he sat till
1826. His reputation and experience, gave considerable weight to his
opinion when he took part as he frequently did in debates on naval
affairs. He was tall, robust, but of symmetrical proportions, his voice
powerful, and his countenance expressive and noble. Sir Isaac died at
Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, June 23, 1839, at the age of 80. Lady
Coffin preceded him to the tomb on the 27th of January that year. His
brother, General John Coffin, died the year previous, June 12, 1838, in
New Brunswick. Sir Isaac made frequent visits to his native town, having
made more than thirty voyages to and from America. The many brilliant
gentlemen of Boston in professional life, or among its merchant princes,
affluent and convivial, were pleased to have him as their guest. Loyalty
to the mother country died out slowly, and a Boston born boy, who had
attained great distinction, whose kinsfolk had ample means for
hospitality, had much attention paid him. His kinsman, Thomas C. Amory
writes, "Often when at my father's, who resided in Park street, where
now is the Union Club house, the festal entertainments extended into the
small hours, and those upon whom it devolved to sit up to receive the
roisters, would gladly welcome from far off his shout of 'Home ahoy!'
breaking the silent watches of the night."

His prize money amounted to considerable. This he entrusted to his
cousin Amory in Boston, and the income finally equalled the original
deposit.

He was very generous to his native land. Soon after the war ended he
established a schoolship in Massachusetts waters, for mates and skippers
to learn the art of navigation. The barge Clio which he purchased for
the purpose, was commanded by his kinsman, Captain Hector Coffin, who
was imprudent enough in 1826 to go up in her to Quebec with the American
flag flying and act in a very indiscreet manner, and when his brother,
General John Coffin, of New Brunswick, urged him to abandon what gave
umbrage at home, he acquiesced in giving up what had cost him several
thousand pounds. He also sent over to the land of his birth famous race
horses and cattle to improve the breed; also fish, rare fruit and
plants.

He was warmly attached to Nantucket, where his ancestors and their
descendants had dwelt for many generations. He visited the place and
became acquainted with his kinsfolk and in 1826 appropriated $12,000
afterwards increased till now it is upwards of $60,000, as a fund for a
school for the instruction of the posterity of Tristram. This includes
nearly every native born child of the island. The Duke of Clarence,
William the Fourth, who succeeded his brother George to the throne,
through his long connection with the navy, attached to him the officers
who had grown old with him. It is said the King had Sir Isaac upon his
list as Earl of Magdalen and intended to make him Governor of Canada,
and the only obstacle that prevented it was the attachment he had for
the land of his birth.

This memoir of a Boston boy, who by dint of his own native energy
attained a title, and the highest rank in the British navy, and a
generous benefactor, whose works still bear witness to the noble impulse
that prompted them, will ever be kindly remembered and cherished by his
countrymen.

Jonathan Perry Coffin, Sir Isaac's youngest brother, born in Boston in
1762, was a barrister of repute in London.

JOHN COFFIN, the third son of William and Ann Coffin, was born in
Boston, August 19, 1729, and was brother of Nathaniel, the Cashier, and
uncle of General John, and Admiral, Sir Isaac Coffin. In the
confiscation Act he was described as distiller, and combined this
business, no doubt, with that of merchant and ship owner. Loyal to the
core, and knowing that he was a marked man, he resolved early in 1775,
to place his family in safety. Embarking, therefore, his household
goods, his wife and eleven children, on board his own schooner, the
Neptune, he brought them around safely to Quebec where on the 23d
August, 1775, he bought from "La Dame Veuve Lacroix" a piece of land at
the _pres de ville_, well known during the siege which followed as the
"Potash." He went to work with characteristic energy to establish a
distillery, when his work was interrupted by that celebrated event. In
the autumn the Revolutionary forces under Arnold and a former British
officer, Montgomery, invaded the Province, and Quebec was invested. Late
in the year John Coffin joined the Quebec enrolled British militia and
the building he had designed for a distillery, became a battery for the
defence of the approach from Wolfe's cove. The battery was armed with
the guns of a privateer frozen in for the winter. Her commander,
Barnsfare, and his seamen handled the pieces, and by his side John
Coffin, the Boston Loyalist, shared the merit of the defence.

Before that battery, on the memorable morning of the 1st January, 1776,
fell, General Montgomery, and the chief officers of his staff, and with
them the last hopes of the Revolutionary cause in Canada.

In a paper prepared by his nephew, Lieutenant-Colonel Coffin of Ottawa,
read before the Literary and Historical society of Quebec Dec. 18, 1872,
it is shown on the testimony of Sir Guy Carleton, then Governor of
Canada, and of Colonel Maclean, Commandant of Quebec, "that to the
resolution and watchfulness of John Coffin, in keeping the guard at the
_pres de ville_ under arms, awaiting the expected attack, the coolness
with which he allowed the rebels to approach, the spirits which his
example kept up among the men, and to the critical instant when he
directed Captain Barnsfare's fire against Montgomery and his troops, is
to be ascribed the repulse of the rebels from that important post where,
with their leader, they lost all heart."

There can be no question but that the death of Montgomery and the
repulse of this attack, saved Quebec, and with Quebec, British North
America to the British Crown, and that of the brave men who did this
deed John Coffin was one of the foremost.

John Coffin died September 28, 1808, aged 78, as the record of his
burial has it, "One of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace of the City
of Quebec and Inspector of Police for said City."

He had thirteen children born to him, 11 survived him. Directly, or
indirectly, all throve under the fostering protection of the Crown and a
grateful government. The eldest daughter, Isabella, married Colonel
McMurdo. Her sons served in India, a grandson was captain in the Royal
Canadian Rifles, when that fine regiment disbanded at Kingston in 1870.

The second daughter, Susannah, married the Hon. John Craigie of Quebec,
Provincial Treasurer, a brother of Lord Craigie, Lord of Sessions in
Scotland. One son, Admiral Craigie, died in 1872. A daughter married
Captain Martin, who led one of the storming parties at the capture of
Fort Niagara in 1814.

MARGARET, the youngest daughter, married her cousin, Roger Hale
Sheaffe. At the time of the marriage he was major in Brock's regiment.
That gallant officer was slain at Queenstown Heights at 7 o'clock in the
morning. At noon Colonel Sheaffe moved up from Niagara, attacked the
American forces and hurled them from the rocks into the river. For this
great service he was made a Baronet.

Of John Coffin's sons, the oldest, JOHN, born in Boston in 1760, died
Deputy Commissary-General at Quebec, March, 1837.

WILLIAM, the second son, born in Boston, 1761, obtained a commission in
the 1st Battalion of the King's Royal Regiment. Subsequently through the
kind influence of His Royal Highness, the Duke of Kent, he obtained a
commission in the regular army and served half the world over. He
retired from the service in 1816 a captain in the 15th Regiment and
Brevet Major, and died in England in 1836. His son WILLIAM FOSTER
COFFIN, was Commissioner of Ordnance and Admiralty, Land Department of
the Interior, Canada. This gentleman married, in 1842, MARGARET, second
daughter of Isaac Winslow Clarke, of Montreal, who, in 1774, was the
youngest member of the firm of Richard Clarke and Sons of Boston, to
which was consigned the historical cargo of tea. He rose to the rank of
Deputy Commissary General, and after 50 years service died in 1822.

The third son, THOMAS COFFIN, born in Boston, 1762, was a member of the
Legislative Council of Lower Canada, and Lieutenant-Colonel of Militia.
He married a Demoiselle de Tonancour and lived and died at Three Rivers,
1841. A son of his was for many years Prothonotary for the District of
Montreal.

The fifth son, FRANCIS HOLMES COFFIN, born in Boston, 1768, entered the
Royal Navy and served during the long war with France, and died an
Admiral in 1835. His eldest son, General Sir Isaac Coffin, K. C. Star of
India, died at Black Heath, October, 1872.

The fourth son, NATHANIEL COFFIN, born in Boston, 1766, lived and died
in Upper Canada. In the war of 1812 he joined the volunteer companies
and was aide-de-camp to Sir Roger Sheaffe at the battle of Queenstown
Heights, where General W. Scott was taken prisoner. He became Adjutant
General of Militia in Upper Canada. He died at Toronto in 1835.

The sixth son, JAMES, born in Boston, 1771, died at Quebec in 1835,
Assistant Commissary-General.

These Boston men and women, sons and daughters of brave John Coffin, are
all living instances of the loyal faith in which they were born, and of
its honorable and just reward of a grateful and kind government, and is
but one case of many which goes to show that the Americans who were
loyal, as a body fared infinitely better than the Revolutionists who
were successful. It is proverbial that republics are ungrateful.

Today their descendants are organized as the United Empire Loyalists and
count it an honor that their ancestors suffered persecution and exile
rather than yield the principals and the ideal of union with Great
Britain. They have made of the land of their exile a mighty member of
the great British empire, they begin to glory in the days of trial
through which they passed.

LIST OF JOHN COFFIN'S CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY AND
TO WHOM SOLD.

To Christopher Clark, Aug. 9, 1783; Lib. 139, fol. 151; Land in
Boston, Essex St. S.; Short St. W.; Joseph Ford E.; Thomas Snow N.

To Moses Wallack, Mar. 12, 1785; Lib. 146, fol. 260; Land in
Boston, Essex St. S.; said Wallack W.; S. and W.; Blind Lane N.;
Thomas Downes and Samuel Bradley E.

To Edward Jones, Feb. 13, 1786; Lib. 155, fol. 111; Land in Boston,
Essex St. N.; the sea S.; sugar house and land of heirs of Thomas
Child deceased E.; Mary Pitman and heirs of Samuel Bradley W.; with
flats to low water mark.

JUDGE SAMUEL CURWEN.

The paternal ancestry of Samuel Curwen, the subject of this sketch were
for many centuries amongst the leading families in the county of
Cumberland, in the north of England, where the family seat Workington
Hall still remains, George Curwin his immediate ancestor was an early
emigrant to New England, having established his residence in Salem in
1638. He was highly esteemed for his active, and energetic character,
and for several years represented Salem in the "General Court" or
Legislature of the colony. He also commanded a squadron of horse in the
Indian wars and assisted in checking the inroads of the savage enemy. He
died at Salem in 1685 at the age of 74 years, leaving a large estate.
His son Jonathan was of the provincial council named in the second
charter granted by William and Mary in 1691, and a judge of the superior
court of the province. He married a daughter of Sir Henry Gibbs and
their son George was the father of the subject of this sketch. George
Curwin graduated at Harvard College in 1701 and was pastor of a church
at Salem. He died in 1717 at the early age of thirty-five years. The
subject of this memoir was born in 1715 and graduated at Harvard College
in 1735. In 1738 he traveled in England and the Continent. On his return
he engaged in commercial pursuits with success. His business was
subsequently interrupted by the depredation of French cruisers fitted
out from Louisburg. In 1744-5 Mr. Curwin as a captain and his brother as
a commissary joined an expedition for the reduction of that stronghold.
The result of the expedition was completely successful, and reflected
great credit on the participators in it.

Annexed is a cut of the Curwin House, Salem, erected by Captain Curwin
in 1642, now known as the witch house. The unfortunate persons arrested
during the witchcraft delusion were examined in this house by Justices
Jonathan Curwin and Hawthorn before being committed.

[Illustration: CURWIN HOUSE, SALEM. ERECTED IN 1642.]

At the commencement of the Revolution Samuel Curwin was Judge of
Admiralty and had been in the commission of the peace for thirty years.
He was one of the signers of the address to Governor Hutchinson when he
went to England. This gave great offence to the disunionists, they
attempted to compel him to make public recantations in the newspapers.
This he refused to do, saying that the prescribed recantation contained
more than in conscience he could own, and that to live under the
character of reproach, which the fury of the mob might throw upon him,
was too painful a reflection to suffer for a moment. He therefore
resolved to withdraw from the impending storm. He accordingly embarked
for Philadelphia on the 23rd of April, 1775, and thence to London on the
13th of the following month. While in exile he kept a journal, which has
been published. No work extant contains so much information of the
unfortunate Loyalists while abroad. The journal commences at
Philadelphia, May 4th, 1775, and says: "Since the unhappy affairs at
Concord and Lexington, finding the spirit of the people to rise on every
fresh alarm, (which has been almost hourly) and their temper to get more
and more soured and malevolent against all moderate men, who they see
fit to reproach as enemies of their country by the name of tories, among
whom I am unhappily (although unjustly) ranked, and unable longer to
bear their undeserved reproaches and menace, hourly denounced against
myself, and others, I think it a duly I owe to myself to withdraw for a
while from the storm, which to my foreboding mind is approaching. Having
in vain endeavored to persuade my wife to accompany me, her
apprehensions of danger from an incensed soldiery, a people licentious,
and enthusiastically mad, and broke loose from all the restraints of law
or religion, being less terrible to her than a short passage on the
ocean, and being moreover encouraged by her, I left my late peaceful
home (in my sixtieth year) in search of personal security, and those
rights which by the laws of God I ought to have enjoyed undisturbed
there, and embarked at Beverly on board the schooner Lively, Captain
Johnson, bound hither, on Sunday the 23rd ultimo, and have just arrived.
Hoping to find an asylum among quakers and Dutchmen, who I presume from
former experience have too great a regard for ease and property to
sacrifice either at this time of doubtful disputation on the altar of an
unknown goddess or rather doubtful divinity."

On landing he writes "I went in pursuit of lodgings, and on enquiring at
several houses, ascertained they were full or for particular reasons
would not take me in; and so many refused, as made it fearful whether
like Cain I had not a discouraging mark upon me, or a strong feature of
toryism. The whole city appears to be deep in congressional principles
and inveterate against _Hutchinson Addressers_." Under date of May 9th,
1775, he writes, "Dined with Stephen Collins. Passed the evening at
Joseph Reed's in company with Col. Washington (a fine figure and of most
easy and agreeable address) Richard Henry Lee, and Col. Harrison, three
of the Virginia delegates. Besides Mr. and Mrs. Reed, were Mrs.
Deberatt, Dr. Shippen and Thomas Smith. I staid till twelve o'clock, the
conversation being chiefly on the most feasible and prudent method of
stepping up the channel of the Deleware to prevent the coming up of any
large ships to the city. I could not perceive the least disposition to
accommodate matters." He wrote, "Having had several intimations that my
residence here would be unpleasant, if allowed at all, when it shall be
known that I am what is called '_an addresser_' I have therefore
consulted the few friends I think it worth while to advise with, and on
the result am determined to proceed to London in the vessel in which I
came here."

Following is a brief description of the journal, which Curwin kept while
in England, the four hundred and more pages contain matters of the
deepest interest to those who are interested in the lives of those
Loyalists who returned to England, July 3, 1775. "On landing at Dover,
visited the Castle. Next day arrived at the New England Coffee House,
Threadneedle Street. Visited Westminster Hall with my friend Benjamin
Pickering. Went to old Jewery meeting-house where I met Gov. Hutchinson,
and his son and daughter, and received a cordial reception and
invitation to visit him. There is an army of New Englanders here.
Evening to Vauxhall Gardens. Spent the day at Hempstead in company with
Isaac Smith, Samuel Quincy, David Greene, and P. Webster. I am just
informed of the most melancholy event, the destruction of Charlestown by
the King's troops, of great carnage among the officers. My distress and
anxiety for my friends and countrymen embitter every hour. By invitation
dined at Grocers' Company feast, at their hall in the Poultry. Dined
with Governor Hutchinson in company with Mr. Joseph Green, Mr. Manduit
and Mr. Ward Nicholas Boylston. It is a capital mistake of our American
friends to expect insurrections here, there is not a shadow of hope for
such an event. It is said most vigorous measures will take place in the
spring, if no offer be made on the part of the colonies. Visited Hampton
Court, and Gardens. Thence to Windsor. From the terrace we saw almost
under our feet Eaton college. Saw Mr. Garrick in Hamlet at Drury Lane.
To the Herald's office where Parson Peters, with his friend Mr.
Punderson lodges, the latter has lately arrived from Boston. It seems he
was harshly dealt with by the _sons of liberty_, being obliged to make
two confessions to save his life notwithstanding which he was hunted,
pursued, and threatened, and narrowly escaped death (or the Simsbury
mines to which he was finally adjudged, and he thinks with the loss of
his eyes) which would have been his fate but for his seasonable and
providential retreat.[182] At Chapel Royal, St. James, saw the king and
queen, who joined in the service with becoming devotion. Bishop of
London preached. To the Adelphia, Strand, where by appointment met
twenty-one of my countrymen, who have agreed on a weekly dinner here,
viz., Messrs. Richard Clark, Joseph Green, Jonathan Bliss, Jonathan
Sewell, Joseph Waldo, S. S. Blowers, Elisha Hutchinson, Wm. Hutchinson,
Samuel Sewell, Samuel Quincy, Isaac Smith, Harrison Grey, David Green,
Jonathan Clark, Thomas Flucker, Joseph Taylor, Daniel Silsbee, Thomas
Brindley, William Cabot, John S. Copley and Nathaniel Coffin, Samuel
Porter, Edward Oxnard, Benj. Pickman, Jno. Amory, Judge Robert Auchmuty
and Major Urquhart, absent, are members of this New England club, as is
also Gov. Hutchinson. At Parson Peters saw Mr. Troutbeck, lately arrived
from Halifax, and Mr. Wiswall, mutually invited each other to visit and
gave cards. Drank tea at Mr. Green's in company with Gov. Hutchinson,
whom I had not seen for some weeks, and who expressed an uneasiness at
my neglect to call. I called at Mr. Copley's to see Mr. Clark and the
family who kindly pressed my staying to tea. Was presented to Mr. West,
a Philadelphian, a most masterly hand in historic painting. Mr. West is
the king's history painter. Called on my friend Browne. He acquainted
me with some facts relative to the unfortunate abandonment of Boston by
the king's troops, which has all the appearance of being forced. Would
to God this illjudged, unnatural quarrel was ended."

[182] For description of Simsbury mines see pp. 56-57.

Went to Shepton Mallet.[183] Walked to the market-cross, an open
structure supported by Gothic arches and pillars, and ornamented in
front by a few mutilated statues, but whether of saints or heroes of
antiquity, I know not. A few gentlemen of fortune live here, but many
worthy clothiers. Walked with Mr. Morgan over the hills to the remains
of Roman-way, the ditch continues, although in an imperfect state, and
carried over the Meridep hills, running from north to south and from
shore to shore. Rode to Bath. Met Col. Saltonstall who with Mr.
Boyleston has taken lodgings here for sometime past. Visited Glastonbury
Abbey ruins. In the Bristol Gazette is the following: 'Gov. Howe has
landed the British army and taken possession of New York on the 15th of
September, the provincials had fled from the city with great
precipitation, towards Kingsbridge.' There have been some discouraging
accounts from France, respecting the intention of that court to assist
the colonies, and advices from Spain say their ports are open to the
English colonists. Received a letter informing me of my wife's health,
and that she had been obliged to pay ten pounds sterling to find a man
for the American army in my stead. Dec. 14. This day, General Burgoyne's
mortifying capitulation arrived in town. We all know the General's
bravery, and skill. He did not surrender whilst there was a possibility
of defence. On confirmation of the American news, Manchester offered to
raise a thousand men at their own expense, to be ready for service in
America in two months, and was soon followed after by Liverpool. It is
said there are to be proposals for raising two thousand men out of each
parish through the kingdom.

[183] The native town of the author, J. H. Stark.

Lord North, has proposed terms of reconciliation, but nothing short of
independency will go down with the colonies. France will support them,
all thoughts of conquest, of unconditional submission, be assured are
given up. I am fully convinced the colonies will never find any good
purpose answered by independence. God only knows what is before us. I
cannot review the state of Great Britain four years since, and regard
the present crisis without horror, without trembling. France and Spain
are armed from head to foot at all points ready to sally forth. Heard
the dreaded sound, war declared against France.

Exeter, Sept. 6. Am informed that I am suspected to be an American spy
disaffected to government. Have heard that Paul Jones in the French
king's service, has taken a forty-four gun frigate, and entered the
harbor of Hull and destroyed sixteen ships.

Visited Col. Erving and family, afterwards dined and took tea with my
worthy friend Judge Sewall, his company Mr. and Mrs. Faneuil. From
thence I went to see Mrs. Gardner, her husband the doctor, and their
daughter Love Eppes. Meeting Colonel Oliver, late lieutenant-governor of
Massachusetts, he informed me of his residence.

Visited Mr. Lechmere, drank tea with Judge Sewall, Captain Carpenter,
young Jonathan Gardner, both of Salem, and a Mr. Leavitt, having arrived
in a cartel ship from Boston, dined and passed the afternoon and
evening. From them I obtained much information relating to our country
and town. Those who five years, ago were the "_meaner people_" are now
by a strange revolution become the only men of power, riches and
influence. Those who, on the contrary, were leaders in the highest line
of life, are glad at this time to be unknown, and unnoticed, to escape
insult, and plunder, the wretched condition of all who are not violent,
and adopters of republican principles. The Cabots of Beverly, who you
know, had but five years ago a very moderate share of property, are now
said to be by far the most wealthy in New England. It is a melancholy
truth that whilst some are wallowing in undeserved wealth, that plunder
and rapine has thrown into their hands, the wisest, most peaceable and
most deserving such as you and I know are now suffering want,
accompanied by many indignities that a licentious, lawless people can
pour forth upon them.

The number of Americans in Bristol are compiled in the following list:
Col. Oliver and six daughters. Mr. R. Lechmere, his brother Nicholas,
with wife and two daughters. Mr. John Vassal, wife and niece, Miss
Davis, Mr. Barnes, wife and niece, Miss Arbuthnot, Mr. Nathaniel Coffin,
wife and family. Mr. Robert Hallowell, wife and children. Judge Sewell,
wife, sister, and two sons. Samuel Sewall with his kinsman. Mr. Faneuil,
and wife. Mr. Francis Waldo and Mr. Simpson, together with Mrs. Borland,
a son and three daughters.

April 24, 1780. This day, five years are completed since I abandoned my
house, estate, effects and friends. God only knows whether I shall ever
be restored to them, or they to me. Party rage, like jealousy and
superstition is cruel as the grave;--that moderation is a crime and in
times of civil confusions, many good, virtuous and peaceable persons
now suffering banishment from America are the wretched proofs and
instances. By letter from Salem from our friend Pynchon, all our friends
there are well and longing, but almost without hope, for the good old
times as is the common saying now except among those as he expresses it,
whose enormous heaps have made them easy and insolent, and to wish for
a continuance of those confusions by which they grow rich.

London, Oct. 30th, 1781. To Samuel Sewell, Esq., You wish me to write
you favorable news from America. Would to God such was to be found
written in the book of fate. The French you know are in possession of
the Chesapeake, with a much superior fleet to that of Great Britain, for
they reckon thirty-six capital ships to our twenty-four, even after
Digby's junction. General Cornwallis's royal master is in the utmost
distress for him, who, all the world here fears to hear will have been
_Burgoyned_ and therefore an end to this cursed, ill-omened quarrel,
though not in a way they wish, for which the instigators and continuers
deserve execution. At New England Coffee House heard the glorious news
of Admiral Rodney's defeat and capture of the French Admiral de Grasse,
with five capital ships and one sunk.

London, March 17, 1783. Before the preliminaries are ratified or
hostilities ceased in the channel an American ship laden with oil, with
thirteen stripes flying, came into the river from Nantucket. The ship,
Captain Holton Johnson of Lynn, with whom I came from America, was, by a
revolution common at such periods translated into a legislator in our
Massachusetts Assembly, being about two months in London, told me that
had not his interests and efforts prevailed, my name would have been
inserted in the banishment list, and my estate confiscated, the reason,
if any, must be private spite and malice, no public crime was ever
alleged, but merely leaving the country in her distress. If success is
justification, I confess my guilt. Read a Boston newspaper, where I saw
poor Coomb's estate in Marblehead advertised for sale. I really pity my
poor fellow refugee and think him cruelly treated by his savage
townsmen. At New England Coffee House to read the papers filled with
relations of the rising spirit of Americans against the refugees, in
their towns and assemblies. Intoxicated by success under no fear of
punishment, they give an unrestrained loose to their angry, malevolent
passions attribute to the worst of causes the opposition to their
licentious, mobbish violation of all laws human and divine; and even
some of the best of the republican party seem to think at least their
practice squints that way, that the supposed goodness of their cause
will justify murder, rapine, and the worst of crimes. But cool impartial
posterity will pass a better judgment, and account for the violence of
the times from party rage which knows no bounds.

[Illustration: SAMUEL CURWEN.

Born at Salem in 1715. Judge of Admiralty. Died at Salem in 1802.]

London, Aug. 9, 1783. By the newspapers from America, particularly our
quarter, I find there but slender grounds of hope for success in
attempting the recovery of debts or estates; a general shipwreck is
seemingly intended of all absentees' property--the towns in their
instructions to the representatives making it a point to prevent the
return of them, and consequent confiscations of all their property,
notwithstanding the provision in the fifth preliminary article. These
lawless people regard not any obstacle when the gratification of their
angry passions or the object of gain are in view. For an explicit
answer, "Do you propose to spend the remainder of your days abroad?" The
wished for period of my return is not arrived, it is a subject I
consider with some indifference, age and infirmities having made such
inroads on my constitution as leave me but little to hope, or fear from
the result of public councils, or the imprudence of private conduct. I
am free to declare my apprehension that the lower, illiterate classes,
narrow-minded and illiberal all over the world, have too much influence.
Oct. 6. This day was proclaimed peace with France, Spain, and Holland.
At New England Coffee House in company with Mr. Nathaniel Gorham,
lately arrived from Boston, whom I had well known. He is a native of
Charlestown, late a member of Congress, and of the Massachusetts
Assembly, and who is now here on the score of obtaining a benevolence
for the sufferers at the destruction of that town June 17, 1775, by the
king's troops, which all things considered, carries with it such a face
of effrontery as is not to be matched. Invited him to tea; received a
letter from my wife's brother, James Russell. To him he replied, I thank
you for your favor of the 21st of August, the first from you since my
unhappy abandoning my former home in April, '75. In truth, were your
sister (Mrs. Curwin) no more, there would need no act of Massachusetts,
or any other assembly, or senate to prohibit my return. To his wife he
writes: If it was not for your sake, or that you would follow my fortune
or accompany my fate, I should not hesitate for a moment taking up my
future abode, which cannot possibly be but of short continuance,
somewhere out of the limits of the republican government. Wishes for the
welfare of my friends still warm my heart, as to the rest, I read with
cold indifference the insurrection in Pennsylvania, and the carryings-on
in the late English colonies, having lost local attachment. If your
fortitude has increased in the proportion that your health and spirits
have improved, perhaps you will not find it an insurmountable difficulty
to resolve on a land tour to Canada, or a voyage to some other English
settlement. Whatever shall be the result of your thoughts let me be made
acquainted therewith as soon as convenient. Should a final expulsion be
concluded on, you will no longer hesitate. Captain Nathaniel West brings
me a message from the principal merchants and citizens of Salem
proposing and encouraging my return which instance of moderation I view
as an honor to the town and respectful to myself. It affords me
pleasure, and I would cheerfully accept the offer, but should the
popular dislike rise against me, to what a plight should I be reduced,
being at present (out for how long is a painful uncertainty) on the
British government list for £100 a year (a competency for a single
person exercising strict economy) to surrender this precarious allowance
without public assurance of personal security. Imagine to yourself the
distress of an old man, without health under such adverse circumstances
and you will advise me to wait with resignation till the several
Assemblies shall have taken decisive measures. Went to the Treasury and
there received the agreeable information that the commissioners had
granted my petition to appoint an agent to receive my quarterly
allowance, after my departure from England, on making satisfactory proof
of my being alive at the successive periods of payment. From this date
an end to my doubts respecting my embarkation, its issue time must
reveal. I know not in what employment I am to pass the small remainder
of my days, should Providence permit my safe return home, but I shall
not think part of it ill-bestowed in directing and assisting the studies
and pursuits of my niece's children who are just of an age to receive
useful ideas--with regard to the English, Latin, and Greek tongues.
Sept. 25, 1784. Arrived at Boston at half past three o'clock. Landed at
the end of Long Wharf after an absence of nine years and five months,
occasioned by a lamented civil war. By plunder and rapine some have
accumulated wealth, but many more are greatly injured in their
circumstances. Some have to lament over the wreck of their departed
wealth and estates, of which pitiable number I am, my affairs sunk into
irretrievable ruin. On Sunday, being the day following, I left for
Salem, where I alighted at the house of my former residence, and not a
man, woman, or child, but expressed a satisfaction at seeing me, and
welcomed me back. The melancholy derangement of my affairs has so
entirely unsettled me, that I can scarcely attend to anything. I think
it very unlikely that my home can be saved.[184] Salem, Nov. 22, 1784.
Judge Curwin wrote to his friend Judge Sewall, Bristol, England, saying:
"I find myself completely ruined. I confess I cannot bear to stay and
perish under the ruins of my late ample property and shall therefore as
soon as I can recover my account-books, left in Philadelphia on my
departure from America and settle my deranged affairs, retreat to Nova
Scotia, unless my allowance be taken from me." He however remained at
Salem where he passed the remainder of his days dying in 1802 at the age
of eighty-six. The foregoing brief abstracts from Curwin's Journal give
some of the things which he saw and heard, and the hopes and fears which
agitated him and his fellow exiles. He left no children. Samuel Curwin
Ward, a grandson of his brother George, at the request of Judge Curwin,
took his name by an act of the Legislature, and his descendants are all
that now bear the name in New England.

[184] It was saved from confiscation by his wife remaining in it during
the war, and her furnishing a substitute for her husband to serve in the
army.

JAMES MURRAY.

James Murray was a direct descendant of Sir John Murray of Philiphaugh,
Scotland, who sat in Parliament for the County of Selkirk in 1612. Sir
John's second son, was John Murray of Bowhill. This John Murray was the
father of John Murray of Unthank, born in 1677, who in turn was the
father of James Murray, the subject of this notice, who was born in 1713
at Unthank. Here on this ancestral estate he passed the first fifteen
years of his life, after the wholesome manner of Scotch
lads--porridge-fed, bare legged--he protested in after life against his
grandson wearing stockings. The people amongst whom he lived had
married, thriven and multiplied until the population had become one vast
cousinship, bound together by that clannish loyalty which, quite apart
from pride of name, is ineradicable in the Scots to the present day.
Through the influence of Sir John Murray he was apprenticed to William
Dunbar of London, a merchant in the West India trade. On the death of
his father, he received a thousand pounds as his share of the estate.
With this small patrimony he decided to try his fortune in the New
World. His objective point in his new venture was the Cape Fear Region
in North Carolina. The Carolinas having shaken off their proprietary
rule were now entering, it was hoped, upon a more prosperous period as
dependencies of the Crown. Gabriel Johnson, a Scotchman who had been a
physician and professor at St. Andrews University, had been recently
appointed Governor. This made some stir in Scottish circles, a fact
which directed James Murray's desire to this particular Colony. With
letters of recommendation to Governor Johnson, he embarked at Gravesend,
September 20, 1735, for Charleston. He settled at Wilmington, on the
Cape Fear River, and purchased a house in town and a plantation of 500
acres and Negro slaves. He was also appointed collector of the Port, and
in 1729 he was appointed a member of the Board of Councillors. In 1737
Mr. Murray received news of the death of his mother. This necessitated a
journey to Scotland to settle her estate. On returning he brought with
him his younger brother and his sister Elizabeth, not quite fourteen
years of age. She was installed as his housekeeper, and then began that
affectionate intimacy between them which was perhaps the most vital and
enduring element in the life of each. James Murray prospered as a
planter and merchant. He imported from England such goods as the
colonists required and in exchange sent to England naval stores, tar,
pitch, and turpentine.

In 1744 he returned to Scotland with his sister Elizabeth, married his
cousin, Barbara Bennet, and remained in England and Scotland for five
years. On his return in 1749, accompanied by his wife and daughter and
his sister Elizabeth, their ship put into Boston, and he returned alone
to Wilmington, leaving his family in Boston, because, as he wrote, "they
had an opportunity of spending three of the most disagreeable months of
this climate in that poor Healthy Place, New England--their health they
owe to God's goodness, their poverty to their own bad policy and to
their Popular Government." His sister Elizabeth remained in Boston and
married Thomas Campbell, a Scotchman, merchant and trader. Their married
life was short, for the husband died in a few years.

A comfortable, prosperous figure in Boston at that time was Mr. James
Smith, a Scotchman, a sugar-baker, whose refinery had been in working
since 1729 or before and who had amassed wealth as well as years. His
home on Queen Street, now Court Street, was central in position,
surrounded by other residences of its kind, yet conveniently near his
sugar house, which stood in Brattle Street, between the old church and
what was known as Wing's Lane. At the same time it was not far from
King's Chapel. As one of the Church Wardens of King's Chapel and a
generous contributor to its needs Mr. Smith stood high in the esteem of
his fellow townsmen and the few allusions to him in the records and
traditions of his day indicate that he was no less genial a friend than
an open handed citizen. Mr. Smith married Mrs. Campbell in 1760. "I can
assure you," wrote James Murray in 1761, "they both enjoy a happiness
which is rarely met with in a match of such disparity." Her brother
rejoiced in this marriage, which he declared placed her "in the best
circumstances of any of her sex in the town." Prosperity for one member
of the family must help for all. Boston thus became a second home for
the Murrays in America.

[Illustration: COUNTY RESIDENCE OF JAMES SMITH, BRUSH HILL, MILTON.

BUILT IN 1734.]

Shortly after his sister's marriage he lost his wife and all his
children but two, owing to the unhealthy climate. This caused him to
leave the South and his opinion of New England was changed, for he wrote
at this time, 1760, "you cannot well imagine what a land of health,
plenty and contentment this is among all ranks, vastly improved within
these ten years. The war on this continent has been a blessing to the
English subjects and a calamity to the French, especially in the
Northern Colonies, for we have got nothing by it in Carolina."

In 1761 Mr. Murray married Miss Thompson, a daughter of Mrs. Mackay, who
lived on King Street. The marriage proved to be a fortunate one for Mr.
Murray's two daughters as well as for the two most concerned. Mr. Smith
was withdrawing from the sugar business and wished Mr. Murray to take it
up. He was, however, in no haste to be off from his plantation, which
he really loved, but at last the break was made and in 1765 he removed
to Boston to cast in his lot permanently. Mr. Murray had warm friends in
Boston and felt himself in congenial surroundings. He occupied Mr.
Smith's home on the corner of Queen Street, the Smiths reserving a
portion of it for themselves, though their permanent residence was now
at Brush Hill, Milton. Mr. Smith had purchased in 1734, and
subsequently, 300 acres at Brush Hill and erected the mansion house now
owned and occupied by Murray Howe.

Mr. Smith's long life came to an end on the 4th of March, 1769. He died
at Brush Hill and was buried from his home on Queen Street. Mrs. Smith
returned to Scotland and before leaving she made over to her brother the
Brush Hill Farm, in trust for his daughters, Dorothy and Elizabeth. This
was very fortunate, as it afterwards turned out, for it saved it from
confiscation. Mr. Murray, with much content, established himself there,
hoping to "run off the dregs of his days" in peace. Of the farm he had
given his brother, some years before, a graphic description; it was in
many respects as pleasantly situated as Governor Hutchinson's. It had,
he said "a good house, well furnished, good garden and orchards, meadows
and pasturage, in 300 acres. A riverlet washed it and by several
windings lost itself between two bushy hills, before it ran into the
great bay. Of this bay, often covered with sails, and of the
light-house, there is a fair prospect from the house which stands on an
eminence and overlooks also a pleasant country round. It is in short one
of the pleasantest and most convenient seats I see in the country."

Dorothy Murray, who, family traditions say, had grown to be a beautiful
and fascinating young lady, accepted the hand of Rev. John Forbes, a
clergyman then settled at St. Augustine, Florida. Their marriage
occurred in 1769. The Forbes of Milton are the descendants.

The political turmoil in the midst of which Mr. Murray found himself
upon his removal to Boston, in 1765, filled him with surprise and
dismay. He had hoped, on leaving North Carolina, that he was turning his
back upon rebellion, but here he had alighted upon the very seat of
disorder. By force of circumstances, as well as by inclination, it was
inevitable that in North Carolina, and afterwards in Massachusetts, his
associates should have been those whose sympathies were on the side of
law and order. The Boston of the disunionists, of Otis, Hancock, and the
"brace of Adams" he never knew. "He shared so completely Hutchinson's
convictions that the best interests of America were being sacrificed" by
the very men who maintained they were asserting their rights and
although, like those who sided with the Government, he incurred
suspicion and hatred, he never to the end of his life could see himself
as an enemy to the land he helped to build.[185]

[185] James Murray, Loyalist; pp. 152, 154, 155.

To such men as him, men who were averse to partisanship and whose
interests centered wholly within the domestic circle, yet who could
take a large impersonal view of passing events, the inevitable ban
under which, as Tories, they afterward fell, bore all the sting of
injustice. He wrote in 1766, "the truth is we are all the children of a
most indulgent Parent, who has never asserted his authority over us,
until we are grown almost to manhood and act accordingly; but were I to
say so here before our Chief Ruler, the Mob, or any of their adherents,
I should presently have my house turned inside out."

When the troops sent by General Gage from New York arrived in Boston and
were refused shelter in various places under control of the
disunionists, Mr. Murray came forward and the sugar house was opened to
them for barracks. Thenceforth "Murray's Barracks" or "Smith's
Barracks," as they were indiscriminately called, were a source of
irritation to the disloyal section of the town. Moreover, his
willingness to lodge British soldiers, and a free hospitality shown to
British officers (among others who frequented his house was General
Mackay, a relative, probably, of his wife) marked Mr. Murray as a King's
man. His appointment in 1768 as a Justice of the Peace drew him still
further into public notice. Popular displeasure in fact, so far
distinguished him as to make him, in the autumn of the next year, the
victim of a mob. The condition of affairs was rapidly growing worse. The
troops were called from Murray's barracks to protect the guard on King's
Street from the fury of the mob and this brought about the so-called
"State Street Massacre." Then followed the Lexington affair and Bunker
Hill and the siege of Boston by Washington's army. During this time Mr.
Murray remained in Boston. His daughter, Mrs. Forbes, had returned from
Florida and with her sister Elizabeth, lived on the farm at Brush Hill.
His sister, Elizabeth Smith, had married Ralph Inman of Cambridge and
while her husband remained in Boston, she stayed in the Cambridge
mansion to prevent its being confiscated. Communications between Milton
and Boston were carried on by vessels sailing up the Neponset.

Mr. and Mrs. Murray visited Brush Hill in this manner and Mrs. Inman
even journeyed back and forth between Cambridge, Boston and Milton in
this way. Finally the evil day came when the evacuation of Boston became
a necessity. The consternation was indescribable. Men who had lived all
their lives in Boston and were a part and parcel of it found themselves
suddenly compelled to take leave of friends, old associations and
property and to flee with the army to Nova Scotia. The departure of
General Howe was hampered and delayed by the necessity of caring for the
removal of the Loyalists. All the transports which were at hand,
assisted by such other vessels as could be procured, were inadequate for
the purpose. The refugees, on their part, were in a state of distraction
between the impossibility of taking with them more than a small part of
their possessions. Mr. Murray, like the rest, had no recourse but to
sail with the troops for Halifax. The parting he must have believed to
be only temporary, but it was final.

A lady writing from Brush Hill under date of May 17th, 1776, and signing
herself E. F., gives a graphic description of the condition in which the
Murray family were left. She writes, "This amiable family are going to
be involved in new troubles. Did I fear for myself alone, I should be
happy compared with what I now suffer, for I have nothing to fear from
the malevolence of man, but when I see the few but valuable friends I
have remaining upon the point of becoming destitute like myself my heart
sinks within me, and I can not avoid exclaiming "Great God!" Surely for
all these things people shall be brought to judgment. I am hunted from
one retreat to another, and since I left your Ark, like Noah's dove I
can find no resting place. The Committee at Cambridge have left Mrs.
Inman's farm, in spite of all assiduity to prevent it and the same tribe
of demons have been here to take this into possession during the life of
Mr. Murray. When this affair will end, God knows. Nature is all blooming
and benevolent around us. I wish to Heaven that she could inspire the
breasts of this deluded people with the same affectionate glow towards
each other. _May eternal curses fall on the heads of those who have been
instrumental to this country's ruin._"

Again under the date of June 16th she writes, "Rejoice with me, my dear
Aunt, _this infernal crew cannot succeed in taking the farm from this
amiable family_. _The Almighty Father of infinite perfection will not
permit them to prosper in all their wickedness._"[186]

[186] James Murray, Loyalist; pp. 248, 249, 251.

James Murray now began the weary life of banishment, the pathos of which
was so many times repeated in the history of the Loyalist exiles. He
first went to Halifax; there he established himself with his wife and
his sister, Mrs. Gordon, but he could not be content to stay so far from
his sister and his children, who remained in Boston to prevent their
property from being confiscated, and soon, as he puts it, he came
"creeping towards" them, hoping at least to be able more easily to
communicate with them and to serve them by sending occasional supplies.
He visited Newport, New York and Philadelphia. He found himself,
however, no nearer the accomplishment of his wishes in New York than in
Halifax and to Halifax, in 1778, after some two years spent in
profitless wanderings, he returned. There he remained the rest of his
life. In his last letter to his daughter dated Halifax, February 17th,
1781, he said "A man near seventy, if in his senses, _can want but
little here below, nor want that little long_. Therefore the withdrawing
of my salary for some time past gives me but little concern." In this
letter he seems to have had a premonition of his death, for he died a
few months later. The salary that he refers to was that which he
received from England for several years after leaving Boston--about 150
Pounds a year as inspector of imports and exports, many sufferers
received from 50 to 300 Pounds a year in addition to their salary for
their present subsistence. Mrs. Inman, his sister, survived her brother
but a few years and those were sad ones. Her friends were scattered,
her means reduced and her health undermined. She died May 25, 1785.

ELIZABETH MURRAY, his daughter, married Edward Hutchinson Robbins, who
in 1780, when but twenty-two years of age, became a member of the
disloyal government and who occupied the position of Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Lieutenant Governor and Judge of Probate.
Brush Hill afterwards passed into the possession of her son, James
Murray Robbins, who lived here until his death in 1885. It then passed
into the possession of his nephew, James Murray Howe, its present
occupant.

As previously stated, the only thing that prevented the confiscation of
this estate was that Elizabeth and Dorothy Murray, to whom their aunt
had given it had remained on the property during the war and would not
leave it, although every effort was made to drive them off it by their
disloyal neighbors. Their father was proscribed and banished under the
Act of 1778, he was forbidden to return to Massachusetts and for a time
did not even dare to write to his family. A daughter of Mary Robbins
married a son of Paul Revere. Two of their sons fell upon the
battlefield in the war for the Union, fighting on the loyal side in
support of their government, giving to their country on the one hand
lives derived from the disunionists and on the other from their loyal
ancestor.

Rev. John Forbes wrote to his wife in 1783, just previous to his death,
as follows: "Upon hearing of the peace, having all my property in
Florida, I thought of going immediately to England. I might be of use to
myself either by giving a short representation of the importance of
retaining the province under the Crown of Great Britain or in finding
early what hopes I might entertain of being in a situation of remaining
in England with my united family, when the boys might be educated under
my eye." After Mr. Forbes' death his wife, Dorothy Forbes, hoping to
recover something from his estate as well as from her father's, made a
trip to Wilmington and St. Augustine. The land which Mr. Forbes owned in
Florida, which had been given over to the Spaniards, she received
compensation for from the British Government. In Wilmington, however,
she did not succeed, for when her father went to Boston he turned over
his Cape Fear estate, which he valued at that time at £3000, to his
nephew, Thomas Clark, who had recently come over from England. After the
war commenced, the whole of Mr. Murray's property was confiscated. It
was then claimed by Thomas Clark, who presented an account for more than
the assessed value of the property for his salary for caring for it. As
he had joined the disunionists it was ultimately made over to him by act
of the Legislature. Mrs. Forbes tried to recover some of her patrimony,
but without success. She did not even see her cousin, who wrote from his
plantation that floods prevented his leaving his estate to visit
Wilmington but that if she would come to him he would be happy to see
her and did not doubt of being able to convince her that he had acted
for the best in what he did.

SIR BENJAMIN THOMPSON.

Benjamin Thompson, otherwise known as Count Rumford was one of the most
distinguished men of his age. He came on both sides of his parentage
from the original stock of the first colonists of Massachusetts Bay.
JAMES THOMPSON, one of the original settlers of Woburn, was prominent
among those who fixed their residence in that part of the town now known
as North Woburn. Little is known of his English antecedents except that
he was born in 1593, his wife's name was Elizabeth and by her he had
three sons and one daughter all probably born in England. As early as
1630 when he was thirty-seven he joined the company of about fifteen
hundred persons who under lead of Governor Winthrop landed on New
England shores during the eventful year. He was one of the first
settlers of Charlestown and belonged to sturdy yeomanry of the country.
He was among the few adventurers who early pushed their way into an
unknown region and fixed their home in the wilderness, with Henry
Baldwin and a few others, in that part of Charlestown Village now known
as North Woburn. James Thompson was twice married. Elizabeth died
November 13, 1643, and he married February 15, 1644, Susannah Blodgett,
widow of Thomas Blodgett of Cambridge. The descendants of this early
settler are now very numerous in the country.

[Illustration: BIRTHPLACE OF BENJAMIN THOMPSON, NORTH WOBURN.]

Jonathan Thompson, son of the former had a son Jonathan who had a son
Ebenezer. Captain Ebenezer Thompson and Hannah Converse were the
grandparents, Benjamin Thompson, the son of the last, and Ruth Simonds
were the father and mother of the celebrated Count Rumford. His mother
was the daughter of an officer who performed distinguished service in
the French and Indian wars, which were in progress at the time of the
birth of his eminent grandson. The parents were married in 1752, and
went to live at the house of Captain Ebenezer Thompson. Here under his
grandfather's roof, the future Count Rumford was born, March 26, 1753,
in the west end of the strong substantial farm-house. The father of the
little boy died November 7, 1754, in his twenty-sixth year, leaving his
wife and her child to the care and support of the grandparents. In
March, 1756, when the child was three years old, his widowed mother was
married to Josiah Pierce, the younger, of Woburn. Mr. Pierce took his
wife and her child to a new home, which, now removed, stood but a short
distance from the old homestead.

Ellis in his "Life of Count Rumford" says, that Benjamin Franklin and
Benjamin Thompson were the two men most distinguished for philosophical
genius of all that have been produced on the soil of this continent.
"They came into life in humble homes within twelve miles of each other,
under like straits and circumstances of frugality and substantial
thrift. They both sprang from English lineage, of an ancestry and
parentage yeoman of the soil on either continent, to be cast, as their
progenitors had been, upon their own exertions, without dependence upon
inherited means, or patronage, or even good fortune. Born as subjects of
the English monarch, they both, at different periods of their lives,
claimed their privileges as such, visiting their ancestral soil, though
under widely unlike circumstances, and their winning fame and
distinction for services to humanity. We almost forget the occasion
which parted them in the sphere of politics, because they come so close
together in the more engrossing and beneficent activity of their
genius." It is not known whether these two men ever met together, or
sought each other's acquaintance, or even recognized each other's
existence, though they were contemporaries for more than thirty years.

Benjamin Thompson in his youth attended the village grammar school.
Later he was apprenticed to Mr. John Appleton, an importer of British
goods at Salem, and later still was for a short time a clerk in a dry
goods store in Boston where he was when the "Massacre" occurred. It was
while at Salem he first displayed his fondness for experimental
philosophy, when accidentally his face was somewhat marked by a
pyrotechnical explosion. He used to steal moments to play the fiddle as
he was passionately fond of music. Lacking taste for trade he engaged in
the study of medicine with Dr. Hay of Woburn, meanwhile in company with
his friend and neighbor, Loammie Baldwin, walking to and fro from
Cambridge, in order to attend scientific lectures at Harvard College. At
length he became a teacher, first in Wilmington, then in Bradford and
then in a more permanent and lucrative position in Concord, New
Hampshire, then a part of Essex County, Massachusetts; once known as
Penacook but at this time as Rumford. His more public and noticeable
life now began. Here he married at the early age of nineteen Sarah, the
widow of Colonel Rolfe and the daughter of the Rev. Timothy Walker. When
he went to Concord as a teacher he was in the glory of his youth, and
his friend Baldwin describes him as of a fine manly make and figure,
nearly six feet in height, of handsome features, bright blue eyes, and
dark auburn hair. He had the manners and polish of a gentleman, with
fascinating ways, and an ability to make himself agreeable. His diligent
study and love of learning also added to his attractions. He was married
about November, 1772, and his wife brought to him a fortune. It was at
about this time that Benjamin Thompson met Governor Wentworth,--an event
which led to that series of difficulties and troubles which resulted in
his leaving the country. The governor was struck by the young man's
commanding appearance, and a vacancy having occurred in a majorship in
the Second Provincial Regiment of New Hampshire, Governor Wentworth at
once commissioned Thompson to fill it. Thus the young man received an
appointment over the heads of other officers of age and experience. It
was a mistake on the part of the governor and a mistake for him to
accept the office. The veteran officers over whom he had been appointed
so suddenly and unexpectedly from the plain life of a civilian were very
angry as was to be expected.

Young Thompson manifested in early manhood the tastes, aptitudes and
cravings which prompt their possessor, however humbly born, and under
whatever repression from surrounding influence, to push his way in the
world by seeking and winning the patronage of his social superiors, who
have favor and distinctions to bestow. He was regarded from his boyhood
as being above his position; he had also a noble and imposing figure,
with great personal beauty, and with those whose acquaintance he
cultivated he was most affable and winning in his manners. His marriage
enabling him to give over the necessity of school keeping, furnished him
the means for making excursions at his pleasure. Besides his
acquaintance with Governor Wentworth at Portsmouth, he had also on
visits with his wife to Boston, been introduced to Governor Gage and
several of the British officers, and had partaken of their
hospitalities. Two soldiers, who had deserted from the army in Boston,
finding their way to Rumford (Concord), had been employed by him upon
his farm. Wishing to return to their ranks and comrades, they had sought
for the intervention of their employer to secure them immunity from
punishment. Thompson addressed a few lines for this purpose to General
Gage asking at the same time that his own agency in their behalf should
not be disclosed. Besides his acquaintance with the royal governors, the
patronage he had received from one of them, the intimacy in which he was
supposed to stand with others, the return of the deserters, and his
independent spirit, as shown in speaking his mind with freedom, in a
way to check the rising spirit of rebellion, and in distrust of the
ability and success of the disunionists, caused him to be distrusted,
and unpopular by the inflammable materials around him. He therefore
became a suspected person in Rumford, where there were watching enemies,
and talebearers, as well as jealous committees, who soon brought their
functions to bear in a most searching and offensive way against all who
did not attend revolutionary assemblies. It was well known as it was
observable that Thompson took no part in these. He had occasion to fear
any indignity which an excited and reckless county mob, directed by
secret instigators might see fit to inflict upon him, whether it were by
arraying him in tar and feathers, or by riding him upon a rail to be
jeered at by his former school-pupils. If ill usage stopped short of
these extremes, the condition of escape and security was a public
recantation, unequivocally and strongly expressed, involving a
confession of some act, or word, in opposition to the will of the
disunionists, and solemn pledge of future uncompromising fidelity to
them.

There was something exceedingly humiliating and degrading to a man of
independent and self-respecting spirit, in the conditions imposed upon
him by the "Sons of Despotism" in the process of clearing himself from
the taint of "Loyalism." The Committees of "Correspondence and of
Safety" whose services stand glorified to us through their most
efficient agency in a successful struggle, delegated their authority to
every witness or agent who might be a self-constituted guardian of the
disloyal cause or a spy, or an eaves-dropper, to catch reports of
suspected persons. It was this example, followed a few years later that
led to such terrible results in the French Revolution.

Major Thompson insisted from the first, and steadfastly to the close of
his life, affirmed that he had never done anything hostile to the
revolutionary cause up to this time. He demanded first in private, and
then in public, that his enemies should confront him with any charges
they could bring against him, and he promised to meet them and defend
himself against all accusations. He resolved, however, that he would not
plead except against explicit charges, nor invite indignity by
self-humiliation. Major Thompson was summoned before a Committee of the
people of Rumford (Concord), in the summer of 1774 to answer to the
suspicion of "being unfriendly to the cause of Liberty." He positively
denied the charge and boldly challenged proof. The evidence, if any such
was offered, was not a sort to warrant any proceedings against him, and
he was discharged. This discharge, however, though nominally an
acquittal, was not effectual in relieving him from popular distrust and
in assuring for him confidence. Probably his own reluctance to avow
sympathy with the disloyal cause, and make professions in accordance
with the wishes of his enemies, left him still under a cloud. A measure
less formal and more threatening than the examination before a self
constituted tribunal, was secretly planned by the "Sons of Despotism."
This was a visit to his comfortable home, the most conspicuous
residence in the village. It was carried into effect in November, 1774.
A mob gathered at the time agreed on, around his dwelling, and after a
serenade of hisses, hootings and groans, demanded that Major Thompson
should come out before them. The feeling must have been intense and was
of a nature to feed its own flames. Had Thompson been within, he would
inevitably have met with foul handling. The suspicion that he was hiding
there would have led to the sacking of his dwelling, and the destruction
of his goods, though the daughter of their venerated minister was its
mistress, and she was the mother, not only of Thompson's infant, but of
the only child of their former distinguished townsman, Colonel Benjamin
Rolfe. Mrs. Thompson and her brother, Colonel Walker, came forth and
with their assurance that her husband was not in town, the mob
dispersed.

Having received a friendly warning that this assault was to be made upon
him, his brother-in-law and other friends advised him to quit the place,
for although his family connections, beginning with the minister, and
the squire of the town, were, the most powerful set among the
inhabitants, yet they were unable to vindicate him and protect him from
outrage, and we may infer that his apprehensions were not in vain,
notwithstanding his own consciousness of rectitude.

Mr. Thompson therefore had secretly left Rumford just before the mob
came to his home. He thought it was to be only a temporary separation
from the place, for all his friends were there, and his wife and infant
child; but he was never to see that pleasant home again, nor anyone of
those whom he left there, except that he had a brief and troubled visit
from his wife and infant, and met the latter again only after an
interval of twenty-two years. He made a hasty effort to collect some
dues which belonged strictly to himself, but he scrupulously avoided
taking with him anything that belonged to others, or even to his wife.
What of his own he left there was soon subjected to the process of
confiscation.

Thompson sought refuge in his former home at Woburn with his mother.
Here for a short time, he sought to occupy himself in quiet retirement
with his favorite pursuits of philosophical study and experiment. But
popular suspicion found means to visit its odium upon him there, and
seeking a new refuge, he found temporary shelter in Charlestown, with a
friend, nine miles from Woburn and one from Boston. In compliance with
an earnest appeal, his wife with her infant joined him at his mother's
home in Woburn, though it required of them a ride of more than fifty
miles in winter. They remained with him till the end of May, 1775, after
which he never saw his wife again. Thompson offered his services to the
patriot army but his enemies interposed their veto. Ellis says, "There
is no record, or even tradition of unwise or unfriendly expressions
dropped by Mr. Thompson which could be used against him even when he
challenged proof of his alleged disaffection to the cause of his
country. However he was young and he had an independent spirit. His
military promotion by pure favoritism, and, what he insisted was simply
an act of humanity, his seeking immunity for two returning deserters,
were enough in themselves to assure him zealous enemies."

Through all this trouble Thompson had a staunch and loyal friend.
Colonel L. Baldwin was an ardent patriot, but stood faithfully by his
old friend and fellow-student, believed in him and protected him from
violence. At last Thompson's pride was so wounded and he felt the
humiliation so keenly that in the hot impulse of youth and a naturally
proud spirit, he embraced an opportunity to leave a land which he
honestly thought to be ungrateful and cruel. It is not true as has often
been said that Benjamin Thompson lost his interest in his family and
country. Some of the most tender and most touching letters were written
by him to his mother and his family still in Concord who believed in his
integrity. Some of these letters have never been published, others after
the lapse of nearly a century appeared in the "life of Count Rumford" by
Dr. Ellis. These errors as to matters of fact may persuade us that the
early predilection of Thompson for the loyalist cause, and the opening
of opportunities, more than any settled purpose, decided the course of
this forlorn and ill-treated young husband and father, adrift on the
world, when he found himself loosed from all home ties and that there
was nothing secret or disguised in the plans he formed for seeking in a
foreign land and among strangers at the risk of homelessness and
poverty, the peace and protection which he could not find in his own
dwelling. He did not privately steal away; he remained in and about
Woburn two months after writing his last letter to his friend, Mr.
Walker, in which he so deliberately avowed his intentions. He settled
his affairs with his neighbors, collecting dues and paying debts, well
assured that his wife and child would lack none of the means of a
comfortable support. Having made all his preparations he started from
Woburn October 13, 1775, in a country vehicle, accompanied by his
step-brother, Josiah Pierce, who drove him to the shores of Narragansett
Bay where he was taken aboard of the British frigate Scarborough, in the
harbor of Newport. The vessel very soon came round to Boston and
remained till the evacuation, of which event he was undoubtedly the
bearer of the tidings to England in despatches from General Howe. From
henceforth we are to know Benjamin Thompson till the close of the war as
an ardent loyalist, and in council and in arms an opponent to the
revolutionary cause. He must have done appreciable service in the four
or five months he was in Boston, in order to have won so soon the place
of an official in the British government. Thenceforward the rustic youth
became the companion of gentlemen of wealth, and culture, of scientific
philosophers, of the nobility and of princes. The kind of influences
which he at once began to exert, and the promotion which he so soon
received in England, answers to a class of services rendered by him of a
nature not to be misconceived. They had not in England at that time much
exact information about the state of the country. Thompson thoroughly
understood the matter. He could give trustworthy information about the
topography, and about the events of the war in which he had played a
part. He was not slow in winning the confidence of Lord George Germaine,
Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was sadly deficient in his
knowledge of the American Colonies. Major Thompson was immediately
admitted to a desk in the Colonial office. He of course proffered and
showed he could impart "information." The young man became such a
favorite with Lord George that he was daily in the habit of
breakfasting, dining and supping with him at his lodgings and at his
country seat, Stoneland. Apart from the discharge of his duties as a
private secretary, he made the most and the best use of his
opportunities in acquainting himself with London and seeking
introductions alike to men in public station and to those engaged in
scientific pursuits; nothing of interest would escape his keen
observation, and no means of personal improvement or acquisition through
men or things, would fail to yield him advancement.

[Illustration: SIR BENJAMIN THOMPSON.

Born in North Woburn, March 26, 1753. In the uniform of a British
Officer. Known as Count Rumford. Died at Paris Aug. 21, 1814.]

He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and became one of the most
active and honored members of the Society. In 1780 he was made "Under
Secretary of State for the Northern Department." The oversight of all
the practical details for recruiting, equipping, transporting, and
victualling the British forces, and of many other incidental
arrangements was then committed to him. Major Thompson, who had always
clung to that title, though its provisional commission gave him no rank
in the regular army, was now honored with the commission in the regular
army of a Lieutenant Colonel; though now at the age of only
twenty-eight, not yet a veteran, he wished for, and meant to do, full
military duty. He needed a command. Where should he find a regiment. He
provided for himself, and resolved to secure a following from those in
his native land, who had been loyal to the government. They were known
as the "Loyal American Regiments" and for the most part, they were the
most desperate, and hated of any of the combatants, they had suffered
the loss of their homes, and endured the most cruel treatment from their
neighbors, and countrymen, and when the opportunity occurred they often
retaliated. In this partisan warfare quarter was neither given or taken.
In the early part of January, 1782, Lieutenant Colonel Thompson arrived
at Charleston, South Carolina, General Green's army at that time
invested the city. Becoming desperate in their need of supplies, a
sortie was made under Thompson's command, an attack was made by him on
the partisan forces under the command of Marion, the famous partisan
leader, near the Santee. When the brigade was first attacked it was
under the command of Colonel Horrey, and though Marion came in season to
take part in the action, he had the mortification of witnessing the
discomfiture of his band with the loss of many men and munition.[187]

[187] Memoir of the war in the Southern Department of the United States.
By Henry Lee, p. 397.

Rivington's New York Gazette, under date of Feb. 18th, 1782, says "A
detachment of the Royal Americans went on service against Greene," March
27th. A person who left the Southern Army Feb. 13th, says Lieutenant
Colonel Thompson has taken command of the British cavalry under Colonel
Leslie. "A considerable force of cavalry and infantry commanded by
Colonel Thompson sallied out from Charleston on the side opposite the
American camp and surprised and dispersed a party of militia. The
British retreated before Greene could send reinforcements."

Charleston, March 2. Lieutenant Colonel Thompson moved Sunday, Feb. 24
from Daniel's Island, with the cavalry, Cunningham's and Young's troops
of mounted militia, Yagers, and Volunteers of Ireland, with one three
pounder, and a detachment of the Thirtieth Regiment. By the spirited
exertion of his troops, and by the Colonel's mounting the infantry
occasionally on the dragoon horses, he carried his corps thirty-six
miles without halting. Having secured the American scouts to prevent
information being given he drove in Horrey's regiment. They were pursued
by Major Doyle with mounted militia. On seeing the enemy, Colonel
Thompson sounded a charge and dashed forwards. Marion's marque and men
refreshed our soldiers. Colonel Thompson marched back driving the
cattle, etc. The admirable conduct of the officer who commanded can be
equalled by the spirit with which his orders were executed. (Rivington,
April 17). In the war of posts, of desultory skirmishes, and of raids
into the farming country, to which the struggle at the South was
reduced, there was indeed little opportunity for Thompson to win
laurels. He made use of his energetic and methodical skill in doing what
he could to organize and discipline such materials as he had before him.

Towards the end of the war he was sent to New York to organize a
regiment out of the broken and scattered bands of Loyalists on Long
Island. "Recruits for the King's American Dragoons, likely and spirited
young lads who were desirous of serving their King and country, and who
prefer riding to going on foot, were offered ten guineas each, if
volunteers." Such was the advertisement. His ability in organizing this
regiment was a great achievement. He commanded at Huntington, Long
Island in 1782-3 where he caused a fort to be built. In August, 1782,
near Flushing, standards were presented to his corps, with imposing
ceremonies. Prince William came forward to the center of the regiment,
received the colors from Admiral Digby, and presented them with his own
hand to Lieutenant Colonel Thompson. On a given signal the whole
regiment gave three shouts, the music played "God save the King", the
artillery fired a royal salute and the ceremony ended.

An ox was roasted whole, to grace this occasion. He was spitted on a
hickory sapling, twelve feet long, supported on crutches, and turned by
handspikes. An attendant dipped a swab in a tub of salt and water to
baste the ox, and moderate the fire. Each soldier then sliced off for
himself a piece of juicy beef.[188]

[188] The barbecue is still in vogue in the Southern States at all large
social gatherings.

The Prince who officiated on this occasion was the King's third son,
afterwards William IV. He had sailed on board the Prince George under
Admiral Digby, to qualify himself for rank in the Royal Navy.

Returning to England Thompson, as a commissioned officer of high rank
now on half pay, obtained leave to travel on the Continent. He left
England in September, 1783, with no anticipation of the ultimate result
of what was to him in intent mainly a trial of fortune. On his arrival
at Strasburg, Prince Maximilian, who became Elector of Bavaria in 1799
and King in 1805, was attracted by the young man's appearance. On
acquaintance he soon realized that the Englishman was a man of
remarkable intelligence and later Thompson received an earnest
invitation to enter into the service of the elector. Thompson therefore
returned to England to receive the necessary permission from the king.
The king not only granted the permission but also conferred on him the
honor of Knighthood on February 23, 1784.

Returning to the continent Thompson became a fast friend of the Elector
of Bavaria. His great mind was put to useful service in a country that
needed his wisdom, philanthropy and personal help. Many honors were
conferred upon him and he was admitted to several academies. In 1788 the
Elector made him Major-General of Cavalry and Privy Councillor of State.
He was also put at the head of the War Department. His constant study in
science and philosophy, and the great problems of the day, made him an
invaluable help to the people, besides his ability as a statesman. In
Munich, where beggary had been reduced to a system and had become an
intolerable curse, he received from all classes multiplied tokens of
most grateful regard for his acts of disinterested benevolence. Both in
England and on the continent he was held in the highest esteem for the
broad and wise plans for the amelioration of the condition of the poor
which he devised and executed. He dealt with those who lived in the
filthiest order and it was his aim to show them that virtue came from
cleanliness, and he worked unceasingly that their surroundings might
first be clean.

Honors of all kinds were heaped upon this worker for mankind, but
nothing so deeply moved him or was so tenderly cherished in his memory,
as that scene, when once he was dangerously ill, the poor of Munich went
publicly in a body, in processions, to the cathedral, and offered public
prayers for his recovery. And on another occasion four years later, when
he was again dangerously ill at Naples, these people of their own
accord, set apart an hour each evening, after they had finished their
work in the Military Work-house, to pray for him. On his return, after
an absence of fifteen months, the subjects of his benevolence gave him a
most affecting reception. He in response, provided for them a festival
in the English Gardens which his own skill and taste had laid out where
before was an unhealthy marsh. Here eighteen hundred poor people of all
ages enjoyed themselves, in presence of above eighty thousand visitors.
Thompson says, "Let him imagine, I say, my feelings, upon hearing the
confused noise of the prayers of a multitude of people who were passing
by in the streets, upon being told that it was the poor of Munich, many
hundreds in number, who were going in procession to the church to put up
public prayers for me;--public prayers for me!--for a private person!--a
stranger!--a Protestant!"

"Such testimonies as these were more valuable than all his military
honors, all his scientific reputation, his diplomas of Knighthood in
England, and in Poland, and his decoration as a count of the Holy Roman
Empire and there is reason to believe that he so regarded them
himself."[189]

[189] Memorial of James Thompson of Charlestown, Mass., and Woburn,
Mass., by Leander Thompson, A. M.

He was accused of being selfish and devoid of all honor, coarse and
cruel. That he married another woman while his wife was alive and was
always a tyrant! The records of Concord give the date of his wife's
death as January 19, 1792, while the register of Paris gives the date of
his second marriage as October 24, 1805.

Sarah, the only child of Count Rumford, who was born in the Rolfe
Mansion in Concord, Oct. 18, 1774, remained in the care of her mother
until the latter's death. Her father had taken great interest in her and
never forgot his family, and he made provision also for his mother.
After his wife's death, Sarah accepted her father's invitation to rejoin
him in Europe where she shared his honors both in London and on the
Continent. She received her title as countess and her pension both of
which she enjoyed to the close of her life.

While the countess was on a return visit to her old home she gained the
first news of her father's coming marriage through his letters to her.
Father and daughter kept up a continual correspondence, and from these
letters which have since been published much of their private life is
revealed.[190] Count Rumford married the widow of General Anthony
Laurence Lavosier at Paris in 1805, but the marriage soon proved unhappy
and he retired to the Villa Auteuil, within the walls, but removed from
the noise of the great city. Count Rumford never returned to his old
home in Massachusetts though it was his wish to do so. The United States
government through its ambassador, Hon. Rufus King, then resident of
London, formally invited him to return, assured of his loyalty and great
ability, and offered him the responsible position of superintendent of
the proposed American Military Academy and of inspector-general of
artillery. Though to the mutual regret of both parties concerned, the
count was not able to accept the invitation of the American government,
he gave in order to assist in the equipment of the Military Academy,
some of his very valuable models and drawings and offered to give his
whole rich collection of military books, plans, drawings, and models,
provided they would be acceptable.

[190] See "Life of Count Rumford," by George Ellis.

The Count's last days were spent near Paris, as that climate was best
suited to him. He lived a very retired life spending most of his days in
philosophical pursuits and experiments, almost secluded from the world.
Constant friendship between Colonel Baldwin and Benjamin Thompson
remained until the end, and the latter was always grateful for the
interest and care his old friend had bestowed upon his daughter during
their separation.

Thompson published essays and papers on his work and that he could have
been great in theoretical science is shown by his experiment at Munich
in 1798, and his clear reasoning upon it which was in advance of the
prevailing scientific opinion by half a century. When he was in London
in 1800 he projected the Royal Institute of Great Britain.

Besides a great number of communications to scientific journals, he
published four volumes of essays, political, economical, experimental,
and philosophical. He was ever a great friend to Harvard College. When
the Colleges were converted into barracks, during the siege of Boston,
he was instrumental in preserving the library and philosophical
apparatus from destruction by the revolutionists who regarded the
College as a hotbed of toryism. By his will he laid the foundation of
that professorship to Harvard University, which has rendered his name
justly esteemed with his friends. He bequeathed an annuity of one
thousand dollars and the reversion of another of four hundred dollars,
also the reversion of his whole estate, which amounted to twenty-six
thousand dollars, "for the purpose of founding a new institution and
professorship, in order to teach by regular courses of academical and
public lectures accompanied with proper experiments, the utility of the
physical and mathematical science for the improvement of the useful
arts, and for the extension of the industry, prosperity, happiness and
well being of society." In 1796 he remitted five thousand dollars in
three per cent. stocks, to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
the income to be appropriated as a premium to the author of the most
important discovery on light and heat.

This great, useful and influential life came to a close on August 21,
1814. He was just about to depart for England to which country, as long
as he lived, he retained the most devoted attachment. His death resulted
from a nervous fever at Auteuil, about four miles from Paris and he is
buried within the limits of that city. In the Monthly Magazine or
British Register (London) for September, 1814, appeared the following:

"At his seat near Paris, 60, died, August 21, that illustrious
philosopher, Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, F. R. S., Member of the
Institute, &c., an American by birth, but the friend of man, and an
honor to the whole human race."

Many testimonies were given in remembrance of Benjamin Thompson
throughout the civilized world. In Munich the king erected at his own
cost a bronze statue of Count Rumford, and it stands in the Maximillian
Strasse, the finest street of Munich, perhaps of any city of Europe. The
new and beautiful library which was erected in Woburn, Massachusetts,
has paid tribute also to this man's memory. A bronze monument of heroic
size stands boldly out upon the library lawn, and the inscription was
written by President Eliot of Harvard College. The Rumford Historical
Association was organized in 1877 with the simple desire to do justice
to Count Rumford's transcendent abilities as a great scientist and to
his marked usefulness as one of the greatest philanthropists of his age.
A portrait of Count Rumford by Page after one Kellerhofer hangs in
Memorial Hall, Cambridge.

Sarah, the Countess of Rumford, after living in Paris and London several
years, returned to her old home in Concord, where she spent her last
years. She possessed many memorials and pictures which she was fond of
exhibiting to visitors. She was eccentric but had a quick and vigorous
mind and idolized America. She was never married and her death occurred
December 2, 1852, at the age of seventy. In her will she left $15,000
and her homestead, worth $5,000, for the endowment of an institution for
widows and orphans of Concord, the homestead to be the site of the
institution, to the New Hampshire Asylum for Insane in Concord she left
$15,000, to the Concord Female Charitable Society who have under their
care a school for poor children, called the Rumford School, she left
$2,000, and the rest of her property, estimated at from $75,000 to
$100,000, to distant relatives.

COLONEL RICHARD SALTONSTALL.

The ancestors of Sir Richard Saltonstall resided for centuries in the
parish of Halifax, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, and the
earliest date at which we find this name recorded is in 1276. Thomas de
Saltonstall of the West Riding of Yorkshire is the first name of whom
any record is preserved. Sir Richard Saltonstall, born in 1521 was
knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1598. After holding several prominent
offices under the crown he became Lord Mayor of London in 1597-8. He was
the uncle of Sir Richard Saltonstall who was born in 1586 at Halifax and
was one of the patentees of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay and was
appointed First Assistant. He came over with the Winthrop fleet, and
arrived in Salem aboard of the Arabella, June 12, 1630, "bringing out
the charter with them." He returned to England, and at his death, left a
legacy to Harvard College. He dissented from the action of the
tyrannical rulers who were his associates, who inflicted punishment on
such as differed from them, but slightly in their notion of policy, and
requested that his dissent should be entered upon the records, which
stand much to his honor and credit. After his return to England he wrote
to Mr. Cotton and Mr. Wilson, the ministers in Boston "that it did not a
little grieve his spirit to hear what sad things were reported daily of
the tyranny and persecution in New England, as that they fined, whipped
and imprisoned men for their consciences." His son Richard, born in
1610, settled at Ipswich, Massachusetts, returned to England, and died
there in 1694. His son Nathaniel, born about 1639 and died in 1707,
settled at Haverhill, Mass., of which he is called the father. He
married Elizabeth, the daughter of the first minister, Rev. John Ward,
who gave the young couple the land for their home, on which was erected
the Saltonstall mansion which remained in the possession of the
Saltonstall family for several generations. In the early part of the
last century it was purchased by Major James Duncan, who erected the
present mansion which is now owned and occupied by the Haverhill
Historical Society. Nathaniel had a son Richard, who also had a son
Richard born June 24, 1703. He graduated from Harvard College in 1722
and became Colonel in 1726. In 1736 he became judge of the Superior
Court and died in 1756. His eldest son, Richard Saltonstall, the subject
of this notice, was the sixth generation from Sir Richard the First
Assistant, and the fourth of the family in succession who held the
office of Colonel. He graduated from Harvard College with high honors
and delivered the Latin Oration at Commencement.

His acceptance from Governor Shirley of the commission of Colonel, so
soon after leaving college, evinced a spirit which was not long after to
be tried in arduous service for his country. During the French war he
was Major in the army and was one of the unfortunate prisoners at the
capitulation of Fort William Henry. He escaped being massacred by the
Indians by concealing himself in the woods where he lay for many hours,
and when at last he reached Fort Edward was nearly exhausted with
fatigue and hunger. He remained in active service until the close of the
war, and later was appointed Sheriff to the County of Essex.

Colonel Saltonstall was always a steady loyalist in principle and never
for a moment wavered in his devotion to the flag which he had so bravely
fought under and which he had so often sworn to support. "The
proceedings (of the Government) were in his opinion extremely
inexpedient, but he never doubted their right to tax the Colonies."

"He was much beloved by the people of Haverhill, and its vicinity. He
resided on the beautiful family estate in Haverhill known as 'the
Saltonstall Place,' where he lived in a liberal style of hospitality,
sustaining the character of a truly upright man, and an accomplished
gentleman. It was long before he lost his popularity, but in 1774 a mob
assembled from the West Parish of Haverhill and Salem, N. H., for the
purpose of proving themselves _Sons of Liberty_ by attacking him. By a
word he could have collected a great part of the inhabitants of the
village to his defence, but he would not, though urged by some of his
friends. The rioters marched to his home and paraded before it, armed
with clubs and other offensive instruments, when he came to the door and
addressed them with great firmness and dignity. He told them he was
under the oath of allegiance to the king, that he was bound to discharge
the duties of the office he held under him, that he did not think the
people were pursuing a wise or prudent course but that he was as great a
friend to the country as any of them, and had exposed his life in its
cause, etc. He then ordered some refreshment for the _gentlemen_, who
soon began to relent, when he requested them to go to the tavern and
call for entertainment at his expense. They then huzzard to the praise
of Colonel Saltonstall, and never attempted to mob him again."

Colonel Saltonstall left Haverhill in the fall of 1774 and embarked for
England. He did not enter the British service, saying, if he could not
conscientiously engage on the side of his native country he never would
take up arms against her. If he had joined the continental army he
undoubtedly would have held an office of high command. The king granted
him a pension and he passed the remainder of his life in England, where
he died. In one of his last letters in which he expressed great
affection for the "_delightful place of his nativity_," he wrote, "I
have no remorse of conscience for my past conduct. I have had more
satisfaction in a private life here than I should have had in being next
in command to General Washington, where I must have acted in conformity
to the dictates of others, regardless of my own feelings."

In Haverhill Colonel Saltonstall was much beloved and had a great
influence from his integrity, benevolence of disposition and his
superior understanding and knowledge of the world. In England he was
hospitably received by his remote family connections, who paid him every
kind and generous attention while living, and erected a monument to his
memory in Kensington church, on which is the following inscription:

"Near this place are interred the remains of Richard Saltonstall, Esq.,
who died October, 1785, aged fifty-two. He was an _American loyalist_,
from Haverhill in Massachusetts, where he was descended from a first
family, both for the principal share it had in the early erecting as
well as in rank and authority in governing that province, and wherein he
himself sustained, with unshaken loyalty and universal applause, various
important trusts and commands under the Crown both civil and military,
from his youth till its revolt; and throughout life maintained such an
amiable private character, as engaged him the esteem and regard of many
friends. As a memorial of his merits this stone is erected."

Colonel Saltonstall was not married. He was Proscribed and Banished by
the law of 1778. His mansion home at Haverhill passed into the hands of
his brother, Dr. Nathaniel Saltonstall who joined the Disunionists, at a
time when his brothers remained true to those principals of loyalty in
which they had been educated. He however did not take up arms against
the government. At his death he left three sons and four daughters, the
only family of that name in Massachusetts.

LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, youngest son of Judge Saltonstall was born in 1754
and at the commencement of the war had nearly completed his term of
service with a merchant of Boston, when Col. Saltonstall came to that
place for protection from mob violence. Being in the habit of looking
up to him for advice and direction, he embraced the same political
opinion, and becoming acquainted with the British officers he was
fascinated with their profession. After the passing of the Act of
Disunion July 4, 1776 he unlike his brothers decided to enter the
British service and fight for his government. He was in many battles,
and commanded a company in the army of Lord Cornwallis. He died at the
close of the war at New York, 1782. His brother-in-law, the Rev. Moses
Badger, who was also a loyalist, in a letter to Dr. Nathaniel
Saltonstall concerning his sickness (consumption), says, "It may be some
consolation to you and his mother to hear, that his behaviour in the
regiment endeared him to every officer, and the soldiers who had so
frequent opportunities to see his intrepidity, coolness and gallantry in
action, absolutely revered him. He was agreeable to people of all ranks.
He was exceedingly cautious in speaking, seldom uttering a word without
reflection and was never heard to speak ill of any one and reprobated
the man or woman who indulged themselves in this infirmity. He never
fell into the scandalous and fashionable vice of profaneness. In short,
I looked upon him to be as innocent a young man as any I have known
since I have been capable of making observations on mankind."[191]

[191] Mass. His. Coll. 2, series Vol. IV, pp. 167, 168.

REV. MATHER BYLES.

Josiah Byles, a saddler by trade, came from Winchester, Hants county. He
was in Boston in 1695 and joined the church October 11, 1696; seven
years later he married the pastor's daughter.

He had four children by his wife Sarah. His second wife, Elizabeth, he
married October 6, 1703; she was the widow of William Greenough and the
daughter of Increase Mather.

Mather Byles, D. D., son of Josiah and Elizabeth, was born in Boston in
1706. He graduated from Harvard University in 1725 and was ordained
first pastor of the Hollis street church in 1733. This church was built
on land given by Governor Belcher in 1733, the site is now occupied by
the Hollis street Theatre. He married, February 14, 1733, Mrs. Anna
Gale; the ceremony took place in the state room of the Province House,
Rev. Thomas Prince of the Old South officiating. By this marriage he had
six children born, all of whom died young except Elizabeth. His second
wife was Rebecca, daughter of Lieutenant Governor Hon. William Tailor;
the ceremony was performed by Rev. Joseph Sewell, D. D. By his second
wife he had four children. He was created Doctor of Divinity at Aberdeen
in 1765. He lived happily with his parish until 1776 when the connection
was dissolved and never renewed. Of the Congregational clergy he stood
alone against the revolution.

Mather Byles is one of the most interesting men of this period. He was a
scholar and a great wit. Pope, Lansdowne and Watts were among his
correspondents. In his pulpit he avoided politics and on being asked the
reason, replied: "I have thrown up four breastworks, behind which I have
entrenched myself, neither of which can be enforced. In the first place
I do not understand politics; in the second place, you all do, every man
and mother's son of you; in the third place you have politics all the
week, pray let one day in seven be devoted to religion; in the fourth
place, I am engaged in work of infinitely greater importance; give me
any subject to preach on of more consequence than the truth I bring you,
and I will preach on it the next Sabbath."

The preacher became known as the "celebrated Dr. Byles." He wrote in
poetry and prose very well, and some of his sermons are still extant.
Also several of his essays, in the New England Weekly Journal, a poem on
the death of George I; and the accession of George II, in 1727. A sort
of memorial address to Governor Belcher, on the death of his wife, and a
poem called the conflagration, and a volume of metrical matters
published in 1744.

The serious writings of Dr. Byles are singularly free from everything
suggestive of frivolous association. In his pulpit there was none of it,
while out of it, unless on solemn occasions, there was very little else.
One of that day said his wit at times was quite as clever as Jonathan
Swift or Sydney Smith.

Mather Byles and his family were staunch loyalists. News of the repeal
of the stamp act arrived in Boston May 16, 1766. The nineteenth of May
was appointed for merry-making. "At one in the morning the bell of the
Hollis street church began to ring," says a zealous writer of that day.
"The slumbers of the pastor, Dr. Byles, were disturbed of course, for he
was a tory, though a very pleasant tory, after all." In 1777 he was
denounced in town meeting, and having been by a subsequent trial
pronounced guilty of attachment to the Royal cause, was sentenced to
confinement, and to be sent to England with his family. This Byles
steadfastly refused to do and the doom of the banishment was never
enforced, and he was permitted to remain in Boston. The substances of
the charges against him were that he continued in Boston during the
siege; and that he prayed for the king and the safety of the town.

For a time he was kept a prisoner in his own house. On one occasion
while under guard he persuaded the sentinel to go on an errand for him,
promising to perform sentinel's duty himself; and to the great amusement
of all gravely marched before his own door with a musket on his
shoulder, until his keeper returned. This was after his trial; and
alluding to the circumstances that he had been kept prisoner, that his
guard had been removed and replaced again, he said, that "he had been
guarded, re-guarded, and disregarded."

[Illustration: REV. MATHER BYLES, D. D.

Born in Boston in 1706. "A man of infinite wit." Died in Boston July 5,
1788.]

Near his house, in wet weather, was a very bad slough. It happened that
two of the selectmen who had the care of the streets, passed that way
driving in a chaise, stuck fast in this hole, and were obliged to get
out in the mud to extricate their vehicle. Dr. Byles came out, and
making them a respectful bow, said: "Gentlemen, I have often
complained to you of this nuisance, without any attention being paid to
it, and I am very glad to see you 'stirring' in this matter now."

Dr. Byles' wit created many a laugh and many an enemy. In person he was
tall and commanding. His voice was strong and harmonious and his
delivery graceful. He was intimate with General Knox, who was a
bookseller before the war. When the American troops took possession of
the town after the evacuation, Knox, who had become quite corpulent,
marched in at the head of his artillery. As he passed on Byles thought
himself privileged, on old scores, exclaimed, loud enough to be heard,
"I never saw an ox fatter in my life." When confined in his own house
and quite poor and had no money to waste on follies, he caused the
little room in which he read and wrote to be painted brown, that he
might say to every visitor, "You see, I am in a brown study."

From the time of the stamp act in 1765 to the period of the revolution
the cry had been repeated in every form of phraseology, "that our
grievances should be redressed." One fine morning the multitude had
gathered on the common to see a regiment of redcoats parade there, who
had recently arrived. "Well," said the doctor, gazing at the spectacle,
"I think we can no longer complain that our grievances are not
red-dressed." "True," said one of his neighbors who were standing near,
"but you have two d's, Dr. Byles." "To be sure, sir, I have," the doctor
instantly replied, "I had them from Aberdeen in 1765."

Some visitors called one morning, and Mrs. Byles unwilling to be found
at her ironing board, and desiring to hide herself, as she would not be
so caught by those ladies, the doctor put her in a closet, and buttoned
her in. After a few remarks the ladies expressed a wish to see the
doctor's curiosities, which he proceeded to exhibit; and after
entertaining them very agreeably for some time, he told them he had kept
the greatest curiosity to the last; and proceeding to the closet,
unbuttoned the door and exhibited Mrs. Byles.

He had at one time a remarkably stupid and literal Irish girl as a
domestic. With a look and voice of terror he said to her in haste, "Go
and say to your mistress, Dr. Byles has put an end to himself." The girl
ran upstairs and with a face of horror, screamed, "Dr. Byles has put an
end to himself." The astonished wife and daughter ran into the
parlor--and there was the doctor, calmly waltzing about with a part of a
cow's tail, that he had picked up in the street, tied to his coat or
cassock behind.

On the celebrated Dark-day in 1780 a lady who lived near the doctor,
sent her young son with her compliments, to know if he could account for
the uncommon appearance. His answer was, "My dear, you will give my
compliments to your mamma, and tell her that I am as much in the _dark_
as she is." He paid his addresses unsuccessfully to a lady who
afterwards married a gentleman of the name of Quincy; the doctor on
meeting her said: "So madam, it appears that you prefer a Quincy to
Byles." "Yes, for if there had been anything worse than _biles_ God
would have afflicted Job with them."

Mather Byles had two daughters by his second wife, Mary born in 1750 and
Katherine born in 1753. They were famous for their hospitality and their
stout, unflinching loyalty to the throne, to the last hours of their
existence. This thread of life was spun out more than half a century
after the Royal government had ceased in these States; yet they retained
their love of, and strict adherence to monarch and monarchies, and
refused to acknowledge that the Revolution had transferred their
allegiance to new rulers. One of these ladies of a by-gone age, wrote to
William the Fourth, on his accession to the throne. They had known the
"sailor-king" during the Revolution and now assured him that the family
of Doctor Byles always had been, and would continue to be, loyal to the
rightful sovereign of England.

Dr. Byles continued to live in Boston after the Revolution, the last
twelve years of his life being spent in retirement. He died of paralysis
July 5th, 1788 at the age of 82. As Dr. Byles refused to be driven out
and made a refugee, or absentee, he therefore saved his property from
confiscation, and his two daughters, maiden ladies, lived and died in
the old family house at the corner of Tremont and Nassau street, now
Common street. They were repeatedly offered a great price for their
dwelling, but would not sell it, nor would they permit improvements or
alterations. In the course of improvements in Boston a part of the
building had to be removed in widening the street. This had a fatal
influence upon the elder sister; she mourned over the sacrilege, and, it
is thought, died its victim. "That," said the survivor, "is one of the
consequences of living in a Republic. Had we been living under a king,
he would have cared nothing about our little property, and we could have
enjoyed it in our own way as long as we lived. But," continued she,
"there is one comfort, that not a creature in the States will be any
better for what we shall leave behind us." She was true to her promise,
for the Byles estate passed to relatives in Halifax at their decease.
One of them died in 1835, the other in 1837. They worshipped in Trinity
church under which their bodies were buried, and on Sundays wore dresses
almost as old as themselves. Among their furniture, was a pair of
bellows two centuries old, a table on which Franklin drank tea on his
last visit to Boston, a chair which more than a hundred years before the
Government of England had sent as a present to their grandfather,
Lieutenant-Governor Tailer. They showed to visitors commissions to their
grandfather, signed by Queen Anne, and three of the Georges. They talked
of their walks arm-in-arm, on Boston Common, with General Howe, and Lord
Percy, while the British Army occupied Boston. They told of his
Lordship's ordering his band to play under their window for their
gratification. They took pleasure in exhibiting the many heirlooms which
were in the possession of the family and enjoyed hearing a recitation of
the bright stories of the day. The works of Watts were sent to Byles by
the author from time to time and among the treasures highly prized by
the family was a presentation copy, in quarto from Pope, of his
translation of the Odyssey. At the sale of the library of Dr. Byles a
large folio Bible in French, was purchased by a private individual. This
Bible had been presented to the French-Protestant church in Boston, by
Queen Anne, and at the time when it came into the hands of Dr. Byles was
the last relic of that church, whose visible temple had been erected in
School Street about 1716.[192]

[192] For further information about these French Protestants see the
"Memoir" by Dr. Holmes, or to Vol. XXII. p. 62. of Massachusetts
Historical Collections.

The bible is now preserved in the library of the Divinity School at
Cambridge and was presented in 1831 by the widow of the late Samuel Cobb
of Boston, who had bought it at the sale of Mather Byle's library.

MATHER BYLES, JR., D. D., a son of Rev. Mather Byles by his second wife,
was born in 1734, and married Rebecca, daughter of Rev. N. Walter of
Roxbury in 1761. He graduated in 1751 at Harvard University. In 1757 at
the age of twenty-three he was ordained at New London; his father
preached the sermon. Eleven years after, his ministry came to an abrupt
termination. Without previous intimation, he called a meeting of his
church and requested dismission, that he might accept an invitation to
become Rector of the North Episcopal, or Christ Church, Salem street,
Boston. His change to Episcopacy was soon a matter of discussion all
over New England. Among the reasons he gave in the course of the
discussion that ensued, were, that "another minister would do much
better for them than he had done or could do, for his health was infirm,
and the position of the church very bleak, the hill wearisome, he was
not a country minister, and his home and friends were all in Boston."
The debate was long and warm, and produced total alienation. April 12,
1768, the record is "The Rev. Byles dismissed _himself_ from the church
and congregation." Before the close of 1768, he was inducted into the
desired rectorship; and of Christ Church, was the third in succession.
He continued to discharge his ministerial duties until 1775, when the
force of events compelled him to abandon his flock. He was a staunch
loyalist, and resigned the rectorship of Christ Church on Easter
Tuesday, 1775, meaning to go to Portsmouth, in New Hampshire, but
political tumults there, making that impossible, he remained in Boston,
and performed the duty of chaplain to some of the regiments, until the
evacuation in 1776, when he left Boston. Accompanied by his family of
four persons, he went to Halifax. In 1778 he was proscribed and
banished. He settled at St. John, New Brunswick, after the war, and was
Rector of the city, and Chaplain of the Province. He died at St. John in
1814.

His daughter Rebecca, born in 1762, married W. J. Almon, M. D., Surgeon
to the Ordnance and Artillery, and died at Halifax in 1853.

MATHER BYLES (3) born in 1764, went to the British West Indies, was
Commissary General at Grenada. He married June, 1799, Mary, eldest
daughter of Chief Justice Bridgewater of Grenada. The writer was at St.
George, Grenada, in 1907, and saw there in the Episcopal Church a
marble tablet erected to the memory of Mather Byles of Boston, by his
Brother Belcher. He died Dec. 17, 1802.

ELIZABETH, born in 1767, married William Scoville, Esq., of St. John,
and died in 1808.

ANNA, born at Boston, married General Thomas DesBrisay, Lieut. General
in the Army, Commandant at Halifax in 1799.

BELCHER was born in 1780 at Halifax, and died in England in 1815.

MATHER BROWN, was a grandson of Rev. Mather Byles (1). His mother was
Elizabeth, born in 1737, who married in 1760 Gawler Brown and died in
1763.

Mather Brown went to Europe in 1780, with a letter of introduction from
his grandfather to Harrison Gray, Esq., London, a firm friend of the
family. Mr. Copley had likewise been intimate with Dr. Byles before he
left Boston. He also gave him a letter addressed by the old patriarch
"To Mr. Copley in the Solar system." In a letter dated Paris 23, 1781,
he writes: "Dr. Franklin has given me a pass, and recommendatory letter
to the famous Mr. West. He treats me with the utmost politeness; has
given me an invitation to his home. I delivered him my grandfather's
message, he expressed himself with the greatest esteem and affection for
him, and has since introduced me at Versailles, as being grandson to one
of his most particular friends in America."

In his first letter from London, 1781, he writes: "In consequence of the
recommendation of Dr. Franklin, who gave me letters to his fellow
townsman, the famous Mr. West of Philadelphia, I practice gratis with
this gentleman, who affords me every encouragement, as well as Mr.
Copley, who is particularly kind to me, welcomed me to his home, and
lent me his pictures, etc. At my arrival Mr. Treasurer Gray carried me
and introduced me to Lord George Germaine." In a letter in 1783 he
wrote: "I have exhibited four pictures in the exhibition; the king and
queen were there yesterday." In 1784: "I have painted several Americans.
Yesterday I had two pictures shown his royal highness, the Prince of
Wales. They were carried to the palace by his page. He criticised them,
and thought them strong likenesses. I believe I never told you that the
king knew a picture of mine in the last exhibition, of the keeper of
Windsor Castle, and took particular notice of Mr. Gray's picture; asked
him who it was, and who did it, and what book he had in his hand. Mr.
West told him it was the treasurer of Boston painted by his pupil, a
young man, Mr. Brown of America. The king asked him what part. He told
him Massachusetts." In 1785 he writes: "Among other great people I have
painted, Sir William Pepperell and family, and Hon. John Adams,
ambassador to His Britannic Majesty. On the 20th of June, I had the
honor to be introduced to the Duke of Northumberland at his palace; his
Grace received me with the utmost politeness."

Mather Brown became afterwards artist to the king, a worthy successor to
Copley. And thus two Boston-born boys filled this honorable position.

THE HALLOWELL FAMILY OF BOSTON.

Robert Hallowell arrived in Boston from London, in 1764 and entered upon
his duties as Comptroller of the Customs. He was Collector of the
Customs at Portsmouth, New Hampshire before the age of twenty-five. In
1765, Sabine says, "A mob surrounded his elegant house in Hanover
Street, tore down his fences, broke his windows, and forcing the doors
at last destroyed furniture, stole money, scattered books and papers,
and drank of the wines in the cellar to drunkenness."

In 1768 Hallowell ordered Hancock's vessel, the _Liberty_, seized for
smuggling wine, to be removed from the wharf to a place covered by the
guns of the _Romney_ frigate; and in the affray which occurred, received
wounds and bruises that at the time seemed fatal.

He removed his office to Plymouth, June 1, 1774, when the port of Boston
was closed. In 1775, he was an Addresser of Gage; and the year following
with his family of five persons, he accompanied the British Army to
Halifax. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished. He went to England and
resided at Bristol. Hallowell came to the United States in 1788 and in
1790--as the executor of his own father and of his wife's father. In
1792 he removed to Boston with his family, and lived in the homestead on
Batterymarch Street, which because of his mother's life interest, had
not been confiscated. He was kindly received and became intimate with
some distinguished citizens.

In 1816, when failing in health, he went to Gardiner, Maine to reside
with his son, and died there April, 1818, in his seventy-ninth year. His
wife was Hannah, daughter of Doctor Sylvester Gardiner. His two
daughters, Hannah and Anne, died unmarried. His son, the Hon. Robert
Hallowell, became a gentleman of great wealth and a highly respected
citizen. Two of Mr. Hallowell's sisters died in England; Sarah, wife of
Samuel Vaughan, in 1809; and Anne, widow of General Gould, in 1812.

The towns of Hallowell and Gardiner on the Kennebec River are named
after their families.

BENJAMIN HALLOWELL of Boston, brother of Robert Hallowell, was
Commissioner of the Customs. In early life he commanded a small armed
vessel, and during the war ending in the conquest of Canada, commanded
the province twenty-gun ship, "King George," rendering essential service
notably at the retaking of Newfoundland.

Captain Hallowell's acceptance of the office of Mandamus Councillor made
him a special object of public detestation.

On September 2, 1774, while the mob were assembled on Cambridge Common
to receive the resignations of Danforth, Lee, and Oliver as Mandamus
Councillors, Hallowell passed on his way to Roxbury. About one hundred
and sixty horsemen pursued him at full gallop. Some of the leaders
however, prudently dissuaded them from proceeding and they returned and
dismounted, except for one man who followed Hallowell to Roxbury and
caused him much annoyance. Through the action of the mob he was obliged
to seek protection in Boston and leave his mansion which was built in
1738. It was used afterwards by the disunion forces as a hospital for
the camp at Roxbury and his pleasure grounds were converted into a place
of burial for the soldiers who died there.

In March, 1776, Captain Hallowell accompanied the British army to
Halifax with his family of six persons. In July, 1776, he sailed for
England in the ship Aston Hall. While at Halifax he wrote: "If I can be
of the least service to either army or navy I will stay in America until
the Rebellion is subdued."

The British Government granted him lands in Manchester, and two other
towns in Nova Scotia, and a township in Upper Canada, which bears his
name. He was a large proprietor of lands on the Kennebec, Maine, prior
to the Revolution, but in 1778, he was proscribed and banished and
included in the Conspiracy Act a year later, and his entire estate
confiscated. His mansion house in Roxbury was seized and sold by the
State, but as the fee was in Mrs. Hallowell, her heirs sued to recover
of the person who held under the deed of the Commission of Confiscation
and obtained judgement in 1803 in the United States Circuit Court, by
which she recovered the property.

In 1784, when Mrs. Adams, the wife of the first minister from the United
States was in England, she relates that both Mr. Hallowell and his wife
treated her with respect and kindness. They also urged her to take
lodgings with them, but this she declined. She records, too, that they
lived in handsome style but not as splendidly as when in Boston. She
accepted an invitation to "an unceremonious family dinner" as Mrs.
Hallowell called it and met the Rev. Dr. Walter, Rector of Trinity
Church, and two other gentlemen who belonged to Massachusetts.

On visiting Boston in 1796, Captain Hallowell was accompanied by his
daughter, Mrs. Emsley, whose husband had just been appointed Chief
Justice of Upper Canada. During his stay the odium which attached to his
official relations to the Crown seemed to have been forgotten, since he
was received by his former associates with the greatest kindness and
hospitality. He died at York (Toronto) Upper Canada, in 1799, aged
seventy-five, and was the last survivor of the Board of Commissioners.

Captain Hallowell had two sons, both of whom changed their names. WARD
NICHOLAS HALLOWELL'S name was changed to Boylston. He was born in Boston
in 1749. Sabine says: "I have before me the original license bearing the
signature of George III by which he was authorized to change his name;"
it recites--"That Nicholas Boylston, his uncle by his mother's side has
conceived a very great affection for him, the petitioner, and has
promised to leave him at his death, certain estates which are very
considerable, etc." In early life he made a tour of Europe, visiting
Italy, Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and along the coast of Barbary;
and arrived in England in 1775 through France, and Flanders. He dined
at Governor Hutchinson's, London, with some fellow Loyalists, July 29,
1775, and entertained the company with an account of his travels, and,
at subsequent periods, exhibited the curiosities which he brought from
the Holy Land, Egypt, and other countries to the unhappy exiles from his
native state.

In the Autumn of the next year, he was in lodgings at Shepton Mallet. He
became a member of the Loyalist Association, formed in London in 1799.
In 1800 he returned to Boston and laid claim to his father's estate that
had been confiscated and sold, as being the property of his mother in
her own right. Having assumed her name of Boylston, he obtained the
estate by due process of law, as previously stated. In 1810 he presented
Harvard College with a valuable collection of medical and anatomical
works and engravings. He took his mother's name of Boylston, and thus
claimed the family estate. He died at his seat in Roxbury, January 7,
1828.

He was a gentleman of education and took an active interest in the
Roxbury schools. His liberality is commemorated by a school, and a
street named after him, Boylston street being one of the principal
streets in Boston.

SIR BENJAMIN HALLOWELL (Carew), another son of Captain Hallowell, who,
succeeding to the estates of the Carews of Beddington, assumed the name
and arms of that family. He was one of the eight Boston boys who
subsequently attained high rank in the British service. Admiral Sir
Isaac Coffin, Sir Benjamin Hallowell (Carew), John Singleton Copley, the
younger, who became Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Chancellor of England, General
Sir John Coffin, Hugh Mackay Gordon, Sir David Ochterlony, Sir Roger
Hale Sheaff, Sir Aston Coffin.

Entering the royal navy during the American war he was at the time of
his death in 1834, an admiral of the Blue in the British Navy, G. C. B.,
K. St. F. M. His commission as Lieutenant, bears date August, 1781; as
Captain, in 1793; as Rear-Admiral, in 1811; as Vice-Admiral, in 1819. He
was made a Knight Commander of the Bath in 1819, and was promoted to the
rank of Grand Cross in 1831.

His employments at sea were various and arduous. He was with Rodney in
the memorable battle with De Grasse; also at the siege of Bastia; and in
command of a ship-of-the-line under Hotham, in the encounter with the
French off the Hieres Islands. He served as a volunteer on board the
_Victory_, in the battle of Cape St. Vincent. In the battle, Admiral
Jarvis took his official post on the quarter deck of the Victory.
Calder, the captain of the fleet kept bringing reports of the increasing
numbers, observed till he reached twenty-seven, and said something of
the disparity. Enough of that, said Jarvis, the die is cast and if there
are fifty sail, I will go through them. Hallowell could not contain
himself. He slapped the great admiral on the back, crying "That's right,
Sir John, and by God, we'll give them a damned good licking." He was in
command of the _Swiftsure_ of seventy-four guns, and contributed
essentially to Nelson's victory in the battle of the Nile. From a part
of the mainmast of L'Orient, which was picked up by the _Swiftsure_,
Hallowell directed his carpenter to make a coffin, which was sent to
Nelson with the following letter:

"Sir, I have taken the liberty of presenting you a coffin made from
the mainmast of L'Orient, that when you have finished your military
career in this world, you may be buried in one of your trophies. But
that that period may be far distant is the earnest wish of your
sincere friend,

BENJAMIN HALLOWELL."

Southey, in his "Life of Nelson," remarks: "An offering so strange and
yet so suited to the occasion, was received in the spirit in which it
was sent. And, as if he felt it good for him, now that he was at the
summit of his wishes, to have death before his eyes, he ordered the
coffin to be placed upright in his cabin. An old favorite servant
entreated him so earnestly to let it be removed, that at length he
consented to have the coffin carried below; but he gave strict orders
that it should be safely stowed, and reserved for the purpose for which
its brave and worthy donor had designed it."

In 1799, Sir Benjamin was engaged in the attacks on the castles of St.
Elmo and Capua, and was honored with the Neapolitan Order of St.
Ferdinand and Merit. Two years later he fell in with the French
squadron, and surrendered his ship--the Swiftsure--after a sharp
contest. During the peace of Amiens, he was stationed on the coast of
Africa. He was with Hood in the reduction of St. Lucia and Tobago; with
Nelson in the West Indies; in command of the convoy of the second
expedition to Egypt; with Martin, off the mouth of the Rhone, where he
assisted in driving on shore several French ships-of-war; and in the
Mediterranean. His last duty seems to have been performed on the Irish
station. He died at Beddington Park, in 1834, at the age of
seventy-three. His wife was a daughter of Commissioner Inglefield, of
Gibraltar Dock-yard. His son and heir, Charles Hallowell Carew who at
the time of his decease, had attained the rank of Captain in the Royal
Navy, and who married Mary, the daughter of Sir Murray Maxwell, C. B.,
died at the Park, in 1848. In 1851 his fifth son, Robert Hallowell
Carew, late captain in the 36th Regiment, married Ann Roycroft, widow of
Walter Tyson Smythes.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO BENJAMIN HALLOWELL IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY, AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Samuel Gardner Jarvis, July 24, 1780: Lib. 131, fol. 230 Farm, 7
1-2 A., and dwelling-house in Roxbury, Jamaica Plain N.W.; road by
widow Parker's N.E.; Joseph Williams S.E.; heirs of Capt. Newell,
deceased, S.W.

To John Coffin Jones, Mar. 15, 1782; Lib. 134, fol. 60; Land and
brick dwelling-house in Boston, Hanover St. N.; heirs of Alexander
Chamberlain, deceased, and heirs of Miles Whitworth, deceased, W.;
land in occupation of Samuel Sumner S. and W.; said Sumner and
Joseph Scott, an absentee, S.; said Scott and heirs of Benjamin
Andrews, deceased, E.

To John Coffin Jones, Mar. 15, 1782; Lib. 134, fol. 62; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, land purchased by said Jones N.; Joseph
Scott E.; S. and E.; said Scott and Sampson Mason S. and E.; Masons
Court S.; heirs of Miles Whitworth, deceased, W.

[Illustration: THE OLD VASSALL HOUSE, CAMBRIDGE.

Occupied during the siege of Boston by Dr. Benjamin Church,
Surgeon-General, who was arrested and confined here until his trial.]

THE VASSALLS.

John Vassall, the first member of this illustrious family of which
anything is definitely known, was an alderman of London, and in 1588
fitted out and commanded two ships of war to oppose the Spanish Armada.
He was descended from an ancient French family traced back to about the
eleventh century of the house of Du Vassall, Barons de guerdon, in
Querci, Perigord.

John Vassall had two sons, Samuel and William. Samuel was one of the
original patentees of lands in Massachusetts in 1628. His monument in
King's Chapel, Boston, erected by Florentinus Vassall, his great
grandson, in 1766, sets forth that he was "a steady and undaunted
asserter of the liberties of England in 1628, he was the first who
boldly refused to submit to the tax of tonnage and poundage, an
unconstitutional claim of the crown arbitrarily imposed for which to the
ruin of his family, his goods were seized and his person imprisoned by
the star chamber court, the Parliament in July, 1641, voted him
£10,445:12:2 for his damages, and resolved that he should be further
considered for his personal sufferings."

His name headed the subscription list to raise money against the rebels
in Ireland, and his whole life was indicative of the energy and
liberality which characterized many of his descendants.

His son, WILLIAM VASSALL, born about 1590, was the first of his name who
came to America. He was an assistant in the Massachusetts Bay Company
and one of the original patentees of New England. In June, 1635, he
embarked with his wife and six children on board the Blessing, for New
England. He undoubtedly settled at first in Roxbury, for in the church
record of that town is the following entry: "Mrs. Anna Vassaile, the
wife of Mr. William Vassaile. Her husband brought five children to this
land, Judith, Frances, John, Margaret, Mary." Also one other, Anne, who
afterwards married Nicolas Ware.

William Vassall removed later to Scituate, where he proved himself to be
an ever staunch Episcopalian. The Puritans had strong suspicion of him
always as "inclining to the Bishops." While he lived in Scituate he was
regarded as a highly respectable citizen and of "a busy and factious
spirit." He was proprietor of a large estate, which bore the name of
Newland. In 1646 he sailed to England for the redress of wrongs in the
government and never returned, but in 1648 removed to Barbados and
resided in the parish of St. Michael, where he died in 1655, aged 65
years. He bequeathed to his son John one-third of his real estate and
the remainder to his five daughters. His Scituate estate consisted of
about 120 acres, with house, barns, and the privilege of "making an
oyster bed in North River," before his house. The estate was conveyed by
Joshua Hubbard to John Cushen and Mathyas Briggs for £120.

His daughter Judith married Resolved White, the eldest brother of
Peregrine White, at Scituate, 1640. Frances married James Adams at
Marshfield 1646. Ann married Nicholas Ware of Virginia. Margaret married
Joshua Hubbard of Scituate. Mary was unmarried and alive at Barbados in
1655.

JOHN VASSALL, only son of William Vassall, born about 1625. In 1643 his
name is on the militia roll of Scituate, and later bore the rank of
captain. In 1652 he sold his house in Boston for £59. In 1661 he sold
his Scituate estates and removed, it is supposed, to Cape Fear, N. C,
and later to the West Indies.

JOHN VASSALL, the only son of Samuel, whose monument is in King's
Chapel, married Ann, the daughter of John Lewis, an English resident of
Geno. He went to Jamaica shortly after it was taken in 1655, and laid
the foundation of the great estate which his posterity enjoyed until the
emancipation in 1834. He had two sons, William and Leonard, from whom
descended all of the name of which there is any subsequent record.

LEONARD VASSALL, son of said William, was born in Jamaica, 1678, and was
twice married. His first wife was Ruth Gale, of Jamaica by whom he had
seventeen children. She died in Boston in 1733. His second wife was
widow Phebe Goss, by whom he had one daughter. He removed to Boston
previous to 1723. He was early connected with Christ Church. In 1730 he
was instrumental in founding Trinity church. The original building was
built on land which he had purchased of William Speakman, baker, 1728,
for £450. The lot covered by the church was bounded by Seven-starr Lane
(Summer street), 86 feet and 169 feet on Bishop's Lane (Hawley street),
and is nearly opposite the estate which he purchased in 1727 of Simeon
Stoddard, and where he resided until his death. He had large and
valuable estates in Braintree and Jamaica.

John and William Vassall, two of Major Leonard's sons, were important
men in Boston, and added much to the prosperity of the town.

JOHN VASSALL, the elder brother of William, was born in the West Indies
Sept. 7, 1713, and graduated from Harvard college in 1732. In 1734 he
married Elizabeth, the daughter of Lieut. Gov. Spencer Phips by whom he
had four children, and later he married Lucy, the daughter of Jonathan
Barren of Chelmsford by whom he had one child. He resided in Cambridge
most of his life and died there November 27, 1747. December 30, 1741,
John Vassall conveyed to his brother Henry (a planter who had married
Penelope the daughter of Isaac Royal of Antigua), in consideration of
£9050 over seven acres of land in Cambridge, with dwelling house, barn
and outhouses. During the Revolution, no doubt, this house was the
headquarters of the Surgeon-General and perhaps a hospital. Dr. Benjamin
Church, after he was detected in correspondence with the enemy, was
arrested here and confined to his quarters until trial, and left a
record of his occupation of the house by his name, cut with a penknife
on one of the doors of his chamber, which is still legible though since
covered with several coats of paint.

After the death of John Vassall, his son, who was also known by the
name of John, erected the house in Cambridge, which has since become
famous through Washington's connection with it, as during the Revolution
it was used as his headquarters, and afterwards it was the home of Prof.
Henry W. Longfellow.

MAJOR JOHN VASSALL, the grandson of Leonard Vassall, was born in
Cambridge, June 12, 1738, and graduated from Harvard College in 1757. He
erected a beautiful edifice on the estate inherited from his father and
occupied it until driven from it by the rage of the mob. The estate was
confiscated in 1774 and he removed to Boston for protection, and in that
city continued to dwell upon the estate adjoining that of his uncle,
William Vassall, on Pemberton Hill, until 1776.

At the commencement of the Revolution he was obliged to flee with his
family to England. He had large possessions in Cambridge, Boston and
Dorchester,[193] all of which were confiscated and himself exiled, soon
after he departed from home. He joined the British army in Halifax, and
from there sailed to England. He died there suddenly, October 2, 1796.
An obituary published in the "Gentleman's Magazine" said of him, "he had
a very considerable property in America where he lived in princely
style." Sometime after the disturbances took place, having taken a very
active part and spared no expense to support the royal cause, he left
his possessions there to the ravagers, and having fortunately very large
estates in Jamaica, he came with his family to England. He carried his
loyalty so far as not to use the family motto, "Soepe pro rege, semper
pro republica."

[193] See p. 184 concerning his mansion in Dorchester.

In 1774 he had been addresser of Hutchinson and for this great offence
to the mobs, he was driven from his home, his property was confiscated
and he was exiled. During his residence in England, he seems to have
lived near Bristol and died at Clifton. A part of the Jamaica grant was
still in the family, and his several children inherited a competence.
His wife Elizabeth, sister of Lieut.-Gov. Thomas Oliver, died at
Clifton, in 1807. His children were John, who died at Lyndhurst, in the
year 1800; Thomas Oliver, who died in England in 1807; Elizabeth; Robert
Oliver, who became a member of the Council of Jamaica, and died at
Abington Hall, in that island in 1827; a second Elizabeth, who married a
Mr. Lemaistre and died at Cheltenham, in 1856; Leonard and Mary, who
alone was born in England, who married Mr. Archer, and who with her only
child, deceased, at Clifton, in 1806.

SPENCER THOMAS VASSALL, son of the aforesaid John Vassall, born at
Cambridge, Mass., 1764. Entered the British Army as Ensign at the age of
twelve years. He rose to the command of the 38th regiment, and was
regarded as one of the bravest officers in the service. He was mortally
wounded at the storming of Monte Video, in 1807. His remains were taken
to England and buried in St. Paul's church, Bristol, where there is a
monument to his memory. His son, Spencer Lambert Hunter, who died in
1846, was a Knight and a captain in the Royal Navy. His other son,
Rawdon John Popham, was a colonel in the Royal Artillery. His youngest
daughter Catherine married Thomas L. Marchant Saumerez, son of the
admiral.

WILLIAM VASSALL, brother of Major John Vassall, was born in Jamaica,
November 23, 1715, and graduated at Harvard College in 1733. In 1774 he
was appointed Mandamus Councillor, but was not sworn. He was also
sheriff of Middlesex County. He owned considerable property, and was the
possessor of a fine estate near Bristol, R. I. He was prominent among
the Loyalists of Boston, and was singled out early as an enemy to the
Revolutionary cause. He was proscribed and banished and obliged to flee
with his family to England. Mr. Vassall was for many years connected
with King's Chapel, Boston, and in 1785 protested by proxy against the
change in the Liturgy and the unauthorized ordination of James Freeman.

The confiscation of his estate gave rise to a singular suit. As the
Federal Constitution was adopted, a State could be sued; and, at Mr.
Vassall's instance, proceedings against Massachusetts were commenced in
the court of the United States; and Hancock, who was governor, was
summoned as defendant in the case; he however declined to appear, and
soon after the eleventh amendment to the Constitution put an end to the
right of Loyalists to test the validity of the Confiscation Acts of the
Revolution. Mr. Vassall died at Battersea Rise, England, in 1800, aged
eighty-five. He was upright, generous, and loving. Church and society
lost in him an eager, zealous advocate, an upright Christian, of an
honorable and unblemished reputation. His first wife, Ann Davis, bore
him Sarah, four named William, two named Fanny, Francis, Lucretia, Henry
and Catherine. His second wife, Margaret Hubbard, was the mother of
Margaret, Ann, Charlotte, Leonard and Nathaniel. Each wife had twins.
Nathaniel, the youngest son, a captain in the Royal Navy, died in London
in 1832.

WILLIAM VASSALL, son of the preceding William Vassall, was born in
Boston in 1753, and graduated at Harvard College in 1771. He was a
Loyalist and went to England. He inherited the bulk of his father's
property in the West Indies, which descended to his nephew, Rev. William
Vassall, rector of Hardington, England, "but so burdened and
deteriorated in consequence of emancipation of the slaves that it was
not worth anything," and that gentleman declined to administer upon it.
He died at the Weston House, near Totness, December 2, 1843. Ann, his
widow, died at the same place October 1846, aged seventy-five years.

FLORENTINUS VASSALL was the son of William Vassall and a
great-grandson of Samuel, to whose memory he erected the beautiful
marble monument in King's Chapel, when he was in Boston in 1766. He was
here again in 1775 and in that year went to England. He was born in
Jamaica, and lived there the greater part of his life. He died in London
in 1778.

[Illustration: COLONEL JOHN VASSELL'S MANSION, CAMBRIDGE.

Washington's headquarters during the siege of Boston afterwards known as
the Craigle and Longfellow House.]

Of the immense domain fifteen miles wide on both sides of the Kennebec
River, extending from the vicinity of Merry Meeting Bay to the
southerly line of the town of Norridgwock, he was the owner of one
twenty-fourth part. In his will, executed in 1776, he gave to his son
Richard and to Richard's daughter, Elizabeth, life estate in these
lands, and then devised them in entail to his male children. The bequest
proved of little value to either. After the lapse of years the rights of
Elizabeth and her son Henry were transferred separately to parties in
Boston, to test the title which was claimed by squatters. Three of them
were sued in the name of the son. The cases were carried up to the
United States Supreme Court, where it was decided that during his
mother's life, he could not maintain an action. After her decease, suit
against one settler was renewed, but on intimation by the court that
fifty years' possession was sufficient to presume a grant, or title
without consideration, another point, namely, whether the right of the
plaintiff to recover was barred by the statute of limitation. The
defendant paid a small sum for the land he occupied, and each party his
own costs. Thus in 1851 terminated litigation, which for a long time was
the subject of great interest on the Kennebec, and elsewhere in Maine.
This granddaughter Elizabeth was a remarkable woman. Those who knew her
speak of her as brilliant and witty, as possessed of queenly grace of
manner, as well informed, of wonderful tact, and of excellent sense. Her
first husband was Sir Godfrey Webster, Bart. By this marriage she was
the mother of Sir Godfrey Vassall Webster, Bart., who died in 1836, of
Lieut-Col. Sir Henry Vassall Webster, K. T. S., of the British Army, who
died in London in 1847, aged 54, and of Harriet, who married Admiral Sir
Fleetwood B. Reynolds C. B. K. C. H., who died at Florence in 1849,
leaving an only child, the wife of the son and heir of the Earl of
Oxford. Another son, Charles Richard Fox, whose father was Lord Holland,
married Mary Fitzclarence, second daughter of King William IV., and who,
in 1845 was a colonel in the army, and aide-de-camp to Queen Victoria.

In 1797 Lady Webster married Lord Holland, who took by sign-manual the
surname of Vassal which, however, was not assumed by his children. As
Lady Holland, she was the mother of three children, who died young, of
Henry Holland, who became at the death of his father, Lord Holland, of
Mary Elizabeth, wife of Lord Lilford, and of Georgianna Anne who died in
1819.

The friendly feelings of Bonaparte towards Lady Holland, especially
after the peace of Amiens, is well known, and that in return "for the
many acts of kindness, which she had bestowed upon him" he left her a
gold snuff box which had been presented to him by Pope Pius VI.,
containing a card with these words: "L'Empereur to Lady Holland,
temoigne de satisfaction et d'estime." She died at London, in 1845, aged
75. Among her bequests were the income of an estate, about £1500 per
annum, to Lord John Russell, for his life, and a legacy of £100 to
Macaulay the historian.

"The Vassall family has ever been distinguished for enterprise,
magnanimity, and noble bearing. If some of this name were not only
often, but always, for their king it must be admitted that they made as
great sacrifices to loyalty as did their forefathers to liberty."

The Vassals were connected by marriage and business dealings with the
Olivers and Royalls. All three families had acquired great wealth in the
West Indies, and although they lost their great possessions in New
England, by the Confiscation Act, yet they were much better situated
than their fellow sufferers as they retained their West Indian estates
till they, too, became worthless, after the emancipation of the slaves.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO JOHN VASSAL IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To John Williams, Sept. 25. 1781; Lib. 133, fol. 110; Land 3 1-2
A., and buildings in Dorchester, the high road S. and W.; Ebenezer
and Lemuel Clap N.; Zebadiah Williams E.----1-2 A South of the
above, Mr. Jeffries E.; the high road on the other side.

To Isaiah Doane, Jan. 8, 1784; Lib. 141, fol. 2; Land and buildings
in Boston. Tremont St. E; heirs of John Jefferies deceased S.;
heirs of Jeremiah Allen deceased, William Vassall and heirs of
Joseph Sherburne W.; William Vassall and land of the old brick
church N.

GENERAL ISAAC ROYALL.

William Royall, the first member of this family of which there is
anything definitely known, emigrated to Salem probably during the year
of 1629. He had a grant of land there known as "Royall's side" or
"Ryall's Neck." He married, at Boston or Malden, Phoebe Green. He was in
Casco Bay as early as 1635. His house was built on the south side of
what was afterwards known as Royall's River, near its mouth, in North
Yarmouth. Here he lived until the troubles with the neighboring Indians,
which induced him to remove to Dorchester in 1675, accompanied by his
son William, who was born probably at the Casco settlement in 1640. He
was a carpenter by occupation, and died in 1724, in the 85th year of his
age, and is buried in the tomb built by his son Isaac in the Dorchester
burying ground.

Isaac Royall, son of the aforesaid William, born probably at the
settlement in Casco Bay about 1672. He early settled at Boston, and
engaged in trade, making frequent voyages to Antigua and other West
India islands. He married, according to Boston records, on July 1, 1697,
Elizabeth, daughter of Asaph Eliot and grandniece of the apostle to the
Indians of that name. His wife was the widow of one Oliver, probably of
Dorchester.

For a period of forty years Isaac Royall was a resident of Antigua,
although his frequent presence in Boston during that time is evinced by
his signature to conveyances. His name first appears on the Suffolk
records in a mortgage deed given by himself and wife on the 24th August,
1697, he then being styled a "merchant of Boston." His trading
operations between 1704 and 1710 with the West Indies, proved the
foundation of his fortune.

On December 26, 1732, he purchased of the heirs of Lieutenant Governor
Usher the estate in Charlestown (Medford) containing about five hundred
acres. The large Mansion house was built by Usher, but has since become
widely known as the Royall Mansion. It was one of the finest and most
pretentious residences of the time within the suburbs of Boston. It is
described by a visitor at that time as "A fine Country Seat belonging to
Mr. Isaac Royall, being one of the grandest in N. America." This mansion
was greatly added to, and almost rebuilt by the wealthy West Indian
planter. He petitioned the General Court in December, 1737, that he
might not be taxed on the twenty-seven slaves which he brought with him
from Antigua. "That he removed from Antigua with his family, and brought
with him among other things, and chattels, a parcel of negroes, designed
for his own use, and not any of them for merchandise."

Isaac Royall, the builder of this mansion, did not live long to enjoy
his princely estate, dying in 1739, not long after its completion. His
widow, who survived him eight years, died in this house, and was
interred from Colonel Oliver's in Dorchester April 25, 1747. The pair
share the same tomb in the old Dorchester burying place. His daughter
Penelope married Colonel Henry Vassall of Cambridge in 1742. He died in
1769, and she died in Boston in 1800, aged 76.

GENERAL ISAAC ROYALL, a son, who was born in Antigua, probably in 1719,
married Elizabeth McIntosh in 1738, but lived mostly in Boston. He
became an extensive purchaser of lands in various parts of the State,
and was one of the original proprietors of the township of Royalston in
Worcester County. He was a member of the Artillery Company of Boston in
1750, was made a brigadier general in 1761, the first of that title
among Americans. He was elected by the House a Councillor of the
Province, and served in that office until 1774, completing twenty-three
years of consecutive service.

Much has been written of this man's position at the time of the colonial
disturbances in 1774. Possessed of large wealth, and the influence that
riches and education carried with them, his course was watched by the
people with intense anxiety. He was known to have much in common with
the faithful band of Loyalists, who were gathered about Cambridge and
Boston, yet he was still faithful to the people's church, and most of
his family ties held him to the popular cause. A long letter, written by
him to Lord Dartmouth, dated in January of 1774, exists in the archives
of the Massachusetts Historical Society's Proceedings, 1873-1875, page
179. Harris says, "there can be no good reason for doubting the
sincerity of his sympathy with the people, and although, when the time
came to make a choice, he was prevailed upon to adhere to the side of
the government, there is abundant evidence of his continued love towards
New England and his desire to return and end his days here." How much
harder was it then for a man in his position to make the great
sacrifices he did, to give up his loved home and his property, all for
the cause of his King.

He wrote to Lord Dartmouth, "I am conscious that in all public affairs I
have made the honor of my king and the real Interests and Peace of my
country the ultimate end of all my transactions. I am so to live in this
world as that I may be happy in another, and no man more ardently wishes
and earnestly prays to the God of Peace for the Restoration of those
happy days, which formerly subsisted between us and our mother country
than I do."

Three days before the battle of Lexington, Colonel Royall took his
departure from Medford. He drove in his chariot, which was one of the
few in this vicinity, to Boston, and never again returned.

The mansion itself was indeed one of the finest of colonial residences,
standing, as it did, in the midst of elegant surroundings. In the front,
or what is now the west side, was the paved court. Reaching farther west
were the extensive gardens, opening from the courtyard, a broad path
leading to the summer house. The slave quarters were at the south. The
brick slave quarters have remained unchanged, and are the last visible
relics of slavery in New England. The deep fireplace where the slaves
prepared their food is still in place, and the roll of slaves has
certainly been called in sight of Bunker Hill, though never upon its
summit.

The interior woodwork of the house is beautifully carved, especially the
drawing room, guest chamber, and staircase. The walls are panelled, and
the carving on either side of the windows is very fine, that in the
guest chamber being the most elaborate.

One interested in colonial architecture may wander for hours through
this noble house, and yet feel that there is more to learn. The dark
cellar, full of passages, the garret with its corners, and the secret
staircase so often searched for, yet undiscovered, all furnish good
material for imaginary pictures of the Revolutionary days of our
ancestors.

The Royall mansion is now owned and occupied by "The Royall House
Association" and is open for the public.

When Colonel Royall left his mansion he had prepared to take passage
from Salem to Antigua, but, having gone into Boston, the Sunday previous
to the battle of Lexington, and remained there until that affair
occurred, he was, by the course of events, shut up in the town. He
sailed for Halifax very soon, still intending, as he says, for Antigua,
but on the arrival of his son-in-law. George Erving, and his daughter,
with the troops from Boston, he was by them persuaded to sail for
England, whither his other son-in-law, Sir William Pepperell, had
preceded.

[Illustration: GENERAL ISAAC ROYALL'S MANSION, MEDFORD.

He was kind to his slaves, charitable to the poor and friendly to
everybody.]

Upon his arrival in England, he exchanged visits with Governors Pownall,
Bernard, and Hutchinson. Colonel Royall after the loss of some of his
nearest relatives and of his own health, requested that he be allowed to
return "home" to Medford and to be buried by the side of his wife, his
father and mother, and the rest of his friends. He would fain have
lived in amity with all men and with his king too, but the Revolution
engulfed him. But he is not forgotten. He died in England 1781, his
large hearted benevolence showed itself in many bequests to that country
that had driven him forth and to which he was an alien. He bequeathed
upwards of two thousand acres of land in Worcester County to found the
first Law Professorship of Harvard University and his other bequests
were numerous and liberal. He has a town (Royalston) in Massachusetts
named for him, and is remembered with affection in the place of his
former abode. His virtues and popularity at first saved his estate, as
his name was not included with those of his sons-in-law, Sir William
Pepperell and George Erving, in the "conspirators act," but on the
representation of the selectmen of Medford "_that he went voluntarily to
our enemies_" his property was taken under the confiscation act and
forfeited. It was held by the State until 1805, when it was released by
the Commonwealth, owing to the large bequests that Colonel Royall made
to the public. It was then purchased by Robert Fletcher, who divided the
estate up into house lots and sold them to various persons.

General Royall's mansion was the centre of great festivities, and the
most noted families of Boston and vicinity were entertained there. He
was noted for his hospitality and was always generous and charitable to
the poor, and an excellent citizen. Brooks in his "History of Medford"
says hospitality was almost a passion with him. No home in the Colony
was more open to friends, no gentleman gave better dinners, or drank
costlier wines. As a master he was kind to his slaves, charitable to the
poor, and friendly to everybody.

He was a most accurate man and in his daily journal minutely described
every visitor, topic, and incident and even descended to recording what
slippers he wore and when he went to bed. Some one said in speaking of
Colonel Isaac Royall, "it is not that he loved the colonies less but
England more." Among his bequests was a legacy of plate to the first
church of Medford, and legacies to the clergymen, and while a member of
the House of Representatives, he presented the chandelier which adorned
its hall.

After the departure of General Royall from his beautiful home, it was
taken possession of by the rebels who came pouring into the environs of
Boston and laid siege to same. Colonel, afterwards General, John
Stark,[194] made the mansion his headquarters, and his New Hampshire
troops pitched their camp in the adjacent grounds. It was afterwards
occupied by General Lee, who took up his quarters in the mansion, whose
echoing corridors suggested to his fancy the name of Hobgoblin Hall.

[194] General John Stark's brother Colonel William Stark, was a man of
great bravery and hardihood. Before the Revolution he was a much greater
man than his brother John. He commanded New England troops in the
capture of Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Louisburg and Quebec. In West's
picture, "The Death of Gen. Wolf," he is shown as holding Wolf in his
arms. William Stark remained loyal and became a colonel in the Royal
Army. He was killed from a fall from his horse at the battle of Long
Island.

Elizabeth, the wife of Isaac Royall, died at Medford, July, 1770, and
was buried in the marble tomb in Dorchester. Their daughter Elizabeth,
the wife of Sir William Pepperell, died at sea upon the voyage to
England in 1775.[195]

[195] For an account of the Pepperell family see New Eng. Gen. Reg., xx.
4. Those descended from him comprise probably a hundred families holding
the highest social positions including dignitaries in church and state,
baronets, presidents of colleges, D. D's., and bishops, and others of
exalted rank, perhaps more numerous than can be found in any one family
in the British realms.

It is said that the male line of the Royalls has ceased to exist in
Maine and Massachusetts. The writer knows not of a single living
individual bearing the surname who has descended from the stock that in
the beginning of the settlement was so vigorous, and promised to be so
prolific. This statement will also apply to many other Loyalists'
families that were driven from their homes at the commencement of the
Revolution.

GENERAL WILLIAM BRATTLE.

Thomas Brattle, the forefather of the Brattle family that settled in
Boston, was at his death accounted the wealthiest man in the Colony.
Though we have no information concerning the family prior to the coming
of Thomas Brattle to New England, it is only reasonable to believe that
he was descended from an educated and intelligent line. Only four
generations bearing the name existed here, and it is a notable
circumstance that all the male representatives of those four generations
were men of remarkable powers and distinguished abilities.

THOMAS BRATTLE was born about 1624, and was a merchant of Boston. He was
a member of the Artillery Company and captain in the militia, and the
commander of several expeditions against hostile Indians. He was one of
the founders of the Old South Church. He married Elizabeth, the daughter
of Captain William Tyng, by whom he had seven children. His death
occurred in 1683.

THOMAS BRATTLE, the son of the former, was born in 1658, and was a
graduate of Harvard College. He was a very intelligent man, and was
treasurer of Harvard College for twenty-five years. He was one of the
founders of the Brattle Street church, and gave an organ to the King's
Chapel when it was rebuilt in 1710, the first organ used in Boston in a
church. He was a steadfast opposer of the proceedings of the courts
during the witchcraft delusion in 1692. He was a Fellow of the Royal
Society, and died in 1713. President Ouincy says of him: "He was
distinguished for his private benevolences and public usefulness."

WILLIAM BRATTLE graduated from Harvard college, and for over twenty
years was pastor of the Cambridge church. He was also a member of the
Royal Society of London.

WILLIAM BRATTLE, son of the former, was baptized by his father in 1706.
He graduated from Harvard College in 1722, and was a member of the
Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company. He was a theologian, and as a
physician he was widely known, and no higher tribute to his eminence as
a barrister need be sought than in the years 1736-7, when, only thirty
years of age, he was elected by the House and Council to the office of
Attorney General.

He possessed strong peculiarities, and Sabine says of him that "A man of
most eminent talents and of greater eccentricities has seldom lived." He
inherited a large and well invested property, and had ample means to
cultivate those tastes to which, by his nature and education, he was
inclined. He was for many years Major General of the Province, and
afterwards Brigadier General. His large and beautifully situated house,
which now exists in Cambridge, though greatly transformed, known as the
"Old Brattle House" was the resort of the fashion and style of this
section of the country. At the age of twenty-one he married Katherine,
the daughter of Governor Gurdon Saltonstall. She died at Cambridge in
1752, and he married again in 1755, Mrs. Martha, widow of James Allen,
and daughter of Thomas Fitch. General Brattle seems to have inherited
from his father the same love for and interest in the welfare of his
Alma Mater, which so characterized the beloved minister of the church in
Cambridge. He was long one of her overseers, and in 1762 was appointed
by the Council one of a committee for the erection of Hollis Hall, a
task which was satisfactorily completed.

When the Revolution broke out in 1775, he was holding a very honorable
office under the crown. Harris says he was "on terms of friendship with
many of the regular army officers quartered in Boston and vicinity. His
cultivated and refined tastes tending always to draw him to court,
rather than plebeian society, were, no doubt, inducements for him to
remain loyal. Certain it was, while studiously endeavoring to preserve
friendly and peaceful relations with his townsmen and neighbors, he was
openly opposed to their principles. He was an Addresser of Gen. Gage and
approved of his plans, but at last public excitement reached such a
height that he deemed it wise to withdraw from Cambridge, and leaving
his house and property in the hands of his only daughter, Madame
Wendell, at that time a widow, he quietly joined the Royal army in
Boston, and at the evacuation in 1776, sailed with the forces to
Halifax, where he died in October of the same year. It is said that his
gravestone is still to be seen in the churchyard in that city." There is
a portrait of William Brattle in the possession of his descendants,
which was painted by Copley, being one of the first productions of that
eminent artist. Of his nine children, only two lived to maturity,
Katherine in whom the line but not the name was perpetuated, and Thomas.

Katherine was married to John Mico Wendell, a merchant of Boston, in
1752, who was of Dutch origin. After the death of her husband, Katherine
removed to Cambridge and resided there until her death in 1821, at the
age of nearly ninety-one years. The house was situated near the corner
of what afterwards became Wendell street, and North ave. The Centinel
of February 10, 1821, contained a memoir from which we gain some
knowledge of her character.

"Descended from honorable families, she possessed the virtues and and
maintained the honors of her ancestors.... During the war of the
Revolution, both her talents and virtues were put to severe tests, and
by her wisdom and discretion, her energy, and integrity, her
benevolence, and charity, she conciliated the favor of men in power,
civil and military; secured to herself personal respect, and rescued the
paternal inheritance from the hazard of confiscation. It was by her
means that the portion of the estate that fell to her brother Thomas,
then in England, was in a like manner preserved.... Her contributions
aided in the translation of the Bible into the languages of the East,
and in the diffusion of Christian knowledge among the poor and destitute
of our own country."

She had five children, but three of them died before reaching maturity.
Governor James Sullivan, who knew Thomas Brattle well, wrote of him:
"Major Brattle exercised a deep reverence for the principles of
government, and was a cheerful subject of the laws. He respected men of
science, as the richest ornament of their country. If he had ambition,
it was to excel in acts of hospitality, benevolence, and charity. The
dazzling splendor of heroes, and the achievements of political
intrigues, passed unnoticed before him, but the character of the man of
benevolence filled his heart with emotions of sympathy."... "In his
death, the sick, the poor and the distressed have lost a liberal
benefactor, politeness an ornament, and philanthropy one of its most
discreet and generous supporters."

THOMAS BRATTLE, the youngest and only surviving son of General William
and Katherine Saltonstall Brattle, was born at Cambridge in 1742. He
graduated from Harvard College in 1760, and not long afterwards visited
England and the Continent, for the double purpose of study and travel.

When the war broke out, he was still abroad, and being informed of the
position taken by his father, he conceived to be the most prudent course
to remain in England. While abroad he traveled over various parts of
Great Britain, and made a tour through Holland and France, and was
noticed by persons of distinction. Returning to London, he zealously and
successfully labored to ameliorate the condition of his countrymen, who
had been captured and were in prison. This restored to him his estates,
for he was included in the Confiscation, Proscription and Banishment Act
of 1778. He returned to America in 1779, and 1784 the enactments against
him in Massachusetts were repealed, and he took possession of his
patrimony. He found his mansion home at Cambridge had been thoroughly
ransacked and damaged by the Continental troops, who had occupied it
during the war. The neglected estate was restored to its former beauty,
and improved by the erection of a green-house, probably one of the
earliest known in this part of the country. He lived here for many
years, and became well known for his charities. He died, universally
lamented and beloved, on the seventh of February, 1801, and was laid to
rest in the family tomb, the last of his name. He was never married.

The only descendants of General William and Katharine Saltonstall
Brattle, are through their daughter Katherine, who married John Mico
Wendell.

CONFISCATED ESTATE OF WILLIAM BRATTLE IN BOSTON, AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To James Allen, May 12, 1781; Lib. 132, fol. 202: Land and
buildings in Boston. Tremont St W.; John Rowe and Henry Caner, an
absentee, S.; Nathaniel Holmes E.; George Bethune N. and E.; John
Andrew and heirs of Samuel Pemberton deceased N.; Robert McElroy W.
and N.; passageway W. and W. [N.]

JOSEPH THOMPSON.

Joseph Thompson was the son of Joseph and Sarah (Bradshaw) Thompson, who
were located in Medford as early as 1772, coming from Woburn, and
descended from the same family as Sir Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford).
They lie buried side by side in the little burial ground on Salem
street, Medford. Joseph, the subject of this sketch, was born May 16,
1734. He was married in Boston, 1759, to Rebecca Gallup, whom Isaac
Royall refers to in his will as a kinswoman of his wife.

In addition to the double portion assigned to him out of his father's
estate, he added to it from time to time by the purchase of several
estates. His occupation is mentioned in the deeds as that of merchant.
In June, 1775, news reached the Provincial Congress that the Ervings of
Boston, had fitted out, under color of chartering to Thompson, a
schooner of their own, to make a voyage to New Providence (Nassau,
Bahama Islands), to procure "fruit, turtle and provisions of other kinds
for the sustenance and feasting of those troops who are, as pirates and
robbers, committing daily hostilities and depredations on the good
people of this colony and all America." Congress therefore resolved that
Captain Samuel McCobb, a member, "be immediately dispatched to Salem and
Marblehead, to secure said Thompson, and prevent said vessel from going
said voyage, and cause the said Thompson to be brought before this
Congress." Thompson, however, escaped, and afterwards went to England.
On June 3, 1780, on the petition of Rebecca Thompson, asking leave be
granted her to rejoin her husband in England on the first convenient
opportunity, and to also return again to this state, the General Court,
and the committee of Inspection for Medford, were directed to see that
she carried no letters nor papers that might be detrimental to this, or
any of the United States of America.[196]

[196] Medford Historical Register, Vol. viii, p. 59.

James Prescott, Joseph Hosmer and Samuel Thatcher, Esq., were ordered
to make sales of certain estates situated in the county of Middlesex,
confiscated to the use of the government, belonging to Joseph Thompson,
merchant. Six acres of salt marsh on Medford river were sold to Ebenezer
Hall, Jr., for £70; a dwelling house and yard bounded south on the great
road, to Thomas Patten for £295; 1½ rods of land (part of the dower
estate of his mother), with 3-16 of the dwelling house, 1-4 of an acre
of mowing land, 20 rods of plow land, to Samuel Kidder for £24.15; a pew
in the meeting house to Susanna Brooks, widow, for £10; 8 acres of land
bounded south on the great road and west on Proprietor's Way, and
situated near the Hay Market, to Jonathan Foster for £252. 10, and about
10 poles of land with a joiner's shop thereon, bounded north on the road
to Malden, to Ebenezer Hall for £40.5, making a total of £692.5.

A Mr. Thompson died in England during the war, probably the same.

COLONEL JOHN ERVING.

The Erving family was one of the oldest and most respected families in
Boston. Hon. John Erving, the father of the colonel, was one of the most
eminent merchants in America, and was a member of the Council of
Massachusetts for twenty years. The Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, his
great-grandson, in a public address in 1845, thus refers to him: "A few
dollars earned on a commencement day, by ferrying passengers over
Charles River, when there was no bridge--shipped to Lisbon in the shape
of fish, and from thence to London in the shape of fruit, and from
thence brought home to be reinvested in fish, and to be re-entered upon
the same triangular circuit of trade--laid the foundations of the
largest fortunes of the day, a hundred years ago." Mr. Erving, by his
wife Abigail, had a large family. He died in Boston in 1786, aged
ninety-three.

COLONEL JOHN ERVING, eldest son of the preceding, was born in Boston,
June 26, 1727, was a colonel of the Boston regiment of militia, a warden
of Trinity church. He graduated at Harvard University in 1747. In 1760
he signed the Boston Memorial, and was thus one of the fifty-eight who
were the first men in America to array themselves against the officers
of the Crown, but like many others that did not favor many acts of the
government, he could not tolerate mob rule, and therefore threw his lot
in on the side that represented law and authority.

When Hancock's sloop Liberty was seized for smuggling in 1768, by the
commissioners, the fury of the mob became great. They fell upon the
officers, several of whom barely escaped with their lives. Mr. Erving,
besides having his sword broken, was beaten with clubs and sticks, and
considerably wounded. He was not concerned with the seizure of the
sloop.

[Illustration: MAJOR GENERAL SIR DAVID OCHTERLONY.

Born in Boston Feb. 12, 1758. There is erected in Calcutta a monument to
him, which is one of the notable sights of that city. Died at Meerut,
India in 1825.]

In 1774 he was an addresser of Hutchinson, and the same year appointed
mandamus councillor. On the evacuation of Boston, he and his family
of nine persons accompanied the army to Halifax, and from there he went
to England. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished. He died at Bath,
England, June 17, 1816, aged eighty-nine. His wife, Maria Catherina
(youngest daughter of Governor Shirley), with whom he lived sixty years,
died a few months before him. A daughter of Mr. Erving married Governor
Scott of the island of Dominica and died at that island February 13,
1768. His son, Dr. Shirley Erving, entered Harvard College in 1773, but
his education was cut short by the Revolution. He became a prominent
physician at Portland, Maine, and died at Boston in 1813, aged
fifty-five. His widow survived him for many years. They left two sons
and one daughter. The Erving mansion house was on Milk street, and was
confiscated.

GEORGE ERVING was a prominent merchant of Boston. He was one of the
fifty-eight memorialists who were the first men in America to array
themselves against the officers of the Crown, but he could not take part
with the mobs in their lawless and brutal actions. He was an Addresser
of Hutchinson in 1774, was proscribed under the Act of 1778, and his
estate was confiscated under the Conspiracy Act of 1779. He went to
Halifax with his family of five persons, and thence to England. He died
in London in 1806 at the age of seventy. His wife was a daughter of
General Isaac Royall of Medford.

CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO COLONEL JOHN ERVING AND TO
WHOM SOLD.

To James Lloyd, May 4. 1787; Lib. 160, fol. 105; Land and buildings
in Boston. Kilby St., formerly Mackerel Lane, E; heirs of John
Erving deceased N; heirs of Samuel Hughes W.; Joseph Winthrop S.

To John Codman, Jr., July 2. 1787. Lib. 160, fol. 201; Land and
messuage in Boston. Newbury St., W.; John Crosby N.; E. and N.,
John Soley E. and S., passage or alley S.----Land 14 A., in
Walpole, road from Walpole to the sign of the Black Lamb in
Stoughton N.; Nathaniel Preble S.E.; Philip Bardin S.W. and N.W.

To Nathaniel Appleton. Feb. 13, 1789; Lib. 164, fol. 149; Land, 14
A, in Walpole, road from Walpole to the sign of the Black Lamb in
Stoughton N.; Nathaniel Preble S.E.; Philip Bardin S.W. and N.W.

To John Deming. May 6, 1789; Lib. 166, fol. 11; Land and messuage
in Boston. Newbury St. W.; John Crosby N.; E. and N.; John Soley E.
and S.; passage or alley S.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR DAVID OCHTERLONY.

Captain David Ochterlony, the father of the subject of this memoir, was
born in Forfarshire, Scotland, and was descended from one of the most
ancient families in that country. In 1226 the land of "Othirlony" was
exchanged by his ancestors for those of Kenney in Forfarshire possessed
by the Abbey of Aberbrothock. Kenney had been bestowed on the Abbey by
its founder, King William, the Lion King of Scotland.

David, was a captain in the merchant service, and resided for a while
at Montrose. Boston was one of the many ports visited by him in his
voyages. Five years after his first appearance in Boston, June 4, 1757,
intention of marriage was published, to Katherine, daughter of Andrew
Tyler of Boston, by his wife Miriam, a sister of Sir William Pepperell.
On 27th of June, 1762, he purchased a brick house with about 1500 square
feet of land on Back street, which at that time was that part of Salem
street from Hanover to Prince street. Meanwhile three sons and daughter
were born. The eldest of these, MAJOR GENERAL SIR DAVID OCHTERLONY born
12 Feb. 1758, who was to revive the name in a new locality. Captain
Ochterlony, the father, continued his career as a mariner but a few
years after locating in Boston, he died in 1765, at St. Vincent W. I.
His widow went to England, where she married Sir Isaac Heard of London,
Norroy and Garter King of Arms, and gentleman of the Red Rod, to the
order of the Bath.

The son David was a scholar at the Latin School in Boston, when his
father died. At the age of eighteen he entered the army and went to
India, as a cadet, and in 1778 received an appointment as Ensign. In
1781 he was Quartermaster to the 71st Regiment of Foot. During the
twenty years that succeeded, he was exposed to all the danger and
fatigue of incessant service in the East. He attained the rank of Major
in 1800 and of Lieutenant-Colonel in 1803, and Colonel in 1812. His
commission of Major General bears date June 1, 1814. In 1817 he received
the thanks of both Houses of Parliament. His health, after nearly fifty
years of uninterrupted military duty in a tropical climate, became
impaired and he resigned a political office in India with the intention
of proceeding to Calcutta, and thence to England. This plan he did not
live to execute. He died at Meerut in 1825, while there for a change of
air. He was Deputy-Adjutant-General at the Battle of Delhi, after which
he was sent as envoy to the Court of Sha Alum. For his conduct in the
Nepaulese war, he was created a Knight Commander of the Bath and May 7,
1816, was made a baronet. After his death there was erected in Calcutta
a monument to him, which is one of the notable signs of the city. Sir
David never married. His title descended to Charles Metcalf Ochterlony,
and was succeeded in it by his son, the present baronet, Sir David
Ferguson Ochterlony. Gilbert Ochterlony, the second son of Captain
David, died Jan. 16, 1780, aged 16, at the home of his step-father Isaac
Heard, Esq., at the college of arms.[197] Alexander, the third son died
in 1803, and Catherine in 1792.

[197] It was Sir Isaac Heard that took such pains in searching out the
pedigree of the Washington family.

Captain David's will, made at the time of his marriage, was probate
March 7, 1766, and left everything to his wife Katrin, but his estate
was not settled till after the peace. 1791, and then it was insolvent,
the sum then obtained to close up the estate paid a dividend of only six
and a half pence on the pound. The name of Ochterlony in New England
became extinct.

JUDGE AUCHMUTY'S FAMILY.

Robert Auchmuty first of the American family of that name was descended
from an ancient Scottish family, holding a barony in the north of that
country. His father settled in England early in the eighteenth century,
and Robert studied law at the Temple, London, and came to America and
settled in Boston about the year 1700. He was a profound lawyer and
possessed remarkable talents and wit, but when he was admitted to
practice does not appear. He was in practice soon after 1719 and the
profession owed much to his character and system and order which now
began to distinguish its forms of practice. His talents were
extraordinary, "Old Mr. Auchmuty says a contemporary would sit up all
night at his bottle, yet argue to admiration next day, and was an
admirable speaker." He was sent to England to settle a boundary dispute
between Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. His services
were so valuable, that on December 1738, he received from the former a
grant of two hundred acres of land. He was judge of the Court of
Admiralty for New England from 1733 until 1747. While he was in England
he advocated the expedition to Cape Breton in an ably written pamphlet
published in 1744. This tract probably gave to the historian Smollett
the erroneous impression that Auchmuty was the originator of that
brilliant enterprise, the credit of which belongs to Governor Shirley.

Judge Auchmuty held his office until 1747 when he was superseded by
Chambers Russell. His home was in Roxbury, Massachusetts, and many
anecdotes of him have been handed down from generation to generation. He
was "greatly respected and beloved in public and private life." His
memory is held in high veneration by the bar in Massachusetts and his
opinions are still respected.

Judge Auchmuty died in April, 1750, leaving several children. His
daughter married Judge Pratt of New York and his son, Judge Robert
Auchmuty, followed in his father's footstep, and became a noted lawyer
in Massachusetts. Although he had not the advantage of a collegiate
education he became an able lawyer. As an advocate he was eloquent and
successful. "Among his contemporaries were Otis, Quincy, Hawley, and
judges Paine, Sargent, Bradbury, R. Sewall, W. Cushing and Sullivan and
though less learned than some of these he was employed in most of the
important jury trials."

"It was when together with that class of lawyers above named that the
profession owed the respectability which since his day has characterized
the bar of Massachusetts."[198] He held the office of Advocate of the
Court of Admiralty from August 2, 1762, until his appointment as judge,
having been originally appointed in the place of Mr. Bollan, to hold
the office during his absence. Chambers Russell was appointed in the
place of the elder Auchmuty as judge of the Admiralty for Massachusetts,
New Hampshire and Rhode Island in 1747. He held the office until his
death in 1767, and Robert Auchmuty, the younger, was appointed by the
governor to fill his place. This was in April, but on the sixth of July
he was duly commissioned as Judge of the Admiralty for all New England
with a salary of £300 a year. His commission was received in March,
1760, when his salary was increased to £600 per annum. Judge Auchmuty
continued to hold this office as long as the authority of the British
was recognized, as he was a zealous Loyalist.

[198] Updike History of Narrangansett church.

Robert Auchmuty was one of the commissioners with Governor Wanton of
Rhode Island, Samuel Horsemanden, Chief Justice of New York, Frederic
Smythe, Chief Justice of New Jersey, and Peter Oliver, Chief Justice of
Massachusetts, to inquire into the destruction of the Gaspee, in
1772.[199] He was a colleague of Adams and Quincy in defence of the
British soldiers tried for participation in the "Boston Massacre."[200]
He appeared once after his appointment in defence of Captain Preston and
his soldiers, and his argument was described as so memorable and
persuasive, "as almost to bear down the tide of prejudice against him,
though it never swelled to a higher flood."

[199] See page 52 for description of same.

[200] Ibid. 45.

The Auchmuty house in Roxbury stands at the corner of Cliff and
Washington Streets. It was build about 1761 by the younger Judge
Auchmuty, who resided there until the outbreak of the revolution. Here
as a convenient halting place between the Province House and the
Governor's country seat at Jamaica Plain, and the Lieutenant Governor
residence at Milton, met the crown officers to make plans to stem the
rising tide of disloyalty and lawlessness of the mobs, and their secret
leaders. Here Bernard Hutchinson Auchmuty, Hallowell, and Paxton
discussed the proposed alterations in the charter, and the bringing over
of British troops to preserve the peace. Letters of Judge Auchmuty to
persons in England were sent to America with those of Governor
Hutchinson by Franklin in 1773 and created much commotion.[201]

[201] See page 162.

At the Declaration of Independence in 1776 he left his native country
and settled in England. At one period he was in very distressed
circumstances. He never returned to the United States and his estate was
confiscated. His mansion in Roxbury became the property of Governor
Increase Sunmer and was occupied by him at the time of his decease.
Auchmuty Lane was that part of Essex Street between Short and South
Street in Boston. Robert Auchmuty died in London an exile from his
native land in November, 1778.

[Illustration: BRITISH TROOPS PREVENTING THE DESTRUCTION OF NEW YORK.

On its evacuation by Washington; it was set on fire, it was saved by the
summary execution of all incendaries by the British.]

HONORABLE JAMES AUCHMUTY, son of the elder Robert, was a storekeeper in
the Engineer Department. At the peace he removed to Nova Scotia where he
became an eminent lawyer, and was appointed judge. He had a son, a
very gallant officer in the British Army, who was killed in the West
Indies.

REVEREND SAMUEL AUCHMUTY, another son of the elder Judge Auchmuty who
settled in New York, was born in Boston in 1725. He graduated from
Harvard college in 1742 and was taken by his father to England, where he
was ordained a minister in the Episcopal church. The degree of D. D. was
conferred on him by Oxford. He was appointed by the Society for the
Propagation of the gospel, an assistant minister of Trinity church in
New York. He married in 1749 a daughter of Richard Nichols, governor of
that province. In 1764 at the death of the Rector of Trinity church he
was appointed to succeed him and took charge of all the churches in the
city, performing his arduous duties with faithfulness until the
revolution. In 1766 he received the degree of S. T. D. at Oxford. Dr.
Auchmuty opposed the revolution and when the Americans took possession
of New York City in 1777, it is said a message was sent him from Lord
Sterling by one of his sons, "that if he read a prayer for the King the
following Sunday, he would send a band of soldiers and take him out of
the desk." His son, knowing his father's indomitable spirit did not
deliver the message, but with some of his classmates from Columbia
college attended the church with arms concealed under their gowns and
sat near the pulpit for his protection. His conscience would not allow
him to omit these prayers without violating his ordination vows. As soon
as he commenced reading, Lord Sterling marched into the church with a
band of soldiers and music playing Yankee Doodle. The Doctor's voice
never faltered and he finished his prayer and the soldiers marched up
one aisle and down another, and went out again without violence. After
the service Dr. Auchmuty sent for the keys of Trinity and its chapels,
and ordered that they should not be opened again until the liturgy could
be performed without interruption, and took them to New Jersey. When the
British took possession of New York he resolved at once to return to his
loved flock and applied for leave to pass the American lines. This was
denied him. With the unfailing energy which marked his character he
determined to return on foot through circuitous paths to avoid the
American lines. After undergoing great hardships, sleeping in the woods
and great exposure, he reached the city. On its evacuation by
Washington's Army it had been set on fire, and it was only by using the
most drastic means,--the summary execution of all incendaries by the
British--that the city was saved from total destruction. Nearly one
thousand buildings were burned in the western part of the city and among
them Trinity church, the Rector's home, and the Charity School. Through
the exertions of the British troops, St. Paul's and King's College
barely escaped. The Vestry of Trinity reported their loss at £22,000,
besides the annual rent of 246 lots of ground on which the buildings had
been destroyed. After the fire, Dr. Auchmuty searched the ruins of his
church and of his large and elegant mansion; all of his papers and
records had been destroyed; he found no articles of value except the
church plate and his own. His personal loss he estimated at upwards of
$12,000.

The Sunday following Dr. Auchmuty preached in St. Paul's church for the
last time. The hardships which he had undergone terminated in an illness
which resulted in his death after a few days. This venerable and
constant worker for mankind died March 4, 1777 in his fifty-second year,
and was buried under the altar of St Paul's. Interesting notices of his
labors and sufferings and death may be found in Hawkins' "Historical
Notices of the Missions of the Church of England, in the North American
Colonies," London, 1845. By the old inhabitants of the city Dr. Auchmuty
was much respected and beloved and was spoken of as Bishop Auchmuty. He
had seven children. Jane, one of his daughters, married Richard Tylden
of Milstead, of county Kent in England. One of her sons was Sir John
Maxwell Tylden, who was in the army for twenty years in which he greatly
distinguished himself. Another, William Burton Tylden was a major in the
Royal Engineers. Dr. Auchmuty had two other daughters of which there is
no account, save that they were married.

SIR SAMUEL AUCHMUTY, the eldest son of the Rev. Dr. Auchmuty, was a
Lieutenant General in the British Army. At the beginning of the
Revolution he was a student at Kings College and was intended by his
father for the ministry. His own inclinations were military from his
boyhood and soon after he graduated he joined the Royal army under Sir
William Howe as an ensign in the 45th regiment and was present at most
of the actions in that and the following year. In 1783 he commanded a
company in the 75th Regiment, in the East Indies, and was with Lord
Cornwallis in the first siege of Seringaptarn. In 1801 he joined the
expedition to Egypt, and held the post of adjutant-general. He returned
to England in 1803 and three years after was ordered to South America,
where as brigadier-general, he assumed the command of the troops; and in
1807 assaulted and reduced--after a most determined resistance--the city
and fortress of Montevideo. In 1809 he was transferred to India.
Subsequently he succeeded Sir D. Baird as chief of staff in Ireland. He
was knighted in 1812, his nephew, Sir John Maxwell Tylden,
lieutenant-colonel of the 52 regiment being his proxy. He twice received
the thanks of Parliament, and was presented with a service of plate by
that body and by the East India Company. His seat was Syndale House, in
Kent, near Feversham. He died in Ireland suddenly in 1822 at the age of
64.

ROBERT NICHOLAS AUCHMUTY, another son of the Rev. Dr. Auchmuty,
graduated at Kings College, New York and in the revolution served as a
volunteer in the British army. His wife was Henrietta, daughter of Henry
John Overing and he died at Newport, Rhode Island in 1813. His daughter
Maria M., widow of Colonel E. D. Wainwright of the United States
Marines, died at Washington, D. C., Jan. 1861, aged 71.

RICHARD HARRISON AUCHMUTY, brother of the above, was a surgeon in the
British Army. Taken prisoner in the storming of Stony Point. With
Cornwallis at Yorktown, and died soon after the surrender, while on
parole.

"It is regretted that men as distinguished in their day as were the
Auchmuty's, father and sons, so few memorials new remain." They were men
who adorned their profession and "left a distinct and honorable
impression upon their age."

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO ROBERT AUCHMUTY ET AL. IN
SUFFOLK COUNTY, AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Samuel Clark, Feb. 26, 1780; Lib. 131, fol. 58; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, School St. S.; the town's land W.; John
Rowe N; Joseph Green E----Garden land near the above. Cook's Alley
W.; Leverett Saltonstall N.; William Powell E. S. and E.; Leverett
Saltonstall S. [Description corrected in margin of record.]

To Josiah Waters, Jr., April 13, 1782; Lib. 134, fol. 164.
Discharge of mortgage Fillebrown et al to Auchmuty dated Feb. 10.
1766.

To Increase Sumner, July 31, 1783; Lib. 139, fol. 122; 6 A. 3 qr.
10 r. land and dwelling-house near the meeting-house in Roxbury,
the road N.; Jonathan Davis E., S. E; and S.; the lane and Increase
Sumner W.

COLONEL ADINO PADDOCK.

Robert Paddock was one of the Pilgrim Fathers, he was one of the early
settlers of Plymouth, and was a smith by trade. He had a son, Zachariah,
born in 1636, who was the ancestor of the subject of this sketch. Robert
Paddock was probably a relative of Captain Leonard Peddock who was
master of one of the ships that came to Plymouth in 1622, it being
frequently the case in those times that names were mis-spelled. This is
the origin of the name of Peddock's Island at the entrance of Boston
Harbor. Branches of this family at the Revolutionary period were to be
found in various parts of New England, New Jersey, and South Carolina.
Adino Paddock was the son of John and Rebecca (Thatcher) Paddock; was
born March 14, 1727, and was baptized in the First Church, Harwich,
March 31, 1728.

His father died in 1732 and his mother removed soon after to Boston,
where her name appears as a communicant in Brattle Square church "from
Church East Yarmouth" December 5, 1736. Adino Paddock was married in
Boston, June 22, 1749, to Lydia Snelling, daughter of Robert and Lydia
(Dexter). He settled in Boston, where he manufactured chaises and
transacted his business near the head of Bumstead Place. He lived
opposite the burying ground, on the east side of Long-Acre Street. Adino
Paddock was the first coach-maker of the town, and was a man of
substance and character. His name is best known in connection with the
famous Paddock elms. Mr. James Smith, a prosperous sugar baker, whose
house was on Queen Street,--now Court Street,--when in London, was
struck by the beauty of the elms in Brompton Park. The story goes that
Mr. Smith procured young trees of the same kind, and had them planted in
his nursery, on his beautiful farm, Brush Hill, in Milton. The fame of
these trees spreading, one of his friends, Mr. Gilbert Deblois, asked
for some, saying that he would in return name his newborn son for Mr.
Smith. The bargain was struck, and James Smith Deblois, baptized May 16,
1769, bore witness to its fulfilment. Other elms of this stock were also
planted, but those received by Mr. Gilbert Deblois became the most
celebrated. These were set out in front of the granary, just opposite
Mr. Deblois' house in Tremont Street. As Adino Paddock's shop window
looked out upon them, Mr. Deblois enjoined Mr. Paddock to have an eye to
their safety.

It is related that on one occasion, Paddock offered the reward of a
guinea, for the detection of the person who "hacked" one or more of the
trees. He guarded the infant elms very carefully and the "Gleaner" tells
of his darting across the street upon one occasion and vigorously
shaking an idle boy who was making free with one of the sacred saplings.
The elms were thought to have been planted in 1762. They grew to
magnificent proportions, and withstood the axe for more than a century.
They escaped in 1860, but were cut down a few years later. The largest
was one that stood near the Tremont House. Its circumference near the
sidewalk was nearly seventeen feet. This was the largest of all the
trees belonging to the public walks of the city, excepting the great
American elm on Boston Common that was destroyed by the tornado of 1869.

Adino Paddock was in 1774 captain of the train of artillery belonging in
Boston of which John Erving was colonel. This company was particularly
distinguished for its superior discipline and the excellence of its
material. The gun house stood at the corner of West and Tremont Streets,
separated by a yard from the school house. In this gun house was kept
two brass three-pounders, which had been recast from two old guns sent
by the town to London for that purpose, and had the arms of the province
engraved upon them. They arrived in Boston in 1768, and were first used
at the celebration of the King's birthday, June 4th, when a salute was
fired in King Street.

When the mobs began to be in evidence Captain Paddock expressed an
intention to turn them over to General Gage, for safe keeping, some of
the men that composed the company, resolved, that it should not be so,
they met in the school-room, and watching their opportunity they crossed
the yard, entered the building and, removing the guns from their
carriages, carried them to the school room where they were concealed in
a box in which fuel was kept. They were finally taken to the American
lines, in a boat, and were in actual service during the whole war. The
two guns were called the "Hancock" and "Adams," and were in charge of
the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, until presented in 1825 by
the State to the Bunker Hill Monument Association. They are now
suspended in the chamber at the top of Bunker Hill Monument, with a
suitable inscription on each.

Before Mr. Paddock's departure from Boston he was entitled to the higher
military appellation of Colonel. As an active officer, and for a time
commander of the Boston train of artillery, he felt himself particularly
honored, as he was then in a position of great usefulness, for, in fact
his lessons in military matters while in the Train, were productive of
much good, as laying the foundation of good soldiership, in the
Province, by giving thorough instruction to many who afterwards became
distinguished officers in the revolutionary war.

Ardently attached to the interests of the government he was one of the
foremost of the loyalist party. He left Boston at the evacuation, March
17, 1776. There were nine in his family. They went to Halifax and in the
following June he embarked with his wife and children for England.

In 1778 he was proscribed and banished. From 1781 until his death he
resided on the Isle of Jersey and for several years held the office of
Inspector of Artillery Stores with rank of Captain. Colonel Paddock
received a partial compensation for his losses as a Loyalist, and died
March 25, 1804, aged seventy-six years. Lydia, his wife died at the Isle
of Jersey, in 1781, aged fifty-one.

Colonel Paddock's house was situated on the south corner of Bromfield
and Tremont Streets, formerly Common Street and Ransom Lane. Thomas
Bumstead, a coach-maker, purchased the estate when it was confiscated
and carried on the coach-making business there. Bumstead Place was laid
out in 1807 on the site of the home, and was closed in 1868. Gilbert
Deblois occupied the opposite corner, on which was built Horticultural
Hall, the trustees of the new office building recently erected there, at
the suggestion of Alex S. Porter, named the new building the "Paddock
Building" who said "I think that we ought to do all we can to preserve
the memory of those good old citizens who by their influence and hard
labor did so much in laying the foundation of our beloved city."

Adino Paddock and Lydia Snelling had thirteen children, nine of them
died in infancy, and John a student at Harvard College was drowned while
bathing in Charles River in 1773.

ADINO PADDOCK, the younger, accompanied his father to Halifax in 1776
and in 1779 followed his father to England, where he entered upon the
study of medicine and surgery. Having attended the different hospitals
of London and fitted himself for practice, he returned to America before
the close of the Revolution, and was surgeon of the King's American
Dragoons. In 1784 he married Margaret Ross of Casco Bay, Maine, and
settling at St. John, New Brunswick, confined his attention to
professional pursuits. In addition to extensive and successful private
practice he enjoyed from Government the post of surgeon to the ordinance
of New Brunswick. He died at St. Mary's, York County in 1817, aged 58.
Margaret his wife died at St. John in 1815 at the age of 50. The fruit
of this union was ten children, of whom three sons, Adino, Thomas and
John were educated physicians. Adino commenced practice in 1808 at
Kingston, New Brunswick. Thomas married Mary, daughter of Arthur
McLellan, Esq., of Portland, Maine, and died at St. John, deeply
lamented in 1838, aged 47.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO ADINO PADDOCK IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Thomas Bumstead. Aug. 1, 1782, Lib. 135, fol. 139; Land and
buildings in Boston, Common St. W.; land of the commonwealth S.;
heirs of Gillum Taylor deceased E. and S.; Thomas Cushing E., N.
and E.; Rawson's Lane N.

THEOPHILUS LILLIE.

Edward Lillie by the recorded births of his children appears to have
been in Boston as early as 1663. As he was devoted to the Church of
England, it may be presumed that he came from that country, and the date
of his eldest child's birth makes it likely that he was born before
1640. This branch of the Lillie family probably lived for a while in
Newfoundland, and if so, they are likely to have been of the Devonshire
or West-of-England stock, which supplied the first settlers for that
Province. They became possessed of real estate at St. John's during the
latter half of the seventeenth century, described as "a plantation"--a
term signifying full proprietorship.

Edward Lillie married about 1661, Elizabeth, whose maiden name is
unknown. He was one of the well known citizens of the town of Boston
when its estimated population was from five to seven thousand
inhabitants. In 1687 he was one of the sixty citizens whose property was
rated at £50 or more,--taking rank with such contemporaries as Elisha
and Eliakim Hutchinson, Adam Winthrop, Samuel and Anthony Checkley, and
Simon Lynde.[202] Edward Lillie carried on a large business as "cooper,"
at that period one of the most important industries of New England in
its connection with commerce.

[202] Memorial Hist. of Boston, II. 8. Record Com. Report VII. 69.

Prior to 1670 Edward Lillie had land "in his tenure and occupation" at
the North End. He purchased July 8, 1670, an estate at what was then the
South End of the town,--a dwelling-house and land. This estate was
situated on the south-east corner of Washington and Bedford Streets, and
it is in part now (1907) the site of R. H. White's dry-goods
establishment. In January 1674 he purchased of Captain Thomas Savage
land on Conduit (now North) Street and erected thereon in 1684 a brick
dwelling-house. The estate was valued in inventory at £1300.

Edward Lillie's will was dated December 24, 1688, and proved January 7,
1688-9. His wife was probably the "Mrs. Lily" whose death, according to
town records, took place January 4, 1705. They had six children.

Samuel Lilly, born March 20, 1663, was the eldest child. June 4, 1683,
he married at the age of twenty Mehitable Frary, daughter of Captain
and Deacon Theophilus Frary, one of the founders of the Old South
Church. Her mother was the daughter of Jacob Eliot, and the niece of
John Eliot, the "Apostle to the Indians." Mehitable, was born February
4, 1665-6, and as her father had no sons, his estate was divided between
the daughters.

Samuel Lillie, like his father, was a "cooper," but early in life became
interested in commerce, sending as early as May 23, 1684, merchandise to
the island of Nevis. For the next twenty-three years he was widely
engaged in commercial transactions, and was uniformly styled "merchant"
in formal documents. After his father's death he bought and occupied the
latter's premises at the North End, enlarging them by other purchases.

Mrs. Royall, wife of Isaac Royall and mother of the Loyalist was a
cousin of Mrs. Samuel Lillie. During his latter years Samuel Lillie was
absent from America quite frequently. It is not likely that he was in
Boston from 1708 till shortly before his death.[203] Mrs. Lillie died
March 4, 1723. They had eleven children, born in Boston and baptised
(except one or two) in the Second church, each a few days after birth.

[203] "The Lillie Family of Boston" by Edward L. Pierce.

Theophilus Lillie, the fourth child of Samuel and Mehitable Lillie, was
baptized August 24, 1690. He married July 8, 1725, Hannah Ruck (Rev.
Cotton Mather officiating). Seems to have done much in settling his
father's affairs, but was not engaged in active business.

On the 28th of July, 1732, in Town Meeting, he with others, was
appointed a committee to receive proposals, touching the demolishing,
repairing, or leasing out the old buildings belonging to the town in
Dock Square. The committee to give their attendance at Mr. William
Coffin's the Bunch of Grapes tavern, on Thursdays weekly, from six to
eight o'clock in the evening. In 1736 he appears as one of the
subscribers to Prince's Chronological History of Boston, the list
containing, according to Drake, the names of persons most interested at
that period in literary concerns.

Hannah Ruck, his wife, was born December 4, 1703 and was the daughter of
John Ruck, a successful merchant, a citizen active in municipal affairs
and holding municipal offices. Her mother was Hannah Hutchinson,
daughter of Colonel Elisha Hutchinson, and aunt of Thomas Hutchinson,
the last Royal Governor. A close friendship existed between the two
families, and their homes were near together at the North End. This
friendship was continued in Halifax, after the Loyalist exodus in 1776.

Theophilus Lillie sold the family estate at the corner of Newbury and
Pond Streets March 9, 1754. Before this sale he had removed to the Ruck
homestead "near the old North Meeting House." Mr. Lillie died late in
March, 1760. He left but little property. His eldest son Samuel, died
young and John and Theophilus Lillie were his father's sole heirs.

THEOPHILUS LILLIE, the youngest son, was born August 18, 1730. He
married late in 1757 (intentions of marriage published October 27, 1757)
Ann Barker, who had been a shop-keeper, in company with Abiel Page,
"near Rev. Mr. Mather's meeting-house." He was educated as a merchant
and was in retail trade as early as 1758, as shown by the numerous
collection suits brought by him, and his advertisements in the Boston
"Gazette" May 22 of that year. His store was on "Middle (Hanover)
Street, near Mr. Pemberton's meeting-house." His stock was miscellaneous
English Dry Goods and Groceries.

When it was determined to resist the tax on imports, a non-importation
agreement was entered into in August, 1768, by the merchants of Boston,
many were forced to sign it through fear of offending the mob, the
agreement ended in 1769, and some of those who had been forced into it
were determined to proceed in their regular business, and would pay no
attention to a renewal of it, among these was Theophilus Lillie. They
were proscribed and persecuted for several weeks by the rabble
collecting to interrupt customers, passing to and from their shops, and
houses, by posts erected before their shops with a hand pointed towards
them, and by many marks of derision. At length on February 22nd, 1770, a
more powerful mob than common, collected before the house of Theophilus
Lillie and set up a post on which was a large Wooden Head, with a board
faced paper, on which was painted the figures of four of the principal
importers. One of the neighbors, Ebenezer Richardson, found fault with
the proceedings which provoked the mob to drive him into his home for
shelter. Having been a custom house officer, he was peculiarly obnoxious
to the mob. They surrounded his house, threw stones and brick-bats
through the windows, and, as it appeared upon trial were forcing their
way in, when he fired upon them, and killed a boy eleven or twelve years
of age. He was soon seized, and another person, George Wilmot with him,
who happened to be in the house. They were in danger of being sacrificed
to the rage of the mob, being dragged through the streets and a halter
having been prepared, but some more temperate than the rest, advised to
carry him before a justice of peace, who committed him to prison.

The boy that was killed was Christopher Snider, the son of a poor
German. The event was taken advantage of by Sam Adams, and other
revolutionary leaders to raise the passion of the people, and thereby
strengthen their cause. A grand funeral therefore was judged to be the
proper course to pursue. In the _Evening Post_ of 26 Feb. is a very
minute account of the affair, which had a very great deal to do with
subsequent events. The corpse was set down under 'Liberty Tree' whence
the procession began. About 50 school boys preceded, and there was "at
least 2000 in the procession, of all ranks, amid a crowd of spectators."
The pall was supported by six youths chosen by the parents of the
deceased. On the Liberty Tree and upon each side and foot of the coffin
were inscriptions well calculated to excite sympathy for the deceased,
and at the same time indignation against him, who occasioned his death.

On the 20th of April following the two culprits were tried for their
lives. Richardson was brought in guilty of murder, but Wilmot was
acquitted. Drake says "In this account of the case of Richardson and
Wilmot, it must be borne in mind that it is almost entirely made up from
the facts detailed by their enemies. Richardson was no doubt insulted
beyond endurance, which caused his rashness, in a moment of intense
excitement he fired on the mob. These facts doubtless had their weight
with the court, for the Chief Justice Thomas Hutchinson, viewed the
guilt of Richardson as everybody would now, a clear case of justifiable
homicide, and consequently refused to sign a warrant for his execution,
and, after lying in prison two years, was, on application to the King
pardoned and set at liberty."[204]

[204] Drake's History of Boston, p. 777.

After the affair of the Wooden Figure at Lillie's, there was constant
trouble in Boston between the soldiers and roughs of the town, until the
5th of March, when occurred the affray between the Mob and the Soldiers
known as the "Boston Massacre."[205]

[205] See pages 43 and 44 for account of the "Massacre."

Mr. Lillie had taken no part in the affair that happened near his store,
but popular feeling was influenced by that occurrence against him. Mr.
Lillie's full statement of the interference with his business by the
illegal committee of citizens, will be found in the "Massachusetts
Gazette," January 11, 1770. An extract will show his attitude towards
the affair.

"Upon the whole, I cannot help saying--although I have never entered far
into the mysteries of government, having applied myself to my shop and
my business--that it always seemed strange to me that people who contend
so much for civil and religious liberty should be so ready to deprive
others of their natural liberty: that men who are guarding against being
subject to laws [to] which they never gave their consent in person or by
their representative should at the same time make laws, and in the most
effectual manner execute them upon me and others, to which laws I am
sure I never gave my consent either in person or by my representative.
But what is still more hard, they are laws made to punish me after I
have committed the offence; for when I sent for my goods, I was told
nobody was to be compelled to subscribe; after they came, I was required
to store them. This in no degree answered the end of the subscription,
which was to distress the manufacturers in England. Now, my storing my
goods could never do this; the mischief was done when the goods were
bought in England; and it was too late to help it. My storing my goods
must be considered, therefore, as punishment for an offence before the
law for punishing it was made.

"If one set of private subjects may at any time take upon themselves to
punish another set of private subjects just when they please, it's such
a sort of government as I never heard of before; and according to my
poor notion of government, this is one of the principal things which
government is designed to prevent; and I own I had rather be a slave
under one master (for I know who he is, I may perhaps be able to please
him) than a slave to a hundred or more whom I don't know where to find,
nor what they will expect of me."

In 1770 Mr. Lillie removed to Oxford in Worcester County,--a removal
induced probably by his recent experiences in Boston. His domicile is
stated to be in that town in actions brought by him in Suffolk County.
On account of his political views his new residence did not prove to be
any more congenial than Boston had been.

In 1772 he attached for a debt the house of Dr. Alexander Campbell and
the people of Oxford took umbrage, and threatened him with violence. In
the same year he sold his place in Oxford, and returned to Boston. He
bought in 1774 an estate in Brookfield, but it does not appear that he
lived upon it at any time. Until the political troubles Mr. Lillie seems
to have been in good circumstances, and to have kept up in his manner of
dress the fashions of the period, according to family traditions. He
left Boston in March, 1776 with the British troops for Halifax. His
family thus embarking numbered four persons--himself and wife, and one
of the other two being, doubtless, a negro servant.

Mr. Lillie's death occurred in Halifax two months after leaving Boston,
on May 12. His property in Massachusetts was confiscated. Jacob Cooper,
of Boston, administered on his estate. Mrs. Lillie continued to live at
Halifax, and notwithstanding the confiscation proceedings, she undertook
to collect, by suits in Massachusetts in 1784-85, some of the debts due
to her husband. The Confiscation Act however, was a bar to any recovery.

Mrs. Lillie survived her husband eighteen years. Her funeral is
registered on the records of St. Paul's church, Halifax, as being on
September 16, 1794, at the age of seventy-nine. Her will dated December
10, 1791, and August 5, 1794 (appointing Foster Hutchinson, the younger,
Executor) was proved September 20, 1794, on the oath of John Masters and
Foster Hutchinson, the younger. Certain provisions of the will show a
particular interest in a colored servant. The will provides: "It is also
my will and intention that my black man Caesar be free, and that the sum
of ten pounds be retained and left in the hands of my hereinafter named
executor, to be applied to the use of said Caesar in case of sickness,
or other necessity, at the discretion of said executor." She also
bequeathed to him "a suit of mourning cloths suitable for a man in his
situation in life"; and in a later codicil, "the feather-bed and
bedstead whereupon he usually sleeps, and also the bedclothes and
bedding belonging thereto." Mr. Lillie's confiscated personal effects
indicate that he lived in a liberal style. At the time of his death.
Governor Hutchinson, then in England, wrote in his Diary, July 24, 1776:

When I came home I heard of Mr. Lillie's death at Halifax. What numbers
have been brought to poverty, sickness, and death by refusing to concur
with the present measures of America!

Theophilus Lillie died childless. Search was made in July, 1895, by
Edward Lillie Pierce and his son George, in the old graveyard at
Halifax, but no stone for him or his wife was discovered, although her
funeral had been duly recorded in the church register. The stones of
Foster Hutchinson and his family were well preserved; and the Lillie
stone if ever set up, would be likely to be found near them.

Mr. Lillie's personal property in Massachusetts was disposed of and his
three pieces of real estate were sold at public auction. His debts were
small and the whole amount turned into the treasury, £595, valued at
£446 in sterling money. The public gain was considerable.

JOHN LILLIE, the only surviving brother of Theophilus was born August 8,
1728. He is described as a "mariner" in public documents, but no details
of his career on the sea have been transmitted. He married in Trinity
church, August 16, 1754 Abigail Breck (born June 19, 1732.) She was the
daughter of John and Margaret Breck. John Lillie died April, 1765, and
his will was proved on the 19th. He left six children. John Lillie, his
son, became a Major in the Continental Army and served in many
engagements with great bravery during the war. General Washington
certified that Major Lillie "conducted himself on all occasions with
dignity, bravery, and intelligence." He was married to Elizabeth Vose,
January 20, 1785, and was survived by several children.

Mehitable and Ann Lillie, two of John Lillie's daughters (the mariner)
have always with their descendants been well known.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO THEOPHILUS LILLIE IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To John Greenough, May 26, 1781; Lib. 132, fol. 216. Land and
buildings in Boston. Middle St. E.; Samuel Ridgeway S.; Thomas
Greenough W. Thomas Greenough and Edward Foster, an absentee, N.

To Samuel Howard. Aug. 3, 1781: Lib. 133, fol. 5. One undivided
third of land and large brick dwelling-house in Boston, Sun Court
St. N.; Joseph Hemmingway and others E.; John Leach and others S.;
Market Square W.

DR. SYLVESTER GARDINER.

Sylvester Gardiner was born in South Kingston, Rhode Island, in 1707. He
was descended from the first emigrant of the name to the Narragansett
country. His father was William Gardiner, the son of Benoni, the son of
Joseph, an English emigrant. Sylvester was the fourth son of William
Gardiner and was educated by his brother-in-law, the Rev. Dr. McSparran,
for the medical profession. He studied eight years in England and
France, and returning to Boston, entered and pursued a successful
professional career. He established a store for the importation of drugs
and acquired a fortune. He accumulated much real estate in Maine and
became proprietor of one-twelfth part of the "Plymouth Purchase,"
so-called, on the Kennebec River. At one time he owned 100,000 acres and
was grantor of much of the land in ancient Pittston. "His efforts to
settle the large domain were unceasing from the year 1753 to the
Revolution. He was made perpetual moderator of the proprietors at all
their meetings; he executed their plans, built mills, houses, stores and
wharves, cleared lands, made generous offers to emigrants; established
an episcopal mission, and furnished the people of that region with their
first religious instruction. And most of all this was accomplished with
his own money."[206] He erected houses and mills at Swan Island,
Pownalborough and other places, and was the author of the beginnings of
many settlements. He was a public spirited man of great zeal and energy,
broad and liberal in his views.

[206] Sabine's Loyalists, Vol. I. p. 459.

Dr. Gardiner was married three times. His first wife was Anne, daughter
of Doctor John Gibbons of Boston; his second, Abigail Eppes of Virginia;
his third, Catharine Goldthwaite. In Boston he was respected by all
classes. Of the "Government Party," he entertained as guests, Sir
William Pepperell, Governor Hutchinson, Earl Percy, Admiral Graves,
Major Pitcairn, General Gage, Major Small and others. He was an
Addresser of the Royal Governors in 1774 and the year following he
became identified with the Royal cause. In 1776, at the evacuation, he
abandoned all and found temporary shelter at Halifax. When he left his
native country close to the age of three score and ten, he took only
about £400 with him. The vessel in which he embarked was destitute of
common comforts, poorly supplied with provisions, and the cabin, which
he and several members of his family occupied, was small and crowded
with passengers. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished and settled in
Poole, England. His property in Boston and Maine was confiscated and all
goods that could be found were sold at public auction. A library
containing five hundred volumes, was sold in 1778-79 at auction by
William Cooper. His books and other personal effects amounted to
£1658.18.

The estates on the Kennebec were confiscated but the Attorney-General
found that the action was illegally prosecuted and instituted new
proceedings. Before they were brought to a close peace was declared and
the proceedings stayed. The heirs of Dr. Gardiner learned these facts
and obtained the property. Had there not been a flaw in the first suit
this would not have been the case.

"In 1785 Doctor Gardiner returned to the United States. For a part of
his losses he petitioned Massachusetts for compensation. He had never
borne arms, he said, nor entered into any association, combination or
subscription against the Whigs. When he quitted Boston, he stated, too,
that he had in his possession a valuable stock of drugs, medicines,
paints, groceries and dye stuffs, which having a vessel fully equipped
and entirely under his control, he could easily have carried off, but
which he left, of choice, for the benefit of the country, which he knew
was in need. The claim was acknowledged to the extent of giving his
heirs tickets in the State Land Lottery, by which they obtained nearly
six thousand acres in the county of Washington, Maine."[207]

[207] Sabine's Loyalists, Vol. I, p 460.

Washington, on taking possession of Boston, ordered the medicines, etc.,
in Doctor Gardiner's store, to be transferred to the hospital department
for the use of the Continental Army; but the State authorities
interfered and required delivery to the Sheriff of Suffolk county. The
result, however, was a vote of the council complying with the
requisition of the commander-in-chief.

After the peace Doctor Gardiner resided in Newport, Rhode Island, where
he still practiced medicine and surgery. There he died suddenly of a
malignant fever on August 8, 1786, in his eightieth year. His body was
interred under Trinity church and his funeral was attended by most of
the citizens. The shipping displayed its colors at half-mast, and much
respect was shown by the people. Dr. Gardiner had always been
philanthropic and a benefit to mankind. He seems to have been identified
in church work wherever he lived and from the following extract appears
to have been a member of King's chapel, while residing in Boston: "April
3, 1740.--Rec'd of Mr. Sylvester Gardiner Sixteen Pounds Two Shills, in
full for wine for the Chapple for the year past. John Hancock."[208]

[208] "Dealings with the Dead," by a Sexton of the Old School.

Dr. Gardiner acted conscientiously in his course in remaining loyal and
his "Christian fortitude and piety were exemplary as his honesty was
inflexible and his friendship sincere."[209] In the Episcopal church in
Gardiner, Maine, near the pulpit, a beautiful cenotaph of black marble
about eight feet high enclosed in a fine oaken frame, is erected to the
memory of Dr. Gardiner, by Robert Hallowell Gardiner, his grandson and
heir.

[209] Newport Mercury. Aug. 14, 1786.

JOHN GARDINER, the eldest son of Dr. Sylvester Gardiner, was born in
Boston in 1731, and was sent to England, to complete his education. He
studied law at Inner Temple and practiced in the courts of Westminster
Hall. He received the appointment of Attorney-General in the West Indies
at St. Christopher's. He was denied promotion by the British Government
because of his sympathy for the Whigs, and in 1783 he returned to
Boston. On February 13, 1784, John Gardiner, his wife, Margaret, and
their children were naturalized. John Gardiner was an ardent reformer
and an active Unitarian. He was the principal agent in transforming the
King's Chapel into a Unitarian church. He wrote an able treatise in
defence of the theatre. Removing to Pownalborough, Maine, he represented
that town in the General Court from 1789 until his death in 1793-94. He
was drowned by the loss of a packet in which he was sailing to Boston to
attend the session of the Legislature.

JOHN SYLVESTER JOHN, son of John Gardiner, was born in Wales in 1765.
His father had left America in 1748 before he was of age and resided in
England and South Wales until 1768, when he went to St. Christopher's,
remaining in the West Indies until 1783. John Sylvester John, became an
able theological and political writer. He was rector of Trinity church,
Boston, from 1805 until his death, which occurred at Harrowgate Springs,
England, in 1830, while traveling for his health.

A tablet was erected in Trinity church to the memory of John Sylvester
John Gardiner, who had first been an assistant and later the rector of
the church. At the time of the great Boston fire, November 9, 1872, when
old Trinity church on Summer street was destroyed, this tablet was the
only relic saved from the interior of the church. It was rescued from
the flames by a great-grandson of John Sylvester John Gardiner, and is
now in Trinity church, Copley square. Boston.

WILLIAM GARDINER, son of the rector, was an eminent Boston lawyer. He
had two daughters, Louisa, who married John Cushing of Watertown, and
Elizabeth.

WILLIAM GARDINER, the second son of Sylvester Gardiner, removed to
Gardinerston, Maine, soon after the settlement commenced. He employed a
housekeeper and entertained his friends and was famous for his fun
making. He gave offence to the Whigs because he "would drink tea";
because he refused to swear allegiance to their cause; and because he
called them "Rebels." "Arrangements were made to take him from his bed
at night, and tar and feather him, but a Whig, friendly to him, carried
him to a place of safety. He was, however, made prisoner, tried and sent
to jail in Boston."[210] In March, 1778, he petitioned for release and
was soon after allowed to return home where "he was regarded as a
harmless man and was allowed for the most part to remain unmolested,
except by petty annoyances." William Gardiner died, unmarried at
Gardiner, Maine, and was buried "beneath the Episcopal vestry."

[210] Sabine's Loyalists, Vol. I, p. 462.

ANNE GARDINER, third child of Sylvester Gardiner, married the second son
of the Earl of Altamont. HANNAH, a fourth child, was the wife of Robert
Hallowell. REBECCA, the fifth child, married Philip Dumarisque. Last,
ABIGAIL, married Oliver Whipple, counsellor-at-law, Cumberland, Rhode
Island, and subsequently of Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Nearly the whole of the estate in Maine passed under the provisions of
Doctor Gardiner's will, to Hannah's only son, Robert Hallowell, who, as
one of the conditions of that instrument, added the name of Gardiner.
John on account of his political and religious opinions failed to become
the principal heir, and William "was not an efficient man."

Sylvanus Gardiner's second wife was the widow of William Eppes of
Virginia, daughter of Col. Benj. Pickman of Salem. She died at Poole,
England, leaving a son, Wm. Eppes, who married Miss Randolph of Bristol,
whose son was a commissary general in the British Army. A daughter,
Love Eppes, married Sir John Lester of Poole, and Abigail Eppes married
Richard Routh, a loyalist.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO SYLVESTER GARDINER IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To William Coleman, Benjamin Coleman, Dec 12. 1782. Lib. 136, fol.
146; Land and buildings in Boston, Marlborough St. W.; John Sprague
and Samuel Partridge S.; alley between said land and land of John
Erving E.; Samuel Partridge N.

To Joseph Gardner, Nov. 21. 1783; Lib. 140, fol. 113; Land in
Boston, Marlborough St. E.; alley S. and E., Samuel Dashwood S. and
E., Martin Gay E.; Winter St. S.; heirs of William Fisher W.; S.;
W. and S.; heirs of Henderson Inches S.; John Williams and land of
the State W.; Jonathan Cole N.; John Lucas E. and N.

To John Boles, March 2, 1784; Lib. 141, fol. 195. Land in Boston.
Winter St. N.; John R. Sigourney W.; Dr. John Sprague S. and E.

To Joseph Henderson. Aug. 7, 1784. Lib. 144 fol. 111; Land and
buildings in Boston, Long Lane E.; Dr. John Sprague S. and E.;
Andrew Johonnot S., Charles Paxton and Dr. Sprague W.; said Sprague
N.

RICHARD KING.

Of Scarborough, he was a prosperous merchant, "with a leaning towards
the Government." Many persons had become indebted to him beyond their
ability to pay. In consequence, apparently of this circumstance, his
troubles soon began, after the attack and destruction of Mr.
Hutchinson's residence, of which the following outrage appears to have
been an imitation, and the story has been handed down by no less a
person than John Adams: "Taking advantage of the disorders occasioned by
the passage of the Stamp Act, a party disguised as Indians, on the night
of the 16th of March, 1760, broke into his store, and his dwelling-home
also, and destroyed his books and papers, containing evidences of debts.
Not content with this, they laid waste his property and threatened his
life if he should venture to seek legal mode of redress."

John Adams was counsel for King, and he, who had no pity for Hutchinson,
but rather rejoiced in the impunity of his assailants, writes, "The
terror and distress, the distraction and horror of his family cannot be
described by words or painted on canvas. It is enough to move a statue,
to melt a heart of stone to read the story."[211]

[211] John Adams' Letters to His Wife. Note to No. 9.

The popular bitterness then engendered did not, however, subside, and in
1774, a slight incident occurred which soon caused it once more to break
out. A vessel of Mr. King's was found to have delivered a load of lumber
in Boston, by special license, after the port had been closed, and the
material had been purchased for the use of the troops. On this occasion
forty men from the neighboring town of Gorham came over and compelled
Mr. King, in fear of his life, to make a disavowal of his opinion. These
repeated shocks seem to have been too much for Mr. King's constitution.
He became insane and died in the following March.

Such were the means adopted by the Sons of Despotism, to make patriots,
to convert their fellow countrymen to their ways of thinking.
Intimidation and oppression are the accompaniments of all successful
revolutions. The same holds true of the methods adopted at the present
time by the leaders of a strike. The leaders, like the revolutionary
leaders, are unwilling to acknowledge that they are disturbers of the
peace, or that acting under them their followers are brutally assailing
those who seek employment under other than union conditions.

CHARLES PAXTON.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.

The subject of this sketch was born at Boston, February 28, 1707.
Wentworth Paxton and Faith, his wife, were his parents. Charles Paxton
was a Commissioner of Customs and as such early incurred the ill will of
the so-called patriotic party. In 1769 he and his associates were posted
in the "Boston Gazette," by James Otis. It was this card of Otis which
brought on the altercation with Robinson, another commissioner, in the
coffee-house in State street, and which resulted in injuries to the head
of the first champion of the revolution, from which he never recovered.
Otis subsequently became insane and while confined in an asylum met his
death, being struck by a bolt of lightning.

Charles Paxton was a warden of King's Chapel in 1762, and was remarkable
for finished politeness and courtesy of manners. His office was
unpopular and odious and the wags of the day made merry with qualities,
which at any other time would have commanded respect. On Pope-day, as
the gun-powder plot anniversary, or the 5th of November was called,
there was usually a grand pageant of various figures on a stage mounted
on wheels and drawn through the streets with horses. The Pretender
suspended on a gibbet between the Devil and the Pope, with appropriate
implements and dress, were among the objects devised to make up the
show. Sometimes political characters, who in popular estimation should
keep company with personages represented, were added; and of these,
Commissioner Paxton was one. On one occasion he was exhibited between
the figures of the Devil and the Pope in proper figure. As the disputes
which preceded the war increased, the visits of Paxton to London became
more frequent. He went there as the authorized agent to the crown
officers, to complain of the merchants for resisting the Acts of
Parliament, and for the interest of the supporters of the Crown. After
he entered upon his duties he was efficient and active beyond his
associates. John Adams says of him that he appeared at one time to have
been Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary and Chief Justice.

Paxton and his fellow-commissioners seized one of Hancock's vessels for
smuggling wine which caused a fearful mob and the flight of the officers
of the revenue to Castle William. Then came the hanging of Paxton in
effigy on the "Liberty Tree," then at the instance of the Commissioner
the first troops came to Boston; then the card of Otis, denouncing the
commissioners by name, the assault upon him in answer to it, and later
came the destruction of three cargoes of tea; then the shutting of the
port of Boston; then the first continental congress; then war,--a war
which cost England $500,000,000 and the Anglo-Saxon race 100,000 lives
in battle, storm and in prison.

In 1776, with his family of five persons, Mr. Paxton embarked at Boston
with the British Army for Halifax, and in July of that year sailed for
England in the ship Aston Hall. He came under the Confiscation Act and
was proscribed and banished. In 1780 he was a pallbearer at the funeral
of Governor Hutchinson. In 1781 he was seen walking with Harrison Gray,
the last Colonial treasurer of Massachusetts, near Brompton. This able
and determined supporter of the crown died in 1788 at the age of
eighty-four at the seat of William Burch (one of his fellow
commissioners) at Norfolk, England.

JOSEPH HARRISON.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

As previously stated, after the close of the last war with France which
ended in the conquest of Canada, the Government decided on enforcing the
revenue laws.[212] The frigate Romney of fifty guns had arrived from
Halifax and at the same time the sloop "Liberty," owned by John Hancock,
arrived loaded with wine from Madeira; there was a duty of £7 per tun on
such wines; several cargoes had been smuggled in without payment of the
duty, and it seemed probable that there would either be a connivance by
the custom house officer in this case, as in others, or there would be a
great disturbance by the mob. Harrison determined that there should be
no connivance by the officers and that the laws against smuggling should
be enforced, even if the vessel did belong to one of the principal
merchants and a representative of Boston and an officer of the corps of
cadets. Before the vessel arrived it had been frequently mentioned that
the duties would not be paid, and it was expected that an open refusal
would be made. When the vessel arrived and was lying at Hancock's wharf
on the tenth of June, 1768, the custom house officer, Thomas Kirk, went
on board, and was followed by Captain John Marshall,--who commanded Mr.
Hancock's ship, the London Packet,--with five or six others. These
persons confined Kirk below and kept him some three hours, and in the
meantime the wine was taken out and no entry made of it at the Custom
House or Naval Office. The cargo was landed in the night and carted
through the streets of Boston under a guard of thirty or forty stout
fellows armed with bludgeons, and though it was notorious to the
greatest part of the town, no officer of the customs thought fit to
attempt a seizure, nor is it probable that he could have succeeded if he
had attempted it. On the liberation of the custom house officer, an
entry was made the next morning by the master, Mr. Nathaniel Barnard,
who entered four or five pipes of wine, and made oath that that was all
he brought into port. This was as much a submission to the authority of
the act as if the whole cargo had been seized.

[212] Ibid. 33-4, Hutchinson, Vol. III, p. 189.

It was determined to seize the sloop upon a charge of false entry.
Accordingly Mr. Joseph Harrison, the collector and Benjamin Hallowell,
the comptroller, repaired to Hancock's wharf and made the seizure, and
fearing an attempt to rescue the vessel, made a signal to the Romney,
which lay at a small distance from the shore, and a boat with armed men
came to their aid. To prevent a rescue the vessel was taken from the
wharf into the harbor. This removal brought on a riot, a mob was soon
gathered together and the officer, insulted and beaten, several of whom
barely escaped with their lives. Among the numerous missiles thrown at
Mr. Harrison was a brick or stone which struck him on the breast, from
the effects of which he was confined to his bed. His son, Mr. Richard
Acklom Harrison, was thrown down, dragged by the hair of his head and
otherwise barbarously treated. Mr. Hallowell and Mr. Erving, inspectors,
did not fare much better. The former was confined to his home from the
wounds and bruises he received and the latter besides having his sword
broken was beaten with clubs and sticks, and considerably wounded. The
mob next proceeded to the home of Mr. John Williams, the
Inspector-General, broke his windows and also those of the Comptroller,
Mr. Hallowell. They then took Mr. Harrison's boat and dragged it to the
Common and there burned every fragment of it. Captain Marshall, the
captain of the "London Packet," died the same night as the riot, at
Hancock wharf, and it is said his death was caused by the over-exertion
which he made in removing the wine from the sloop Liberty. The most
conspicuous man on the part of the mob was Captain Daniel Malcolm, a
trader in Fleet street, who, it is said, was deeply interested in the
wines attempted to be smuggled. The revenue officer knew him well and
owed him no good will, for the reason that some time before they
undertook to search his premises for contraband goods, but were obliged
to retreat before deadly weapons, without effecting their object. On the
occasion of the seizure of the Liberty he headed a party of men who
exerted themselves to prevent her removal to the Romney, they said the
sloop should not be taken into custody, and declared they would go on
board and throw the people belonging to the Romney overboard.[213] When
the ministry became advised concerning the riots which followed the
seizure of the sloop Liberty, they gave orders for two regiments to sail
for Boston from Ireland.[214] They arrived September 30. The 29th
regiment camped on the Common and the 14th was quartered in Faneuil
Hall. The revenue officers retired after the assaults upon them to the
Castle until the arrival of the troops. Joseph Harrison and his wife and
family went to England. He was succeeded in the collectorship by Edward
Winslow, who held the office till the evacuation of Boston.

[213] Drake's History of Boston, pp. 735-6-7.

[214] See chapter on Boston Mobs, p. 40.

CAPTAIN MARTIN GAY.

John Gay emigrated to America about 1630. He settled first at Watertown
and was a grantee in the great Dividends and in Beaver Brook plowlands,
owning forty acres. He was Freeman May 6, 1635 and a Selectman in 1654.
He died March 4, 1688, and his wife Joanna died August 14, 1691. He had
eleven children.

Nathaniel, third child of John Gay was born January 11, 1643. Was
Freeman May 23, 1677, and Selectman in 1704 and other years. He married
Lydia Lusher. He died Feb. 20, 1712. His wife died August 6th, 1774,
aged ninety-two. He had ten children.

Rev. Ebenezer Gay, D. D., Minister of Hingham was born in 1696 graduated
at Harvard University in 1714, and was ordained in 1718. He was a
devoted loyalist, and died 1787, at the age of ninety, and in the
sixty-ninth year of his ministry. Rev. Doctor Chauncy "pronounces him to
have been one of the greatest and most valuable men in the country." His
son, MARTIN GAY, was Captain of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery
Company. He was born at Hingham on the 29 December, 1726. He married
first, 13 December, 1750, Mary Pinckney, by whom he had seven children.
After her death he married Ruth Atkins, by her he had two children. He
carried on the business of a brass founder, and copper smith, on Union
Street, Boston. He was also deacon in the West Church in Lynde Street.
On the thirtieth of April, 1775, shortly after the battle of Lexington,
Deacon Gay, with Deacon Jones was requested to "take care of the plate,
etc., belonging to this church, and Congregation." The church and
congregation were at this time dispersed and the meeting house occupied
as a barrack by the troops, and the pastor had gone to Nova Scotia. Mr.
Gay was true to his trust, at the evacuation he took "the plate and
linnen" to Nova Scotia and afterwards returned it, for long years after
in 1793 the church voted him their thanks for "having taken care of the
plate belonging to the church, while the town was in the hands of the
British troops, and when it was evacuated." When the new church was
built in 1805 he subscribed three hundred dollars towards it. From 1758
to 1774, he was yearly chosen one of the two Assay Masters, and for many
years he was chosen one of the sixteen Firewards of the Town, in which
office he had as associates John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Adino
Paddock, he was chosen one of the twelve Wardens of the Town in 1771,
and occupied many other offices of importance, which shows the esteem in
which he was held by his fellow townsmen. In June, 1774, he signed the
Address to Governor Hutchinson, and from that time, he was not elected
to any town office, owing to his public avowal of Loyalist sentiments.

Mr. W. Allan Gay of West Hingham, a grandson of Martin Gay, has three
letters written by the Captain, they have been published in the
Collection of the Colonial Society of Mass., Vol. 3. They are
interesting as they bring us almost into personal contact with people
who were living in Boston more than a hundred years ago, and one of whom
saw the Battle of Bunker Hill. The first was written by Captain Martin
Gay to his brother Jotham, seven years his elder. He had been an officer
in the French war of 1755 and had taken part in the expedition against
Nova Scotia under Gen. John Winslow. He afterwards settled in the
province he had helped to conquer from the French and at the date of the
letter had been for more than ten years a resident of Cumberland, Nova
Scotia. Within but three weeks after the battle, it gives one of the
first authentic accounts published. The writer's loyalty to his "King
and Country" is very apparent, as well as his detestation of all Rebels,
and especially the "famous Doctor Warren." The letter in part is as
follows: "The victory obtained by about two thousand regular troops
commanded by General Howe, over a large body of the County Rebels, ('tis
said about six thousand,) on the heights of Charlestown, on the 17ult,
was a remarkable Action. It proves that nothing the enemies to Great
Britain can do, will daunt the courage of British troops. The Rebels had
entrenched themselves on the top of a high hill, with two cannon mounted
in the Redoubt, besides several field pieces, on the hill, which is
about a quarter of a mile from Charles River in approaching which, the
troops had to break through stone walls, and other difficulties, which
gave the enemy every advantage they could wish for. However, after a
most violent hot fire, the brave soldiers forced the entrenchments to
the joy of all the spectators, (myself being one) and others on this
side of the river, who are friends to King and Country. Immediately on
the King's troops appearing on the top of the Redoubt, the Rebels ran
off in great confusion leaving their cannon, entrenching tools and a
large number of their dead and wounded. The loss was great on both
sides, the action lasted about an hour and a quarter. We have reason to
lament the loss of so many valuable brave officers and men, of the
King's Army who were killed on the field of battle, and since dead of
the wounds they received. I have not seen any account of the transaction
of that day made public by authority, therefore will not pretend to say
which suffered most in the loss of men. Will mention one on the Rebel
side, the famous Doctor Warren, who has for some years been a stirrer up
of Rebellion, was killed in the action. Had some others of his
disposition which I could name been there, and meet the same fate with
him, it would have made the victory of that day the more glorious,
though the Rebels meet with a shameful defeat, they still continue in
their opposition, in fortifying hills and others places near this town.
I am not apprehensive of their ever being able to take or destroy this
town, but 'tis a melancholy consideration to be in this situation, which
must in time prove fatal to this town and province, if not soon
prevented by that almighty being, whose providence preserves and governs
the world in all things."

On the evacuation of Boston in March, 1776, by the British troops, he
accompanied them to Halifax. There went with him his son Martin, and his
daughter Mary, who afterwards married Rev. William Black of Halifax, and
also "his man London." He remained in Nova Scotia during the whole
period of the war. Mrs. Ruth Gay, second wife of Martin Gay, whose
maiden name as already stated was Atkins, remained in Boston during the
war, probably with her father's family. Her father, Thomas Atkins, was a
bricklayer by trade, and a well-to-do citizen, his real estate having
been appraised at his death in 1785 at £1,696. He, with his eldest son,
joined the revolutionists, but his second son, Gibbs Atkins, was a
loyalist. So were families divided in those days.

The second letter was from his wife in Boston and was sent to him at
Halifax. It is interesting as showing some of the devices reported to by
the loyalists, their families and friends to save at least a portion of
their estates for the original owners. The letter is as follows:

Boston, 24 June, 1786.

My Dear Mr. Gay:

My last of the 8th instant containing the melancholy account of the
death of my father, I make no doubt you have received. In that I
also informed you that the house was to be sold the 15 of this
month which was done accordingly. Mr. Whalley chose to bid it of
and Brother Timothy bought it at £380. He paid 129 Dollars Earnest
money, the rest is to be paid in 6 weeks. I wish you could settle
your affairs so as to come home before the time is up. Mr. Whalley
has sent you the account of the sale properly authentic, and has
directed them to be left at Mr. Pike's at Halifax. Do come home as
soon as you can. Our friends unite with me in love to you and
children. Father Gay has got quite well. Fanny is with me and
desires her duty to you. Love to her Brothers and Sisters. Believe
me to be your tender, affectionate Wife,

R. GAY.

The sale mentioned by Mrs. Gay took place under the Confiscation Act of
1777-1780. These estates were treated by the Probate Court as those of
deceased persons. As Martin Gay's wife was not an absentee she was
entitled to her third or dower right in her husband's estate. The
Commissioners appointed by the Probate Court assigned to Mrs. Gay as
"her third" "the two middle tenements of the house on Union Street,
Boston, with the cellars chambers and upper rooms. Also the shop
fronting Union Street and the land under same with the liberty to go
through the great entry into the said shop, with the use and
improvements of the yard, Well, Pump, and Privy." This division was made
at her request as a shrewd means of retaining for herself and eventually
for her husband, the _whole_ of the property, for it would be difficult
to sell or to lease the two ends of the house so divided, with the
middle taken out. The result was that the remainder of the house was
unsaleable and as stated in the letter was bought in by her brother
Timothy Atkins. As Mrs. Gay by her right of dower had only a life estate
on the property, it was necessary that she should require what is known
as the "remainder" which was still vested in the Commonwealth. This was
conveyed to her by Act of the Legislature, Feb. 7th, 1807, for the
consideration $1,680. In 1809, the widow, Ruth Gay, and her son Ebenezer
Gay, sold this property for fifteen thousand dollars.

The third letter is dated at London, 7 July, 1788. In it he says "I
cannot pretend to say when my affairs will admit of my return to
America. By a late act of parliament a final settlement will (it is
sayed) be made with the Loyalists within a few months. I must wait with
patience this important event, then prepare to leave this both wonderful
and delightful kingdom, and return to my family and friends in my native
country, though an Alien when in it."

He remained two years in England and returned to Boston in 1792, when he
resumed his business as a coppersmith at his old stand in Union Street,
and soon after entered into business relations with Mr. James Davis, a
brass founder, then but twenty-two years of age, who had learned the
trade from a Hessian, who like many of his countrymen were obliged to
remain in the country when Congress violated the terms of the Saratoga
Convention.[215] Mr. Gay subsequently sold the business to Mr. Davis,
who incorporated it in 1828 under the name of the Revere Copper Company,
Mr. Joseph Warren Revere being one of the incorporators.

[215] See page 85 for further account of the Saratoga Convention.

Martin Gay died in 1809, and he was buried in the Granary Burial Ground.
SAMUEL GAY was the eldest son of Martin Gay who graduated at Harvard in
1775. Owing to the disturbed state of the times, and the quarterings of
the rebel troops in the College buildings, he did not take his degree at
the College Commencement, which was not held this year. He became a
permanent resident of New Brunswick, and was a member of the first House
of Assembly organized in the Colony, and represented the County of
Westmoreland several years. He was also a magistrate of that County, and
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. He died at Fort Cumberland
(where his father had a grant of land from the Crown) January 21, 1847
in the ninety-third year of his age.

EBENEZER GAY was the youngest son of Martin Gay, and can hardly be
classed as a loyalist. He was a child when his father went to Halifax,
and he remained in Boston with his mother during the war. He graduated
at Harvard College in 1789, practiced law, and was a member of the State
Senate, and resided at Hingham. Mr. Wickworth Allen Gay, the artist, is
his son. Martin Gay the younger, was fifteen years of age when he
accompanied his father to Halifax. Three years later he was accidentally
shot by a friend while hunting near Windsor, Nova Scotia.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO MARTIN GAY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To John Davis. Jan. 7, 1783; Lib. 136, fol. 228; Land in Boston,
Winter St. S.. Samuel Dashwood E. and N.; Dr. Sylvester Gardner, an
absentee, W.

To Timothy Atkins. Dec. 13. 1787; Lib. 161, fol. 240; Land and
buildings in Boston. Union St. E.; Philip Freeman S.; E.; E. and
S.; heirs of Benjamin Andrews W; N. and W.; Dorothy Carnes N. and
W.; Jeremiah Bumstead N.; reserving that part of the premises set
off to Ruth Gay, wife of said Martin Gay.

DANIEL LEONARD.

The Leonard family was established in this country in 1652, by three
sons of Thomas Leonard, who remained in England. The three sons were
James, Henry, and Philip, all of whom have left many descendants. The
Leonards were interested in the first iron works established in this
country at Lynn, Braintree, Rowley Village, and Taunton, and at a later
date at Canton, so that the observation "where you can find iron works
there you will find a Leonard" has been almost literally verified. They
were probably interested in most, if not all the iron works established
in this country within the first century after its settlement, and it is
a remarkable fact that the iron manufacture has continued successively,
and generally very successfully, in the hand of the Leonards or their
descendants, down to the present day.

James was the progenitor of the Leonards of Taunton, Raynham and Norton.
He and his sons often traded with the Indians, and were on such terms of
friendship with them, that when war broke out King Philip gave strict
orders to his men never to hurt the Leonards. Philip resided in winter
at Mount Hope, but his summer residence was at Raynham, about a mile
from the forge. The family was noted throughout Plymouth County in
Colonial times for its wealth, and the number of able men it produced in
successive generations, who were entrusted by the public with offices of
honor and importance. To this family belonged Daniel Leonard, the third
Taunton lawyer, a man who was no unconspicuous actor in the affairs of
his time. He was the only son of Ephraim Leonard, a judge of the Court
of Common Pleas, a colonel in the militia, and the possessor of a large
property, who resided on a homestead of five hundred acres connected
with which were extensive iron works, situated in that part of the town
of Norton now known as Mansfield. There, in a house on this estate the
subject of this sketch was born May 29, 1740. His boyhood was passed
tranquilly amid comforts which usually wait on an only child of wealthy
and influential parents. Entering Harvard College at an early age, he
graduated in 1760 in the class of John Lowell, the celebrated lawyer. He
took up law as a profession, and had not been long at the bar before he
was engaged in a fair practice, his generous disposition and affable
manners having established his popularity, while his acquirements won
for him reputation as an orator and a scholar. In 1770 he received from
Yale College the degree of M. A.; in 1769 he was appointed as King's
Attorney of Bristol County. Having become possessed of a fortune by a
Boston heiress, he adopted what for that age and vicinity was considered
great style, and display of dress, and mode of living. He set up a
chariot, and pair of horses with which he travelled to Boston several
times a week, something no lawyer in the Province had ever ventured to
do before. In 1769 he began his political career by entering the
Legislature where he represented Taunton during the year's of 1770-71-73
and 74. At first he made the most ardent speeches, which had been up to
that time delivered in the House against Great Britain in favor of the
colonists, but in the latter years of his service as a representative,
he, like many more of his countrymen, became alarmed at the mob
outrages, and the drifting of the country towards rebellion, he slowly
changed his opinions and became a Loyalist and a supporter of the
government that represented law, and authority. The revolutionists
attributed this change to the influence of Governor Hutchinson and
Attorney-General Sewall with whom he was on terms of intimacy, although
this friendship formed some cause of distrust; the change in his views
was not known publicly, or with certainty until the summer of 1774, as
is evidenced by his being a member of the Committee of Nine on the state
of the Province in the Legislature of that year, a committee made up of
those only who were believed to be against the government. In June of
that year he became an "addresser" to Governor Hutchinson. A few weeks
later he was appointed Mandamus Councellor by the King. When it became
known that he had taken the oath for qualifications for this office a
mob of upward of two thousand men gathered on the "green" near his home,
uttering oaths and angry threats and menacing him with personal
indignities, which they would undoubtedly have proceeded to put into
execution if they could have found him, but being informed by his father
that he had gone to Boston and that he would use his influence to induce
his son to resign his office, they were mollified for the time and
refrained from pulling the house down, and gradually dispersed. They,
however, assembled again the following evening, and seeing a light in
the south chamber where Mrs. Leonard lay sick in bed, and thinking that
Leonard was there, they fired through the window into the room; the
bullets passed through the upper sash and shutter, and lodged in the
partition of the next chamber.[216] Friends had acquainted Mr. Leonard
of the mob's intention to attack his home. He therefore went to Boston
where his family soon joined him, and was protected from further
violence by the presence of the troops. This outrage upon his home
greatly embittered him against the revolutionists and their cause, and
was undoubtedly the cause of his writing his celebrated letters, which
so ably championed those principles of civil liberty, for which the
loyalists so nobly contended.

[216] Mrs. Leonard was confined to bed with childbirth. Charles, their
only son, was born an idiot, due no doubt to this outrage. The mother of
Curtis Guild, the present governor of Massachusetts, was born in this
room, she being a descendant of the Leonard family.

Daniel Leonard was the author of the famous letters signed
Massachusettensis, mis-attributed by the first President Adams to
Jonathan Sewall. These letters that appeared in the Massachusetts
Gazette "reviewed with much ingenuity with the purpose of showing that
the course of the government was founded in law and reason; that the
colonies had no substantial grievance; that they were a part of the
British Empire and properly subject to its authority." From the great
skill in which they were written they were attributed to Jonathan
Sewall, a man of much talent. It was more than a generation before the
authorship was assigned to Daniel Leonard. John Adams answered these
papers as "Novanglus." "Massachusettensis" bears dates between December,
1774, and April, 1775, and was published three times in a single year:
first, in the "Massachusetts Gazette and Post Boy," next in a pamphlet
form; and last, by Rivington, in New York. Still another edition
appeared in Boston in 1776. The replies were numerous. "Novanglus" bears
dates between January and April, 1775. Both were printed in 1819, with a
preface, by Mr. Adams, who remarks of "Massachusettensis," that "these
papers were well written, abounded with wit, discovered good
information, and were conducted with a subtlety of art and address
wonderfully calculated to keep up the spirits of their party, to depress
ours," etc., etc.

The following are a few brief extracts from these letters.

"The press when opened to all parties and influenced by none, is a
salutary engine in a free state, to preserve the freedom of that state,
but when a party has gained the ascendancy, so far as to become the
licensers of the press, either by act of government, or by playing off
the resentment of the populace against printers, and authors, the press
itself becomes an engine of oppression or licentiousness, and is as
pernicious to society as otherwise it would be beneficial. It is too
true that ever since the origin of our controversy with Great Britain,
the press of this town have been indulged in publishing what they
pleased, while little has been published on the part of the government.
The effect this must have had upon the minds of the people in general is
obvious. In short, the changes have been so often rung upon oppression,
tyranny, and slavery, that, whether sleeping or waking, they are
continually vibrating in our ears, and it is now high time to ask
ourselves whether we have not been deluded by sound only. Should you be
told that acts of high treason are flagrant through the country, that a
great part of the province is in actual rebellion, would you believe it
true? Nay, you would spurn it with indignation. Be calm, my friends, it
is necessary to know the worst of a disease, to enable us to provide an
effectual remedy. Are not the bands of society cut asunder and the
sanctions that hold man to man trampled upon? Can any of us recover a
debt, or obtain compensation for an injury by law? Are not many persons,
whom once we respected, and revered, driven from their homes, and
families, and forced to fly to the army for protection, for no other
reason but their having accepted commissions under our king? Is not
civil government dissolved?

"Reader, apply to an honest lawyer (if such a one can be found) and
inquire what kind of an offence it is for a number of armed men to
assemble, and forcibly to obstruct the courts of justice, to pass
governmental acts, to take the militia out of the hands of the king's
representatives to form a new militia, to raise men and appoint officers
for public purposes, without order or permission of the king or his
representatives, or for a number of men to take to their arms, and march
with a professed design of opposing the king's troops. Ask, reader, of
such a lawyer, what is the crime, and what the punishment, and if,
perchance, thou art one that has been active in these things, and art
not insensibility itself, his answer will harrow up thy soul.

"The shaft is already sped, and the utmost exertion is necessary to
prevent the blow. We already feel the effects of anarchy, mutual
confidence, affection, and tranquility, those sweeteners of human life
are succeeded by distrust, hatred, and wild uproar; the useful arts of
agriculture and commerce are neglected for caballing, mobbing this or
the other man, because he acts, speaks or is suspected of thinking
different from the prevailing sentiment of the times, in purchasing
arms, and forming a militia. O height of madness! Can you indulge the
thought one moment that Great Britain will consent to this? For what has
she protected and defended the colonies against the maritime powers of
Europe, from their first British settlement to this day? For what did
she purchase New York of the Dutch? For what was she so lavish of her
best blood and treasure in the conquest of Canada, and other territories
in America? Was it to raise up a rival state, or to enlarge her own
empire? I mention these things, my friends, that you may know how people
reason upon this subject in England, and to convince you that you are
deceived, if you imagine, that Great Britain will accede to the claims
of the colonies. And now, in God's name, what is it that has brought us
to this brink of destruction? Has not the government of Great Britain
been as mild and equitable in the colonies, as in any part of her
extensive domains? Has she not been a nursing mother to us from the days
of our infancy to this time. Has she not been indulgent almost to a
fault?

"I have as yet said nothing of the difference in sentiment among
ourselves. Upon a superficial view we might imagine that this province
was nearly unanimous; but the case is far different. A very considerable
body of men of property in this province are at this day firmly attached
to the cause of government, bodies of men compelling persons to disavow
their sentiments, to resign commissions or to subscribe leagues, and
covenants, has wrought no change in their sentiments. It has only
attached them more closely to government and pray more devoutly for its
restoration.

"A new, and until lately unheard of mode of opposition, has been devised,
said to be the invention of the fertile brain of one of our party
agents, called a committee of correspondence. This is the foulest,
subtlest, and most venomous serpent that ever issued from the eggs of
sedition. These committees when once established, think themselves
amenable to none, they assume a dictatorial style, and have an
opportunity under the apparent sanction of their several towns, of
clandestinely wreaking private revenge on individuals by traducing their
characters, and holding them up as enemies of their country, wherever
they go, also of misrepresenting facts and propagating sedition through
the country. Thus a man of principle and property in travelling through
the country would be insulted by persons whose faces he had never seen
before. He would feel the smart without suspecting the hand that
administered the blow. These committees, as they are not known in law,
and can derive no authority from thence. They frequently erect
themselves into a tribunal where the same persons are at once
legislators, accusers, witnesses, judges, and jurors and the mob the
executioners. The accused has no day in court, and the execution of the
sentence is the first notice he receives. It is chiefly owning to these
committees, that so many respectable persons have been abused and forced
to sign recantations and resignation though so many persons, to avoid
such reiterated insults, as are more to be deprecated by a man of
sentiment than death itself, have been obliged to quit their houses,
families and business, and fly to the army for protection. That husband
has been separated from wife, father from son, brother from brother, and
the unfortunate refugee forced to abandon all the comforts of domestic
life. Have not these people that are thus insulted, as good a right to
think and act for themselves in matters of the last importance. Why
then, do you suffer them to be cruelly treated for differing in
sentiment from you? Perhaps by this time some of you may inquire who it
is, that suffers his pen to run so freely. I will tell you; it is a
native of this province that knew it before many that are now basking in
the rays of political sunshine, had a being. He was favored not by
whigs, or tories, but the people. He is now repaying your favors, if he
knows his own heart, from the purest gratitude. I saw the small seed of
sedition when it was implanted; it was as a grain of mustard. I have
watched the plant until it has become a great tree; the vilest reptiles
that crawl upon the earth are concealed at the root, the foulest birds
of the air rest upon its branches.

"At the conclusion of the late war Great Britain found that the national
debt amounted to almost one hundred and fifty million, and heavy taxes
and duties were laid. She knew that the colonies were as much benefited
as any part of the empire, and indeed more so, she thought it reasonable
that the colonies should bear a part of the national burden, as that
they should share in the national benefit. For this purpose the stamp
act was passed. At first we did not dream of denying the authority of
parliament to tax us, much less legislate for us. We had paid for
establishing a post office, duties imposed for regulating trade, and
even for raising a revenue to the crown without questioning the right.
Some resolves in Virginia denying the right of parliament made their
appearance. We read them with wonder, they savoured of independence. It
now became unpopular to suggest the contrary, his life would be in
danger that asserted it. The newspapers were open to but one side of the
question and the inflammatory pieces that issued weekly from the press,
worked up the populace to a fit temper to commit the outrages that
ensued. It has been said that several thousands were expended in
England, to ferment the disturbance there. However that may be,
opposition to the ministry was then gaining ground, from circumstances
foreign to this. The ministry was changed and the stamp act repealed.
When the statute was made imposing duties upon glass, paper, India teas,
etc. imported into the colonies, it was said this was another instance
of taxation. We obtained a partial repeal of this statute which took off
the duties from all articles except teas. We could not complain of the
three-penny duty on tea as burdensome, for a shilling which had been
laid upon it for the purpose of regulating trade, and therefore was
allowed to be constitutional, was taken off; so that we were, in fact,
gainers nine pence on the pound by the new regulation. The people were
told weekly that the ministry had formed a plan to enslave them that the
duty upon tea was only a prelude to a window tax, hearth tax, land tax
and poll tax, etc. What was it natural to expect from a people bred
under a free constitution, jealous of their liberty, credulous, even to
a proverb when told their privileges were in danger. I answer outrages,
disgraceful to humanity itself. What mischief was not an artful man, who
had obtained the confidence and guidance of such an enraged multitude,
capable of doing? He had only to point out this or that man, as an enemy
of his country, and no character or station, age or merit could protect
the proscribed from their fury. Happy was it for him, if he could
secrete his person, and subject his property only to their lawless rage.
By such means acts of public violence has been committed as will blacken
many a page in the history of our country. They have engrossed all the
power of the province into their own hands. A democracy or republic it
has been called, but it does not deserve the name of either. It was,
however, a despotism cruelly carried into execution by mobs, and riots,
and more incompatible with the rights of mankind than the enormous
monarchies of the East. The government under the British Constitution
consisting of kings, lords, and commons, is allowed both by Englishmen
and foreigners to be the most perfect system that the wisdom of ages has
produced. The distributions of power are so just, and the proportions so
exact, as at once to support and control each other. An Englishman
glories in being subject to and protected by such a government.

"Let us now suppose the colonies united and moulded into some form of
government, in order to render government operative and salutary,
subordination is necessary. This our patriots need not be told of, and
when once they had mounted the steed and found themselves so well seated
as to run no risk of being thrown from the saddle, the severity of their
discipline to restore subordination would be in proportion to their
former treachery in destroying it. We have already seen specimens of
their tyranny, in the inhuman treatment of persons guilty of no crime
except that of differing in sentiment. What then must we expect from
such scourges of mankind when supported by imperial powers?

"I do not address myself to whigs or tories, but to the whole people. I
know you well, you are loyal at heart, friends to good order, and do
violence to yourselves in harboring one moment, disrespectful sentiments
towards Great Britain, the land of our forefathers' nativity, and sacred
repository of their bones, but you have been most insidiously induced to
believe that Britain is rapacious, cruel and vindictive, and envies us
the inheritance purchased by the sweat and blood of our ancestors. Could
that thick mist be but once dispelled that you might see our Sovereign,
the provident father of all his people, and Great Britain a nursing
mother to the colonies, as they really are. Long live our gracious king,
and happiness to Britain would resound from one end of the province to
the other."[217]

[217] Extracts from Massachusettensis. Letter addressed to the
Inhabitants of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, Dec. 12th, 1774.

In February, 1775, Daniel Leonard was appointed Solicitor General of the
Commission of Customs with a salary of £200 sterling, a body exercising
powers similar to those of a court of admiralty. Thirteen months after
this time, March, 1776, he accompanied the British Army to Halifax with
his family of eight persons and thence to London, where he practiced as
a barrister in the Courts of Westminster.

In 1780, William Knox, Under Secretary of State for the American
Department suggested the division of Maine, and a province of the
territory between the Penobscot and St. Croix rivers, with Thomas Oliver
for Governor, and Daniel Leonard for Chief Justice. The plan was
approved by the King and Ministry, but was abandoned because Wederburne,
the Attorney-General, gave the opinion that the whole of Maine was
included in the charter of Massachusetts.

Mr. Leonard was in Massachusetts in 1799 and again in 1808. He was
included in the Banishment Act of 1778 and the Conspiracy Act of 1779.
He received the appointment of Chief Justice to Bermuda. After filling
this office for many years, he again in his last days took up his
residence in London, where he died June 27, 1829, aged 89. His death was
the result of an accident while withdrawing the charge from a pistol, he
accidentally discharging it so as to cause almost instant death.

The generous temper and affable manners of Mr. Leonard seemed to have
fascinated those who were in his household. The nurse who was entrusted
with the care of the infant daughter of his first wife, would never
leave him. She went with his family in all their wanderings, first to
Boston, then to Halifax, London, and Bermuda, then to the United States,
back again to the West Indies, then to London, and died in their
service. His Deputy Sheriff, who had been a Captain in the Provincial
service, a person of great address, wit, and accomplishments, followed
his fortunes and was killed in the battle of Germantown, then a Major in
the British Army. A young gentleman educated at Harvard College, and in
his office, went with him to London where he died.

Daniel Leonard married twice. His first wife was Anna, daughter of Hon.
Samuel White of Taunton, his second Sarah Hammock of Boston, who died on
the passage from Bermuda to Providence, R. I., aged 78. He left a
daughter Anna, who married a Mr. Smith of Antigua, Harriet who died in
London in 1849, Sarah who married John Stewart, a captain in British
army and afterwards Collector of the Port of Bermuda. Sarah had four
children. The eldest Duncan Stewart, on the death of an uncle who died
childless, succeeded to an ancient Lairdship in Scotland. His brother,
Leonard Stewart, was an eminent physician in London. His sister Emily
married a Captain in the service of the East India Company, the other
sister, Sarah, married a Mr. Winslow, descended from the ancient
governor of Plymouth, and a relative of Lord Lyndhurst, (Copley) whose
private Secretary he was during his Chancellorship.[218] Mr. Leonard had
an only son Charles, who was born when the mob attacked his house, and
was feeble-minded. He entered Harvard College in 1791, but did not
graduate. He was subsequently under the guardianship of Judge Wheaton,
and was found dead in the road in Barrowsville, near Taunton in 1831.
Col. Ephraim Leonard, who lived till the close of the Revolution devised
his large estate to his grandson Charles. It was understood, however,
that the father and sisters of Charles were to participate in the
enjoyment of the property. Had Daniel Leonard returned from banishment
and taken the oath of naturalization and allegiance to the new
government, he would have inherited this large estate, but this he would
not do, nothing could swerve him from his loyalty to the old flag.

[218] Genealogical Memoir of the Leonard Family, by William R. Deane.

JUDGE GEORGE LEONARD.

Major George Leonard was the third in descent from James, the immigrant.
He removed in 1690 to Norton, then a part of Taunton, where he became
the proprietor of very large tracts of land, and was in fact the founder
of that town. Here this family, as possessors of great wealth and of the
largest landed estate probably of any in New England, have lived for
over two hundred years. Major George was Judge of the Court of Common
Pleas. His eldest son George, the subject of this sketch, was born March
4, 1698. He was in office from early manhood until old age. He served
his town in nearly every capacity and was appointed a judge of the Court
of Common Pleas, in 1725; a member of the Council in 1741; and Judge of
Probate in 1747; while in the Militia he rose to rank of Colonel. In
1740 he was dismissed from the bench, in consequence of his connection
with the famous Land Bank scheme, but was restored six years afterwards,
and became Chief Justice. He was called a "neutral" by Clark the
historian of Norton, and he remarks that though the most influential man
in town he took no active part in public affairs during the war. A
_neutral_ in the Revolution was a Loyalist, the Revolutionists did not
allow such a thing as a "neutral" to exist. The fact was that he was an
old man, whom all classes respected, and on that account they did not
molest him, and drive him out.

He died in 1778, in his eighty-first year. "Tradition," says Clark, "has
universally given him a character above reproach, and of sterling
worth." He married Rachel Clap, of Scituate, who bore him four children
and who died in 1783, in her eighty-second year.

George Leonard, son of the former, was born in 1729, and graduated at
Harvard University in 1748. He held several important offices under the
Colonial government, and after the adoption of the Federal Constitution,
was a member of Congress. It is said "he was a genuine specimen of an
American country gentleman," that "he was a kind and considerate
landlord, who never raised his rents, and who regarded his old tenants
as his friends," that "he was tenaciously attached to old customs, and
wore the short breeches and long stockings to the day of his death."

COLONEL GEORGE LEONARD.

Was the son of Rev. Nathaniel Leonard the brother of Judge Leonard and
fifth in descent from James the immigrant. He was driven forth from his
native land and settled in New Brunswick in 1783, and was much employed
in public affairs. The year after his arrival, he was appointed one of
the agents of government to locate lands granted to Loyalists, and was
soon after made a member of the Council, and commissioned as a Colonel
in the militia. He died at Sussex Vale in 1826, at an old age. His wife
Sarah, died a year before aged eighty-one. He had several children. His
daughter Caroline married R. M. Jarvis, Esq., in 1805, and his daughter
Maria married Lieutenant Gustavus Rochfort of the Royal Navy in 1814.
His son, Colonel Richard Leonard of the 104th Regiment of the British
army and Sheriff of the District of Niagara, died at Lundy's Lane in
1833.

GEORGE LEONARD, JR., son of George Leonard, accompanied his father to
New Brunswick in 1783. He was a grantee of the city of St. John. He was
bred to the law, and devoted himself to his profession. He died at
Sussex Vale in 1818.

HARRISON GRAY.

RECEIVER GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Harrison Gray, was the son of Edward Gray and his wife Susanna. He was
born in Boston, 24 February, 1711.

Edward Gray was from Lancashire, England, was an apprentice in Boston in
1686, and married Susanna Harrison in 1699, by whom he had several
children.

Harrison Gray was bred a merchant. His patrimonial inheritance, aided by
industry, enabled him to acquire a handsome fortune. In June 1753, he
was chosen Treasurer of the province by the General Court and continued
in that office till October, 1774. He was an ardent loyalist, and
adhered to government from the beginning of the controversy, but the
modification of his conduct, his superior fitness for the office and the
confidence in his integrity secured him public favor through the stormy
period which commenced soon after his first election, and continued
until his appointment to, and acceptance of, the office of mandamus
counsellor in 1774. But this was an unpardonable offence in the eyes of
the "sons of despotism." It was however unsolicited, unexpected, and
accepted with great reluctance, being strongly pressed upon him by the
leaders of the loyalist party; and as most of those who had been
appointed his colleagues living in the country were compelled by the
mobs to decline the office, he was led to believe that residing in
Boston then garrisoned by the troops, he had no such apology for
shrinking from the service, and accordingly sacrificed inclination to a
conscientious sense of duty. This brought upon him the ill will and
malice of his political opponents, among these was John Adams, who said,
"I went in to take a pipe with brother Cranch and there I found Zab
Adams. He told me he heard that I had made two very powerful enemies in
this town, and lost two very valuable clients--Treasurer Gray, and
Ezekiel Goldthwaite; and that he had heard that Gray had been to me for
my account, and paid it off, and determined to have nothing more to do
with me. O the wretched, impotent malice! they show their teeth--they
are eager to bite--but they have not strength. I despise their anger,
their resentment, and their threats; but I can tell Mr. Treasurer that I
have it in my power to tell the world a tale which will infallibly
unhorse him, whether I am in the house or out. If this province knew
that the public money had never been counted these twenty years, and
that no bonds were given last year, nor for several years before, there
would be so much uneasiness about it that Mr. Treasurer would lose his
election another year." This was one of the meanest and most
contemptible statements John Adams ever made. It was a reckless
accusation, and insinuation, and was ably answered by his grandson,
Harrison Gray Otis, who prepared a clear refutation of the unjust
accusation in Russell's Centinel, June, 1830. It was also refuted by
subsequent events. In October, 1774, the royal government was
superseded by the revolutionary congress who resolved "_that no more
taxes be paid to him_," and made choice of Henry Gardner for his
successor. This authority he could not be expected to recognize. He
therefore retained the books and files at his office till the evacuation
of Boston, and then left them in exemplary order. They are still in the
public archives of Massachusetts and show the model of a faithful state
treasurer. He might have been justified in retaining a lien upon these
as a security against loss and damage to his very valuable real, and
personal estate, which he left, and which was soon confiscated, but his
high sense of official duty forbade his recourse to any such precaution,
and he withdrew from a country which he loved, not less than those who
stayed at home, taking nothing which belonged to the public, but
surrendered all his property into the keeping of the public that treated
him so basely. He was also a creditor to many of the "sons of
despotism," at the head of whom was John Hancock, who owed him a large
sum for borrowed money, no part of which would he pay in his lifetime,
and of which a small part was received from his executors.[219]

[219] This was the same as he did towards Harvard college, when
treasurer of same. History of Harvard College by Josiah Quincy.

In the House of Representatives, August 8, 1775, "Ordered, that Mr.
Hopkins be directed to inquire how the Committee of Supplies have
disposed of the horse and chaise formerly Harrison Gray's which was used
by the late Dr. Warren, and came to the hands of the said Committee
after Dr. Warren's death." The next day, "Ordered, that Dr. William
Eustis be, and hereby is directed, immediately to deliver to the
Committee of Supplies the horse and chaise which were in the possession
of the late Doctor Warren, and which formerly belonged to Harrison
Gray."

When Boston was evacuated, Mr. Gray, urged by a sense of duty, with the
male members of his family, tore himself away from his adored and only
daughter, Mrs. S. A. Otis, which so preyed upon her peace of mind that
it finally caused her death.

He went to Halifax with his family of four persons where he stayed a
short time. "He was passenger in one of the six vessels that arrived at
London from Halifax, prior to June 10, 1776, laden with Loyalists and
their families."

In Mr. Gray's house in London about the year 1789, Arthur Savage gave
the Rev. Mr. Montague a bullet taken from the body of General Warren the
day after his death. Mr. Montague after his return to Boston, became
rector of Christ Church. Harrison Gray, in a letter to him, dated
London, August 1st, 1791, remarks to him in a spirit of loyalty to the
crown of Britain as follows: "The melancholy state in which you
represent religion to be in Boston and New England is confirmed by all
who come from thence. Is this one of the blessings of your independence
to obtain which you sacrificed so many lives? I am glad your federal
constitution 'has had a very great and good effect', but very much
question whether you will ever be so happy as you were under the mild
and gentle government and protection of Great Britain; for,
notwithstanding the freedom my countrymen boast of, if in order to
obtain it they have sacrificed their religion, they have made a poor
bargain. They cannot, in a religious sense, be a free people till the
Son of God has made them free. It is very surprising, considering the
establishment of the Roman Catholic religion at Quebec was one of the
heavy grievances the American Congress complained of[220] that your
governor and other great men in your town should attend the worship of
God in a Roman Catholic church, to hear a Romish bishop on a Sunday; and
that he should be one of the chaplains who officiated at a public
dinner. I cannot at present account for their inconsistency any
otherwise than by supposing the part they took in the late unhappy
contests lays so heavy upon their consciences that they imagine no one
can absolve them but a Romish priest."

[220] See Chapter III. in relation to this matter.

Mr. Gray lived in England upon a pension granted by the British
government. In 1794 at the advanced age of eighty-four, this excellent
and virtuous man sunk to rest. Perhaps no man among the many excellent
persons who went into exile at this time was more beloved and regretted
by his political enemies, for a more genuine model of nature's nobleman
never lived.

JOHN GRAY, son of Harrison Gray and his wife Elizabeth, born in Boston,
18th of May, 1755. He went to Ireland soon after the battle of
Lexington. Hearing that the difficulties would probably be adjusted, he
embarked for Massachusetts, the vessel was taken off Newburyport. He was
in Newbury Jail, February, 1776, when at the solicitation of his sister,
the mother of Harrison Gray Otis, an order was passed to allow his
removal to the Otis homestead in Barnstable on condition of his giving a
bond with security in £1,000 not to pass without the limits of that
town, or deal or correspond with the enemy. Mr. Gray was in London,
January, 1781.

JOSEPH GRAY was descended from an old Boston family, his grandfather
Joseph Gray, was married by Rev. Samuel Williard to Rebecca Sears, June
27, 1706. Their son Joseph Gray was born April 9, 1707, and married
Rebecca, daughter of John West of Bradford, or Haverhill of
Massachusetts. The old people were displeased with the match and cut
Rebecca off with "one pine tree shilling." Their son Joseph, the subject
of this sketch, was born July 19, 1729. He was a loyalist and settled at
Halifax, Nova Scotia, and was a member of the firm of Proctor & Gray,
merchants. His wife was Mary, daughter of Hon. Joseph Gerrish. His son,
the Rev. Benjamin Gerrish Gray, D. D., was born in 1768, married Mary,
daughter of Nathaniel Roy Thomas a Loyalist, and was many years rector
of St. George's parish, Halifax, and afterwards of an Episcopal church
in St. John, N. B. Died at the latter city in 1854. Another son of
Joseph Gray was William, born in 1777. Was British Consul for Virginia
for a long time and died in England in 1845.

Joseph Gray died at Windsor, N. S., in 1803 at the age of seventy-four,
leaving a large number of descendants.

John Gray of Boston, another brother of Joseph Gray. He was bred to
business in that town by Caleb Blanchard. About the year 1768 he went to
England, but returned previous to hostilities, and was appointed Deputy
Collector of Customs, in which office he was popular. In 1776 he
embarked for Halifax with the Royal Army, and before the close of that
year was at Charleston, S. C., and in prison. He was still in that city
as late as 1780, when he was an Addresser of Sir Henry Clinton. Before
the last mentioned date, however, he had engaged in business as a
commission merchant, and had purchased a plantation on account of
himself and of John Simpson, a fellow Loyalist of Boston. But involved
politically beyond the hope of extrication he sold his interest in the
plantation, and invested the proceeds in indigo and in a ship with the
intention of sailing for London. The Revolutionists not only defeated
this plan, but seized his vessel and his cargo, and the result was that
of both he barely saved one hundred guineas. With this sum he fled to
his brother Joseph at Halifax, who provided him a passage to England in
a ship of war. Without any accession to his fortune yet, with letters to
the agents of the East India Company, he soon embarked for India, and,
on his arrival there, was well received. The family account is that he
wrote a treatise on the Cultivation of Indigo, which the Governor and
Council considered so valuable as to grant him £4,000 sterling, and
jointly with a Mr. Powell, an extensive tract of land. These two
grantees, assisted by the Company, established a factory, and began the
culture of indigo, which was said to be the first attempt to cultivate
this beautiful dye in India. Both died suddenly in 1782 on the same day.
Gray was at the plantation, and Powell was two hundred miles away at the
factory, and the supposition was that they had incurred the jealousy of
the natives, who had caused their death by poison. Powell's brother told
Joseph Gray, prior to 1799 that the estate of our Loyalist and his
associate had become "the greatest indigo plantation in the known
world."[221]

[221] Sabine, Vol. I., Pp. 490-1.

Samuel Gray was also a brother of Joseph Gray. He died at Boston in 1776
leaving issue, male and female. His wife was a daughter of Captain Henry
Atkins of Boston.

Thomas Gray of Boston was a merchant, a Protester against the
Revolutionists, and one of the Addressers of Hutchinson. He died at
Boston in 1783.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO HARRISON GRAY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To John Stanton, David Devens, Jonathan Harris, Feb. 11, 1780; Lib.
131, fol. 51; Land and two brick dwelling-houses in Boston,
Cornhill W.; land purchased by Samuel Allen Otis N.; E. and N.;
Wilson's Lane E.; Nathaniel Appleton S.

To Samuel Allen Otis, April 4, 1780; Lib. 131, fol. 93; Land and
brick dwelling-house in Boston, Cornhill W.; land purchased by John
Stanton and others S.; W. and S.; Wilson's Lane E.; Samuel
Vallentine N.

REV. WILLIAM WALTER.

RECTOR OF TRINITY CHURCH, BOSTON.

Thomas Walter, an Attorney at Law, came to America from Youghall,
Ireland, about 1679, bringing a recommendatory letter to the churches in
New England from a Congregational church in Youghall,--and by virtue
thereof was admitted a member of the Second church, Boston, November 2,
1680. His family were originally of Lancashire, England, and were of
gentle blood. He died before the year 1698.

REV. NEHEMIAH WALTER, son of the former, was born in Ireland, December,
1663, and came to America with his father. He early distinguished
himself by proficiency in his studies at school, and by the age of
thirteen was a master of the Latin tongue. It soon became evident that
his genius pointed to a professional life, and he was sent to Harvard
University where he graduated with honors in 1684. Shortly thereafter he
removed to Nova Scotia where he resided some months for the purpose of
acquiring the French language. He became a distinguished scholar and
became noted among the literati of the day. After a careful and
impartial examination and great deliberation, "he fell in the way of the
Churches of New England, as thinking their constitution practice in
general, with respect to worship, discipline and order, most comfortable
to gospel institution and primitive practice." He was ordained a
colleague of the Rev. John Eliot October 17, 1688 at the age of
twenty-five. The first church at Roxbury had, at the earnest request of
the venerable Apostle Eliot, been seeking a colleague to share the
duties which increasing infirmity rendered irksome to him; and Nehemiah
Walter was chosen. Mr. Eliot died soon after this after a life crowned
with glory, honors, and labor, and it was a great consolation to him in
his latter days to see his people so happily settled under Mr. Walter.
For more than sixty years his successor faithfully discharged the duties
of his office always to the acceptance of his people. He married Sarah,
the daughter of Rev. Increase Mather by Maria, daughter of the
distinguished Rev. John Cotton. Nehemiah Walter died September 17, 1750,
and he was buried in the ministerial vault in the old burial ground,
corner of Washington and Eustis Streets, Roxbury.

REV. THOMAS WALTER, second son of Nehemiah Walter, was born in Roxbury,
December 13, 1696, and early gave evidence of most extraordinary genius.
He graduated from Harvard University in 1713 and was ordained October
29th, 1718, and December 25th of the same year was married to Rebeckah,
daughter of Rev. Joseph Belcher. He was a man who combined great wit and
humor with infinite learning and excelled in the science of harmony. He
published works on music, and one of his sermons upon the 2nd Samuel
XXIII 1 "The Sweet psalmist of Israel" which was delivered at the Boston
Lecture, has been pronounced "the most beautiful composition among the
sermons which have been handed down to us by our fathers." Others of his
sermons were also published. Thomas Walter was one of the most
distinguished scholars and disputants of the day. "He had all his
father's vivacity and richness of imagination with more vigor of
intellect." For his genius and powers he was reckoned to be one of the
ablest clergymen that New England up to that time had produced. His
death occurred on Sunday, January 10, 1724-5, and he expressed his hope
that he might die on that day, when lying prostrate with consumption.
His tomb is in the old burying ground, Roxbury. His daughter Rebeckah,
who was born in 1722, died unmarried January 11, 1780.

Rev. William Walter, the subject of this sketch, was a nephew of Thomas
Walter. He was born in 1739, and graduated at Harvard College in 1756.
Up to the time of the Revolution the preachers in the Episcopal church
occupied the position of missionaries in the American colonies. They
were sent here and were in the pay of the "Society for the Propagation
of the Gospel in Foreign Parts." The following extracts are from letters
written to the Secretary of the Society, and they explain themselves.

"Copy of a letter written to the Reverend Mr. Hooper of Trinity church
in Boston, by Mr. Barnard, an eminent dissenting clergyman, in answer to
one from the former desiring the latter would be so good as to send him
a just and honest character of Mr. William Walter, who was talked of as
a fit person to be assistant Minister at said church."

"He came out of our College with the reputation of one of the best
classical scholars of his class. He lived first in this town in the
business of a Grammar Schoolmaster, which trust he executed for several
years to universal acceptance, faithful, and careful. I have reason to
believe, in forming the tender minds of his pupils to virtue and
religion, as well as forwarding them in their scholastic exercise. When
to the sorrow of the town, he quitted that employ, he became connected
with the Custom House. This business naturally raised complaints against
him among trading people. But all I have heard were of his not being so
flexible in some matters as they wished, none of oppression, much less
of mean fraudulent ways of filling his own pockets.

"His temper is innocently cheerful, open, and friendly. He has a tender
and delicate sense of honor, a just idea of the truest honor. He is kind
and compassionate, etc." This letter had the desired effect. It was
written Oct. 15, 1763. He was ordained by the Bishop of London the
following year and became an assistant to the Rev. Mr. Hooper, whom he
succeeded as rector of Trinity church, the third Episcopal church in
Boston, being opened in 1735. It stood on the corner of Summer and
Hawley Streets. It was a plain wooden structure without steeple or
tower.

In 1767 he joined with the Clergy of Massachusetts and Rhode Island in
sending a letter to England requesting that a Bishop be sent to
America. The letter says, "We are too remote and inconsiderable to
approach the Throne, yet could His Majesty hear the voice of so distant
a people the request for American Bishops would appear to be the crye of
many of his most faithful subjects."

"We do, however, think ourselves happy in this, that the Society will
omit no favorable opportunity of representing the advantage that may
accrue to these Colonies, to religion and to the British Interests, by
condescending to this one request."[222] The Episcopal form of worship
was always disagreeable to the Congregationalists, and when they
discovered that the ministry entertained the design of sending over a
bishop to the colonies, a controversy for years ran high on the subject.
So resolute was the opposition to this project that it was abandoned.
This controversy John Adams says contributed as much as any other cause
to arouse attention to the claims of Parliament. The spirit of the times
is well represented in a cartoon in the Political Register of 1769 which
is here reproduced.

[222] Papers relating to the church in Massachusetts, Pp. 506-7, 531-2.

The Rev. William Walter was a firm Loyalist. At the evacuation of Boston
he was obliged to leave his house and accompanied by his family he went
to Halifax. In 1776 he went to England, then returned and went to New
York, and acted for some time as Chaplain of a British regiment. While
in New York he sent a letter to the Secretary of the S. P. G. F. P.,
dated Dec. 8, 1781. It is interesting as it shows the trials and
difficulties of the ministers of the Church of England during the
Revolution. It is in part as follows: "I disbelieve that Mr. Bass ever
preached a sermon for cloathing a rebel battalion, or ever read the
Declarative Act for independence in his church, or has altered his
sentiments since his dismission, but that he opens his church on the
days appointed by Congress as Public days, is most certain, and if this
is to be criminal, then every clergyman within the rebel lines is
criminal, and among others, Dr. Inglis, of this city, who did the same
when Mr. Washington's army was here, yet no clergyman stands higher in
the esteem of the Society for his loyalty." The occasion of this letter
was the stopping of Mr. Bass's salary by the Society, as it had been
reported to it that Mr. Bass had gone over to the rebels.

At the peace, accompanied by his family of six persons and by three
servants, he went from New York to Shelburne, N. S., where the Crown
granted him one town and one water lot. His losses in consequence of his
loyalty were estimated at £7,000. In 1791 he returned to Boston and the
next year was chosen Rector of Christ church.

[Illustration: LANDING A BISHOP.]

William Walter was a zealous supporter of the church and crown, and
vindicated his sincerity by the sacrifices he made for them. His
discourses are described as rational and judicious, "recommended by an
eloquence, graceful and majestical." He was no knight errant, but while
adhering to his own convictions with quiet persistency, he exercised a
large charity towards all forms of faith and Christian worship. The
degree of D. D. was conferred on him by Kings College, Aberdeen, in
1784. In 1796 he was invited to deliver the Dudleian lecture at Harvard
College and in 1798 he pronounced the anniversary discourse before the
Massachusetts Humane Society, which was published. Dr. Walter was a
remarkably handsome man; tall and well proportioned. When in the street,
he wore a long blue coat over his cassock and gown, wig dressed and
powdered, a three-cornered hat, knee breeches of fine black cloth, and
with silk hose, and square quartered sleeves with silver buckles. His
countenance was always serene, his temper always cheerful; happy
himself, he communicated happiness to all around him. In the desk he
read the glorious service like one inspired; his voice was clear,
musical and well modulated. In his family he was loved, reverenced and
admired. His heart, his house, his purse, were ever open to the needy.
He married Lydia, daughter of Benjamin Lynde, the younger, of Salem, and
by her had seven children. Her death occurred in 1798.

Dr. Walter continued his rectorship at Christ church until his death in
1800, at the age of sixty-one. The Rev. Dr. Parker, who preached his
funeral sermon, delineated his character as ornamental to religion and
to the church, to literature and humanity. Dr. Walter's grandson, Lynde
Minshall Walter, born in 1799, graduated at Harvard University in 1817.
He established the Boston Evening Transcript in 1830, and was the first
editor of the paper. His death occurred in 1842. Another grandson,
William Bicker was born in Boston, April 19, 1796, and graduated at
Bowdoin College in 1818. He studied divinity at Cambridge but did not
preach. He became best known as an author, possessing an active fancy
and a great faculty of versification. He contributed odes and sonnets
and translations to the newspapers and in 1821 in Boston, he published
"Poems" and "Sukey" a poem. In 1822 he went to the southern states to
give lectures on poetry, but he died shortly after his arrival in
Charleston, South Carolina, April 23, 1822.

This family so distinguished in ecclesiastical history of New England is
believed now to be extinct. There were others of the name in Boston at
an early period, who have perhaps left descendants, but they are not
known to have any connection with this family.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO REV. WILLIAM WALTER IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Leonard Jarvis, Sept. 27, 1784; Lib. 145, fol. 32; Land and
buildings in Boston, South St. W.; Samuel Quincy, an absentee, S.;
Robert Robbins and heirs of Benjamin Clark, deceased, E; Samuel
Connant N. and E.; Nathaniel Taylor, an absentee, N.

THOMAS AMORY.

Hugh Amory was living in the year 1605 at Wrington in Somersetshire,
under the northern side of Mendip Hills, this town and Shepton Mallett
was noted at this time for its broad cloth manufactures which, within
fifty years had transformed England's industry and commerce in Somerset
and Devon. Hugh and one of his sons was a merchant the other was a
woolen-draper, the latter, Thomas Amory, was the ancestor of the
American branch of the family, his career was the troubled one of a
Bristol merchant in the middle of the seventeenth century, when the city
was besieged and taken by both the Parliamentary and the King's army.
His son Jonathan was born in the county of Somerset in the year 1654,
his father owned the estate of St. Anne and other lands in the county
which in the next century went to his descendants in this country, but
too heavily encumbered to be of any value. Jonathan was brought up under
the care of his elder brother Thomas, who married Elizabeth Fitzmaurice
a daughter of the 19th Lord of Kerry, ancestor of the present Marquis of
Landsdowne. In consequence of this connection he removed to Ireland,
taking his younger brother Jonathan with him, who in time became a
merchant at Dublin, where he is recorded in 1675 as the purchaser from
the city of the north bank of the Liffy. Dublin, hitherto, had lain
wholly on the south side of the river. As late as 1816, £2, 10s. annual
rent for it from "Jonathan Armory" still formed an item of the city's
income. It is now as other crowded city districts, which have wharves at
one end and a railway station at the other, with streets of
age-blackened tenements and workshops between.

Jonathan Amory married Rebecca Houston in 1677, he went to the West
Indies with his brother Robert in 1682, and his wife died at Barbados in
1685. Jonathan Amory then went to South Carolina taking with him his
infant son Thomas. He married again, and invested largely in lands and
houses. He was elected speaker of the Colonial Legislature, and
subsequently treasurer of the Province. He died in the fall of 1699 of
yellow fever.

THOMAS AMORY, son of the former, was born in Limerick, Ireland, in 1682
and accompanied his father to South Carolina. In the year 1696 he was
sent with his sister Anne to their relatives in England to be educated.
He was placed under the care of his cousin, Counsellor Amory, and was
sent to the Westminster school. After his father's death he entered the
counting-house of Mr. Ozell, a French merchant in London who in the year
1709 sent him to the Azores as supercargo. Here he established himself
as a merchant and was appointed Dutch and English consul, and making
only an occasional visit to Europe. Here he remained many years. About
1719 he embarked for Boston, and spent the following winter with his
sister in Carolina. Returning to Boston he met Rebecca Holmes, daughter
of Frances Holmes, and married her in May, 1721.

Thomas Amory bought lands at the South end of Boston, built a house and
wharves, hired a counting-house of his friend, Governor Belcher, on the
Long wharf and engaged in commerce with England, the Azores and
Carolinas. He died in 1728, but his widow long survived him, dying in
Boston in 1770 at the age of seventy. He left three sons and two
daughters.

THOMAS AMORY, son of the former, was born in Boston April 23, 1722, and
entered the Latin school in 1735, and graduated at Harvard College in
1741. He studied Divinity, but never took orders. As eldest son he
inherited a double share of his father's estate. He married Elizabeth,
the daughter of William Coffin and by her had Rebecca, afterwards the
wife of Dr. Aron Dexter. He purchased the house built by Governor
Belcher at the corner of Harvard and Washington streets, the gardens of
which extended to the water, and this was his principal residence for
the rest of his life. Thomas Amory was one of the Addressers of Gage but
he did not take an active part in controversies preceding the
revolution. He is described in a deed in 1769 as "Thomas Amory
gentleman" in 1772 as "Distiller" and at other times as merchant. It was
said that as the Revolution drew near he and his brother John planned to
withdraw to England, leaving in the care of their brother Jonathan, who
was childless, their combined families, to the number of twenty-three.
He was on terms of friendship with the British officers and when the
troops garrisoned the town, his house was attacked by the mob. He was
entertaining some of the officers at his home, when bricks were thrown
at his windows. One of these missiles waked his little daughter, by
smashing the pane and falling on her bed. He spoke to the mob from the
porch and it dispersed, but he had first hastily sent his guests by the
garden way, to his boat, by which they were enabled to get to their
quarters. His wife's family, the Coffins, were all Loyalists, and Thomas
Amory therefore was regarded with some suspicion, especially as he was
an "Addresser" of Gen. Gage.

When General Washington entrenched Dorchester Heights, March 1776, in
order to command Boston with his guns, the inhabitants saw danger from
both sides. Washington's assault would do great damage and the British
troops as they withdrew might fire the town. On March 8th Deacon
Newhall, chairman of the selectmen, requested Thomas and Jonathan Amory,
and their friend, Peter Johonnot, to carry to General Washington a paper
prepared by four Selectmen, proposing that the British troops should be
allowed to retire unmolested, on condition of doing no harm. The offer
was really authorized by General Robertson, acting for General Howe, but
this could not be put in writing, nor was the person named to whom the
paper was addressed. The messengers, however, delivered it to General
Washington, whereupon Colonel Learned on his behalf wrote them an answer
to the effect that no notice could be taken of a letter neither
addressed to himself, nor authenticated by General Howe. Nevertheless
the agreement was kept, as if it had been formally made. Ministers were
therefore able to deny to an angry opposition in Parliament that there
had been any compromise, or stipulation between General Howe and the
rebels, although the Duke of Manchester affirmed that he had private
information of it.[223]

[223] The descendants of Hugh Amory, London. 1901. The Amory Family,
Boston, 1856.

On the evacuation Thomas Amory withdrew to Watertown, where he lived
some years. He died shortly after the peace in 1784. His widow survived
until 1823. He left nine children, seven of whom were married and
resided in Boston. It is interesting to consider how the blood of the
loyal and the disloyal afterwards became mixed. At the battle of Bunker
Hill June 17, 1776, Captain Linzee of the Kings ship-of-war Falcon
cannonaded the works which Prescott the "rebel" defended, but the
granddaughter of Linzee was the wife of Prescott the historian who was a
grandson of the rebel, and this lady is a daughter of Thomas C. Amory,
the eldest son of this notice. Jonathan, the second son of our Loyalist,
married Hettie, daughter of James Sullivan, governor of Massachusetts,
while the wife of John Amory, another son, was near of kin to Henry
Gardner, the "rebel" who succeeded Harrison Gray, the last royal
treasurer of the same state. Again Nathaniel, another son, married a
niece of Commodore Preble, and her sister was the wife of Admiral
Wormley of the Royal Navy. Once more, William, a fifth son, born in
1774, was an officer in the British navy and after the war entered the
U. S. navy and distinguished himself in the war with Tripoli, being one
of the party that burnt the Philadelphia. He also distinguished himself
in an attack under Hull on a fort in South America during the French
war. But "loyalty" as understood in olden time, is still represented in
the family by the union of Mr. Amory's grandson Charles with Martha
Greene and of his grandson, James Sullivan, with Mary Greene, nieces of
the late Lord Lyndhurst. Mr. Amory's grandson, Thomas C., married Esther
Sargent, and William of the same degree of consanguinity married Anna,
daughter of David Sears of Boston. Of the sons here mentioned, Thomas C.
Amory, was a successful merchant and died in 1812. Thomas C., Jr., also
a descendant, is the author of the Life of Governor Sullivan, his
grandfather on his mother's side.[224]

[224] Sabin's Loyalists of the American Revolution.

Jonathan Amory, brother to Thomas, was born in Boston December 19, 1726.
He married Abigail Taylor, and resided on what is now the opening of
Temple Place into Washington street. His garden is said to have extended
two or three hundred feet in either direction, joining his brother
John's home which formerly had been Rufus Greene's in Newbury street, at
the corner of West street.

Jonathan Amory died in 1797, leaving a large estate to his brother John
and John's children.

JOHN AMORY, another brother of Thomas, was born in Boston in 1728. He
married Catherine, daughter of Rufus Greene. He was the father of nine
children who grew up and settled in his native town. He built a house
at the corner of Beacon and Tremont streets, opposite King's chapel, and
lived there, and in Washington street on the site where Amory hall
afterwards stood. He engaged in commerce with his younger brother. The
letters of this business house from 1760 during the Stamp Act excitement
and the Tea troubles give many interesting particulars of that period.
Parts of this correspondence were published in English papers and to one
letter a member of Parliament ascribed influence in the repeal of the
Stamp act. In 1757 the store of Jonathan and John Amory was "the sign of
the Horse at the head of Dock Square," they afterwards (before 1762)
removed into King street "just below the town house." Their store was
probably the last of the "old stores" in State street. The house,
distill-house stores and wharf were Thomas Amory's share of his father's
property. Amory's wharf was at the east end of Castle street, on which
in 1777 he had a still-house.

In 1774 John Amory left with his family for England. It was necessary
that one of the partners should go on business. At the beginning of
hostilities his house owed their English creditors £23,000 sterling
which they remitted without delay, while their countrymen who owed them,
from inability, or taking advantage of the times paid, if at all, in a
depreciated currency.

The illness of his wife, which terminated in her death in 1778,
prevented his return to Boston. Shortly before the peace he embarked for
America and landing at New York he took the oath of allegiance to the
Crown. He was not permitted to live in Boston in consequence of the
"Banishment Act." His name had been placed upon the list of the
proscribed, and preliminary measures were taken to confiscate his
property. His brother wrote him should this be done he would always
share what he had with him. He resided in Providence till 1783, some of
his family being with him then through the influence of his friends in
Boston, and upon his petition to the Legislature, declaring his
allegiance to the new government, he was allowed to return to Boston. He
died in 1805, leaving six sons and four daughters. One of his daughters
married John Lovell, widely known as a political writer, and another was
the wife of John McLean, who liberally endowed the Massachusetts General
hospital.

REV. HENRY CANER.

RECTOR OF KING'S CHAPEL.

Henry Caner, D. D., was graduated at Yale College in 1724, and was the
"son of Mr. Caner who built the first college and rector's house" at New
Haven, Connecticut. For three years after leaving college he lived under
the theological teaching of Mr. Johnson of Stratford, who had the
general supervision of the Episcopal students of divinity, and who had
been his college tutor. Though too young to be ordained, he assisted Mr.
Johnson as a catechist and schoolmaster at Fairfield. In 1727 he went to
England for ordination. For some years, subsequently, his ministry was
confined to Norwalk and Fairfield, Connecticut, and he became a great
worker among the missions. His health became impaired by his severe
labors and in 1736 he sought relief by a voyage to England, where on the
recommendation of Archbishop Potter he had been created M. A. by a
diploma at Oxford March 8, 1735. His father died in 1731 at the age of
sixty. The name was long preserved in New Haven by "Caner's Pond." The
name is also written sometimes Canner, or Conner.

In 1747 the successful missionary was inducted into office as rector of
the First Episcopal church (King's Chapel) Boston. On being invited to
King's Chapel he received a deserved promotion to the most conspicuous
Episcopal pulpit in America; after a laborious ministry of twenty-two
years in the mission at Fairfield, Connecticut. On his removal to Boston
he left behind him two hundred and three communicants, a large number of
those days, in a mission where he had found but twelve. Also a handsome
church and a large convenient parsonage nearby.

The old chapel in Boston was built between 1687-1689. In 1710 it was
rebuilt to twice its original size under Governor Shirley. After the
lapse of nearly half a century King's Chapel was found to be in a
ruinous condition and measures were taken to rebuild, which resulted in
the well known King's Chapel now standing upon the spot. The erection of
this building in 1749 is largely due to the efforts of Dr. Caner, who
was then rector.

There is no trace of his printed discourses later than 1765, but the
traditions of his preaching give him a high rank as a man of learning
and fine intellectual endowments. The first Episcopal church in New
England was, prior to the revolution, in a flourishing state. Later,
while the British ships were in the harbor and the British troops in the
town, many of their officers regularly worshipped at the chapel. When
becoming quite infirm in his seventy-seventh year, his age and position
placed Dr. Caner at the head of the Church of England clergy in this
part of the country. Records show abundantly the pastoral labor which
devolved upon him, especially in his military congregation. The last
burial records by his trembling hand are those of three soldiers of his
Majesty's 65th Regiment of Foot. The Register of burials also notes the
funeral, on March 18, 1752, of Ann, "the Pious and Virtuous Consort of
Rev. Henry Caner, aged forty-six."

He was a devoted Loyalist, and when it was evident he could no longer be
useful in Boston, he went with the British troops to Halifax. In one of
the record books of King's Chapel, Dr. Caner made the following entry:
"An unnatural rebellion of the colonies against his Majesty's government
obliged the loyal part of his subjects to evacuate their dwellings and
substance and take refuge in Halifax, London and elsewhere; by which
means the public worship at King's Chapel became suspended, and it is
likely to remain so until it shall please God, in the course of his
providence, to change the hearts of the rebels, or give success to his
Majesty's arms for suppressing the rebellion. Two boxes of church plate
and a silver christening basin were left in the hands of the Rev. Dr.
Breynton at Halifax, to be delivered to me or my order, agreeable to his
note receipt in my hands." After being a rector in Boston for
twenty-eight years this aged clergyman was driven from his home and
native land. Dr. Caner's escape from Boston is thus described by himself
in a letter dated Halifax, May 10, 1776: "As to the clergy of Boston,
indeed they have for eleven months past been exposed to difficulty and
distress in every shape; and as to myself, having determined to maintain
my post as long as possible, I continued to officiate to the small
remains of my parishioners, though without support, till the 10th of
March, when I suddenly and unexpectedly received notice that the King's
troops would immediately evacuate the town. It is not easy to paint the
distress and confusion of the inhabitants on the occasion. I had but six
or seven hours allowed to prepare for this measure, being obliged to
embark the same day for Halifax, where we arrived the first of April.
This sudden movement prevented me from saving my books, furniture, or
any part of my interest, except bedding, wearing apparel, and a little
provision for my small family during the passage.

"I am now at Halifax with my daughter and servant, but with no means of
support, except what I receive from the benevolence of the worthy Dr.
Breynton."

No less than eighteen Episcopal clergymen from Boston and its
neighborhood sailed away with the fleet that bore Dr. Caner, and the
town of Boston would have been left without any Episcopal clergymen at
all, only for Dr. Andrew Eliot, the pastor of the New North church, who
called upon Rev. Samuel Parker, assistant to Rev. William Walter of
Trinity church. Mr. Parker was packing up his library preparing to
depart when called upon by Dr. Eliot, who with true Christian candor,
represented to him the destitute situation in which the Episcopalians
would be left who should remain in the country, with all their ministers
gone, that although it might be prudent for the elder gentlemen to go,
who had made known their sentiments, that he, a young man, who had done
nothing to render himself obnoxious to the rebels, would be perfectly
safe, that it was a duty he owed to that part of the community to stand
by them, finally he prevailed upon him to stay, a circumstance that
Bishop Parker always acknowledged with gratitude.

[Illustration: REV. HENRY CANER.

Born in New Haven, Conn, 1700. Rector of King's Chapel, Boston, 1747-76.
Died in England Feb. 11, 1793.]

From Halifax Dr. Caner went to England. An extract from the diary of
Thomas Hutchinson in 1776 says, "I went with Dr. Caner to Lambeth, to
introduce him to the Archbishop who was very gracious to him, and gave
him an order for One Hundred Pounds on the Treasurer of the moneys
received for the clergy of America." He was proscribed and banished,
under the statute of Massachusetts, in 1778, and his estate
confiscated. A fellow Loyalist wrote in 1785: "By letters from London,
I am informed that Dr. Caner had retired with his young wife to Cardiff,
in Wales."

Dr. Caner died in England at the close of the year 1792 in his
ninety-third year. One of his daughters married a Mr. Gove of Boston.
The Boston Gazette (No. 2002) of February 11, 1793, contains the
following: "At Long-Ashton, Somersetshire, England, aged ninety-three,
the Rev. Dr. Henry Caner, a very respectable character, many years
minister of the Chapel church in this town." Foote in his "Annals of
King's Chapel" says, "I am informed by Mr. Henry O. B. O'Donoghue of
Long-Ashton, near Bristol, that there is no tombstone in the churchyard
with Dr. Caner's name, nor any trace to be found of such a person ever
having lived in the Parish." It has been said, also, that Dr. Caner died
in London in 1792.

Dr. Caner's house stood close to King's chapel on the north side of the
old burying-ground, and was a rough wooden structure. This spot was
afterwards occupied by the Boston Athenaeum, and later by a Savings
Bank. It next was occupied by the Massachusetts Historical Society, who
sold it to the city of Boston, and it is now used as an annex to City
Hall.

On the evacuation of Boston the church vestments, plate, registers and
records were taken from the church, a part of which last was recovered
from Dr. Caner's heirs in 1805. King's Chapel and Christ church are now
without doubt the only historical buildings remaining unchanged from
before the revolution of all those in which Boston was once so rich.

The vestry of the chapel in 1784 applied to Rev. Dr. Caner to have
restored to them the "Church Plate and Linnen which he carried away."
This he refused to do as his estate was taken from him by the public. He
however turned it over to the "Society for Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts," who afterwards disposed of it in the Provinces that
remained loyal. In 1787 a silver flagon and covered cup which was
presented to the chapel by Governor Hutchinson, having the name of King
William and Queen Mary engraved on it, was claimed by Dr. Thomas
Bulfinch, Warden, as the property of the King's Chapel, it then being in
the hands of Rev. Dr. Parker of Trinity church for safe-keeping. It is
now the property of the chapel.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO REV. HENRY CANER IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Samuel Henly, Sept. 30, 1793; Lib. 177, fol. 82; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston. Tremont St. W.; Chapel Burying Ground and
heirs of Middlecott Cook deceased S.; John Rowe E.; William
Brattle, an absentee, N.

FREDERICK WILLIAM GEYER.

The Gayers or Geyers as it was variously spelled, first settled at
Nantucket. Some of the family came very early to Boston. The name is
first mentioned in Boston Town Records 1690, when William Gayer married
Maria Guard. In her will recorded with Suffolk Probate Records, Vol. 17,
p. 80, 1710, she described herself as the wife of William Gayer, Mariner
of Nantucket. In 1692 Damaris Gayer, the daughter of William Gayer,
married Nathaniel Coffin. Their son William Coffin removed to Boston and
was the ancestor of the Boston family of Coffins.

The Geyers were prominent merchants in Boston. They did not interest
themselves in political matters or held office. The records mention that
in 1765 Mr. Henry Christian Geyer was paid £173. 4. 1. for repairs done
on Faneuil Hall.

At the outbreak of the Revolution, Frederick William Geyer was one of
the principal merchants of Boston. He was proscribed and banished in
1778, but not being an Addresser, or having taken any active part in
politics, he was allowed to come back in 1789 and was restored to
citizenship by Act of the Legislature. He was in business with his son
at No. 13 Union street, Boston, in 1794. Died at Walpole, N. H., in
1803. A daughter who died near London in 1855 at the age of 81, married
Mr. Joseph Maryatt, a West Indian merchant. She was the mother of
Captain Maryatt of the British Navy, the well known author of sea tales.

Mr. Geyer's estate was on Summer street, formerly Seven Star Lane, and
was one of the finest in Boston. In the inventory of his estate made by
the commissioner after his departure, the mansion house is valued at
£6,000. It was confiscated and sold to Nathan Frazer, whose daughter
afterwards married Frederick W. Geyer, Jr., and the property was once
more restored to the family.

The estate once belonged to Leonard Vassall, and contained one of the
best gardens in Boston. It was planted as early or before 1642 by
Gamaliel Wayte, for we find by the _Book of Possessions_ that this land
is described as Wayte's Garden. Judge Sewall in his diary states that he
lived to the age of 87, and not long before his death was blessed with
several new teeth, which shows that he not only had the ability to
plant, but to eat his fruits. Mrs. Maryatt, whose gardens at Wimbleton
were at one time the finest in England, and we may reasonably conjecture
that the taste and skill that produced such marvels, were nurtured and
fostered in her younger days among the flower beds of Summer street.
This garden occupied the site of the store of C. F. Hovey & Co., and as
late as 1870 there was an old pear tree in the yard in a thrifty
condition.

[Illustration: LEONARD VASSALL AND FREDERICK W. GEYER MANSION, SUMMER
STREET.

Site now occupied by C. F. Hovey & Co. The mother of Captain Marryatt
was born in this house.]

Nancy Geyer married Rufus Amory, February 13th, 1794. He was the second
son of John Amory the Loyalist, and a very successful lawyer. The
wedding is described as "a very gay and brilliant affair." It gained an
unexpected distinction in consequence of a heavy snowstorm by which
Prince Edward, afterward Duke of Kent and father of Queen Victoria,
travelling from Canada to take command of the troops at Halifax, was
just then detained at Boston. He accepted Mr. Geyer's invitation to the
wedding, and came with his aides. "His Royal Highness" it is recorded,
was complaisant and affable in his deportment, and claimed the customary
privilege of kissing the bride, and bridesmaids. His host's son who was
married the year before to Rebecca Frazer, the daughter of Nathan
Frazer, who bought the Geyer mansion when it was confiscated, was an
ardent sympathizer with revolutionary France, who disapproved of titles.
He put their marriage notice in this form in the Boston Gazette of Jan.
21, 1793. "By Citizen Thatcher, Citizen Frederick W. Geyer, Jr., to
Citess Rebecca, daughter to Citizen Nathan Frazer."[225]

[225] The Descendants of Hugh Amory. Pp. 259, 260.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO FREDERICK WILLIAM GEYER IN
SUFFOLK COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Nathan Frazier, May 12, 1780; Lib. 131, fol. 143; Land and house
in Boston, Summer St., formerly Seven Star Lane, in front; land of
First Church S.W.; John Rowe S.W.; Benjamin Church, Thomas
Thayerweather and heirs of Samuel Sewall N.W.----Green Lane S.W.;
John Welsh S.W. and S.W.; John Gooch and others S.E.; James Gooch
N.E. and N.W.; John Gooch S.W. and N.W.; James Gooch and others
S.W.----Green Lane S.; John Welsh W.; John Gerrish N.; lane from
Green Lane to the Mill Pond E.

THE APTHORP FAMILY OF BOSTON.

Charles Apthorp was born in England in 1698 and was educated at Eton. He
was the son of John Apthorp and Susan his wife, whose maiden name was
Ward, of the family of Lord Ward of Bexley.

After the death of his father Charles Apthorp came to New England, and
became one of the most distinguished merchants of Boston. He was
paymaster and commissary under the British Government of the land and
naval forces quartered in Boston. On the 13th January, 1726, he married
Grizzel, daughter of John Eastwicke. She was born August, 1708, at
Jamaica and came to Boston in 1716. Her mother was Griselda Lloyd,
daughter of Sir John Lloyd of Somersetshire, England, who assisted in
conveying King Charles II to France after the battle of Worcester.

Charles Apthorp was one of the first Wardens of Trinity church, and one
of the committee that waited on Peter Faneuil, and in the name of the
town to render him their "most hearty thanks for so beautiful a gift."
To King's Chapel he was a bountiful benefactor, having given £1,000
towards its rebuilding.

Charles Apthorp had eighteen children, of whom fifteen survived him and
eleven married. He died in Boston suddenly in 1758 at the age of sixty.
His funeral took place at King's Chapel twelve days later and his
remains were therein deposited. He was reputed as the "greatest and most
noble merchant on the continent." He was also characterized as "a truly
valuable member of society," and that "he left few equals behind him." A
marble monument with a Latin inscription was placed in King's Chapel to
his memory by his sons, "which monument covers the tomb of the
truly-noble-minded race of Apthorp."

He was very proficient in and a great admirer of the Fine Arts,
especially in painting and architecture; talents which have been
transmitted to his descendants as Charles Bulfinch, Esq., the architect
of the State House and other edifices. The original mansion in Brighton,
Massachusetts, formerly the Charles Apthorp place, still remains and is
of great antiquity.

On the death of Charles Apthorp he possessed the whole of Long Island,
the largest island in Boston Harbor. Calf island also was formerly known
as Apthorp's Island. The Apthorp heirs subsequently sold their interest
in Long Island to their sister Grizzell's husband, Barlow Trecothick,
Lord Mayor of London. After the death of Trecothick the island passed on
the 11th June, 1790, into the possession of his brother-in-law Charles
Ward Apthorp of New York.

CHARLES WARD APTHORP, the eldest son of Charles Apthorp, married in New
York Mary McEvers. He had three sons and three daughters. Of his
daughters, Charlotte Augusta was the only one who left descendants. Her
husband was John Cornelius Vanden Heuvel, a Dutch gentleman of fortune,
who had been Governor of Demerara and afterwards settled in New York.
Maria Eliza, their eldest daughter, married John C. Hamilton, a son of
the celebrated Alexander Hamilton.

Charles Ward Apthorp was a member of the Council of New York in 1763 and
served until 1783. He had lands in Maine and a large amount of property
in Boston, Brookline, and Roxbury, all of which was confiscated. He died
at his seat, Bloomingdale, in 1797.

[Illustration: "BISHOP'S PALACE," RESIDENCE OF REV. EAST APTHORP.

John Adams says, "It was thought to be a splendid palace and intended
for the residence of the first royal bishop."]

JOHN APTHORP, the second son, went to England, and became connected in
business with the house of Tomlinson & Trecothick. He married Alicia
Mann of Windsor, sister of Sir Horace Mann, many years resident British
minister at Florence. Mr. Apthorp embarked for Italy with his wife who
was in a very hazardous state of health, and who died at Gibraltar,
leaving two daughters under the care of their grandmother at Windsor. He
pursued his travels in Italy, and afterwards returned to Boston, where
he married Hannah Greenleaf, daughter of Stephen Greenleaf, the last
Royal high sheriff of Suffolk County. He lived about four years at
Brighton, when he embarked, with his wife, from New York for Charleston,
S. C, to enjoy a warmer winter climate, and they were lost at sea. The
children, one son and two daughters, were left under the care of their
grandfather who attended most faithfully to their interests and
education. One daughter married Charles Bulfinch his cousin, and the
other Charles Vaughn, son of Samuel Vaughn, Esq., of London. The son,
Col. John T. Apthorp, married Grace Foster, who lived only one year,
leaving an infant. In another year he married her twin sister Mary by
whom he had a numerous family.

REV. EAST APTHORP, D. D., was born in Boston in 1733 and was educated at
Cambridge, England. He took orders and returned, and became the founder
and rector of Christ church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Here he
published a pamphlet in defence of the conduct of the society for
"Propagating the gospel" which was attacked by Dr. Mayhew, who was
answered by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This controversy rendered his
situation irksome and after only six years ministry in this country, he
left for England. It was thought by many that the establishment of the
Episcopal church at Cambridge was for the purpose of converting the
students who were generally dissenters and with ulterior views, which
excited the most acrimonious jealousy.

While General Burgoyne's army was detained at Cambridge, Lieutenant
Brown, who was out on parole according to the terms of the Convention,
was riding with two ladies in a chaise when he was killed in cold blood
by a sentinel, a boy scarcely fourteen years old, who levelled his gun
at him and shot him through the head. "His remains were interred in
Christ's church. The people, during the time the service was being
performed, seized the opportunity of the church being open, which had
been shut since the commencement of hostilities, to plunder, ransack,
and deface everything they could lay their hands on, destroying the
pulpit, reading desk, and communion table, and ascending the organ loft
they destroyed the bellows and broke all the pipes of a very handsome
instrument."[226] Rev. East Apthorp was afterwards successively vicar of
Croydon where Governor Hutchinson resided, and rector of Bow church,
London, which he exchanged for the prebendary of Finsbury; he had many
friends among the dignitaries of the church and was greatly beloved and
respected. By his wife, the daughter of Foster Hutchinson, and niece of
Thomas Hutchinson, he had several children. His only son became a
clergyman, and his daughters married Dr. Cary and Dr. Butler, heads of
colleges, and a third daughter married a son of Dr. Paley.

[226] Travels through the interior parts of America by Thomas Aubury.
Vol. II, pp. 232, 234.

He published two volumes of Discoveries on the Prophecies, delivered at
Warburton lecture, Lincoln's Inn, and a volume in answer to Gibbon. The
last twenty-six years of his life were passed at Cambridge, England,
with almost total loss of sight, and he died in April, 1816, at the age
of eighty-three, closing a life of great usefulness.

THOMAS APTHORP, born 19 October, 1741, continued paymaster of the
British forces after his father's death from 1758 to 1776, when he was
proscribed, and banished. He went to England and lived several years at
Ludlow, Wales. He visited Lisbon for health, where he married. He
returned to Ludlow, where he died, leaving a widow and one son.

WILLIAM APTHORP, born Feb. 26, 1748, married Mary Thompson. He was a
merchant, and was proscribed and banished in 1778. The year after, he
came from New York to Boston. He was arrested, and occupied for awhile a
private room in the deputy jailer's house, but letters were received to
his disadvantage, and he was committed to a close prison by order of the
Council, his countrymen would show him no mercy.

SUSAN APTHORP the second daughter of Charles Apthorp, married Thomas the
son of Dr. Bulfinch. She had several children, three only that arrived
at a marriageable age. Charles Bulfinch, the only son was born in
August, 1763, and graduated at Harvard College in 1781, and after living
abroad for some time returned to Boston in 1786. He inherited talents
from his grandfather and became a great architect. He was chairman of
the board of Selectmen for twenty-one years during which official
service many of the great improvements in the town were executed,
including the State House, City Hall, the General Hospital and the
building of Franklin Street. After the capitol of the United States was
burnt, in 1814, Mr. Bulfinch was appointed by President Munroe to
superintend its re-erection. His wife died in 1841, and his death
followed three years later on April 15, 1844.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO CHARLES WARD APTHORP, IN
SUFFOLK COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Joseph Hall, April 27, 1782; Lib. 134, fol. 187; Land and moiety
of dwelling-house in Boston, Cole Lane S.W.; Joseph Hall E.; Samuel
Barrett N.; Jonathan Williams W.

To Edward Smith, June 10, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 12; Land and
buildings in Boston. Wings Lane N., Brattle St. E.; land of
Elizabeth Clark deceased, [formerly] Lillie W.; John Roulstone S.

To Ephraim Murdock, June 22, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 47; Lands and
part of house in Roxbury; 11 A. opposite dwelling-house of the late
Rev. Mr. Walter, road S.; said Murdock W.; heirs of Gov. Dudley N.;
said Murdock E.----8 A. near where the old meeting-house stood,
road N.; John Davis E.; heirs of John Scott S.; Ezra Davis W.----2
A., said Murdock N.; John Morrey E., town way S.; William Dudley W.

To Daniel Dennison Rogers, July 4, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 68; Land
and buildings in Boston, Beacon St. in front, highway to Beacon
Hill N.W.; John Spooner N. and E.

To John Wheelwright, July 19, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 114; Land,
flats, warehouses and wharf near the South Battery in Boston,
Purchase St. N.W.; heirs of Alexander Hunt S., the sea E.; the
highway N.

To John Wheelwright, July 19, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 116; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, Atkinson St. E.; Burry St. S.;
Proprietors of the Irish Meeting House W.; Onesephorus Tileston N.

To Grizzell Apthorp, widow, and Perez Morton, Sept. 24, 1782; Lib.
136, fol. 8; One moiety of land and two brick tenements in Boston,
Fleet St. N.; Edward Langdon E.; William and Mercy Stoddard S.; W.;
S; W.; S. and W.

To Andrew Symmes July 30, 1783; Lib. 139, fol. 117; Assignment of
mortgage Lib. 100, fol. 97.

To Francis Johonnot, agent for creditors of Nathaniel Wheelwright,
deceased, March 7, 1786; Lib. 155, fol. 225, Assignment of mortgage
Lib. 97, fol. 200.

To Samuel Pitts, June 10, 1786; Lib. 157, fol. 222; Assignment of
mortgage Lib. 103, fol. 89.

To Nathaniel Greene, April 5, 1787; Lib. 160, fol. 25; One half
part of four parcels of land in Roxbury. 2½ A.; 17 A. near the
tide-mill; 13½ A. woodland; and piece of salt marsh.

THE GOLDTHWAITE FAMILY OF BOSTON.

Thomas Goldthwaite, ancestor of all of this name in America, was born in
England about 1610. The original home is supposed to be what is now
Gowthwaite manor, three miles from Pateley Bridge, Yorkshire, West
Riding.

He probably came with Governor Winthrop's fleet to America. His first
appearance in the Boston records appeared June 14, 1631. Thomas
Goldthwaite settled in Roxbury where his name appears as "Thomas
Gouldthwaight" in Rev. John Eliot's list of his church members, Eliot
having begun his pastorate there in 1632. Thomas was made a freeman in
Massachusetts, May 14, 1634. In 1636 he appears in Salem where, as an
inhabitant he was granted ten acres of land. His first house lot has
been located by some of the best antiquarian authority, as on the
southwest corner of Essex and Flint Streets in Salem. In 1636 he married
his first wife. Her death occurred some time before 1671 and he then
married Rachel Leach, of Salem. He was called "Constable Gouldthwaight"
at a meeting of the selectmen, December 14, 1659. Thomas died in March,
1683, at about the age of seventy-three, his wife Rachel surviving him.
He left three children, Samuel, Mehitable, and Elizabeth.

SAMUEL GOLDTHWAITE, (of the second generation) like his father, was a
cooper, and lived in Salem. For many years during his lifetime and that
of his immediate descendants, four family homesteads lay side by side on
the original Goldthwaite farm, opposite the site where the Peabody
church afterwards was built. He died about the year 1718, leaving ten
children and perhaps more.

CAPTAIN JOHN GOLDTHWAITE (of the third generation), son of the former,
was born in Salem in 1677. By trade he was a mason and early settled in
Boston where he married, March 13, 1701, Sarah Hopkins. They were
married by the Rev. Cotton Mather of whose church John Goldthwaite was a
member. After the death of Cotton Mather he was one of three who took
inventory July 22, 1728. His home was in Boston until 1725, and the
birthplace of all his children was on the north side of Charter Street,
near Copp's Hill burying-ground, on the property given to his wife and
her sisters by their uncle, Major Thomas Henchman. He sold this place
May 17, 1725, and removed to another estate he had purchased on the
southeast side of Mill pond. Here he passed the remainder of his life.
His son Ezekiel inherited the estate after his father's death, and sold
it to Thomas Sherburn, his brother-in-law.

Sarah Goldthwaite died Oct. 31, 1715, at the age of thirty-five and is
buried in Copp's Hill. John Goldthwaite married Mrs. Jane Halsey of
Boston as his second wife. From 1708 to 1758 his name is often mentioned
in Boston records. He is one of seventeen named as the founders of the
New North church in 1714. His name appears in records of the Ancient and
Honorable Artillery Company, and in the town records with the title of
captain, in 1741. In his old age he had a barbecue for descendants on
North Square. It was held under a tent because they were too numerous to
assemble in a house. He died June 25, 1766, and is probably buried in
the tomb of his son Ezekiel on Copp's Hill. He had nine children by his
first wife and five by his second.

CAPTAIN JOSEPH GOLDTHWAITE (fourth generation) fourth child of John, was
born November 11, 1706, in Boston. He married February 8, 1727, Martha
Lewis, who was born in Boston and baptized in the second church, Feb.
29, 1707, the daughter of Martha (Burrell) and Philip Lewis. Joseph
joined the Artillery Company in 1730 and in 1738 was First Sergeant. In
1745 he joined the Colonial army for the siege of Louisburg and
according to records in the British war office, being commissioned
adjutant in the first Massachusetts regiment, Honorable William
Pepperell, colonel, March 12, 1744-(5) and captain (brevet) March 20,
1744-(5). After his return from the war he became a private citizen, and
is seldom spoken of in records by his military title, being rather
called esquire, or gentleman. In 1728 he appears as a goldsmith, and
later as a merchant, licensed as a retailer at his store on Marlboro
Street (part of Washington) in 1737 and again in 1742. He held several
appointments and later became constable. His home in 1744 was on Fish,
afterwards North Street. In 1773 he and his family retired to a farm
purchased by him in western Massachusetts, July 10, 1773, ten acres and
mansion house. Here Joseph Goldthwaite died March 1, 1780, aged
seventy-two. His widow died October 26, 1783, aged seventy-five, and a
double stone marks their graves in Weston. He had ten children.

EZEKIEL GOLDTHWAITE (fourth generation) son of John, born at Boston,
July 9, 1710. Married Nov. 2, 1732, Elizabeth Lewis of Boston. For the
greater part of his life he was Registrar of Deeds for the County of
Suffolk. His first signature as registrar was Nov. 6, 1740. He was an
Addresser of Hutchinson in 1774, and a protester against the
Revolutionist the same year, although like many other loyalists he was
one of the 58 Boston memorialists in 1760 who arrayed themselves against
the Crown officials, and having sowed the seeds of sedition, afterwards
became alarmed at its results, mob rule.

His last signature as registrar is said to have been written Jan. 17,
1776, two months before the evacuation of Boston. He died seven years
later, Dec. 4th, 1782, in his 73rd year. His widow died Feb. 6, 1794,
aged 80.

COLONEL THOMAS GOLDTHWAITE (fourth generation) son of John, born in
Boston Jan. 15, 1717, married August 26, 1742, Esther Sargent. He became
an influential citizen of Chelsea, acting as selectman, moderator of
town meetings, and from May, 1757, till his removal from the town, seven
years in succession, was its deputy to the House of Representatives,
where he was active in introducing important legislation.

He was given many important positions under the Colonial government. In
1763 he was appointed to the command of Fort Pownal, removing his
family there from Chelsea. This was an important frontier post,
commanding the entrance to the Penobscot River, and offered the
advantage, also of a rich trade with Indians, then numerous in those
parts. Not long after succeeding to this command in company with Francis
Bernard, son of the Governor he purchased a large tract of land, 2,700
acres in the neighborhood of the fort, on condition of their settling
thereon thirty families, of building an Episcopal church, and employing
a minister. The enterprise was interrupted by the Revolution, in which
each side endeavored to get control of all the arms and ammunition
possible, and to take into its possession, or render defenceless, such
posts as could be held by the enemy. With such an object in view, in
April, 1775, Capt. Mowatt, who afterwards burned Falmouth, now Portland,
anchored before Fort Pownal, and a letter containing Governor Gage's
orders having been delivered to Col. Goldthwaite he carried away the
cannon belonging to the fort. The attitude taken by its commander in
allowing the fort to be thus disarmed, was never forgiven by the
Revolutionists, and he ever after was regarded as a Loyalist. His
explanation of his conduct on that occasion is as follows:

"On the 27th of last month about 20 armed men arrived here from St.
George's who came in the name, and as a committee from the people of St.
George's, and others, who they say had assembled there to the amount of
250; and this party in their name demanded of me the reason of my
delivering the cannon belonging to this fort to the King's forces. I
went into the fort and got the Governor's letter to me, and it was read
to them. I then informed them that this was the King's fort, and built
at his expense, that the Governor was commander in-chief of it; that I
could not refuse to obey his orders."

Little is known of Col. Goldthwaite between the surrender of Fort Pownal
in the spring of 1775 and his arrival in England early in 1780. Gov.
Hutchinson mentions in his diary that, "T. Goldthwaite arrived at
Portsmouth Feb. 15, 1780." In an entry of the previous Dec. 4, the
Governor mentions a call from "young Goldthwaite, son of J. Goldthwaite
now at New York." It must have been quite soon after his arrival that
Colonel Goldthwaite settled at Walthamstow, Essex, a few miles north of
London. Samuel Curwen in his journal speaks of dining with him there
July 29, 1782. His son Thomas married Mrs. Primatt, a lady of fortune,
in the summer of 1780, and also lived in the town. The houses of both
father and son are still there and easily identified, and are in
excellent preservation. The Colonel's residence is of brick or stone
covered with stucco, the main portion three stories high, and an
entrance with Ionic pillars. The grounds are ample and handsomely laid
out with well kept walks and planted with trees and shrubbery.

After a life of nearly twenty years spent in retirement in England, Col.
Goldthwaite died Aug. 31, 1799, in his 82 year. Mrs. Catharine, his
wife, died Dec. 16, 1796, aged 81. They lie buried in Walthamstow church
yard.

MAJOR JOSEPH GOLDTHWAITE, (fifth generation), the eldest of Joseph's
children, was born in Boston, October 5, 1730. He entered the Boston
Latin school in 1738, and probably commenced his military career, which
he afterwards followed near the commencement of the French and Indian
war, when about twenty-five years old. He married October 5, 1730,
Hannah Bridgham, said to have been of Barre, Massachusetts.

In 1759 he appears as Major in the regiment from Boston under the
command of Col. John Phillips, January 1, 1760 to January 10, 1761, on
the roll of field and staff officers in Colonel Bagley's regiment in
service at Louisburg, in which he acted also as paymaster. He served
during the campaign of 1762 as Lieut. Colonel of the regiment commanded
by Colonel Richard Saltonstall, roll dated Boston, Feb. 19, 1763, in
which he is called "of Roxbury." He was addressed at that time as
colonel.

October 5, 1768, Joseph Goldthwaite was appointed as Commissary to the
British troops who had been quartered in Boston on account of the
resistance the inhabitants had shown to the custom officials. In
Massachusetts Historical Society's collections, Vol. X, p. 121, is
printed a list of the different nations of Indians that met Sir William
Johnson at Niagara, July, 1764, to make peace in behalf of their tribes
which was "inclosed in a letter from Colonel Joseph Goldthwaite of
Boston, to Dr. Stiles, A. D. 1766."[227]

[227] Dr. Ezra Stiles, afterwards President of Yale College, and at this
time a settled minister at Newport.

Among the Goldthwaites who remained loyal to the crown, Major Joseph was
one of the strongest. He was an Addresser of Hutchinson in 1775, and
during the siege he passed the winter in Boston. At the evacuation he
accompanied the British army to Halifax, and thence to Quebec. Nine days
before his departure from Boston he wrote a letter to his uncle Ezekiel
Goldthwaite, Esq., of Boston, acquainting him with his property and the
household goods he had left behind. "In short, I leave behind me at
least three thousand pounds sterling. You give the enclosed to my wife,
if you can meet her. When I shall see her God only knows. Don't let her
want for anything."[228]

[228] Goldthwaite Genealogy compiled and published by Charlotte
Goldthwaite.

Some experiences of Major Joseph's wife, Mrs. Hannah, while her husband
was shut up in Boston with the British army, appear in the Journal of
the Massachusetts House of Representatives.[229]

[229] See Forces American Archives. Vol. III, pp. 312, 314, 355.

August 4, 1775, Mrs. Goldthwaite with her sister-in-law and a Mrs.
Chamberlain, left Boston with a horse and chaise and crossed the
Winnisimmet Ferry. She was arrested and taken under guard to the general
court at Watertown. It appeared on her examination that her health was
impaired, and an order was passed to allow her to visit Stafford for the
benefit of the waters there, but under the care of the Selectmen, and
afterwards to retire to the house of her brother Joseph Bridgham at
Rehoboth, and to be under the committee of correspondence. It was
Colonel Loammi Baldwin who had them arrested and taken to Watertown and
according to his account, it was an act on their part which must have
required considerable courage "no such instance having happened before,"
the city being then closely besieged.

Mrs. Goldthwaite petitioned the court to allow her to use the waters in
Newton instead of at Stafford, her health being very delicate, and the
petition was accompanied by her physician's certificate. This was
granted to her and she probably remained through the siege at Newton
where the family of Mr. Benjamin Goldthwaite had also taken refuge.
After the siege she returned to Boston where she died, probably never
seeing her husband again.

Major Goldthwaite from Quebec, went to New York, and his death occurred
there October 3, 1779. He had been proscribed and banished in 1778. It
was at this time he drew up his will, which is at Somerset House,
London, dated Feb. 11, 1778. As he died childless, he bequeathed his
property to his brother's and sister's children "provided that none of
them are Rebels, and have borne arms against their King, otherwise to go
to the next eldest son of the same family who is loyal, and true to his
King, and country." Of the several Goldthwaite Loyalists, Major Joseph
was one of the most uncompromising in his devotion to his King and
country.

CAPTAIN PHILIP GOLDTHWAITE, (fifth generation), brother to Major Joseph
Goldthwaite, was born in Boston, March 27th, 1733. He was a member of
the Boston Latin School in 1741. He married June 7, 1756, Mary Jordan of
Biddeford. His title of captain seems to have come from his command of
vessels, and it is interesting to note that in every generation of his
descendants to the present day there have been more or less who have
chosen the same occupation.

Captain Philip was an officer of the Customs at Winter Harbor, and
remained loyal when the war broke out. Sabin says he was one of the two
persons of Saco and Biddeford dealt with by the Revolutionists of that
section for their loyal principles and that as soon as the war commenced
he placed himself under British protection at Boston. An earlier record
in regard to him says: "Captain Philip Goldthwaite was brought before
the New Hampshire Committee of Safety at Portsmouth, Nov. 23, 1775, on
suspicion of being unfriendly to the liberties of America. Upon
examination nothing appearing against him, ordered that he be
dismissed."

There can be no doubt however, as to Captain Philip's real sentiments.
The atmosphere in which he was living must soon have become unendurable
to one holding his opinions, and therefore we soon find him in England,
where he appears as early as 1780, at that date taking out his brother's
administration papers. He bought an annuity in the king's household and
became one of the Gentlemen of the bed chamber. In October, 1786, it
appears from the probate records at Boston, that he had died probably at
sea, for Edward Daws of Boston, trader, is administrator of the estate
of Philip Goldthwait, late of Boston, mariner. His inventory contained
clothes, a quadrant, books and chest, and amounted to £7, 10 s. He left
several sons and daughters, whose descendants are now quite numerous.

SAMUEL GOLDTHWAITE, (fifth generation), brother of the aforesaid Philip,
was born in Boston, March 20th, 1735, and married Amy Borden of Newport,
R. I., where he became a prominent merchant. He very early came under
suspicion as having loyalist sentiments. After the death of his brother,
Major Joseph, in New York, October, 1779, he petitioned the Rhode Island
General Assembly representing that his brother had lately died in New
York, leaving a large estate there in the hands of persons who were
wasting it, also that he had been authorized to settle it if he could
obtain permission to go to New York, asking to be allowed to do so, and
to return with the effects when obtained, which petition the Council,
after consideration, granted.

He did not, however, return, and in July 1780, an act was passed by the
Rhode Island Assembly, proscribing persons that had left the state and
joined the enemy, ordered if they returned they should be apprehended,
and imprisoned or transported. "Samuel Goldthwaite, merchant, late of
Newport," was included in the list. Orders were also given under the
same date that such property as he left in Newport should be inventoried
and taken into possession of the Sheriff. About this time Samuel had
gone to England on business connected with the settlement of his
father's and brother's estates, for in the same year he was
administrator on them in London. One year later he had returned to his
wife Amy, at that time preferring a petition to the Rhode Island
Assembly, stating that her husband was then in New York, and had
requested her, with her family, to come to him, and praying the Assembly
to permit her with her family, furniture, and effects, to go to him
there by the first opportunity. The petition was granted and she went in
a cartel vessel under the direction of William Taggart. The family
settled in Baltimore after the Revolution, and have left many
descendants there.

DR. MICHAEL B. GOLDTHWAITE, (fifth generation), son of Joseph, of
Boston, born there Jan. 5th, 1740, married Sarah Formon, March 8th,
1759. He was an eminent surgeon and attended the army at the taking of
Louisburg. Like most physicians of that day, he kept an apothecary shop,
which was in 1774 on Hanover Street. He was an Addresser of both
Hutchinson and Gage. He died in 1776. He was an ardent sympathizer with
the loyalists.

LIEUTENANT HENRY GOLDTHWAITE, (fifth generation) son of Colonel Thomas,
of Walthamstow, England, born at Chelsea, March 29, 1759, married in
England, Sarah Winch of Brampton, Oxon. Henry's name is found as one of
the garrison of Fort Pownal Oct. 23, 1775. He afterwards entered the
British Army remaining in America, in that service, for some years after
most of his family had taken up their abode in England. The records of
the British War Office show that he was ensign, Independent Co.
Invalids, Nov. 13, 1793. Lieutenant Royal Garrison Battalion, Sept. 9,
1795, and lieutenant half pay Oct. 31, 1796. He died at sea, in the
Mediterranean early in 1800. He left two sons, Charles, born 1796, and
Henry Barnes, born 1797, whose descendants are living in England.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO JOSEPH GOLDTHWAIT IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Perez Morton, Sept. 24, 1782: Lib. 136, fol. 9: One undivided
half of land, distill house and other buildings in Boston. Pecks
Lane W.; John Osbourn N., N.W.; N.E. and N.; Francis Johonnot E.;
the sea S.

JOHN HOWE.

Abraham Howe came to Dorchester in 1636; was admitted Freeman May 2,
1637, he came from Broad Oak, Essex County, England, and died at
Dorchester, Nov. 20th, 1683. His son Isaac Howe, was baptized in Roxbury
in 1655. Isaac had a son Isaac, born in Dorchester, July 7, 1675. He had
a son Joseph, born in Dorchester, March 27, 1716, who was the father of
John Howe, born in Boston, October 14, 1754. Joseph Howe was a reputable
tradesman in Marshall's Lane. He apprenticed his son to learn the
printing business.

Richard Draper, the publisher of the _Massachusetts Gazette_, and
_Boston News Letter_ died June 5, 1774. He left no children. His wife
conducted the business for several months, and then formed a business
connection with John Howe.

Howe had recently become of age, and was a sober, discreet young man.
Mrs. Draper, therefore, was induced, a short time before the
commencement of the war, to take him into partnership, but his name did
not appear in the imprint of the Massachusetts Gazette till Boston was
besieged by the Continental Army.

Howe remained with his partner until they were obliged to leave Boston
in consequence of the evacuation of the town by the British troops,
March 17, 1776, when they went to Halifax, from there he went to
Newport, R. I., when the British took possession of the town December
8th.

John Howe was married at Newport by Rev. George Bisset, Rector of
Trinity Church, to Miss Martha Minns. Mr. William Minns accompanied his
daughter from Boston, and was present at the ceremony. William Minns was
born at Great Yarmouth, England, December 16, 1728. In 1737 he
accompanied his uncle, Robert Ball, and his widowed mother, and came to
Boston. Miss Martha Minns was sixteen years of age when she married John
Howe. She was noted for her beauty and her portrait is still in
possession of her family. The issue of this marriage was three sons and
three daughters.

Mr. Howe commenced the publication of a newspaper for the British at
Newport; it was called The Newport Gazette, and the first paper was
issued January 16, 1777.

The last number of a bound volume of this paper in possession of the
Redwood Library at Newport, is dated January 15, 1778, but the
publication of the paper probably continued till the evacuation of
Newport by the British, October 25, 1779.

The paper was published in a house on the opposite side of the Parade,
the Vaughn estate, now a market. A recent writer says:

"During the time the British were in possession of Newport, it was the
office of the Newport 'Gazette,' the paper printed by the British on the
press and type of the Newport 'Mercury.' Before that the 'Mercury' was
printed by Solomon Southwick, in Queen Street, but when the island fell
into the hands of the enemy, Southwick, as is well-known, buried his
type in the rear of what was the old Kilburn House on Broad Street (now
Broadway) and left the town. The loyalists recovered the type, and a
printer named Howe began the printing of the 'Gazette.'"

A bound file of the newspaper published by Mr. Howe is in the possession
of the Redwood Library. It runs, with a few numbers missing, from No. 1,
to No. 52, January 15, 1778.

The first number was issued Jan. 16, 1777, with the following
introduction.

"The Favours which the Subscriber has received from the Gentlemen
of the _Army and Navy_, in Boston and elsewhere, joined with the
Importunities of many of the Inhabitants of this Town, has induced
him, as speedily as possible, to gratify them with a _Newspaper_.
He can only say, that his best endeavors shall not be wanting to
render it as entertaining as possible: And he has nothing to wish
for, but the Exercise of that Candour he hath so often before been
indebted to. Its _size_ is at present contracted, owing to the
Impossibility of procuring larger printing Paper; but if more
Intelligence should at any Time arrive, than this can contain, the
Deficiency will be supplied with a _Supplement_. No Subscriptions
are received; but if any Gentlemen choose to have the Paper weekly
the Boy shall leave it at their houses. Articles of intelligence
will be thankfully received and every favor gratefully
acknowledged, by their

Obedient humble servant,
JOHN HOWE."

The British evacuated Newport, October 25, 1779, and Mr. and Mrs. Howe
accompanied them to New York, and thence removed to Halifax and took up
their permanent abode there, on the corner of Sackville and Barrington
Streets. Here on Friday, January 5th, 1781, he published the first issue
of the Halifax Journal, a paper that continued to be published regularly
until 1870. It is said that Mr. Howe brought with him the printing press
that had once belonged to Benjamin Franklin, and the first that the
philosopher had ever possessed. It did the printing for the Howe family
for years. Mr. Howe was for many years King's printer for the Province,
which secured to him all the government printing, including the
publishing of the official gazette. For some years previous to his
death, he held the office of postmaster-general and justice of the
peace, and was living at the time of his death, December 29, 1835, at
his beautiful residence on the Northwestarm, in good circumstances, and
had the respect of the whole community.

Mr. Howe was a Sandemanian, that is, a follower of Robert Sandeman, who
came to Boston from Glasgow in 1764; they held their first meetings at
the Green Dragon Tavern, and afterwards had a meeting-house in the rear
of Middle or Hanover street. This society rejected the belief in the
necessity of spiritual conversion, representing faith as an operation of
the intellect, and speculative belief as quite sufficient to insure
final justification. This sect continued till 1823, when the last light
was extinguished in Boston. Many of the Sandemanians were Loyalists, and
went to Halifax. They may have built on a sandy foundation, but judging
from their fruits, we may charitably conclude that in the main they were
correct. Probably they did not like a church and state religion; and
that may have been all. The few who were in Halifax met every Lord's day
in an upper room, in the building lately used by Baxter as a furniture
warehouse on Prince Street. The members, male and female, sat together
around a table and took the Lord's Supper. This was weekly. There was
singing and prayers, and Mr. Howe would afterward stand up, read a
chapter of the Bible, and give an address. No doubt it was very good and
simple and delivered with a calm, quiet sort of eloquence. When the
meeting was over the brothers and sisters in fellowship, (only the more
elderly members) rose and kissed one another, and seemed to be
remarkably happy. It is said that in the afternoon of every Sunday the
old gentlemen members went down to the room below and dined together,
and probably edified one another with religious conversation. Those now
living who have ever been with these Sandemanians in that upper room
will never forget the calm godly faces of such men as old Mr. Howe, Mr.
Greenwood and Mr. Mansfield. Strange to say, none of the Howes, and very
few, if any, of the other families have followed in the track of these
good men and women as to creed. It is to be hoped that many have been
influenced for good by what they may have recalled of such worthy
ancestors. Old Mr. Greenwood fell dead in the room while reading, and
Mr. Mansfield died the same day from some accidental cause.

In a speech delivered by his son JOSEPH HOWE, in Boston July 4, 1858, he
spoke of his father as follows: "The loyalists who left these States
were not, it must be confessed, as good republicans as you are, but they
loved liberty under their old forms, and their descendants love it too.
My father, though a true Briton to the day of his death, loved New
England, and old Boston especially, with filial regard. He never lost an
opportunity of serving a Boston man, if in his power. At the close of
your railway banquet, one gentleman told me that my father had, during
the last war, taken his father from the military prison at Melville
Island, and sent him back to Boston. Another, on the same evening,
showed me a gold watch, sent by an uncle, who died in the West Indies,
to his family. It was pawned by a sailor in Halifax, but redeemed by my
father, and sent to the dead man's relatives. And so it was all his
life. He loved his sovereign, but he loved Boston too, and whenever he
got sick in his latter days, we used to send him up here to recruit. A
sight of the old scenes and a walk on Boston Common were sure to do him
good, and he generally came back uncommonly well." Elsewhere the same
son remarked: "For thirty years he was my instructor, my playfellow,
almost my daily companion. To him I owe my fondness for reading, my
familiarity with the Bible, my knowledge of old colonial and American
incidents and characteristics. He left me nothing but his example, and
the memory of his many virtues, for all that he ever earned was given to
the poor. He was too good for this world. But the remembrance of his
high principle, his cheerfulness, his childlike simplicity, and truly
Christian character, is never absent from my mind."

Mrs. Martha Howe died Nov. 25, 1790, aged 30 years, and was buried in
St. Paul's churchyard, Halifax.

A few years after the death of his first wife, Mr. Howe married Mrs.
Austin, a widow with several children, wife of Captain Austin. By her he
had two children, Sarah and Joseph. Mrs. Howe died in 1837. He had eight
children, and at the present time there are eighty-five of his
descendants, out of all these the survivors who bear the name of Howe
only number sixteen. Many of his descendants were men of great
prominence. His son William Howe, Assistant Commissary-General, who died
at Halifax, January, 1843, aged fifty-seven. John Howe, Queen's Printer,
and Deputy Postmaster-General, who died at the same place the same year,
and David Howe, who published a paper at St. Andrew, N. B., Joseph, born
December 13, 1804, became Hon. Joseph Howe, Governor of Nova Scotia in
May, 1873.

SAMUEL QUINCY.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL.

Edmund Quincy, the first of the name in New England, landed at Boston on
the 4th of September, 1633. He came from Achurch in Northamptonshire,
where he owned some landed estate. That he was a man of substance may be
inferred from his bringing six servants with him, and that he was a man
of weight among the founders of the new commonwealth appears from his
election as a representative of the town of Boston in the first General
Court ever held in Massachusetts Bay. He was also the first named on the
committee appointed by the town to assess and raise the sum necessary to
extinguish the title of Mr. Blackstone to the peninsula on which the
city stands. He bought of Chickatabut, Sachem of the Massachusetts tribe
of Indians, a tract of land at Mount Wollaston, confirmed to him by the
Town of Boston, 1636, a portion of which is yet in the family.

Edmund Quincy died the year after making this purchase, in 1637, at the
age of 33. He left a son Edmund and a daughter Judith. The son lived, in
the main, a private life on the estate in Braintree. He was a magistrate
and a representative of his town in the General Court, and
Lieutenant-Colonel of the Suffolk Regiment.

Point Judith was named after his daughter. She married John Hull, who,
when Massachusetts Bay assumed the prerogative of coining money, was her
mint-master, and made a large fortune in the office, before Charles II.
put a stop to that infringement of the charter. There is a tradition
that, when he married his daughter to Samuel Sewall, afterwards Chief
Justice, he gave her for her dowry, her weight in pine-tree shillings.
From this marriage has sprung the eminent family of the Sewalls, which
has given three Chief Justices to Massachusetts and one to Canada, and
has been distinguished in every generation by the talents and virtues of
its members.

Lieutenant-Colonel Quincy, who was a child when brought to New England,
died in 1698, aged seventy years, having had two sons, Daniel and
Edmund.

Daniel died during his father's lifetime, leaving an only son John, who
graduated at Cambridge in 1708, and was a prominent public man in the
Colony for nearly half a century. He was a Councillor, and for many
years Speaker of the Lower House.

He died in 1767, at the time of the birth of his great-grandson, John
Quincy Adams, who therefore received the name which he has made
illustrious. Edmund, the second son, graduated in 1690, and was also in
the public service almost all his life, as a magistrate, a Councillor,
and one of the Justices of the Supreme Court. He was also colonel of the
Suffolk Regiment, at that time a very important command, since the
county of Suffolk then, and long after, included what is now County of
Norfolk, as well as the town of Boston. In 1737, the General Court
selected him as their agent to lay the claims of the Colony before the
home government, in the matter of the disputed boundary between
Massachusetts Bay and New Hampshire.

He died, however, very soon after his arrival in London, February 23,
1737, of the smallpox, which he had taken by inoculation. He was buried
in Bunhill Fields, where a monument was erected to him by the General
Court, which also made a grant of land of a thousand acres in the town
of Lennox to his family, in further recognition of his public services.

Judge Edmund Quincy had two sons, Edmund and Josiah.

The first named, who graduated at Cambridge in 1722, lived a private
life at Braintree and in Boston.

One of his daughters married John Hancock, the first signer of the
Declaration of Independence, and afterwards Governor of Massachusetts.
Josiah was born in 1709, and took his first degree in 1728. He
accompanied his father to London in 1737, and afterwards visited England
and the Continent more than once.

For some years he was engaged in commerce and ship-building in Boston,
and when about forty years of age he retired from business and removed
to Braintree, where he lived for thirty years the life of a country
gentleman, occupying himself with the duties of a county magistrate, and
amusing himself with field sports. Game of all sorts abounded in those
days in the woods and along the shore, and marvellous stories have come
down, by tradition, of his feats with gun and rod. He was Colonel of the
Suffolk Regiment, as his father had been before him; he was also
Commissioner to Pennsylvania during the old French war to ask the help
of that Colony in an attack which Massachusetts Bay had planned upon
Crown Point. He succeeded in his mission by the help of Doctor Franklin.

Colonel Josiah Quincy, by his first marriage, had three sons, Edmund,
Samuel, Josiah, and one daughter, Hannah. His first wife was Hannah
Sturgis, daughter of John Sturgis, one of his Majesty's Council, of
Yarmouth. His eldest son, Edmund, graduated in 1752, after which he
became a merchant in Boston. He was in England in 1760 for the purpose
of establishing mercantile correspondences. He died at sea in 1768, on
his return from a voyage for his health to the West Indies.

The youngest son of Colonel Josiah Quincy bore his name, and was
therefore known to his contemporaries, and takes his place in history,
as Josiah Quincy, Junior, he having died before his father, he was born
February 23, 1744, and graduated at Harvard College, 1763. He studied
law with Oxenbridge Thacher, one of the principal lawyers of that day,
and succeeded to his practice at his death, which took place about the
time he himself was called to the bar. He took a high rank at once in
his profession, although his attention to its demands was continually
interrupted by the stormy agitation in men's minds and passions, which
preceded and announced the Revolution, and which he actively promoted by
his writings and public speeches. On the 5th of March, the day of the so
called "Boston Massacre" he was selected, together with John Adams, by
Captain Preston, who was accused of having given the word of command to
the soldiers that fired on the mob, to conduct his defence and that of
his men, they having been committed for trial for murder. At that moment
of fierce excitement, it demanded personal and moral courage to perform
this duty. His own father wrote him a letter of stern and strong
remonstrance against his undertaking the defence of "those criminals
charged with the murder of their fellow citizens," exclaiming, with
passionate emphasis, "Good God! Is it possible? I will not believe it!"

Mr. Quincy in his reply, reminded his father of the obligations his
professional oath laid him under, to give legal counsel and assistance
to those accused of a crime, but not proved to be guilty of it; adding:
"I dare affirm that you and this whole people will one day rejoice that
I became an advocate for the aforesaid criminals, _charged_ with the
murder of our fellow citizens. _To inquire my duty and to do it, is my
aim._" He did his duty and his prophecy soon came to pass.

There is no more honorable passage in the history of New England than
the one which records the trial and acquittal of Captain Preston and his
men, in the midst of the passionate excitements of that time, by a jury
of the town maddened to a rage but a few months before by the blood of
her citizens shed in her streets.

In 1774 he went to England, partly for his health, which had suffered
much from his intense professional and political activities, and also as
a confidential agent of the Revolutionary party to consult and advise
with the friends of America there. His presence in London coming as he
did at a most critical moment excited the notice of the ministerial
party, as well as of the opposition. The Earl of Hillsborough denounced
him, together with Dr. Franklin, in the House of Lords, "as men walking
the streets of London who ought to be in Newgate or Tyburn." The precise
results of his communications with the English Whigs can never be known.
They were important enough, however, to make his English friends urgent
for his immediate return to America, because he could give information
which could not safely be committed to writing. His health had failed
seriously during the latter months of his residence in England, and his
physicians strongly advised against his taking a winter voyage.

His sense of public duty, however, overbore all personal considerations,
and he set sail on the 16th of March, 1775, and died off Gloucester,
Massachusetts, on the 26th of April.

The citizens of Gloucester buried him with all honor in their graveyard;
after the siege of Boston, he was removed and placed in a vault in the
burying ground in Braintree. Josiah Quincy was barely thirty-one years
of age when he thus died.

His father, Colonel Quincy lived on at Braintree during the whole of the
war. He died on March 3rd, 1784.

His passion for field sports remained in full force till the end, for
his death was occasioned by exposure to the winter's cold, sitting upon
a cake of ice, watching for wild ducks, when he was in his seventy-fifth
year.

SAMUEL QUINCY, the subject of this memoir, was the second son of Colonel
Josiah Quincy, and the brother of Josiah, Junior, and Edmund. He was
born in that part of Braintree now Quincy, April 23, 1735. He graduated
at Harvard College in 1754, and studied law with Benjamin Pratt.

Endowed with fine talents, Mr. Quincy became eminent in the profession
of the law, and succeeded Jonathan Sewall as Solicitor-General of
Massachusetts. He was the intimate friend of many of the most
distinguished men of that period, among whom was John Adams. They were
admitted to the bar on the same day, Nov. 6, 1758.

As Solicitor for the Crown, he was engaged with Robert Treat Paine in
the memorable trial of Capt. Preston, and the soldiers in 1770; his
brother was opposed to him on that occasion, and both reversed their
party sympathies in their professional position. It was plain to all
sagacious observers of the signs of the times, that the storm of civil
war was gathering fast; and it was sure first to burst over Boston. It
was a time of stern agitation, and profound anxieties. In their emotion
Mr. Quincy and his wife shared deeply, and passionately. The shadows of
public and private calamity were already beginning to steal over that
once happy home. The evils of the present and the uncertainties of the
future bore heavily on their prosperity. The fierce passions which were
soon to break out into revolutionary violence and mob rule, had already
begun to separate families, to divide friends, and to break up society.
Samuel Quincy was a Loyalist and remained true to his oath of office,
wherein he swore to support the government. His father and brother were
revolutionists; as previously stated his brother died on shipboard off
Gloucester, seven days after the hostilities had commenced at Lexington,
and when his father saw from his house on Quincy Bay, the fleet drop
down the harbor, after the evacuation of Boston on March 17, 1776, it
must have been with feelings of sorrow that the stout-hearted old man
saw the vessels bear away his only surviving son, never to return again.
Such partings were common griefs then, as ever in civil wars, the
bitterest perhaps that wait upon that cruelest of calamities.

Samuel Quincy was an addressor of Governor Hutchinson, and a staunch
Loyalist. His wife, the sister of Henry Hill, Esq., of Boston, was not
pleased with her husband's course in the politics of the times, and he
became a Loyalist against her advice, and when he left Boston, a
refugee, she preferred to remain with her brother, and never met her
husband again. The following letter written to his brother by Mr.
Quincy, during the siege of Boston, will explain his position at that
time.[230]

[230] This letter and the following ones are extracts from original
papers, copies of which were communicated by Miss Eliza S. Quincy, and
published In Curwen's Journal and Letters.

To Henry Hill, Esq., Cambridge. Boston, May 13, 1775.

Dear Brother:

There never was a time when sincerity and affectionate unity of
heart could be more necessary than at present. But in the midst of
the confusions that darken our native land, we may still, by a
rectitude of conduct, entertain a rational hope that the Almighty
Governor of the universe will in his own time remember mercy.

I am going, my dear friend, to quit the habitation where I have
been so long encircled with the dearest connections.

I am going to hazard the unstable element, and for a while to
change the scene--whether it will be prosperous or adverse, is not
for me to determine. I pray God to sustain my integrity and
preserve me from temptation.

My political character with you may be suspicious; but be assured,
if I cannot _serve_ my country, which I shall endeavor to the
utmost of my power, I will never _betray it_.

The kind care of my family you have so generously offered
penetrates me with the deepest gratitude. If it should not be
within my power to reward you, you will have the recompense greater
than I can give you, the approbation of your own heart. Would to
God we may again enjoy the harmonious intercourse I have been
favored with since my union with your family. I will not despair of
this great blessing in some future and not very distant period. God
preserve you in health and every earthly enjoyment, until you again
receive the salutation of

Your friend and brother,
SAMUEL QUINCY.

[Illustration: SAMUEL QUINCY.

Born at Braintree, now Quincy, April 23, 1735. Solicitor-General of
Massachusetts. Died at sea in 1789. His remains were interred on Bristol
Hill, England. From a painting by Copley.]

Again on August 18th he writes to Mr. Hill and said, "You conjure me by
the love of my country to use my best endeavors to bring about a
reconciliation, suggesting that the Americans are still as determined as
ever to die free, rather than live slaves; I have no reason to doubt the
zeal of my fellow-countrymen in the cause of freedom, and their firmness
in its defence, and were it in my power, my faithful endeavors should
not be wanting (nay, I have a right to say they are not) to effect an
accommodation. But, my good friend, I am unhappy to find that the
opinion I formed in America, and which in a great measure governed my
conduct, was but too justly founded. Every proposal of those who are
friendly to the colonies, to alter the measures of government and
redress the grievances of which they complain, is spurned at, unless
attended with previous concessions on their part. This there is less
reason every day to expect, and thus the prospect of an accommodation is
thrown at a distance; nor is there yet the least reason to suppose that
a formidable, if any opposition will be framed against administration in
favor of America.

"These are facts, not of conjecture only, but visible and operative. Your
reflection will perhaps be, we must then work out our own salvation by
the strength of our own arm, trusting in the Lord. Really, my friend, if
the colonies, according to their late declaration, have made a
resistance by force their choice, the contest is in short reduced to
that narrow compass. I view the dangerous and doubtful struggle with
fear and trembling; I lament it with the most cordial affection for my
native country, and feel sensibly for my friends. But I am aware it is
my duty patiently to submit the event as it may be governed by the
all-wise counsels of that Being 'who ruleth in the heavens, and is the
God of armies.'"

In a letter to his wife, London, Jan. 1, 1777, he said: The continuance
of our unhappy separation has something in it so unexpected, so
unprecedented, so complicated with evil, and misfortune, it has become
almost too burdensome for my spirits, nor have I words that can reach
its description. I long much to see my father. It is now more than
eighteen months since I parted with him in a manner I regret. Neither of
you say anything of the family at Braintree. They ought not to think me
regardless of them though I am silent; for, however lightly they may
look upon me, I yet remember them with pleasure.

Again, on March 12, 1777, he said: You inquire whether I cannot bear
contempt and reproach, rather than remain any longer separated from my
family? As I always wished, and I think always endeavored, not to
deserve the one, so will I ever be careful to avoid the other. You urge
as an inducement to my return, that my countrymen will not deprive me of
life. I have never once harbored such an idea. Sure I am I have never
merited from them such a punishment. Difference of opinion I have never
known to be a capital offence, and were the truth and motives of my
conduct justly scrutinized, I am persuaded they would not regard me as
an enemy plotting their ruin. That I might yet be able to recover in
some respect the esteem of my friends, I will not doubt while I am
conscious of the purity of my intentions. When I determined on a voyage
to England, I resolved upon deliberation, and I still think, with
judgment. I did not, indeed, expect so hurried a succession of events,
though you must remember, I long had them in contemplation.

I am sorry you say nothing of my father, or the family at Braintree; I
have not received a line nor heard from them since I left America. * *
God bless you all; live happy, and think I am as much so as my long
absence from you will permit.

March 20, 1777.

I am not surprised much that, to the less of property, I have
already sustained, I am to suffer further depredations, and that
those to whom I am under contract should avail themselves of this
opportunity and endeavor to make what is left their own. All I ask
is that my brother and my other friends (if I have any) would think
of me as they ought, and to be assured, that as far as they
interpose their assistance to save me from suffering, they will not
hereafter find me deficient in return.

October 15, 1777.

If things should not wear a more promising aspect at the opening of
the next year, by all means summon resolution to cross the ocean.
But if there is an appearance of accommodating this truly unnatural
contest, it would be advisable for you to bear farther promise; as
I mean to return to my native country whenever I may be permitted,
and there is a chance for my procuring a livelihood. But I do not
say that I will not accept of an opening here, if any one should
offer that I may think eligible.

London, April 18, 1778.

If there is an accommodation, I shall certainly turn my views to
some part of the continent, unless something very promising should
offer elsewhere. It would grieve me very much to think of never
again seeing my father; God bless him, and many other worthy
friends and relations in New England; but a return to my native
country I cannot be reconciled to until I am convinced that I am as
well thought of as I know I deserve to be. I shall ever rejoice in
its prosperity, but am too proud to live despised where I was once
respected--an object of insult instead of the child of favor.

You suggest, that had I remained, I might still have been with you
in honor and employment. It may be so, but when I left America I
had no expectation of being absent more than a few months, little
thinking operations of such magnitude would have followed in so
quick a succession; I left it from principle, and with a view of
emolument. If I have been mistaken, it is my misfortune, not my
fault. My first letters from my friends congratulated me on being
out of the way; and I was pleased to find my undertaking met with
their approbation as well as my own. The hearts of men were not
within my reach, nor the fortuitous event of things within my
control. "I am indeed a poor man;" but even a poor man has
resources of comfort that cannot be torn from him, nor are any so
miserable as to be always under the influence of inauspicious
stars. I will therefore still endeavor to bear my calamities with
firmness, and to feel for others.

Those who have befriended my family are entitled to my warmest
gratitude, and I hope you will never fail to express it for me.
Whether it ever will be in my power to recompense them I know not,
but no endeavor of mine shall be wanting to effect it. * * * I
conjecture, though you do not mention from what quarter, you have
received unkindness. There are in this world many things we are
obliged and enabled to encounter, which at a distance appear
insupportable. You must have experienced this as well as I; and it
ought to teach us that best doctrine of philosophy and
religion--resignation. Bear up, therefore, with fortitude, and wait
patiently in expectation of a calmer and brighter day.

London, May 31, 1778.

By the public prints we are made acquainted with an act of the
state of Massachusetts Bay, that precludes those among others from
returning, who left it since the 19th of April, 1775, and "joined
the enemy." You do not mention this act, nor have I any information
by which I am to construe what is meant by "joining the enemy." The
love of one's country, and solicitude for its welfare, are natural
and laudable affections; to lose its good opinion is at once
unhappy, and attended with many ill consequences; how much more
unfortunate to be forever excluded from it without offence! It is
said also that there is a resolve of congress, "that no absentee
shall be permitted to take up his residence in any other colony
without having been first received and admitted as a citizen of his
own." This may have some effect on a movement I had in
contemplation of going southward, where I have a very advantageous
offer of countenance and favor.

London, March 15, 1779.

You may remember in some of my former letters I hinted my wish to
establish a residence in some other part of the continent, or in
the West Indies, and particularly mentioned to you Antigua--where
my kinsman, Mr. Wendell, my friend, Mr. David Greene, Dr. Russell
and his family, Mr. Lavicourt, Mr. Vassall, and others of my
acquaintance, will give the island less of the appearance of a
strange place. By the passing of the act of proscription the door
was shut against me in my own country, where I own it would have
been my wish to have ended my days. This confirmed my resolution. I
have since unremittedly pursued various objects, endeavoring to
drive the nail that would go.

My first intention was that of transplanting myself somewhere to
the southward. On this subject I thought long, and consulted
others. I considered climate, friends, business, prospects in every
view, and at last formed my opinion. The provinces in the south
part of America in point of health were not more favorable than the
island--in point of friends they might be preferable, but with
respect to business or the means of acquiring it, uncertain; public
commotion yet continued, violent prejudices are not easily removed.
I had neither property nor natural connections in either of them. I
could have no official influence to sustain me. What kind of
government or laws would finally prevail it was difficult to tell.
These and other reasons determined me against the attempt. But to
stay longer in England, absent from my friends and family, with a
bare subsistence, inactive, without prospects, and useless to
myself and the world, was death to me! What was the alternative? As
I saw no chance of procuring either appointment or employ here, the
old object of the West Indies recurred, where in my younger days I
wished to have remained; and by the influence of some particular
gentlemen I have at last obtained the place of "Comptroller of the
Customs at the Port of Parham in Antigua;" for which island I mean
to embark with the next convoy. My view is to join the profits of
business in the line of my profession to the emoluments of office.
This I flatter myself will afford me a handsome maintenance. I grow
old too fast to think of waiting longer for the moving of the
waters, and have therefore cast my bread upon them, thus in hopes
that at last, after many days, I may find it.

Transmit to my father every expression of duty and affection. If he
retains the same friendship and parental fondness for me I have
always experienced from him, he will patronize my children, and in
doing this will do it unto me. It was my intention to have written
to him, but the subjects on which I want to treat are too
personally interesting for the casualties of the present day. He
may rest assured it is my greatest unhappiness to be thus denied
the pleasing task of lightening his misfortunes and soothing the
evening of his days. Whatever may be the future events of his life,
I shall always retain for him the warmest filial respect, and if it
is my lot to survive him, shall ever think it a pleasure as well as
my duty to promote to my utmost the welfare of his posterity. My
mother will also accept of my duty and good wishes; the prosperity
of the whole household lies near my heart, and they will do me an
injustice if they think me otherwise than their affectionate
friend. * * *

With respect to my property in America, my wish and desire is, if I
have any control over it, that my friends there collectively, or
some one singly under your direction, would take it into their
hands, and consolidating the debts I owe into one sum, apply it to
their discharge. I can think of no better way than this. If
eventually I am deprived of it, I will endeavor to bear it with
that fortitude which becomes a Christian and philosopher.

P. S. I could wish above all things to preserve my law books.

TO HENRY HILL, ESQ.

London, May 25, 1779.

I have obtained an appointment at Parham, in Antigua, as
comptroller of the customs, and am to embark soon for St. Kitts. *
* It is this day four years since I left Boston, and though I have
been racked by my own misfortunes and my feelings for the
distresses of my family and friends, I have still by a good
Providence been blessed with health and comforted by the kindness
of many friends. If I have not been in affluence, I have been above
want, and happy in the esteem of numbers in this kingdom to whom I
was altogether a stranger. * * The education of my children is
uppermost in my heart. The giving my son the benefit of classical
learning by a course of college studies, is a step I much approve.
The sequestration of my books is more mortifying to me than any
other stroke. If they are not yet out of your power save them for
me at all events.

In a copy of a letter to a friend, apparently in the West Indies, but
whose name does not appear, Mr. Quincy thus expresses himself:

Antigua, Feb. 1, 1782.

You ask of me an account of my coming to the West Indies, the
manner of my existence and destination, &c. The story is long, and
would require many anecdotes to give the true history, but you will
excuse me if at present I say only, that in the year 1775, just
after the battle of Lexington, I quitted America for London on
motives of business, intending to return in a few months; but my
absence was construed by our good patriots as the effect of my
political principles, and improved first to my proscription,
afterwards to the very flattering title of traitorous conspirator,
and the confiscation of my estate. I remained in England several
years, but, tired of waiting for the moving of the waters, and
unwilling to waste the flower of my age in a state of indolence,
neither profitable to myself nor my family, I resolved to seek my
fortune in this part of the world, where I had been in my younger
days,--obtained a berth in the customs, which, together with the
emoluments of my profession, afford me a comfortable subsistence,
and the prospect of something beyond.

Your friend, &c.,
SAMUEL QUINCEY.

Mr. Quincy's wife died November, 1782 in Massachusetts. He married again
while at Antigua, Mrs. M. A. Chadwell, widow of Hon. Abraham Chadwell.

TO HIS SON, SAMUEL QUINCY, JR., CAMBRIDGE.

June 10, 1785.

How anxious soever I may feel to see my friends and relations once
more, I cannot think of doing it at the expense of my liberty; nor
will I ever visit that country where I first drew my breath, but
upon such terms as I have always lived in it; and such as I have
still a right to claim from those who possess it,--the character of
a gentleman. * * * The proposal Judge Sumner has hinted to me of
keeping his old berth for you at Roxbury, is a good one, at least
better than Boston. Cultivate his good opinion, and deserve his
patronage; he will bestow the latter for my sake, I trust, as well
as his personal esteem for you. It will also stand you in stead at
court, where I hope you will one day figure as a legislator as well
as an advocate. All depends upon setting out right. You are at the
edge of a precipice, or ought to consider yourself so; from whence,
if you fall, the "_revocare gradum_," is a task indeed. Resolve,
then, to think right, and act well; keeping up to that resolution
will procure you daily the attention of all ranks, and command for
you their respect. Keep alive the cause of truth, of reason, of
virtue, and of liberty, if I may be permitted to use that name, who
have by some injuriously been thought in a conspiracy against it.
This is the path of duty, and will be the source of blessing.

July 24, 1789.

I am exceedingly sorry to hear of the distracted political
situation of Massachusetts. * * * A constitution founded on mere
republican principles has always appeared to me a many-headed
monster, and, however applauded by a Franklin, a Price, and a
Priestley, that in the end it must become a suicide. Mankind do not
in experience appear formed for that finer system, which, in
theory, by the nice adjustment of its parts promises permanency and
repose. The passions, prejudice, and interests of some will always
be in opposition to others, especially if they are in place. This,
it may be said, is the case in all governments, but I think less so
in a monarchy than under a republican code. The people at large
feel an overbalance of power in their own favor; they will
naturally endeavor to ease themselves of all expenses which are not
lucrative to them, and retrench the gains of others, whether the
reward of merit or genius, or the wages of a hireling.

Tortola, June 1, 1789.
MY DEAR SON:

Your short letter of the 14th February gave me pleasure, as it
informed me of your health and that of your family, and other
friends in the neighborhood of Roxbury.

It would be my wish to make you a visit once more in my life, could
it be ascertained I might walk free of insult, and unmolested in
person. Two things must concur to satisfy me of this,--the repeal
of the act passed 1779, against certain crown officers, as
traitors, conspirators, &c.; and accommodation with those who have
against me pecuniary demands. The first I have never yet learned to
be repealed, either in whole or in part, and therefore I consider
it as a stumbling-block at the threshold; the second, no steps I
suppose have been taken to effect, although I think it might be
done by inquiry and proposition--with some by a total release from
demand, and with others by a reasonable compromise. If you ever
wish your father to repose under your roof, you will take some
pains to examine the list, and make the trial. I shall shortly, I
hope, be in a situation to leave this country, if I choose it; but
whether Europe, of the two objects I have in view, will take the
preference, may depend on the answer I may receive from you, upon
the hints I have now thrown out for your consideration and filial
exertions. * * *

I have been, as I informed you in my last, a good deal indisposed
for some time past. I find myself, however, better on the whole at
present, though I feel the want of a bracing air. Adieu.

Your affectionate parent,
SAMUEL QUINCY.

Soon after the date of this last letter, Mr. Quincy embarked for
England, accompanied by his wife. The restoration of his health was the
object of the voyage, but the effort was unsuccessful; he died at sea,
within sight of the English coast. His remains were carried to England,
and interred on Bristol hill. His widow immediately re-embarked for the
West Indies, but her voyage was tempestuous. Grief for the loss of her
husband, to whom she was strongly attached, and suffering from the storm
her vessel encountered, terminated her life on her homeward passage.

It was a singular coincidence that two of Mr. Quincy's brothers died at
sea, as he did on shipboard, Edmund, the eldest and Josiah, the youngest
brother.

Samuel Quincy had two sons: Samuel, a graduate of Harvard College in
1782, who was an attorney-at-law in Lenox, Mass., where he died in
January, 1816, leaving a son Samuel. His second son, Josiah, became an
eminent counselor-at-law of Romney, N. H., and President of the Senate
of that State.

Mr. Samuel Quincy was proscribed and banished and his property
confiscated.

COLONEL JOHN MURRAY.

About 1750 there appeared in Boston society a very handsome man by the
name of Murray, whose antecendents people seemed to be ignorant, when he
came to this country he settled at Rutland, and was very poor, and at
first "peddled about the country" and then became a merchant. He was a
man of great influence in his vicinity, and in the town of Rutland,
which he represented many years in the General Court. On election days
his home was open to his friends and good cheer dispensed free to all
from his store. His wealth, social position, and political influence,
made him one of the Colonial noblemen who lived in a style that has
passed away in New England. He was a Colonel in the militia, for many
years a member of the General Court, and in 1774 was appointed a
Mandamus Councillor, but was not sworn into office, because a mob of
about five hundred, with the "Worcester Committee of Correspondence,"
repaired to Rutland, to compel Colonel Murray to resign his seat in the
Council. On the way, they were joined by nearly one thousand persons,
among whom were a portion of the company who had compelled Judge Timothy
Paine to take the same course, marching directly to Rutland the same
day.

A delegation went to his house, and reported that he was absent. A
letter was accordingly sent to him, to the effect that; unless his
resignation appeared in the Boston papers, he would be waited upon
again. He abandoned his home on the night of the 25th of August of that
year, and fled to Boston.

As previously stated, there was always a mystery surrounding John
Murray, regarding who he was and where he came from, but his descendants
had some reason for supposing that he was one of the "Athol Family" of
Scotland, the surname of the Duke being Murray. Some years since one of
Col. Murray's descendants went to "Blair Athol," the family seat of the
Dukes of Athol, hoping to hear something about him, and there found an
old retainer of the family who recalled the fact that many years ago a
younger member of the family had disappeared, nothing being heard of him
again, though it was supposed he had run away to America.

Miss Murray, after her father's death, went from St. John to Lancaster,
Mass., to be with her relatives, the Chandler Family. She had with her
some amount of silver plate, and on each piece was the arms of the
"Ducal House of Athol." She had small means, and when in need of money
used to sell this silver, one piece at a time. In the grant of the town
of Athol by the General Court the first name is that of John Murray, who
probably gave the name of his ancestral home to the new town.

In 1776, with a family of six persons, he accompanied the Royal Army to
Halifax. Col. Murray left a very large estate when he fled from Boston,
and in 1778 he was prosecuted and banished, and in 1779 lost his
extensive property under the Confiscation Act.

After the Revolution, Colonel Murray became a resident of St. John, N.
B. He built a house in Prince William street, with a large lot of land
attached to it, which became very valuable.

A portrait by Copley is owned by his grandson, the Hon. R. L. Hazen of
St. John, a member of the Executive Council of New Brunswick. He is
represented as sitting in the full dress of a gentleman of the day, and
his person is shown to the knees. There is a hole in the wig, which is
said to have been done by one of the mob who sought the Colonel at his
house after his flight, vexed because he had eluded them, vowed they
would leave their mark behind them, accordingly pierced the canvas with
a bayonet.

Colonel Murray married several times, his first wife was Elizabeth
McLanathan, who was the mother of ten children. His second wife was
Lucretia Chandler, the daughter of John and Hannah Gardner, of
Worcester. His third wife was Deborah Brinley, the daughter of Francis
Brinley, of Roxbury.

Colonel Murray was allowed a pension of £200 per annum by the British
Government. His estate valued at £23,367, was confiscated except one
farm for his son Alexander, who joined the Revolutionists. He died at
St. John, 1794.

DANIEL MURRAY, of Brookfield, Mass., Son of Colonel John. He graduated
at Harvard College in 1771. Mr. Murray entered the military service of
the Crown, and was Major of the King's American Dragoons. In 1778 he was
proscribed and banished. At the peace he retired, on half pay. In 1792
he was a member of the House of Assembly of N. B. In 1803 he left the
Colony. In 1832 he died at Portland, Maine.

SAMUEL MURRAY, Son of Colonel John, graduated at Harvard College in
1772. He was with the British troops at Lexington in 1775, and was taken
prisoner. In a General Order, dated at Cambridge, June 15, 1775, it was
directed "That Samuel Murray be removed from the jail in Worcester to
his father's homestead in Rutland, the limits of which he is not to pass
until further orders." In 1778 he was proscribed and banished. He died
previous to 1785.

Robert Murray, Son of Colonel John. In 1782 he was a Lieutenant of the
King's American Dragoons. He settled in N. B., and died there of
consumption in 1786.

John Murray, Son of Colonel John. In 1782 he was a Captain in the King's
American Dragoons. After the Revolution he was an officer of the
Fifty-fourth Regiment, British Army.

JUDGE JAMES PUTNAM.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY.

John Putnam, the founder of the Salem family, was born in 1579, at
Wingrave, Buckinghamshire, England. He is described in the records an
husbandman. His farm was at Burstone in Wingrave. He emigrated to Salem
with his three sons in 1640, where grants of land were made by the town
of Salem to him and to his sons on their own account, in what was then
known as Salem Village, now the town of Danvers.

His sons were Thomas, born 1614, died at Salem Village 1686; Nathaniel,
born 1619, died at Salem Village 1700; John, born 1627, died at Salem
Village, 1710.

In deeds, John Putnam is described as both husbandman and yeoman. He was
a man of substance and of as much education as his contemporaries, but
neither seeking or desiring public office. In 1653 he divided his lands
between Thomas and Nathaniel, having evidently already granted his
homestead to his younger son John. He died in 1662.

The subject of this memoir was a descendent of John Putnam, in the fifth
generation, through his youngest son John, known as Captain John. It was
in the military affairs and in the witchcraft delusion that his
character is best shown. In 1672 he is styled Corporal, in 1678 he was
commissioned Lieutenant of the troope of horse at the Village, and after
1687 he is styled "Captain." He served in the Naragansett fight, and
retained his military manners throughout his life. In 1679 and later he
was frequently chosen to present Salem at the General Court, to settle
the various disputed town bounds. He was selectman in 1681. He was
deputy to the General Court for many years previous to the new charter.

His residence was on the farm originally occupied by his father, now
better known as Oak Knoll, the home of the poet Whittier.

The will of John Putnam is not on record. He seems to have disposed of
his property by deed to his children. Rev. Joseph Green makes the
following note in his diary: "April 7, 1710, Captain Putnam buried by ye
soldiers."

LIEUTENANT JAMES, son of CAPTAIN JOHN, was born in Salem Village, 1661,
and died there in 1727. He was a farmer, inheriting from his father the
homestead at Oak Knoll. In 1720 he is styled on the records Lieut.,
which title was always scrupulously given him. Although never caring to
hold office, he was evidently esteemed by the townspeople. He had been
taught a trade, and he in his turn taught his son the same trade, that
of bricklayer. This was a custom among many of the early Puritan
families. It is to the credit of all concerned, that far-sighted and
wealthy men of that day brought up their sons to know a useful trade, in
case adversity should overtake them.

JAMES PUTNAM, of the fourth generation, son of the aforesaid Lieut.
James, was born in Salem Village in 1689, and died there in 1763. He
lived in the house just to the south-east of Oak Knoll on the same road;
the house is still standing, in a fine state of preservation.

During his long life, James Putnam took considerable interest in town
affairs. He was one of those who succeeded in obtaining the
establishment of the district of Danvers. In 1730 he paid the largest
tax in the village.

HONORABLE JAMES PUTNAM, of the fifth generation, son of the aforesaid
James Putnam, was born in Salem Village, 1726, and died at St. John, N.
B., 1789. He graduated from Harvard College in 1746. In his class was
Dr. Edward H. Holyoke, whose father, Edward Holyoke, was then president
of the College. He studied law, under Judge Trowbridge, who according to
John Adams, controlled the whole practice of Worcester and Middlesex
Counties, and settled in Worcester in 1749, taking up the practice of
the law.

In 1750 he married Eleanor Sprague, by whom he had one daughter,
Eleanor, who married Rufus Chandler, of Worcester.

James Putnam, in 1757, held the commission of Major, under Gen. Louden,
and saw service. Between the years of 1755 and 1758, John Adams,
afterwards President of the United States, taught school in Worcester,
and studied law with Mr. Putnam. He also boarded in his family. Mr.
Adams remarks that Mr. Putnam possessed great acuteness of mind, had a
very extensive and successful practice, and was eminent in his
profession. James Putnam was one of the twenty signers to the address
from the barristers and attorneys of Massachusetts to Gov. Hutchinson,
May 30, 1774. His brothers, Dr. Ebenezer and Archelaus, both addressed
Gov. Gage on his arrival, June 11, 1774. In February, 1775, he, with
others, was forced by the threatening attitude of the mob to leave
Worcester and seek refuge in Boston, he having had his cattle stolen and
a valuable grist mill burned, and threatened with bodily harm.

On Oct. 14, 1775, eighteen of those gentlemen who were driven from their
habitations in the country to the town of Boston, addressed Gov. Gage on
his departure. Among the signers were James Putnam and James Putnam, Jr.

In 1778 the Massachusetts Legislature passed an act confiscating the
estate of 308 Loyalists and banishing them; if they returned a second
time, to suffer death without the benefit of clergy. Among these was the
Hon. James Putnam, who had in 1777 succeeded Jonathan Sewell as attorney
general of Massachusetts, the last under the Crown.

During the siege of Boston on the 17th Nov. 1775, the following order
was issued by the British Commander: "Many of his Majesty's Loyal
American subjects having offered their services for the defence of the
place" are to be formed into three companies under command of Hon.
Brigadier General Ruggles, to be called the Loyal American Associates,
to be designated by a white sash around the left arm. James Putnam was
commissioned captain of the second company, and James Putnam, Jr. was
commissioned second lieutenant of the second company. At the evacuation
of Boston, both James Putnam and his sons, James and Ebenezer,
accompanied the army to Halifax, and New York, where his sons engaged in
business. He sailed for Plymouth, England, December, 1779, with Mrs.
Putnam and his daughter Elizabeth.

While in England he wrote numerous letters to his brothers, from which
we make the following quotations. Under date of Nov. 13th, 1783, he
writes from London: "My countrymen have got their independence (as they
call it) and with it in my opinion, have lost the true Substantial Civil
liberty. They doubtless exult as much at the acquisition they have
gained as they do at the loss the Tories, as they call them, have
sustained."

"America, the thirteen states, at last separated from this country,
never more to be connected. For you may believe me when I say I firmly
believe, and on good grounds, that even the present administration would
not now accept of the connection, if America would offer it on the old
footing."

"You may be assured there is nothing I wish for more than to see my dear
brother and other dear friends in America again."

"At the same time, I can tell you with truth, unpleasing as you may
think the situation of the Loyalists to be, I would not change with my
independent countrymen with all imaginary liberty, but real heavy taxes
and burdens, destitute in a great measure, as I know they are, of order
and good government."

"Having this view of things, you can't expect to see me in Massachusetts
soon, even if I was permitted or invited to return with perhaps the
offer of the restoration of my estate. For what would it be worth but to
pay all away in taxes in a short time."

"I'm not yet determined whether to remain in this country or go abroad
to Nova Scotia or elsewhere."

Again, under date of July 20, 1784, he writes: "Your country is so
changed since I left it, and in my opinion for the worst, that the great
pleasure I should have in seeing my dear friends would be lost in a
great measure in the unhappy change of government."

His next letter was from Parr, on the river St. John, N. B., Nov. 18,
1784. He says: "Dear Brother. I have been at this place about ten days,
am surprised to find a large flourishing town, regularly laid out, well
built, consisting of about two thousand houses, many of them handsome
and well finished--And at the opposite side of the river at Carlton,
about five hundred more houses on a pleasant situation. A good harbor
lies between the two towns, which never freezes, and where there are
large ships and many vessels of all sizes. The country appears to me to
be very good, and am satisfied will make a most flourishing Province."

He writes again the next year: "You may wonder perhaps at my saying I
hope I'm settled in this Province for life, and that I can be contented
or happy in the place formerly called Nova Scotia."

"I want to see you and my friends, if I have any, but I don't wish to
live in your country or under your government. I think I have found a
better. No thanks to the Devils who have robbed me of my property. I do
not wish to live with or see such infernals."

"God bless you, your wife, your son, your daughter, my brother, etc.,
who I shall be glad to see again, but not in the American States."

In another letter, dated St. John, N. B., May 13, 1785, to his brother,
he says: "As to seeing you any more, you have no reason to expect it in
your State.

"You may be assured, I should be exceeding happy in seeing you both
here. I can give you a comfortable lodging, and wholesome good fresh
provisions, excellent fish and good spruce beer, the growth and
manufacture of our own Province.

"Tho' we should be glad to see the few friends we have remaining there
among you, we don't wish to give them the pain of seeing us in your
State, which is evidently overflowing with _freedom and liberty_[231]
without restraint.

[231] During 1785 Shay's rebellion occurred in Massachusetts and was put
down by General Lincoln.

"The people of the States must needs now be very happy, when they can
all and every one do just what they like best. No taxes to pay, no
_stamp act_, _more money_ than they know what to do with, _trade and
navigation as free as air_."

Under date of Nov. 4, 1786, he writes: "The people of your State seem to
be stirring up another revolution. What do they want now? Do they find
at last, to be freed from the British Government, and becoming an
independent State does not free them from the debts they owe one
another, or exempt them from the charge of taxation. I wish they would
pay me what they justly owe, they may then have what government they
please, or none, if they like that best."

He was appointed in 1784 Judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick,
and a member of the Council. It was said that he was the ablest lawyer
in all America. Judge Putnam was the first of the council and bench of
New Brunswick, who died from failing health; he had not attended council
meetings for over a year. He died 23 Oct., 1789, in his 65th year. In
character he was upright and generous; his health was never robust; and
loss of country, friends and wealth must have been a severe blow. Sabine
says: "I have often stood at his grave and mused upon the strange
vicissitudes of human condition, by which the Master, one of the giants
of the American Colonial Bar, became an outlaw, and an exile, broken in
fortune and spirit, while his struggling and almost friendless pupil,
elevated step by step by the very same course of events, was finally
known the world over as the Chief Magistrate of a Nation." It is thus in
all successful Revolutions, those that were at the head of affairs are
hurled from power, and their fortunes wrecked, whilst young men like
John Adams, of great abilities but poor, and little prospects for
advancement, are elevated to the highest offices. Who would have ever
heard of the "Little Corporal" had it not been for the French
Revolution, then there would not have been any "Napoleon the maker of
Kings."

Judge Putnam had two relatives who became famous in the Colonial wars,
and the Revolution. Major-General Israel Putnam was of the fourth
generation from John. He was born in Salem Village, 1717. He
distinguished himself at Crown Point, Montreal and Cuba, and later at
Bunker Hill. General Rufus Putnam was of the fifth generation. After
serving in the Colonial wars under his cousin Israel Putnam, he took
part in the siege of Boston, and constructed the works on Dorchester
Heights, on the 4th of March, 1776, that forced the evacuation of
Boston.

At no time during the youth of these two men would one have predicted
that they would be two great soldiers. Their early education was very
defective, partly because school advantages were then very meagre in the
rural districts, in which they passed their youth, and partly no doubt,
because their strong inclinations were for farming and active outdoor
life, rather than for books and sedentary occupation. Robust and full of
energy, they were as boys, given to feats of strength and daring.

In 1780 General Rufus Putnam "bought on easy terms" the confiscated
property of Colonel Murray, who married Lucretia Chandler. This property
was situated in Rutland, and consisted of a large farm and spacious
mansion.

JAMES PUTNAM, JR., son Judge Putnam, graduated at Harvard College in
1774. He was one of the eighteen country gentlemen who addressed Gen.
Gage, and were driven into Boston. He went to England and died there in
1838, having been a barrack master, a member of the household, and an
executor of the Duke of Kent, the father of Queen Victoria.

JUDGE TIMOTHY PAINE.

Stephen Paine, from whom so many of the family in America are descended,
came from Great Ellingham, near Hingham, Norfolk County, England. He was
a miller, and came with a large party of immigrants from Hingham and
vicinity, in the ship Diligent, of Ipswich, John Martin master, in the
year 1638, bringing with him his wife Rose, two sons and four servants.

Mr. Paine first settled at Hingham, Mass., where he had land granted to
him, was made a freeman in 1639 and elected Deputy in 1641. In 1642 he,
with four others, settled at Seekonk, and became prominent in the
affairs of the new settlement at Rehoboth.

Mr. Paine survived the eventful period of King Philip's war and died in
1679, outliving his two sons, Stephen having died at Rehoboth in 1677,
and Nathaniel in 1678.

NATHANIEL PAINE, son of the aforesaid Nathaniel, of the third
generation, was born at Rehoboth 1661, married Dorothy, daughter of
Jonathan Rainsford, of Boston. He removed in early life to Bristol,
Mass., now R. I., and was one of the original proprietors of that place.
In 1710 he was appointed Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and Judge
of Probate. He was one of the Council of Mass. Bay from 1703 till his
death in 1723, with the exception of the year 1708. Nathaniel Paine died
at Bristol, R. I., in 1723, and his wife Dorothy Rainsford, in 1755.

NATHANIEL PAINE, of the fourth generation and fourth son of the
preceding Nathaniel, was born at Bristol 1688. He was an active and
influential citizen of Bristol, was for five years elected
Representative. In 1723 he was a member of a Court of Admiralty for the
trial of pirates. In 1724 was a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. Paine married Sarah, daughter of Timothy Clark of Boston. After his
death in 1729, his widow married John Chandler and removed to Worcester.

TIMOTHY PAINE, son of the aforesaid Nathaniel and Sarah Clark, his wife.
He was born in Boston in 1730 and married Sarah Chandler in 1749, the
daughter of John Chandler, so these young people had probably been
brought up under the same roof from early childhood. He graduated at
Harvard College in 1748, and was a stout government man in the
controversies which preceded the Revolution.

Soon after leaving college, Mr. Paine was engaged in public affairs, and
the number and variety of offices which he held exhibit the estimation
in which he stood. He was at different times Clerk of the Courts,
Register of Deeds, Register of Probate, member of the executive council
of the Province, in 1774 he was appointed one of his Majesty's Mandamus
Councillors, Selectman and Town Clerk, and Representative many years in
the General Court. In 1771 he was also Special Justice of the Supreme
Court. Solid talents, practical sense, candor, sincerity, ability, and
mildness, were the characteristics of his life.

When the appeal to arms approached, many of the inhabitants of
Worcester, most distinguished for talents, influence, and honors,
adhered with constancy to the Government. Educated with veneration for
the sovereign to whom they had sworn fealty; indebted to the government
for the bounty, honor and wealth which they possessed--loyalty and
gratitude alike influenced them to resent acts that were treasonable,
and rebellious. The sincerity of their motives were attested by the
sacrifice of life, property, loss of power, and all the miseries of
banishment, confiscation and exile.

The struggle between the revolutionist, and the loyalty of a minority of
the people, powerful in numbers, as well as talents, wealth, and
influence, arrived at its crisis in Worcester early in 1774, and
terminated in the total defeat of the loyalists.

Among the many grievances of the revolutionists, was the vesting of the
government in the dependents of the King, it aggravated the irritation,
and urged the mobs to acts of violence.

Timothy Paine, Esq., had received a commission as one of the Mandamus
Councillors. High as was the personal regard, and respect for the purity
of private character of this gentleman, it was controlled by the
political feelings of a period of excitement; and measures were taken to
compel his resignation of a post which was unwelcome to himself, but
which he dared not refuse, when declining would have been construed as
contempt for the authority of the King, by whom it was conferred.

August 22, 1774, a mob of nearly 3000 persons collected from the
surrounding towns, visited Worcester and entered the town before 7
o'clock in the morning. They chose a committee to wait upon Mr. Paine
and demand his resignation as Councillor. They went to his house, and he
agreed to resign from that office, and drew up an acknowledgement,
mentioning his obligations to the country for favors done him, his
sorrow for having taken the oath, and a promise that he never would act
in that office contrary to the charter, and after that he came with the
committee to the common, where the mob made a lane between them, through
which he and the committee passed and read divers times as they passed
along, the said acknowledgment. At first one of the committee read the
resignation of Mr. Paine in his behalf. It was then insisted that he
should read it with his hat off. He hesitated and demanded protection
from the committee, which they were incapable of giving him. Finally,
with threats of tar and feathers, and personal violence, in which his
wig was knocked off, he complied, and was allowed to retire to his
dwelling unharmed.

At the commencement of the Revolution some American soldiers quartered
at his house repaid his perhaps too unwilling hospitality, and signified
the intensity of their feelings towards him by cutting the throat of his
full length portrait.

Madam Paine, in passing the guard house, which stood nearly where the
old Nashua Hotel stood in Lincoln square, heard the soldiers say "Let us
shoot the old Tory." She turned around facing them and said: "Shoot if
you dare," and then she reported to General Knox the insult she had
received, which was not repeated.

Mrs. Timothy Paine or Madam Paine, as she was styled from respect to her
dignity and position, was a woman of uncommon energy and acuteness. She
was noted in her day for her zeal in aiding as far as was in her power
the followers of the crown, and in defeating the plans of the
rebellious colonists. In her the King possessed a faithful ally. In her
hands his dignity was safe, and no insult offered to it, in her
presence, could go unavenged.

Her wit and loyalty never shone more conspicuously than on the following
occasion: when President Adams was a young man, he was invited to dine
with the court, and bar, at the home of Judge Paine, an eminent loyalist
of Worcester. When the wine was circulating around the table, Judge
Paine gave as a toast "The King." Some of the Whigs were about to refuse
to drink it, but Mr. Adams whispered to them to comply, saying "we shall
have an opportunity to return the compliment." At length, when he was
desired to give a toast, he gave "The Devil." As the host was about to
resent the indignity, his wife calmed him, and turned the laugh upon Mr.
Adams, by immediately exclaiming "My dear! As the gentleman has been so
kind as to drink to our King, let us by no means refuse in our turn to
drink to his."

Timothy Paine and Sarah Chandler, his wife, not only feared God, but
honored the King, so the old record goes. They belonged to families,
often associated together in the remembrance of the present generation,
as having adhered through the wavering fortunes and final success of the
Revolution, devoted and consistent to the British Crown. Solid talents,
practical sense, candor, sincerity, affability, and mildness, were the
characteristics of his life. He died July 17, 1793, at the age of
sixty-three. His widow died at Worcester, in 1811.

DR. WILLIAM PAINE.

William Paine, son of the aforesaid Timothy Paine, was born in
Worcester, Mass., June 5, 1750. He graduated at Harvard College in 1768,
his name standing second in a class of more than forty, when they were
arranged in the catalogue according to the dignity of families.

He then began the study of medicine with a very distinguished physician,
Dr. Edward A. Holyoke, of Salem, while here he made the acquaintance of
the lady whom he married a few years later.

One of his earliest instructors was John Adams, who was then reading law
in the office of Hon. James Putnam, at Worcester. He began the practice
of medicine in Worcester in 1771. That year Mr. Adams revisited
Worcester, after an absence of sixteen years, and notes the impression
of his former pupils as follows: "Here I saw many young gentlemen who
were my scholars and pupils. John Chandler, Esq., of Petersham, Rufus
Chandler, the lawyer, and Dr. William Paine, who now studies physics
with Dr. Holyoke of Salem, and others, most of whom began to learn Latin
with me."

In 1771, after about three years of study, he returned to Worcester,
with every prospect of becoming a leader in the medical profession. In
1773 he entered into partnership with two other physicians or "Traders
in the Art, Mystery and Business of an Apothecary and the practice of
Physick." This interest was confiscated in 1779.

In 1773 Dr. Paine was married to Miss Lois Orne of Salem, with a fortune
of 3,000 pounds sterling. Six children were born from this union.

For the purpose of facilitating his business abroad and of perfecting
his medical education, Dr. Paine in Sept. 1774, sailed for England, and
the following winter was passed in the study of medicine. During his
visit there he was presented to the King, and Queen Charlotte, wearing
the court dress prescribed for medical men, which was a gray cloth coat
with silver buttons, a white satin waistcoat, satin small clothes, silk
hose and wearing a sword, and a fall of lace from cravat or collar, and
lace in the sleeves. It is interesting to read some of his letters
written as he was about leaving England. In one of them he writes "The
Colonists had better lay down their arms at once, for we are coming over
with an overwhelming force to destroy them." His wife and children
seemed to have remained with his father and mother while he was in
England, but finding their position in Worcester unpleasant on account
of their unpopular political opinions, she left and went to Rhode
Island.

Dr. Paine returned to America in 1775, shortly after hostilities
commenced, and while there was apparently no legal impediment to his
return to Worcester, it was doubtless a very prudent decision of Dr.
Paine not to make the attempt. His feeling of personal loyalty to the
government was too strong to allow him even to appear to yield to the
Revolutionists, then dominating his native town, and he wisely returned
to England. His study of medicine there must have been pursued with
unusual zeal and success, for Nov. 1775, he received from Marischal
College, Aberdeen, the degree of M. D.

Soon after obtaining this distinction, he received an appointment as
Apothecary to the British forces in America, and served in Rhode Island
and New York till 1781, when he returned to England, in company with his
patient, Lord Winchelsea. While in England, in 1782, he is said to have
been made Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

October 23, 1782, he was commissioned Physician to His Majesty's
Hospitals within the district of North America, commanded by Sir Guy
Carleton, and he reported for duty at Halifax, N. S. Letters which have
been preserved show that during this year at Halifax he had won the
respect, friendship and confidence, not only of his immediate medical
superior, Dr. Nooth, but also of Lord Wentworth, Governor of the
Province.

In the summer of 1784, Dr. Paine took possession of La Tete, an island
in Passamaquoddy Bay, granted him by the British Government, for his
services in the war. He remained there less than one year, and then made
his residence in St. John, N. B., where he took up the practice of his
profession. The cause of the removal from the island was the protest of
his wife that the children could not receive a proper education in that
isolated spot.

He was elected member of the Assembly of New Brunswick from the county
of Charlotte, and was appointed Clerk of the House. He was commissioned
as a justice for the county of Sunbury. There is abundant evidence of
the high estimate placed on his character and ability in the numerous
offices which he held during his residence here.

July 29, 1786, he wrote to a friend: "I do a great deal of Business in
my Profession, but I get very little for it. The truth is we are all
very poor, and the most industrious and economical gets only a bare
subsistence. However, it will soon be better as the Province is daily
filling with stock of all kinds."

In 1787 Dr. Paine made application for leave to visit and reside in New
England while remaining on half pay, and a permit to that effect was
issued by the War Office.

In Salem he devoted himself to the practice of medicine in the town
where he had been known as a student of the famous Dr. Holyoke, and
where his wife had spent her early life.

In 1793 his father died, and he removed to Worcester, and for the
remaining forty years of his life he resided in the paternal mansion.
His father's property was large, and as he was not an absentee, it was
not confiscated. By his will it was equally divided between his
children, the farm and homestead covered 1230 acres. Dr. Paine bought
the shares of his brothers, and sisters in same for 2,000 pounds
sterling, but the deeds were given to Nathaniel Paine in trust for
William, for the doctor was as yet, but an alien in his native state.
The year 1812 was a critical one, bringing a most important question for
him to decide, for war arose between Great Britain and the United
States, and he was still a half-pay officer in His Majesty's service. He
therefore resigned from the British service, and in 1812 petitioned the
Legislature for its consent to his being a naturalized citizen of the
United States.

William Paine was one of the founders of the American Antiquarian
Society of Worcester. His name was omitted from the act of incorporation
because he was an alien. The next year, 1813, he was elected Vice
President of same.

He occupied the old paternal mansion on Lincoln street in a quiet, very
dignified and almost luxurious manner as befitted a country gentleman.
Here he died at the ripe age of 83, March 19, 1833.

SAMUEL PAINE, son of Timothy, was born at Worcester, Mass. Graduated at
Harvard College in 1771. The Worcester County Convention, Sept. 7, 1774,
voted to take notice of Mr. Samuel Paine, assistant clerk, for sending
out _venires_. Voted, that Mr. Samuel Dennison go to Mr. Samuel Paine
forewith, and desire his immediate attendance before this body, to
answer for sending _venires_ to constables commanding their compliance
with the late Act of Parliament.

Mr. Paine appeared and stated that he felt bound by the duty of his
office to comply with the Act, "Voted that Mr. Paine has not given
satisfaction, and that he be allowed to consider till the adjournment of
this meeting."

On September 21, he transmitted a paper to the Convention explanatory of
his conduct; but that body voted that it "was not satisfactory, and that
'his letter be dismissed' and Mr. Paine himself 'be treated with all
neglect.'"

In 1775 he was sent to the Committee of Worcester under guard, "to
Watertown or Cambridge, to be dealt with as the honorable Congress or
Commander-in-Chief shall, upon examination, think proper." His direct
offenses consisted, apparently, in saying that the Hampshire troops had
robbed the home of Mr. Bradish; that he had heard the Whig soldiers were
deserting in great numbers, and that he was told "the men were so close
stowed in the Colleges that they were lousy." This is the substance of
the testimony of a neighbor, the only witness who appeared against him.

In 1776 Mr. Paine accompanied the British Army to Halifax when they
evacuated Boston. During the war he wandered from place to place without
regular employment. He returned to Worcester where he died in 1807. The
British government allowed him an annual pension of £84.

JOHN CHANDLER.

The founder of this family, so large and so influential before the
Revolution, came to these shores from England in 1637, when William
Chandler and Annice, his wife, settled in Roxbury. Mr. Chandler died in
1641, "having lived a very religious and godly life," and "leaving a
sweet memory and savor behind him." Annice Chandler must have been an
attractive woman, for she was not only soon married to a second husband,
but to a third, and her last one evidently expected her to enter into
matrimony a fourth time, for in his will he provided that she shall have
the use of his warming pan only so long as she remained his widow.
Goodwife Parmenter, however, died in 1683, in full possession of the
warming pan, the widow of the third husband.

JOHN CHANDLER, a son of William, emigrated to Woodstock, Conn., and
became a farmer. He was selectman and deacon of the church, and died
there in 1703, leaving a family and property valued at £512.

The second John Chandler, son of the first of that name, had before his
father's death, moved to New London, Conn., where he married, and in
1698 had opened a "house of entertainment" there. He at a later date
moved back to South Woodstock, and in 1711 was chosen representative to
the General Court at Boston for several years. After the erection of
Worcester County by Act of the Legislature of Massachusetts, April 2,
1731, the first Probate Court in Worcester was held by Col. Chandler as
Judge in the meeting house, 13th of July, 1731, and the first Court of
Common Pleas and General Sessions on August 10 following, by the Hon.
John Chandler, commissioned June 30, 1731, Chief Justice. These offices
he held until his death, as well as Colonel of Militia to which stations
of civil, judicial and military honors, he rose by force of his strong
mental powers, with but slight advantages of education. Judge John
Chandler died August 10, 1743, in his 79th year, leaving in his will
£8,699.

JOHN CHANDLER, the third of that name, son of the Hon. John Chandler,
held nearly all the offices in the town of Worcester, Selectman,
Sheriff, Probate Judge, Town Treasurer, Register of Probate, Register of
Deeds, Chief Judge of County Courts, Judge of Common Pleas,
Representative to the General Court, Colonel of Militia and a member of
the Governor's Council. He died in 1762, wealthy and full of honors.

JUDGE CHANDLER, was married to Hannah Gardner, daughter of John Gardner
of the Isle of Wight (known afterwards as Gardner's Island), in 1716.
She died in Worcester in 1738, aged 39 years, leaving nine children, the
first members of the Chandler family who were born and bred in
Worcester.

JOHN CHANDLER, son of the aforesaid, the fourth to bear that name was
born in New London, Connecticut, in 1720, was married twice and had
sixteen children. His father removed to Worcester when he was eleven
years of age. At his father's death he succeeded him to the principal
county offices. He was Colonel in the militia, and was in service in the
French war, and he was Sheriff, Judge of Probate and County Treasurer.
Up to 1774 John Chandler's life had been one of almost unbroken
prosperity, but when the rebellion broke out, his loyalist sentiments
brought upon him the wrath of the mob, and he was compelled to leave
home, and family and retire to Boston. When Boston was evacuated, he
went to Halifax, and thence to London, and two years after he was
proscribed and banished. He sacrificed his large possessions, £36,190 as
appraised in this country by commissioners here, to a chivalrous sense
of loyalty. In the schedule exhibited to the British Commissioners,
appointed to adjust the compensation to the Americans who adhered to the
government; the amount of real and personal property which was
confiscated, is estimated at £11,067, and the losses from office, from
destruction of business, and other causes, at nearly £6,000 more. So
just and moderate was this compensation ascertained to be, at a time
when extravagant claims were presented by others, that his claim was
allowed in full; he was denominated in England "The Honest Refugee."
Sabine says "I am assured that, while he was in Boston he was supported
for a considerable time by the sale of silver plate sent him by his
family; and that when he left home he had no idea of quitting the
country. I am assured also, that when the Revolutionary Commissioners
took an inventory of his household furniture, the females were plundered
of their very clothing." His adherence to the government, and his
departure for England, seems to have been his only offences, yet he was
treated as harshly as though he had borne arms in the field.

He is spoken of as having a cheerful temperament, engaging in manner,
hospitable as a citizen, friendly and kind as a neighbor, industrious
and enterprising as a merchant, and successful as a man of business. He
died in London in 1800, and was buried in Islington churchyard. In 1741
he married Dorothy, daughter of Colonel Nathaniel Paine. She died in
1745. His second wife was Mary, daughter of Colonel Church, of Bristol,
R. I., a descendant of the warrior who fought King Philip. She died at
Worcester in 1783. His portrait in oil is preserved in the rooms of the
American Antiquarian Society, Worcester. George Bancroft, the
distinguished historian, and the widow of Governor Davis of
Massachusetts, are Colonel Chandler's grandchildren.

CLARK CHANDLER, son of Colonel John, was born at Worcester in 1743. At
first a clerk in the office of the Register of Probate, he became joint
Register with Hon. Timothy Paine, and held the appointment from 1766 to
1774. He was also Town Clerk of Worcester from 1768 to 1774. In 1774 he
entered upon the town Records a remonstrance of the Loyalists to the
great anger of the Revolutionists, who voted in town meeting that he
should then and there "obliterate, erase, or otherwise deface, the said
recorded protest, and the names thereto subscribed, so that it may
become illegible and unintelligible." This he was obliged to do, in
presence of the revolutionists, to blot out the obnoxious record by
dipping his fingers in ink, and drawing them over the protest.

He left home in June, 1775, and went to Halifax, and thence to Canada.
He returned in September of the same year, and was imprisoned in the
common jail. Confinement impaired his health, and he was removed to his
mother's home. Finally he was allowed to go to Lancaster, on giving
security that he would not depart from that town. He returned to
Worcester and kept store at the corner of Main and Front streets. His
person was small, and he wore bright red small clothes; was odd and
singular in appearance, which often provoked jeers and jokes of those
around him, but apt at reply "he paid the jokers in their own coin." He
was never married, and died in Worcester in 1804.

RUFUS CHANDLER, fifth child of Colonel John by Mary Church, his second
wife. He was born in 1747, and graduated at Harvard College in 1776 in a
class of forty, with the rank of the fourth in "dignity of family." He
read law in the office of his uncle, Hon. James Putnam, in Worcester,
where he afterwards practised his profession until the courts were
closed by the mobs in 1774. He was one of the barristers and attornies
who addressed Hutchinson in the last mentioned year. He inherited the
loyalty of his family and left the country at the commencement of
hostilities. He went to Halifax in 1776 and in 1778 was proscribed and
banished. His mother used a part of his estate for the support of his
daughter; but the remainder appraised at £820, was confiscated. He
resided in England as a private gentleman, and died in London in 1823,
at the age of 76, and his remains were laid with those of his fathers in
Islington churchyard. His wife was Elizabeth Putnam, his only child, who
bore her mother's name, married Solomon Vose, of Augusta, Maine.

GARDNER CHANDLER, son of Colonel John, of Hardwick, Mass., was born in
1749, and was a merchant in that town. His property was confiscated, and
the proceeds paid into the treasury of the state. He left the colony and
returned some time after to Hardwick. He made acknowledgments
satisfactory to his townsmen, it was voted by the town "that as Gardner
Chandler has now made acknowledgment, and says he is sorry for his past
conduct, that they will treat him as a friend and neighbor, so long as
he shall behave himself well." He removed to Brattleboro, Vermont, and
again to Hinsdale, N. H. He died in the last named town. His wife was
Elizabeth, daughter of Brigadier Timothy Ruggles.

NATHANIEL CHANDLER, son of Colonel John, was born in Worcester, 1750,
graduated at Harvard College in 1768. He was a pupil of John Adams, and
commenced the practice of law in Petersham. His brother-in-law, the Rev.
Dr. Bancroft, wrote "that he possessed personal manliness and beauty,"
that "he was endowed with a good mind and a lively imagination" that "in
disposition he was cheerful." He was one of the eighteen county
gentlemen who addressed General Gage on his departure in 1775. In 1776
he went to Halifax. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished, and his
estate confiscated. Entering the British service he commanded a corps of
Volunteers and did good service. He returned to Petersham in 1784, and
engaged in trade, but relinquished business on account of ill health,
and returned to Worcester. Citizenship was restored in 1789, by Act of
the Legislature of Mass. He was a very pleasant companion, and a
favorite singer of songs in social parties. He never married. He died at
Worcester in 1801.

WILLIAM CHANDLER, eighth child of Colonel John, was born at Worcester in
1752, and graduated at Harvard College in 1772. At that time students in
that institution were ranked according to "dignity of family" and
William was placed in the highest class. He was one of the eighteen
county gentlemen who were driven from their homes to Boston, and who
addressed General Gage on his departure in 1775. In 1776 he went to
Halifax. He was proscribed and banished under the Act of 1778, but
returned to Mass., after the close of the Revolution. Among the articles
in the inventory of his estate when it was confiscated was seven pairs
of silk hose, at fourteen shillings; plated shoe buckles, six shillings;
and pair of velvet breeches.

Gardiner Chandler, brother of Colonel John. He was born in Woodstock in
1723. In the French war he was a major and was in service at the
surrender of Fort William Henry. He was Treasurer of Worcester County
eight years and succeeded his brother John, as sheriff, in 1762. He
presented General Gage an Address in behalf of the Judges of the Court
of Common Pleas in 1774; and was compelled by a Convention of the
Committee of Correspondence to sign a "Recantation." In time, he
regained the confidence of the community, and was suffered to live
undisturbed. He died in Worcester, in 1782. His first wife was Hannah
Greene, of Providence, R. I., his second, Ann Leonard, of Norton, Mass.

The Chandlers were in every respect the most eminent family in Worcester
County, and furnished many men of distinction in its ante-revolutionary
history. They were closely allied by blood, marriage or friendship with
the aristocracy of the county and province, in which they had unbounded
sway. They had large possessions, and shared with the Paine family (with
whom they were allied), the entire local influence at Worcester, but did
not, like that family, survive the shock of the Revolution, and retain a
local habitation and a name. Their property was confiscated and they
were declared traitors.

The family was broken up; some members of it went abroad and died there,
others were scattered in this country, yet not a few of their
descendants eminent in the most honorable pursuits, and in the highest
positions in life under different names and in various localities,
represent that ancient, honorable and once numerous race, wrecked by the
Revolution.

John Adams says in his diary, "The Chandlers exercised great influence
in the County of Worcester until they took the side of the government in
the Revolution, and lost their position. They were well bred, agreeable
people, and I visited them as often as my school, and my studies in the
lawyer's office would admit."

JOHN GORE.

John Gore, of Roxbury, and his wife Rhoda, were both church members in
1635. He died June 2, 1657, and his widow married Lieut. John Remington.
He had ten children, of whom John, Samuel, Abigail, Mary, Mylam, and
Hannah, were mentioned in his will.

Samuel Gore, son of the former, lived in Roxbury, and was a carpenter.
He married August 28, 1672, Elizabeth, daughter of John Weld. He died
July, 1692. They had seven children.

Obadiah Gore, son of Samuel, was also a carpenter, and lived in Boston.
He married, October 26, 1710, Sarah Kilby. He died October 8, 1721, and
was survived by five children, all of whom were baptized at the Brattle
Street church.

JOHN GORE, son of the former, lived in Boston, and was a painter and
merchant. He married, May 5, 1743, Frances, daughter of John Pinkney.
She was born September 20, 1726. They had fourteen or fifteen children,
nine of whom lived to be married. The baptisms of nine of his children
are given in the records of the Brattle Street Church. John Gore was an
Addresser of Gage, and in 1776 went to Halifax and thence to England. He
was proscribed and banished in 1778, and pardoned by the Legislature in
1787. He died in Boston in 1796, aged seventy-seven. His will is in the
Suffolk Register, Lib. 94, F. 182. His son, CHRISTOPHER GORE, was born
in Boston, Sept. 21st, 1758. He was educated in the public schools of
Boston, and was prepared at the South Latin school under the tuition of
Mr. Lovell, the most noted educator of his day. At the age of 13,
Christopher entered Harvard College, and was among the youngest of his
class. But he commenced his collegeate course in troubleous times, for
in his junior year the Revolution broke out, which created confusion and
disorder through society, and deranged the plans, and changed the
pursuits of many in every grade and profession. The College at Cambridge
was considered by the Revolutionists as "nest of tories" and during the
siege of Boston the college buildings were taken possession of by the
continental army stationed at Cambridge, and the students were dispersed
for several months. Young Gore was determined to follow out his course
of college training, however, and to this end went to Bradford, in Essex
County, and studied under the direction and in the family of Rev. Mr.
Williams, afterwards professor of mathematics and natural philosophy in
Harvard College. When the college removed to Concord he, with most of
the students, repaired thither, and resumed his studies. He graduated in
1776, the year that his father was driven from the land of his birth.

Christopher Gore soon commenced the study of law in the office and under
the direction of Judge John Lowell, in whose family he resided while a
student. He commenced the practice of law in Boston with every prospect
of success. He had to depend on himself alone, for not only had he his
own fortune to make, but after he left college, he had to contribute to
the support of his mother and three unmarried sisters, who were left in
Boston without means when his father went to Halifax.

By his own exertion and industry, he paid his college bills after he
entered on his profession, in addition to his other responsible duties,
devolving upon him with honor to himself. During 1809-10 Mr. Gore was
Governor of Massachusetts. While Governor, he occupied the home corner
of Park and Beacon streets, and it is said he drove through the streets
of Boston in a carriage drawn by four horses. This was more than the
plain republican people of Boston could stand, and they did not want him
for Governor again, besides it is undeniable that Mr. Gore was a good
deal of an aristocrat at heart, and consequently more or less a
loyalist. But he made a fine administrator, and at the end of the term
retired to private life, and did not resume the practice of his
profession.

In 1791 Christopher Gore purchased in Waltham about 1000 acres of land
which formerly belonged to an ancestor of President Garfield. Here
Governor Gore erected a stately mansion upon a knoll or rise of the land
not far distant from Gore street, where one of the drives, leading to
it, runs under rows of stately trees, and through a finely kept lawn. In
the rear of the house are the flower gardens, and conservatory, and
behind that the kitchen garden; to the west of this is the deer park.

After the death of Governor Gore this stately structure was sold to
General Theodore Lyman, who after living there seven years sold it to
Singleton Copley Greene, the son of Gardner Green, who married a
daughter of Copley the artist, the sister of Lord Lyndhurst: (see p.
216.) Christopher Gore married Rebecca Payne, 11 Nov. 1783. They had no
children. Gov. Gore died 1 March 1827, his widow 22 Jan. 1833.

JOHN JEFFRIES.

David Jeffries was born at Rhoad, in Wiltshire, England, 1658, and
arrived at Boston, May 9, 1677. He married Sept. 15, 1686, Elizabeth,
daughter of John and Elizabeth Usher, by whom he had several children.
Of his two sons, John, born Feb. 5, 1688, and David, born June 15, 1690,
John became Town Treasurer, was a very prominent citizen. He married
Sept. 24, 1713, Anne Clarke, and had issue, an only child Anne, who died
young. He went to London in 1710, and returned in 1713. He resided in
Tremont Street opposite the King's Chapel.

David Jeffries Jr., who continued the name, married in 1713, Katherine,
daughter of John and Katherine Eyre, by whom he had an only child David,
born 23 Oct. 1714. He was a merchant, and in 1715 he sailed for England,
and was lost in the Amity, Sept. 13, 1716, on the sands near Dungeness.
His son,

DAVID JEFFRIES, married his cousin, Sarah Jaffrey, 1741, by whom he had
eight children, all of whom died young except John, born Feb. 4, 1744,
alone preserved the name.

JOHN JEFFRIES, the only son of the former, graduated from Harvard
College in 1763, having pursued his medical studies with Doctor Lloyd.
He continued his study of medicine in London, and was honored with the
degree of M. D. at Aberdeen in 1769. In 1771 he was appointed surgeon to
the "Captain" a British Ship-of-the-line in Boston Harbor, by his
friend, Admiral Montague. He held that position until 1774.

Dr. Jeffries practised in Boston until the Revolution. He landed with
the forces at the battle of Bunker Hill, and assisted in dressing the
wounded of the Royal Army, and, it is said, identified the body of
Warren, in the presence of Sir William Howe. He accompanied the British
troops at the evacuation in 1776 to Halifax, and was appointed Chief of
the Surgical Staff of Nova Scotia. In 1779 he went to England; and on
his return to America, held a high professional employment to the
British forces at Charleston and New York. He resigned in 1780, and
going to England again, commenced practice in London.

[Illustration: DR. JOHN JEFFRIES.

Born in Boston, Feb. 4, 1774. In his balloon costume. Dr. Jeffries and
Blanchard were the first to cross from England to France in a balloon.
Died in Boston Sept. 16, 1819.]

On the 17th of January, 1785, Dr. Jeffries crossed the English channel
with Blanchard in a balloon, landing in the forest of Guines in France.
This feat procured for him the attention of the most distinguished
personages of the day and an introduction to all the learned and
scientific societies of Paris.[232]

[232] A narrative of his two aerial voyages was published In London in
1786, exact and entertaining, with a portrait of the adventurer and a
view of the monument erected by the French government, on the spot where
he landed.

Dr. Jeffries' first wife was Sarah Rhoads, whom he married in 1770. By
her he had three children, who died unmarried. He married again, Sept.
8, 1787, Hannah, the daughter of William and Hannah Hunt. In 1790 Dr.
Jeffries returned to Boston in the ship Lucretia.

He resumed his practice, and delivered the first public lecture on
anatomy, a branch of his profession of which he was very fond.[233] He
was eminent as a surgeon, midwife and physician. He attended the poor as
faithfully and cheerfully as the rich, and was never known to refuse a
professional call. His death occurred in Boston, September 16th, 1819,
aged 76 years, after a successful practice of fifty-three years.

[233] Curwen's Journal, P. 537.

Dr. Jeffries had by his second wife eleven children, all of whom died
unmarried excepting John, Katherine who married G. C. Haven, Julia Ann,
who married Thomas E. Eckley, and George J., who took the name of
Jaffrey.[234]

[234] New Eng. Hist. & General Reg., Vol. 15, P. 16.

John Jeffries, son of the doctor, was born March 23, 1796, and became
the only representative of the name in the city. He was a distinguished
physician in Boston. He married, November 8, 1820, Anne Geyer, daughter
of Rufus Greene and Ann (McLean) Amory. His children were Catherine,
Anne, Sarah, Augustus, Edward P. and Henry N. Jeffries.

George Jaffrey, an elder son of Dr. John Jeffries the loyalist, was born
December 21, 1789. George Jaffrey, his grand-uncle, who graduated from
Harvard College in 1736, became a Counsellor and held various important
positions in Portsmouth, N. H. He married Lucy, the daughter of Adam
Winthrop, but had no issue. His loyalty to the crown involved him in
trouble several times, but he died in 1802 leaving property, then a
large amount to George Jaffrey Jeffries, on condition that "he should
drop the name of Jeffries; become a permanent resident of Portsmouth,
and never follow any profession except that of being a gentleman."

George Jaffrey made his home in Portsmouth and for many years was
librarian of the Portsmouth Athenaeum. He died May 4, 1856, and a
merited tribute was paid to his character and his labors by Mr. Brewster
in the Portsmouth Journal of the 10th.[235]

[235] New Eng. Hist. & General Reg., Vol. 15, P. 17.

The Jeffries family have always ranked among the gentry of Boston, and
have maintained that position from the date of the earliest settlement,
to the present time.

THOMAS BRINLEY.

Thomas Brinley, Auditor general to Charles First and Second, had a son
Francis who settled at Barbados, but the climate not being suited to his
habits and constitution, came to New England and settled at Newport, R.
I., in 1652. This was about fourteen years after the settlement of that
place, and Francis Brinley held various offices; among them that of
Judge. He occasionally resided in Boston, owning a large estate at the
corner of Hanover and Elm streets. He died there in 1719, aged
eighty-seven, and was buried in a grave in the King's Chapel
burial-ground in Boston, on the spot where the family tomb now stands.

Thomas, son of the latter, was one of the founders of King's Chapel and
resided in Boston. He married Mary Apthorp, and in 1684 went to England,
where he died in 1693. His daughter Elizabeth married William
Hutchinson, Esq., a graduate of Harvard College, in 1702. Mrs. Brinley,
Francis and Elizabeth, returned to Newport, R. I.

Francis Brinley, the son of Thomas, was born in London in 1690, and was
educated at Eton. He became a colonel and resided in Roxbury. His
mansion was named Datchet from the house of that place in England.
Colonel Brinley returned to London, where he died November 27, 1765.
Francis Brinley's wife was Deborah, daughter of Edward and Catherine
Lyde, and his marriage took place April 18, 1718. They had five sons and
two daughters; one of whom married Colonel John Murray, and the other
Godfrey Malbone.

Of the sons, THOMAS BRINLEY was a Mandamus Councillor, and lived on
Harvard Street. He married his cousin Elizabeth, the daughter of George
Cradock, but they left no children. He was a graduate of Harvard College
in 1744, and became a Merchant in Boston.

His name appears among the one hundred and twenty-four merchants and
others, who addressed Hutchinson in Boston in 1774; and among the
ninety-seven gentlemen and principal inhabitants of that town, who
addressed Gage in October of the following year. In 1776 he went to
Halifax, and thence to England in the same year. In 1778 he was
proscribed and banished. His death occurred in 1784, and Elizabeth, his
widow, died in England in 1793.

EDWARD BRINLEY, brother of Thomas, married Sarah, daughter of Thomas
Tyler and left many descendants.

NATHANIEL BRINLEY, another brother, also married his cousin, Catharine
Cradock, was a resident in South Street and at one time lived in
Framingham. About 1760 he leased the "Brinley Farm" of Oliver DeLancey,
agent of the owner, Admiral Sir Peter Warren, of the Royal Navy, and as
is said, employed fifteen or twenty negroes, in its cultivation. It is
related that Daniel Shays, the leader of the insurrection in 1786, was
in the service of Mr. Brinley on this farm. In 1775 he was an Addresser
of Gage, and was ordered, in consequence, to confine himself to his own
leasehold. He fled to the Royal Army in Boston, and after the evacuation
of that town, he was sent to Framingham by sentence of a Court of
Inquiry, ordered to give bond in £600, with two sureties, to remain
there four months and to be of good behavior.

"In September 1776, Ebenezer Marshall, in behalf of the Committee of
Correspondence, Inspection and Safety, represented that the 'people take
him for a very villain,' as he had declared that 'Parliament had an
undoubted right to make void the charter in part or in whole'; 'that ten
thousand troops, with an artillery, would go through the continent, and
subdue it at pleasure'; that he had conveyed 'his best furniture to
Roxbury, and moved his family and goods into Boston,' and had himself
remained there, 'as long as he could have the protection of the British
troops;' that he approved of General Gage's conduct in the highest
terms;' that 'his most intimate connections were some of our worst
enemies and traitors;' and that, while he had been under their
inspection, they had seen nothing 'either in his conduct or disposition,
that discovers the least contrition, but otherwise.'"[236]

[236] Sabine's Loyalists, Vol. 1, P. 256.

To some of these allegations, Mrs. Brinley replied in two memorials to
the General Court. She averred that, by the conditions of the
recognizance, her husband was entitled to the freedom of the whole of
the town of Framingham; that he was in custody on the sole charge of
addressing Gage; and that instead of being a refuge in Boston, he was
shut up in that town while accidentally there, etc. She stated that he
at one time had been compelled to work on John Fisk's farm, without
liberty to go more than twenty rods from the house unless in Fisk's
presence; and that he was denied the free use of pen, ink and paper. She
said that after Mr. Brinley had been transferred to the care of Benjamin
Eaton, he was not allowed to go from the house, and was fearful that his
departure from it would occasion the loss of his life; also that she or
any other person was not allowed to converse with him, unless in the
hearing of some member of Eaton's family. She urged that he might be
removed to some other inland town, and be treated in accordance with his
sentence. Mr. Brinley's defence of himself seems to have been the simple
remark: "I am a gentleman and have done nothing to forfeit that
character." He merely had a rational opinion, but that was enough.

On the 17th September, 1776, the General Court, by resolve, committed
him to the care of his father, on security in £600 for his appearance;
and, in October of the same year, the committee of Framingham reported
to the council that they had disposed of his farm, stock, farm-utensils
and household furniture. Nathaniel Brinley removed to Tyngsborough,
where his son Robert, married Elizabeth, daughter of John Pitts. This
staunch loyalist died at that place in 1814, at the age of eighty-one.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO THOMAS BRINLEY IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Gustavus Fellows, Sept. 28, 1782; Lib. 136, fol. 11; Land,
dwelling-house, distill house and wharf in Boston, Hollis St. S.;
heirs of Joshua Henshaw deceased W.; low water mark.

REV. JOHN WISWELL.

John and Thomas Wiswell were early residents of Dorchester. John's name
is found in the records as early as 1634. His brother Thomas came to
Dorchester about 1635. Noah, son of Thomas, born in 1640, was a military
man, and was in command in the desperate battle with the Indians near
Wheelwright's Pond, N. H., where he and his son John were killed, July
6th, 1690. Another son of Thomas, Inchabod, born in 1637, was minister
of Duxbury. He had a son Peleg, born in 1683, who was schoolmaster at
Charlestown in 1704. John Wiswell, son of Peleg, married Elizabeth,
daughter of Dr. Samuel Rogers, graduated from Harvard College in 1705,
was a master of a Boston Grammar School in 1719. He died in 1767, aged
84 and is buried in Copps Hill burying ground.

JOHN WISWELL, son of the aforesaid, was born in 1731, and graduated from
Harvard College in 1749. In 1753 he was teaching school in Maine, but he
pursued the study of divinity as a Congregationalist. Occasionally he
preached, and in 1756 he was invited to become the pastor of the New
Casco parish in Falmouth, now Portland, and was ordained November third
of that year. In 1761 he married Mercy, the daughter of Judge John
Minot, of Brunswick.

In 1764 John Wiswell suddenly changed his religious views and left his
people. He embraced the Episcopal form of worship, and preached for
several Sundays in the town-house. On September 4, 1764, the Parish of
St. Paul's Church, Falmouth, was organized and Mr. Wiswell was invited
to become their rector. For want of a bishop in the colonies, he was
obliged to go to England to receive ordination. A writer at this time
says, "There was a sad uproar about Wiswell, who has declared for the
church and accepted of the call our churchmen have given him to be their
minister." They voted him £100 a year and later he received £20 as a
Missionary from the Missionary Society. After a year's elapse, he was
able to report to the Society in London for the propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts, that his Congregation had increased to seventy
families, and the admittance of twenty-one persons to the communion. In
1765 the parish addressed a letter to the Rev. Mr. Hooper of Boston,
asking his good offices in enlisting the sympathy of the churchmen
there, in behalf of their oppressed fellow-worshippers in Falmouth. John
Wiswell was an ardent Loyalist, as were about twenty of the leading men
of his church. He continued to preach until the revolution broke out.
After the trouble came in the colonies, he was seized while out walking
one day with Captain Mowatt, by Colonel Samuel Thompson of Brunswick,
who had arrived with about fifty men unknown to the inhabitants. Colonel
Thompson refused to release Mr. Wiswell, and Captain Mowatt, but finally
seeing that the town was against him, he consented to release them if
they would give their parole to deliver themselves up next day. After
his capture, the clergyman was obliged to declare his abhorrence of the
doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, and was then released.
Mr. Wiswell now joined the British Forces, and after going on board a
man-of-war addressed a letter to the wardens of his church, resigning
his charge. After Captain Mowatt burned Falmouth, he sailed to Boston,
and then to England. After leaving his parish he was for three years a
chaplain on the British Naval Ship Boyne, and later for a short time was
a curate in Suffolk. He and fifteen others from Falmouth had their
estates confiscated, and were banished.

At the close of the war, Mr. Wiswell accepted the call of some of his
former parishioners, and settled in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia, over a
parish they had formed there, and in 1782 he was appointed a missionary
of that place. Having lost his first wife, he married a widow Hutchinson
from the Jerseys, as the Rev. Jacob Bailey, the frontier missionary
writes, who married them. John Wiswell was afterwards a missionary at
Aylesford, and after a very full and worthy life, died at Nova Scotia in
1812, at the age of eighty-one. He left two sons, born in Falmouth, who
were Lieutenants in the Navy. Peleg, one of his sons, was appointed
Judge of the Supreme Court, of Nova Scotia, in 1816 and died at
Annapolis in 1836, at the age of seventy-three. When the Rev. John
Wiswell lived in Falmouth, Maine, he occupied a house painted red, which
stood on the corner of Middle and Exchange Streets, afterwards owned and
occupied by James Deering, and which gave place to the brick block built
by that gentleman.

HENRY BARNES.

John Barnes, and his wife Elizabeth (Perrie) came to Boston about 1710.
He was a prominent merchant, and was in partnership with John Arbuthnot,
who married Abigail Little, of Pembroke, in 1719, and whose daughter
Christian married Henry, the son of John Barnes, Sept. 26, 1746. John
Barnes was a prominent Episcopalian, was vestryman of King's Chapel from
1715 to 1724, warden from 1724 to 1728, was the first mentioned of the
trustees concerned in the purchase of land for Christ Church, and
afterwards of those who bought of Leonard Vassal, Esq., his estate on
Summer street (see p. 286) for the building of Trinity Church. His home
in Boston was on the north side of Beacon street, extending from Freeman
Place to Bowdoin Street, a portion of which is now occupied by the Hotel
Bellevue, he purchased this property in 1721, and died, seized of it. In
1756 it was conveyed by John Erving (see p. 298) to James Bowdoin.

John Barnes died early in 1739 at Clemente Bar, St. Mary Co., Maryland.
His wife died in 1742 in Boston.

Among their children was Elizabeth, who married Nathaniel Coffin the
Cashire (see p. 234). Among their distinguished children were General
John Coffin and Admiral Sir Isaac Coffin, of the British Navy.

Catherine, another daughter, born in 1715, married Colonel Thomas
Goldthwaite (see p. 356). She was his second wife, and died at
Walthamstow, England, 1796, aged 81.

HENRY BARNES. The subject of this memoir was baptized Nov. 20, 1723. He
was brought up in his father's business, and established himself as a
merchant in Marlborough, Mass., in 1753, and was appointed magistrate.
He was possessed of considerable property, and was one of the largest
tax payers in the town, and was the owner of several slaves, one of whom
"Daphne," he left in Marlborough, and she was supported out of his
estate.

Henry Barnes was thoroughly loyal, and for that reason he was probably
the best hated man in Marlborough. A late town history says Marlborough
was cursed by a Loyalist named Henry Barnes.

Towards the close of February, 1775, General Gage ordered Captain Brown
and Ensign D'Bernicre to go through the Counties of Suffolk and
Worcester, and to sketch the roads as they went, for his information, as
he expected to march troops through that country the ensuing spring.
Their adventures after their departure for Marlborough, are related by
one of them as follows:

"At two o'clock it ceased snowing a little, and we resolved to set off
for Marlborough, which was about sixteen miles off. We found the roads
very bad, every step up to our ancles; we passed through Sudbury, a
large village near a mile long; the causeway lies over a great swamp, or
overflowing of Sudbury river, and is commanded by a high ground on the
opposite side. Nobody took the least notice of us, till we arrived
within three miles of Marlborough, (it was snowing very hard all the
while,) when a horseman overtook us, and asked us from whence we
came--we said from Weston; he asked us if we lived there--we said no; he
then asked where we resided, and, as we found there was no evading his
questions, we told him we lived in Boston. He then asked us where we
were going: we told him to Marlborough, to see a friend; (as we intended
to go to Mr. Barnes's, a gentleman to whom we were recommended, and a
friend to the Government;) he then asked us, if we were of the army; we
said no, but were a good deal alarmed at his asking us that question; he
asked several rather impertinent questions, and then rode on for
Marlborough, as we suppose, to give them intelligence of our coming--for
on our arrival the people came out of their houses (though it snowed and
blew very hard) to look at us; in particular, a baker asked Capt. Brown,
'Where are you going, Master?' He answered, 'To see Mr. Barnes.'[237]

[237] The horseman that met them was Col. Timothy Bigelow, of the
Committee of Safety.

"We proceeded to Barnes's, and on our beginning to make an apology for
taking the liberty to make use of his house, and discovering to him that
we were officers in disguise, he told us that we need not be at the
pains of telling him, that he knew our situation, that we were very well
known, he was afraid, by the town's people. We begged he would recommend
some tavern where we should be safe; he told us we would be safe no
where but in his house; that the town was very violent, and that we had
been expected at Col. Williams's tavern, the night before, where there
had gone a party of liberty people to meet us. While we were talking,
the people were gathering in little groups in every part of the town
(village).

"Mr. Barnes asked us who had spoken to us on our coming into town; we
told him a baker; he seemed a little startled at that, told us that he
was a very mischievous fellow, and that there was a deserter at his
house. Capt. Brown asked the man's name; he said it was Sawin, and that
he had been a drummer. Brown knew him too well, as he was a man of his
own Company, and had not been gone above a month; so we found we were
discovered. We asked Mr. Barnes, if they did get us into their hands
what they would do with us; he did not seem to like to answer; we asked
him again; he then said, he knew the people very well, that we might
expect the worst treatment from them.

"Immediately after this, Mr. Barnes was called out; he returned a little
after, and told us the Doctor of the town had come to tell him, he was
come to sup with him, (now this fellow had not been within Mr. Barnes's
doors for two years before, and came now for no other business than to
see and betray us). Barnes told him he had company, and could not have
the pleasure of attending him that night; at this the fellow staid about
the house, and asked one of Mr. Barnes's children, who her father had
got with him; the child innocently answered, that she had asked her
papa, but he told her it was not her business; he then went, I suppose,
to tell the rest of his crew.

"When we found we were in that situation, we resolved to lie down for
two or three hours, and set off at twelve o'clock at night; so we got
some supper on the table, and were just beginning to eat, when Mr.
Barnes, who had been making inquiries of his servant, found the people
intended to attack us; he then told us plainly, that he was very uneasy
for us, that we could be no longer in safety in the town; upon which we
resolved to set off immediately, and asked Mr. Barnes if there was no
road round the town, so that we might not be seen. He took us out of his
house by the stable, and directed us by a by-road which was to lead us a
quarter of a mile from the town; it snowed and blew as much as I ever
saw in my life. However, we walked pretty fast, fearing we should be
pursued; at first we felt much fatigued, having not been more than
twenty minutes at Barnes's to refresh ourselves, and the roads were
worse, if possible, than when we came; but in a little time it wore off,
and we got on without being pursued, as far as the hills which command
the causeway at Sudbury, and went into a little wood, where we eat a bit
of bread that we took from Barnes's, and eat a little snow to wash it
down.

"A few days after our return, Mr. Barnes came to town from Marlborough,
and told us that immediately after our quitting town, the Committee of
Correspondence came to his house, and demanded us; he told them we were
gone; they then searched his house from top to bottom, looking under the
beds and in the cellar, and when they found we were gone, they told him,
if they had caught us in his house, they would have pulled it down about
his ears. They sent horsemen after us on every road, but we had the
start of them, and the weather being so very bad, they did not overtake
us, or missed us. Barnes told them we were not officers, but relatives
of his wife's from Penobscot, and were going to Lancaster; that perhaps
deceived them."

In the House of Representatives, November, 1775, the "Petition of Henry
Knox[238] humbly showeth. That your petitioner having been obliged to
leave all his goods and home furniture in Boston, which he has no
prospect of ever getting possession of again, nor any equivalent for the
same, therefore begs the Honorable Court, if in their wisdom see fit, to
permit him to exchange house furniture, with Henry Barnes, late of
Marlborough, which he now has in his power to do." The prayer was
refused, but he was allowed to _use_ the Loyalist's goods, on giving
receipt to account for them to the proper authorities.

[238] Subsequently Chief of Artillery in the Revolutionary Army, and
Secretary at War under Washington.

In December, 1775, Catherine Goldthwaite prayed the interposition of the
General Court, stating in a petition that she was the niece and adopted
heir of Barnes; that she had resided with him about seventeen years,
that at his departure from town, she was left with a part of his family
in possession, and that the committee of Marlborough had entered upon
his estate, sold a part, and proposed to dispossess her entirely. No
redress could be obtained.

Through the violence of the mob Henry Barnes was forced to seek shelter
in Boston early in 1775. From there he went to England. In 1777 he was
at Bristol with his wife and niece, and in September thirteen of his
fellow Loyalists were his guests, and later still in the same year he
dined with several of the Massachusetts exiles at Mr. Lechmere's, when
the conversation was much about the political condition of their native
land.

Mr. Barnes was proscribed and banished, and his estate confiscated. He
died at London in 1808, at the age of eighty-four.

THOMAS FLUCKER.

Secretary of Massachusetts Bay.

The Fluckers were descended from a French Huguenot family who settled in
England. Captain James Flucker, mariner, came to America and married
Elizabeth Luist at Charlestown, Mass., May 30, 1717. He was taxed there
from 1727 to 1756 and died 3 Nov. 1756. She died Sept. 1770. They had
eight children.[239]

[239] See Life of Henry Knox by F. G. Drake, P. 125.

THOMAS FLUCKER, son of the aforesaid, was born at Charlestown, 9 Oct.
1719. He was a merchant in Boston and owned an estate on Summer street.
He was commissioned a Justice of the Peace 14 Sept. 1756, was a member
of the Council in 1761-68. A Selectman of Boston in 1766, succeeded
Andrew Oliver as Secretary, 12 Nov. 1770, was made a Mandamus Councillor
9 Aug. 1774. He married 1st, 12 June 1744, Judith, daughter of Hon.
James Bowdoin, a Boston Huguenot family, and as a testimony to the
public spirit of this famous family, Bowdoin College remains. 2nd, 14
Jan. 1751, he married Hannah, daughter of General Samuel Waldo,
proprietor of the Waldo Patent Main, to whose heirs the great domain
descended. The portion belonging to Mrs. Flucker and her brother, were
confiscated.

Thomas Flucker was a staunch Loyalist. He was banished and his estates
confiscated. He left Boston at the evacuation, March 17, 1776, for
Halifax. He afterwards went to London, where he was a member of the
Brompton Row Association of Loyalists, who met weekly for conversation
and a dinner. An extract from Hutchinson's Diary, July 13, 1776, says:

"Flucker dined with us; depends on the truth of the report of his
family's being arrived in Ireland; has 300£ allowed by treasury; last
(?) of the Council 200£." Thomas Flucker died in England suddenly on
Feb. 16, 1783. His wife remained in England, but survived him only three
years.

THOMAS FLUCKER, of Massachusetts, son of the former, graduated at
Harvard University in 1773. During the Revolution he was a Lieutenant in
the 60th British regiment at St. Augustine, Fla., in 1777. By the
University catalogue, it appears that he and his father died the same
year, 1783.

LUCY FLUCKER, another child, born 2 August 1756, married General Henry
Knox of the revolutionary army, and afterwards Secretary at War. The
young rebel had at the time a flourishing bookstore opposite Williams
Court in Cornhill, a fashionable morning resort at that time for the
British officers and their ladies. Harrison Gray Otis says that Miss
Lucy "was distinguished as a young lady of high intellectual endowments,
very fond of books, especially of the books sold by Knox, at whose
premises was kindled as the story went, 'the guiltless flame' which was
destined to burn on the hymeneal altar." Henry Knox became Chief of
Artillery in the Revolution, and in Washington's Administration,
Secretary of War. He acquired on easy terms, a very large share of Mrs.
Flucker's property, which had been confiscated, and settled on it at
Thomaston, Maine, building a fine mansion in which he himself died in
1806, and his wife in 1824.

Sally Flucker, another daughter of Thomas Flucker, Jr., who performed
in Burgoyne's "Maid of the Oaks" in private theatricals given by British
officers in Boston, accompanied the family to England and married Mr.
Jephson, a member of the Irish Parliament. Copley painted her portrait.

Hannah Flucker, daughter of Thomas, married 2 Nov. 1774, James Urquhart,
captain in the 14th regiment, which was engaged in the battle of Bunker
Hill.

MARGARET DRAPER.

Richard Draper and his brother William emigrated to the Colonies and
settled at Boston about 1680. He was a merchant in that city. The Boston
Records state that Richard Draper and John Wentworth furnished the
lumber from which Faneuil Hall was built. In his will he says that he is
the son of Edward and Ann Draper, of Branbury, in the County of Oxford,
Great Britain, deceased, and only brother to William Draper Senr. of
Boston. This will was probated Jan. 25th, 1728.

About the year 1700 the Postmaster of Boston was one John Campbell, a
Scotchman, and son of Duncan Campbell, the organizer of the postal
system of America. He was also a bookseller. In those early days the
dissemination of news was in the hands of the postmasters of each town,
and John Campbell on Monday, April 24, 1704, improved the present system
by _printing the news_. He issued the first number of the Boston "News
Letter," the first newspaper issued in America. The first sheet of the
first number was taken damp from the press by Chief Justice Sewell, to
show to President Willard, of Harvard College, as a wonderful curiosity.
Bartholomew Green, eldest son of Thomas Green, printer to Cambridge
University, was the printer. He obtained possession of the newspaper in
1721, shortly after Campbell was removed from the post-office in Boston.
On his death in 1733, it passed into the hands of his son-in-law, John
Draper, son of Richard Draper, who continued to publish it until his
death in 1762, when he was succeeded by his son Richard Draper, who
changed the title to the "Massachusetts Gazette and Boston News Letter."
He was brought up a printer by his father, and continued with him after
he became of age, and was for some years before his father's death a
silent partner with him. He was early appointed printer to the Council
and Government, which he retained during life. Under his successful
editorship, the paper was devoted to the Government, and in the
controversy with Great Britain, he strongly supported the Loyalists
cause, and illustrated the head of his paper with the King's Arms. Many
able advocates of the Government filled the columns of the "News-Letter"
but the opposition papers were supported by writers at least equally
powerful and numerous.

The Drapers were considered the most eminent and successful printers in
America. A list of works containing their imprints would fill pages.

Richard Draper was a man of feeble health, and was remarkable for the
delicacy of his mind and gentleness of his manner. No stain rests on his
character. He was attentive to his affairs, and was esteemed as the best
compiler of news of his day. Having been successful in his business and
acquired a competency, he erected a handsome brick home on a convenient
spot in front of the old printing home in Newbury, now Washington
street, where he resided, and which was afterwards confiscated. He died
June 6th, 1774, aged 47, without children, and was succeeded by his
widow, Margaret, who was a granddaughter of Bartholomew Green.

A month before his death, he had taken John Boyle into partnership, but
at the outbreak of hostilities, his sympathies being strong for the
Revolutionary cause, he was not agreeable to Widow Margaret, and was
succeeded in the partnership by John Howe, who was a devoted loyalist,
and continued with her until the final suspension of the paper, which
occurred on the evacuation of Boston, by the British troops, when
Margaret departed with the soldiers, going first to Halifax and thence
to England, where she enjoyed a pension from the British Government for
the remainder of her life, in return for her loyalty and devotion to the
Government.

Margaret Draper's paper was the only one published in Boston during the
siege. It had been published without intermission for 72 years. She died
in London in 1807, and was included in the confiscation and banishment
Act.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO MARGARET DRAPER IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Richard Devens, Feb. 7, 1783; Lib. 137, fol. 48; Land and
buildings in Boston, Newbury St. W.; heirs of Benjamin Church S.
and E., Josiah Waters, Jr. N.

RICHARD CLARKE.

Richard Clarke was the son of Francis Clarke, merchant, a descendant of
an old Boston family. Richard graduated at Harvard College in 1729. He
and his sons were the consignees of a part of the tea destroyed in
Boston by the celebrated "Tea Party" December 1773. In a letter from
Messrs. Clarke & Sons to Mr. Abram Dupuis they say: "On the morning of
the 2nd inst. about one o'clock, we were roused out of our sleep by a
violent knocking at the door of our house, and on looking out of the
window we saw (for the moon shone very bright) two men in the courtyard.
One of them said he brought us a letter from the country. A servant took
the letter from him at the door, the contents of which was as follows:

Boston, 1st Nov., 1773.
Richard Clarke & Son:

The Freemen of this Province understand from good authority, that
there is a quantity of tea consigned to your house by the East
India Company, which is destructive to the happiness of every well
wisher to the country. It is therefore expected that you personally
appear at Liberty Tree, on Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock at
noon day, to make a public resignation of your commission,
agreeable to a notification of this day for that purpose.

Fail not upon your peril.
O. C.

"In this you may observe a design to create a public belief that the
factors had consented to resign their trust on Wednesday, the 3d inst.,
on which day we were summoned by the above-mentioned letter, to appear
at Liberty Tree at 12 o'clock noon. All the bells of the meeting houses
for public worship were set a-ringing at 11 o'clock, and continued
ringing till twelve; the town cryer went thro' the town summoning the
people to assemble at 'Liberty Tree.' By these methods, and some more
secret ones, made use of by the authors of this design, a number of
people supposed by some to be about 500, and by others more, were
collected by the time and place mentioned in the printed notification.

"They consisted mostly of people of the lowest rank, very few reputable
tradesmen, as we are informed, appeared amongst them. The gentlemen who
are supposed the designed factors for the East India Company, viz: Mr.
Thos. Hutchinson, Mr. Faneuil, Mr. Winslow and Messrs. Clarke, met in
the forenoon of the 3rd inst., at the latter's warehouse, the lower end
of King street. You may well judge that none of us entertained the least
thought of obeying the summons sent us to attend at Liberty Tree. After
a consultation amongst ourselves and friends, we judged it best to
continue together, and to endeavour, with the assistance of a few
friends, to oppose the designs of the mob, if they should come to offer
us any insult or injury. And on this occasion we were so happy as to be
supported by a number of gentlemen of the first rank. About one o'clock,
a large body of people appeared at the head of King Street, and came
down to the end, and halted opposite to our warehouse. Nine persons came
from them up into our counting room, viz., Mr. Molineux, Mr. Wm. Dennie,
Doctor Warren, Dr. Church, Major Barber, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Gabriel
Johonnot, Mr. Proctor and Mr. Ezekiel Cheever. Mr. Molineux as speaker
of the above Committee, addressed himself to us, and the other gentlemen
present, and told us that we had committed an high insult on the people,
in refusing to give them that most reasonable satisfaction which had
been demanded in the summons which had been sent us, then read a paper
proposed by him, to be subscribed by the factors importing, that they
solemnly promise that they would not land or pay duty on any tea that
should be sent by the East India Company, but they would send back the
tea to England in the same bottom, which extravagent demand being firmly
refused, and treated with proper contempt by all of us. Mr. Molineux
then said that since we had refused their most reasonable demands, we
must expect to feel, on our first appearance, the utmost weight of the
people's resentment, upon which he and the rest of the committee left
our counting room and warehouse, and went to, and mixed, with the
multitude that continued before our warehouse. Soon after this the mob
having made one or two reverse motions to some distance, we perceived
them hastening their pace towards the store, on which we ordered our
servant to shut the outward door; but this he could not effect, although
assisted by some other persons amongst whom were Nathaniel Hatch, Esq.,
one of the Justices of the inferior Court for this country, and a
Justice of the Peace for the county. This gentleman made all possible
exertions to stem the current of the mob, not only by declaring
repeatedly, and with a loud voice, that he was a magistrate, and
commanded the people, by virtue of his office, and in his Majesty's
name, to desist from all riotous proceedings, and to disperse, but also
by assisting in person; but the people not only made him a return, of
insulting and reproachful words, but prevented his endeavors by force
and blows, to get our doors shut, upon which Mr. Hatch, with some other
of our friends, retreated to our counting room. Soon after this, the
outward doors of the store were taken off their hinges by the mob, and
carried to some distance; immediately a number of the mob rushed into
the warehouse, and endeavoured to force into the counting room, but as
this was in another story, and the staircase leading to it narrow, we,
with our friends,--about twenty in number--by some vigorous efforts,
prevented their accomplishing their design. The mob appeared in a short
time to be dispersed, and after a few more faint attacks, they contented
themselves with blocking us up in the store for the space of about an
hour and a half, at which time, perceiving that much the greatest part
of them were drawn off, and those that remained not formidable, we, with
our friends, left the warehouse, walked up the length of King Street
together, and then went to our respective homes without any molestation,
saving some insulting behavior from a few dispicable persons.

"The night following, a menacing letter was thrust under Mr. Faneuil's
door, to be communicated to the other consignees, with a design to
intimidate them from executing their trust, and other methods have since
been made use of in the public papers and otherwise, for the same
purpose."[240]

[240] "Tea Leaves," pp. 282, 3, 4, 5, 6.

On the morning of November 17, 1773, a little party of family friends
had assembled at the home of Richard Clarke, Esq., near the King's
Chapel on School Street, to welcome young Jonathan Clarke, who had just
arrived from London. All at once the inmates of the dwelling were
startled by a violent beating at the door, accompanied with shouts and
the blowing of horns, creating considerable alarm. The ladies were
hastily bestowed in places of safety, while the gentlemen secured the
avenues of the lower story, as well as they were able. The yard and
vicinity were soon filled with people. One of the inmates warned them
from an upper window, to disperse, but getting no other reply, than a
shower of stones, he discharged a pistol. Then came a shower of
misseles, which broke in the lower windows and damaged some of the
furniture. Some influential Revolutionists had by this time arrived, and
put a stop to the proceedings of the mob, which then dispersed. The
consignees then called upon the governor and council for protection.

The eventful Thursday, December 16, 1773, a day ever memorable in the
annals of Boston, witnessed the largest mob yet assembled in Boston.
Nearly seven thousand persons collected at the Old South Meeting House.
The tea ships had not taken out clearance papers, the twenty days
allowed by law terminated that night. Then the revenue officers could
take possession, and under cover of the naval force, land the tea, and
opposition to this would have caused bloody work. The Revolutionists
desired to avoid this issue, so it was decided to destroy the tea.
Rotch, the owner of the "Dartmouth," applied to Governor Hutchinson, at
his residence in Milton, for a pass to proceed with his vessel to
London, for the governor had ordered Colonel Leslie, commander of the
castle, and Admiral Montagu, to guard the passages to the sea, and
permit no unauthorized vessels to pass. The governor offered Rotch a
letter to Admiral Montagu, commending ship and goods to his protection,
if Rotch would agree to have his ship haul out into the stream, but he
replied that none were willing to assist him in doing this, and the
attempt would subject him to the ill will of the people. The governor
then sternly refused a pass, as it would have been "a direct
countenancing and encouraging the violation of the acts of trade."

Between six and seven o'clock in the evening three different mobs
disguised as Indians proceeded from different parts of the town, arrived
with axes and hatchets, and hurried to Griffin's (now Liverpool wharf),
boarded the three tea ships, and, warning their crews and the custom
house officers, to keep out of the way, in less than three hours time
had broken and emptied into the dock three hundred and forty-two chests
of tea, valued at £18,000. A Loyalist writer of the time says: "Now this
crime of the Bostonians, was a compound of the grossest injury and
insult. It was an act of the highest insolence towards government, such
a mildness itself cannot overlook or forgive. The injustice of the deed
was also most atrocious, as it was the destruction of property to a vast
amount, when it was known that the nation was obliged in honor to
protect it." This memorable occurrence was undoubtedly in the immediate
sequence of the events which it produced, the proximate cause of the
American Revolution.[241]

[241] See Page 48 for further particulars concerning the Tea Party Mob.

Richard Clarke was treated with much severity by the Revolutionists. His
name is found with the Addressers of General Gage. He arrived in London
December 24, 1775, after a passage of "only" twenty-one days from
Boston. He was one of the original members of the Loyalist Club, for a
weekly dinner, and discourses. He lived with his son-in-law, Copley the
painter, Leicester Square. Lord Lyndhurst was his grandson. He died in
England in 1795.

JONATHAN CLARKE, son of Richard Clarke, accompanied his father to
England. He was his father's partner in business. He was a member in
1776 of the Loyalists Club, in London, and had lodgings in Brompton Row
the next year. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished. After the
Revolution he went to Canada.

ISAAC WINSLOW CLARKE, son of Richard Clarke, was born in Boston, 27
October, 1746. He was sent by his father to Plymouth to collect debts,
but in the night was assaulted by a mob and obliged to flee from the
town, to escape from personal injuries. He became Commissary-General of
Lower Canada, and died in that Colony in 1822, after he had embarked for
England. His daughter Susan married Charles Richard Ogden, Esq.,
Solicitor-General of Lower Canada, in 1829.

PETER JOHONNOT.

The Johonnots in America are of French Huguenot origin. Daniel Johonnot,
who was born in France about 1668, was one of the first parties of
thirty families that arrived in Boston in 1686. He was in company with
his uncle Andrae Sigournie, Distiller, from Rochelle, and went with him
to Oxford in New England, remaining there until the settlement was
broken up by the incursion of Indians August 25, 1696. Jean Jeanson
(John Johnson) and his three children were killed during the massacre.
Mrs. Johnson was Andrew Sigourney's daughter, and tradition in the
Johonnot family relates that she was rescued at that time from the
Indians by her cousin, Daniel Johonnot, to whom she was subsequently
married.[242]

[242] New England Hist. and Genealogical Register. Vol. 6. P. 357.

The first record we have of Daniel Johonnot in Boston was at the time of
his marriage "on the 18th of April, by the Rev. Samuel Willard of the
Old South Church, to Susan Johnson." This was in the year 1700. In 1714
it appears by the Suffolk Records he purchased for £300 "current money,"
of John Borland and Sarah his wife, an estate near the Mill Creek and
bounded by Mill Pond, and the street leading to said pond (Union Street)
etc. His last purchase of real estate was near the Old South Church and
this land was afterwards occupied by one of the descendants of his
daughter Mary, Mary Anne (Boyer), number 156 Washington street, opposite
the Province House. At the time of Daniel Johonnot's death it was
occupied by his grandson, and must have been Mr. Johonnot's last
residence, as in an inventory it is described as being in the possession
of Mr. Daniel Boyer. In Mr. Johonnot's French Bible, Amsterdam Edition
of 1700, are recorded the births of his six children in French, all
children of Daniel and Serzane Johonnot. This Bible later came into the
possession of one of his descendants. Daniel Johonnot died in Boston in
June, 1748 at the age of eighty years. His wife died some time after
1731, and before the death of her husband. He was remembered as being a
friend to the poor, always industrious and frugal.

Zacherie (Zachariah) Johonnot, the eldest son of the preceding was born
in Boston January 20, 1700-1. His first wife was Elizabeth Quincy, who
died during the revolution, and he married again, April 24, 1777,
Margaret Le Mercier, daughter of Andrew Le Mercier, Minister of the
French Protestant church in Boston.

Like his father he was a Distiller and engaged in mercantile pursuits.
His dwelling house and store was on Orange street at the South part of
the town, and his distillery was on Harvard street directly opposite his
dwelling. At the end of the same street was his wharf, and wooden
distil-house, storehouses, etc. His house and store were burnt at the
time of the great fire, April 20, 1787. The spacious gardens filled with
rare fruit trees, beautiful flowers and shrubs from his father's land
were mostly destroyed.

Mr. Johonnot died in Boston in 1784 at the age of eighty-three. To his
son Peter (then in England) he bequeathed "his mansion house, store
adjoining, yard and garden, as the same is now fenced in, etc." He had
ten children, all by his first wife.

PETER JOHONNOT, the fourth child of the preceding, was born in Boston
September 23, 1729. He was married January 10, 1750 to Katherine Dudley
by the Rev. Mather Byles. She was the daughter of the Honorable William
Dudley (son of Governor Joseph Dudley). Peter Johonnot was a Distiller,
and lived in Boston. In 1775 he was an Addresser of Gage. The next year
he was one of the committee with Thomas and Jonathan Amory, chosen by
the citizens of Boston March 8, 1776, to communicate with General Howe
and take measures to avert the impending destruction, threatened by him,
in case his army should be molested while evacuating the town.

In 1776 Peter Johonnot went to Halifax and thence to England. In 1778 he
was proscribed and banished, and in 1779 he was a loyal Addresser to the
King. Mrs. Johonnot's death occurred in Boston in 1769. Mr. Johonnot
died in London August 8, 1809, at the age of eighty, and left no
issue.[243] The following occurs in the Diary of Dr. P. Oliver:--"1809,
Aug.--Peter Johonnot died this month in London, aged 79."

[243] New England Hist. and Gen. Reg. Vol. 7. P. 142.

FRANCIS JOHONNOT, son of Daniel, was born November 30, 1709. He married
Mary Johnson of Boston, widow, 1752. He was a distiller and engaged in
mercantile pursuits. His distillery was near Essex street on the margin
of the South Cove. His "Mansion house" was on Newbury, now Washington
street, the same was owned and occupied for many years by his
son-in-law Eben Oliver, Esq. He was a loyalist, and at the beginning of
the revolution went to England. He died March 8, 1775. Mary, his widow,
who died in Boston March 17, 1797, in her seventy-third year,
administered upon his estate in Massachusetts. They had seven children.

MARY JOHONNOT, daughter of Andrew Johonnot, and cousin to Peter the
Loyalist, was born in 1730. She married Thomas Edwards of Boston, June
13, 1758, the ceremony being performed by the Rev. Henry Caner of King's
Chapel. Mr. Edwards for a while was engaged in mercantile business in
Middletown, Connecticut, but later returned to Boston, and was employed
by the government. He was a loyalist and went to Halifax in 1776 and
thence to England. He died in London at an advanced age. Mary Johonnot,
his wife, died in Boston, February 14, 1792. They had five children.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO PETER JOHONNOT IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Ebenezer Seaver, Sept. 4, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 190; Land and
buildings in Boston, Orange St. E.; Samuel Pope and Hopestill
Foster S.; Joseph Lovell and heirs of William Ettridge W.;
Zachariah Johonnot N.

JOHN JOY.

The name of Joy was probably derived from Jouy in Normandy and may have
reached England in the form of "de Jouy." William Joy was a Vicar in
England in 1395. The name was borne with distinction in England and
Ireland for at least five centuries.

Thomas Joy, of Boston, Massachusetts, was born about 1610 in the county
of Norfolk, England. The first time he appears in Boston records is "on
the 20th of 12th Month, called February, 1636." By trade he was a
builder and probably continued that occupation in Massachusetts. He
married in 1637 Joan Gallop, the daughter of a well-known townsman, and
she became mother of the American Joys. Her father's land included
several of the harbor islands, one of which still bears his name.

Thomas Joy built in 1657-8, the house in the Market Place, which was at
once the armory, court house, and town hall of Boston, and the first
seat of government in Massachusetts. On account of political troubles,
Thomas Joy exchanged part of his possessions in Boston for property in
Hingham. In 1648 he removed to that town, but his Boston connections
were still maintained. He had interests in mills at Hingham, and died in
that town, October 21, 1678. His widow survived him more than twelve
years, dying in Hingham, March 20, 1690-1. Both are buried in the hill,
back of most ancient Protestant church in the United States, where they
worshipped. They had ten children.

Joseph, the fourth child, was born in Boston, April 1, 1645. He lived on
Bacheler (Main Street,) Hingham, nearly opposite the meeting house, of
which he is thought to have been the builder. He married August 29,
1667, Mary, daughter of John and Margaret Prince, of Hingham, and by her
had fifteen children. He died in that town, May 31, 1697.

Joseph Joy, his eldest son was born in Hingham July 30, 1688. He was
constable in 1697-1711. He married May 22, 1690 Elizabeth, daughter of
Captain Thomas Andrews. He died in Hingham, April 29, 1716. His
gravestone with inscription still legible in the Hingham churchyard is
the most ancient Joy grave mark in America.[244] He had nine children.

[244] Thomas Joy and His Descendants by James R. Joy.

John, the fourth child, was born in Hingham February 7, 1695-6. He lived
on Main street at Hingham Centre. December 7, 1724, he married Lydia,
daughter of Samuel Lincoln, and by her had seven children. His death is
not recorded.

JOHN JOY, the second child of the preceding, was born in Hingham June 4,
1727. He lived in Boston, and by trade was merchant and housewright. He
married Sarah, daughter of Michael and Sarah (Kneeland) Homer, of
Boston. In 1767 and 1773 he was one of the "principal citizens" to visit
the schools with the Governor. In 1774 Mr. Joy was an addresser of
Hutchinson, and in 1775 of Gage. In 1776 he went to Halifax with his
family and in 1778 he was proscribed and banished. In 1779 he was in
England, where he remained, though several of his sons afterwards
returned to America. Hutchinson in his diary, June 7, 1776, speaks of a
number of Loyalists who had recently arrived at Dover. Mr. Joy's name
was among those mentioned. The Loyalist died in London, December, 1804.
His portrait by Copley, is an heirloom in the family of the late Charles
Joy of Boston. Mrs. Joy died in England in 1805.

A letter of John Wendell (1806) mentions among his early friends in
Boston, "Mr. John Joy, who served his time with our respected neighbor,
Captain Benjamin Russell, and who afterwards married Mr. Homer's
daughter." Mr. Joy had seven children.

DR. JOHN JOY, the eldest son, was an apothecary, and returned to America
in 1783, and lived in Boston. His estate on Beacon Hill, once the "elm
pasture" of Judge Samuel Sewell, the diarist, was bounded by Beacon,
Walnut, Mt. Vernon and Joy street, and included about 100,000 sq. ft. of
land. Bowditch says Dr. Joy was desirous of getting a house _in the
country_, and selected this locality as "being country enough for him,"
"the barberry bushes were flourishing over this whole area." His land
cost about $2000, and in 1833 his heirs sold this lot for $98,000. On
the southeastern part of this estate he built a modest and graceful
wooden building, which was eventually moved to South Boston Point. He
married Abigail Green of Boston, and died in 1813.

MICHAEL JOY, another son, was born at Boston in 1754, went to England
with his father and died at Hartham Park, England July 10, 1825.
Graduated B. A., Harvard College, 1771, and admitted to the same degree
at Princeton College, N. J., 1771. He married a lady named Hall in
England. His son Henry Hall Joy, of Hartham Park, was a lawyer and
Queen's Counsel, was buried in the Temple Church, London.

BENJAMIN JOY, the third son of the Loyalist, was born in Boston, Dec.
27th, 1757, and died at Boston, April 14, 1829. He returned to Boston,
was a merchant and was the first Consul General of the United States at
Calcutta, holding his commission from President Washington. In 1808 he
bought of the trustees of the First Church their property on Cornhill
Square, on which he erected Joy's Building, which for three-fourths of a
century was a landmark of Boston, people came from miles around to view
the stately edifice, and were greatly astonished at its magnificence.
The Rogers Building, in front of Young's Hotel, now occupies its site.
He was one of the Mt. Vernon proprietors that acquired the valuable
lands of John Singleton Copley on Beacon Hill, and a spring in one of
his houses on the east side of Charles street, is the famous spring of
water which William Blackstone, the first white settler of Boston,
mentioned as one of the chief attractions of the Shawmut peninsula.

RICHARD LECHMERE.

Hon. Thomas Lechmere was for many years Surveyor General of His
Majesty's Customs for the Northern District of America. His brother was
Lord Lechmere of Evesham, who married the daughter of the Earl of
Carlisle.

Thomas Lechmere married Ann Winthrop, a descendant of Governor Winthrop,
the ceremony was performed by Rev. Eben Pemberton, Nov. 17, 1709. He
died at an advanced age, June 4th, 1765, having been born in June, 1683.
His wife died in 1746.

RICHARD LECHMERE, son of the above, married Mary Phips, of Cambridge in
1753. She was the daughter of Spencer Phips, who was Lieut. Governor for
many years; his farm was what is now known as East Cambridge, and the
house stood near where the modern Court House, afterwards was built;
General Gage landed his detachment here, which marched to Lexington.
About one hundred yards from the West Boston Bridge, a fort was erected
on December 11th, 1775, during its erection several soldiers of the
revolutionary army were killed at this redoubt. It was considered the
strongest battery erected during the siege of Boston, and was known as
"Lechmere Point Redoubt," having acquired this property from his wife.
It was known for many years as Lechmere's Point. The farm was
confiscated, and during the siege of Boston was occupied by Washington's
army.

Richard Lechmere was an Addresser of Hutchinson in 1774; was appointed
Mandamus Councillor, but did not accept. In 1776 he went to Halifax,
with his family of eleven persons, and thence to England. In 1778 he was
proscribed and banished, and his estate confiscated; the next year he
was included in the Conspiracy Act. His home was at Bristol in 1780. He
died in England in 1814, aged eighty-seven.

Richard Lechmere left no male representatives, his daughters, are
represented by Coores of Scrunten Hall, Yorkshire. Sir Edward Russell of
Ashford Hall, Ludlow and Worralls, whose representatives now are Sir H.
Lechmere Stuart, Bart., and Eyre Coote of West Park Eyre. In Colonel
Lechmere Russell's possession is Ann Winthrop's bible, with, in her son
Richard Lechmere's writing, the statement it was his mother's bible. A
piece of land at Hanley, in Worcestershire, the residence of the
Lechmere's, is called New England, and is planted with oaks, the seed of
which were sent from America by Thomas Lechmere, the settler here.

Nicholas Lechmere, son of Thomas Lechmere, and brother of Richard, was
born at Boston, July 29, 1772. He was appointed an Officer of the
Customs of Newport, Rhode Island. In 1765, fearing the loss of life in
the tumult of that year, he fled to the Cygnet, sloop-of-war, and
refused to return to his duties without assurance of protection. From
1767 to the commencement of the Revolution, the disagreements between
him and the revolutionists were frequent. In December, 1775, he refused
to take the oath tendered by General Lee, and was conveyed under guard
to Providence. He went to England, and in 1770, was with his brother at
Bristol in 1780. He was banished and his estate confiscated.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO RICHARD LECHMERE IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Mungo Mackey, June 11, 1783; Lib. 139, fol. 14; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, Cambridge St. S.; Staniford St. W.;
passageway N.; Timothy Newell E. and N.; Jeremiah Allen E.----One
undivided half of land, brick distill house and other buildings,
Cambridge St. N.; George St. E.; heirs of John Guttridge deceased
S.; Belknap St. W.

EZEKIEL LEWIS.

William Lewis belonged to the Braintree Company, which in 1632 removed
from Braintree to Cambridge, thence about 1636 to Hartford, about 1659
to Hadley, which town he represented in the General Court 1662, from
thence to Farmington, where he died Aug., 1683. Captain William Lewis,
son of the above, married May Cheever, daughter of the famous
schoolmaster. He died 18 Aug., 1690. Ezekiel Lewis, son of Captain
William, was born at Farmington, Conn., Nov. 7, 1674. Graduated at
Harvard College in 1695. In 1699 it was decided that the town of Boston
required an assistant in the Latin School for Mr. Ezekiel Cheever. It
being committed to the Selectmen, Mr. Ezekiel Lewis, his grandson, was
selected to fill the position, and to have a salary of not exceeding
forty pounds a year. He entered upon his duties the following August. He
afterwards became a great merchant in Boston, was Representative 1723 to
1727.

A document dated March 8th, 1707-8 contains the signatures of the
Overseers of the Poor for the town of Boston at that period. Ezekiel
Lewis' name appears among the seven mentioned. The men who held the
position of Overseers were of high standing in the community, and were
usually distinguished for their business talents, wealth and
charities.[245]

[245] Memorial Hist. of Boston. Vol. IV. P. 646-647.

In 1742, when Faneuil Hall was opened, Ezekiel Lewis was among the
Selectmen and representatives of the town of those who were "to wait
upon Peter Faneuil, Esq., and in the name of the town to render him
their most hearty thanks for so beautiful a gift," etc.

EZEKIEL LEWIS, the Loyalist, was born at Boston, 15 April, 1717, and
graduated at Harvard College, 1735. Under the Act of 1777-8, by which
the Judge of Probate was authorized to appoint agents for the estates of
absentees in each county, the name of Ezekiel Lewis appears in Suffolk
County Probate Records, 1779. Docket 16800.

BENJAMIN CLARK.

Dr. John Clark was the first of a prominent Boston family of that name.
He was a gentleman of college education, and a leading physician of that
day. He died in 1680, aged 85. Their only son, Hon. Dr. John Clark, of
Boston, died in 1690, leaving three sons, John, born 1667, William 1670,
Samuel 1677.

HON. WILLIAM CLARK, ESQ. became a wealthy merchant and member of the
Governor's Council. His residence was situated in North Square, on the
corner of Garden Court and Prince street. This mansion was a monument of
human pride, in all colonial Boston there was not its peer, and it was
without doubt built to outvie that of Hutchinson's, Clark's wealthy
next-door neighbor, whose home was demolished by the mob. The principal
feature which distinguished this house, was the rich, elaborate and
peculiar decoration of the north parlor, on the right of the entrance
hall, which was a rich example of the prevalent style, found in the
mansions of wealthy citizens of the colonial period, in and around
Boston.

The peculiar decoration consisted of a series of raised panels filling
these compartments, reaching from the surbase to the frieze, eleven in
all, each embellished with a romantic landscape painted in oil colors,
the four panels opposite the windows being further enriched by the
emblazoned escutcheons of the Clarks, the Saltonstalls, and other allied
families. Beneath the surbase, the panels, as also those of the door,
were covered with arabesques. The twelfth painting was a view of the
house upon a horizontal panel over the mantel, from which this engraving
was made, and beneath this panel inscribed in an oval, was the monogram
of the builder, W. C. At the base of the gilded and fluted vault of the
buffet was a painted dove. The floor was inlaid with divers woods in
multiform patterns. In the center, surrounded by a border, emblazoned in
proper colors, was the escutcheon of the Clarks, with its three white
swans.

The mere enumeration of the details fails to give an idea of the
impression made by this painted and gilded parlor, not an inch of whose
surface but had been elaborated by painter, gilder, carver or artist, to
which the blazoner had added heraldic emblems; so that, as you looked
round these walls, the romantic ruins and castles seemed placed there to
suggest, if not to portray, the old homes of a long line of ancestors,
and the escutcheons above to confirm the suggestion, thereby enhancing
the splendor of the present by the feudal dignity of an august past.

The house is supposed to have been built about 1712-1715, for the land
was purchased of Ann Hobby, widow, and several other heirs, December 10,
1711, for £725 current money. If so, Councillor Clark lived many years
to enjoy the sumptuousness of his new house and the envy of his
neighbors. His death, in 1742, was attributed by some to the loss of
forty sail of vessels in the French war. After his death the estate was
conveyed to his son-in-law, Deacon Thomas Greenough, for £1,400, old
tenor, and was by him sold to Sir Charles Henry Frankland, Bart., for
£1,200 sterling. The mansion, afterwards was known as the Frankland
House.

There were numerous places in Boston named after Clark. There was
Clark's Wharf, afterwards changed to Hancock's, and now known as Lewis;
Clark street from Hanover to Commercial, still named, in 1788; Clark
Square, now North Square, where the Clark mansion was built, was named
in 1708, "The Square living on ye Southly side of the North Meeting
House including ye wayes on each side of ye watch-house"; Clark's
Corner, 1708, corner of Middle, now Hanover street and Bennet street,
Dr. Clark's Corner, 1732; corner of Fish, now North street, and Gallops
alley, now Board alley and Clark's Shipyard.

[Illustration: CLARK-FRANKLAND HOUSE.]

AGNES, LADY FRANKLAND.

Sir Harry Frankland, as he was familiarly called here, was heir to an
ample fortune, and what added to his interest in this puritanical colony
was that he was a descendant in the fourth generation from Oliver
Cromwell, he came here in 1741 as Collector of the Port of Boston,
preferring that office to the Governorship of Massachusetts, the
alternative offered him by George II. The story of his marriage is
romantic enough. Upon an official visit to Marblehead, he was struck by
the radiant beauty of a young girl of sixteen, maid-of-all-work at the
village inn, bare-legged, scrubbing the floor; inquired her name, and,
upon a subsequent visit, with the consent of her parents, conveyed her
to Boston and placed her at the best school. The attachment he conceived
for her appears to have been returned, though Sir Charles did not offer
her marriage. The connection between this high official and his fair
protégé causing scandal, Frankland purchased some 500 acres of land in
Hopkinton, which he laid out and cultivated with taste, built a stately
country-house and extensive farm buildings, and there entertained all
the gay companions he could collect with deer and fox hunts without,
with music and feasting within doors, duly attending the church of his
neighbor, the Rev. Roger Price, late of King's Chapel, Boston, of which
Frankland had been, from his arrival, a member. Called to England by the
death of his uncle, whose title he inherited as fourth baronet, he
journeyed to Lisbon, and there, upon All Saints Day, 1755, on his way to
high mass, he was engulfed by the earthquake, his horses killed, and he
would have perished miserably but for his discovery and rescue by the
devoted Agnes. Grateful and penitent, he led her to the altar, and poor
Agnes Surriage, the barefooted maid-of-all-work of the inn at
Marblehead, was translated into Agnes, Lady Frankland.

It was upon Sir Harry Frankland's return from Europe in 1756 that he
became the owner of the Clark House, lived in it one short year,
entertaining continually, with the assistance of his French cook,
Thomas, as appears by frequent entries in his journal; was then
transferred to Lisbon as Consul General, and so, with the exception of
brief visits to this country in 1759 and 1763, disappearing from our
horizon.

After his death at Bath, England, in 1768, his widow returned here with
her son, but not until she had recorded her husband's virtues upon a
monument "erected by his affectionate widow, Agnes, Lady
Frankland,"--dividing her year between Boston and Hopkinton, exchanging
civilities with those who had once rejected her, till the contest with
England rendered all loyalists and officials unpopular.

At Hopkinton, May, 1775, she was alarmed at the movement of the
revolutionists, her Ladyship asked leave to remove to Boston. The
Committee of Safety gave her liberty to pass to the capital with her
personal effects, and gave her a written permit, signed by Benjamin
Church. Jr., chairman. Thus protected, she set out on her journey with
her attendants; but was arrested by a party of armed men, who detained
her person, and effects, until an order for the release of both was
obtained. To prevent further annoyance, the Provincial Congress
furnished her with an escort, and required all persons who had any of
her property in their possession to place the same at her disposal.
Defended by a guard of six soldiers, Lady Frankland entered Boston about
the first of June, 1775; witnessed from her window in Garden Court
street the battle of Bunker Hill, took her part in relieving the
sufferings of the wounded officers, and then in her turn disappeared,
leaving her estates in the hands of members of her family, thereby
saving them from confiscation, which was the fate of her neighbor
Hutchinson. Upon her death in England in 1782 the town mansion passed by
her will to her family, and was sold by Isaac Surriage in 1811 for $8000
to Mr. Joshua Ellis, a retired North End merchant, who resided there
till his death. Upon the widening of Bell Alley, in 1832, these two
proud mansions, the Frankland and Hutchinson houses long since deserted
by the families whose importance they were erected to illustrate and
perpetuate, objects of interest to the poet, the artist, and the
historian, alike for their associations with a seemingly remote past,
their antique splendor, and for the series of strange romantic incidents
in the lives of their successive occupants, were ruthlessly swept away.

COLONEL DAVID PHIPS.

The most picturesque and remarkable in character and personal fortune of
all the royal governors, was the first of them, Sir William Phips. He
was a characteristic product of the New England soil, times and ways.
Hutchinson thus briefly and fitly designates him: "He was an honest man,
but by a series of fortunate incidents, rather than by any uncommon
talents, he rose from the lowest condition in life to be the first man
in the country."

Cotton Mather informs us that William Phips was one of twenty-one _sons_
and of _twenty-six_ children, of the same mother, born to James Phips of
Bristol, England, a blacksmith, and gunsmith, who was an early settler
in the woods of Maine, at the mouth of the Kennebec River. But records
and history are dumb as to facts about the most of these scions of a
fruitful parentage, other than that of their having been born. William
was born Feb. 2, 1651; was left in early childhood without a father.
What the mother's task was, in poverty, with hard wilderness
surroundings, of bears, wolves, and savages, we may well imagine. Her
famous son, untaught and ignorant, tended sheep, till he was eighteen
years of age. Then he helped to build coasters, and sailed in them. This
was at that time, and afterwards a most thriving business, the
foundation of fortunes to rugged and enterprising men, born in
indigence.

He went to Boston in 1673, at the age of twenty-two, worked at his
trade, he had early visions of success and greatness, for the first time
he learned to read, and also to do something that passed for writing. He
married the widow of John Hull, the mint master, they suffered straits
together, but he used to comfort her with the assurance that they would
yet have "a fair brick house in the Green Lane of North Boston." And so
they did. That "Greene Lane" became Charter street, when in 1692, he
came back as Sir William Phips, from the Court of London, bringing the
Province Charter as the first Governor under it. The "fair brick house"
long served as an Asylum for boys, at the corner of Salem and Charles
streets.

But a strange wild daring, and romantic interval of adventure preceded
his honors, and wealth. He wrought at intervals in Maine, and here, as a
ship carpenter, sailed coasters, and engaged in expeditions against the
Indians. In 1684 he went in a search in the waters of the Spanish Main
for a treasure ship known to be sunk there. Going to London, the
Admiralty, and James II. gave him the command of an eighteen-gun ship
and ninety-five men. A two years' cruise in the West Indies, in which he
showed a most signal intrepidity, heroism and ingenuity of resource, in
suppressing a mutinous crew, was unsuccessful, except in acquainting
him, through an old Spaniard, of the precise spot where a treasure-laden
galleon had foundered fifty years before. He returned to England for a
new outfit. The king favored him, but not with another war ship. The
Duke of Albemarle and others, as associates, provided him with a vessel
on shares. The hero had heroic success. Cotton Mather informs us that
"Captain Phips arrived at _Port de la Plata_, made a stout _canoo_ of a
stately cotton-tree, employing his own _hands_ and _adse_ in
constructing it, lying abroad in the woods many nights together. The
piriaga, as they called it, discovered a reef of rising shoals called
"_The Boilers_", here an Indian diver dove down and perceived a number
of _great-guns_, and upon further diving the Indian fetched up a _sow_,
or lump of silver, worth two or three hundred pounds. In all, thirty-two
tons of silver, gold, pearls and jewels were recovered from the wreck.
Besides which, one Adderly of Providence, one of the Bahama Islands,
took up about six tons of silver, which he took to the Bermudas. Captain
Phips returned to London in 1687 with more than a million and a half of
dollars, in gold and silver, diamonds, precious stones, and other
treasures. His own share in the proceeds was about a hundred thousand
dollars. To this was added the honors of knighthood, and a gold cup for
Lady Phips, of the value of five thousand dollars."

He returned home in the capacity of high-sheriff, under Andros, who did
not want him, for he was utterly ignorant of law, and could not write
legibly. He soon made another voyage to England, and returned to Boston,
built the "fair brick house," of his vision, engaged in a successful
military expedition against Acadia, in which he took and plundered Port
Royal, and other French settlements. He then instigated and conducted
as commander, a naval expedition against Quebec, which proved a failure.
He again went to England, and returned as the first Governor under the
new Charter, May 14, 1692. The appointment was made to conciliate the
people of the province, and it was supposed would be gratifying to them,
it was however a risky experiment, this attempt to initiate a new order
of things, under the lead of an illiterate mechanic, utterly unskilled,
in legal, and administrative affairs, a rough seaman, and a man of hot
temper. Yet after he arose to these high offices, he showed no false
pride, and often alluded to his lowly origin. He gave his fellow ship
carpenters a dinner in Boston, and when borne down with public
distraction, would wish himself back to his broad-axe again. He was pure
in morals, upright in his dealings, and owed his success in life to his
own energy and prowess. All incompetent as he was for the stern
exigency, he had to meet the appalling outburst of the Witchcraft
delusion with its spell of horrors. During the greater part of the
proceedings of the courts, he was absent at the eastward, in an
expedition against the Indians, and engaged in building a fort at
Pemaquid. When he returned to Boston he found that even his own wife had
been "cried out upon" as a witch, and he at once put a stay upon the
fatuous proceedings. His weak and troubled administration lasted two and
one-half years. He then went to England to answer to complaints made
against his administration, when he died suddenly Feb. 18, 1695, aged
forty-five years. He was buried in the church of St. Mary Woolnoth,
London, where his widow caused a monument to be erected to his memory.
He died childless.

Governor Phips' widow married the rich merchant, Peter Sergent, who
built and occupied the stately mansion, afterwards purchased by the
Province, as a residence for the Governor, and known as the Province
House.

SPENCER PHIPS was a nephew of Governor Phips' wife. The governor having
no children, adopted as his heir, Spencer Bennett, he was Lieu. Governor
between 1733 and 1757, and married Elizabeth Hutchinson. He resided
mainly at Cambridge. His farm consisted of that part of Cambridge
afterwards known as Lechmere Point, now East Cambridge, his daughters
married Andrew Boardman, John Vassall, Richard Lechmere and Joseph Lee.
Lieu. Governor Phips died in March, 1757.

DAVID PHIPS, only son of Lieutenant Governor Spencer Phips, graduated at
Harvard College in 1741. He was Colonel of a troop of guards in Boston,
and Sheriff of Middlesex County. He was an Addresser on three occasions,
as his name is found among the one hundred and twenty-four merchants,
and others, of Boston, who addressed Governor Hutchinson in 1774, among
the ninety-seven gentlemen and principal inhabitants of that town, and
among the eighteen country gentlemen who were driven from their homes,
and who addressed General Gage in October, 1775. He went to Halifax at
the evacuation of Boston in 1776, and was proscribed and banished under
the Act of 1778. His home at Cambridge was confiscated. He died at Bath,
England in 1811, aged eighty-seven.

THE DUNBAR FAMILY OF HINGHAM.

Robert Dunbar, a Scotchman, became a resident of Hingham shortly after
1650, and probably was the ancestor of all the families who have borne
this surname in Plymouth county. The Christian name of his wife was
Rose. She survived him and died 10 Nov. 1700. Robert died, 19 Sept.,
1693. He had eight sons and three daughters, and died possessed of
considerable property. His grandson Joseph removed to Halifax, Plymouth
County, in 1736.[246]

[246] Hist. of Hingham. Vol. 11. P. 195-7-9.

DANIEL DUNBAR, son of the aforesaid Joseph was born in Hingham, March 8,
1733. He was an ensign of Militia at Halifax, Mass., and in 1774 had his
colors demanded of him by the mob, some of the selectmen being the chief
actors. He refused and they broke into his house, took him out, forced
him upon a rail, where for three hours, he was held, and tossed, up and
down, until he was exhausted. He was then dragged and beaten, and gave
up the standard to save his life. In 1776 he went to Halifax, Nova
Scotia, with the Royal Army. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished.

JESSIE DUNBAR, of the fourth generation, was born in Hingham, June 26,
1744. He removed to Bridgewater, Plymouth County.[247]

[247] Dunbar Genealogy. P. 19.

He bought some fat cattle of Nathaniel Ray Thomas, a Mandamus
Councillor, in 1774, and drove them to Plymouth for sale; one of the
oxen being skinned and hung up, the "Sons of Liberty" came to him and
finding where he bought it, commenced punishing him for the offence. His
tormentors put the ox in a cart, and fixing Dunbar in his belly, carted
him four miles and required him to pay one dollar for the ride. They
then delivered him to a Kingston mob, which carted him four miles
further, and forced from him another dollar, then delivered him to a
Duxbury mob, who abused him by beating him in the face with the
creature's tripe, and endeavored to cover his person with it, to the
endangering his life. They then threw dirt at him, and after other
abuses, carried him to Councillor Thomas's house, and made him pay
another sum of money, and he, not taking the beef, they flung it in the
road and quitted him. Jesse Dunbar died at Nobleboro, Maine, in 1806,
leaving many descendants.

The outrageous and brutal treatment he received from the "Sons of
Despotism" are among the worst on record.

EBENEZER RICHARDSON.

The Richardson family were the earliest settlers of Woburn,
Massachusetts. Ezekiel, Samuel and Thomas Richardson, three brothers,
with four other persons, laid the foundations of the town, in 1641. In
1642 it was incorporated under the name of Woburn, the name of a town in
Herefordshire.

Samuel Richardson, the ancestor of Ebenezer Richardson, came to
Charlestown, about 1636, as his name appears on the records of July 1 of
that date as one of a committee to "lay out lots of land for hay." When
the three brothers settled at Woburn, they lived near each other on the
same street, which was laid out in 1647, as Richardson's Row, by which
name it has ever since been known. It runs almost due north and south,
in the N. E. part of the present town of Winchester.

Lieut. John Richardson, eldest son of Samuel, was born Nov. 12, 1639,
was a yeoman, and soldier in King Philip's war, and passed his life in
Woburn, and died there in 1696. John Richardson, son of Lieut. John was
a carpenter, and lived in Woburn. He died March 18, 1715.

Timothy Richardson, son of John, was born in Woburn, 1687, was badly
wounded in Lovewell's Indian fight at Pigwacket. The colony having
offered one hundred pounds for Indian scalps, Captain Lovewell went with
forty-six men on a scalp hunt into Maine. Captain Lovewell was the first
one killed. The fight lasted ten hours, those who left the fatal battle
ground, were twenty in number, of whom eleven were badly wounded, among
whom was Timothy Richardson, who lived for ten years afterwards, but in
great suffering he died in Woburn in 1735.

EBENEZER RICHARDSON, eldest son of Timothy, and Abigail Johnson, was
born in Woburn, March 31, 1718, and married Rebecca (Fowle) Richardson,
daughter of Captain John and Elizabeth (Prescott) Fowle, of Woburn, and
widow of Phineas Richardson. His father's farm was bounded easterly by
the Woburn and Stoneham line, it was here probably that Ebenezer was
born.[248]

[248] Richardson Memorial by Vinton. P. 34, 199, 242.

Ebenezer Richardson was an officer of the Customs in Boston. On the 22
Feb., 1770, he was assailed by a mob who chased him to his home, bricks
and stones were thrown at the windows. Richardson, provoked, fired at
random into the mob, dangerously wounding one of them, Samuel Gore, and
mortally wounding another, Christopher Snider, a poor German boy, who
died the next morning.

The excitement was intense, the funeral of the boy was attended by the
revolutionists, and the event taken advantage of to fire the passions of
the people. On the 20th of April, Richardson was tried for his life and
brought in guilty of murder. Chief Justice Hutchinson viewed the guilt
of Richardson, as everybody would now, a clear case of justifiable
homicide, and consequently refused to sign a warrant for his execution,
and after lying in prison two years, was, on application to the King,
pardoned and set at liberty.[249] To reward Richardson for what he had
suffered, he was appointed in 1773 as an officer of the Customs of
Philadelphia.

[249] For further particulars see pages 310, 311.

Historians have treated Richardson very unfairly, and caused his memory
to be execrated. He was a Custom House officer, and the duties of his
office caused him to seize smuggled goods, as any custom house officer
would at the present time, previous to that he belonged to the secret
service division for the detection of illicit traders, on this account
he has always been contemptuously called an "informer". He was not any
worse than hundreds of secret service agents employed at the present
time by the United States Government, to detect law-breakers. They are
of course detested by the criminal classes, and the mountaineer
moonshiners of Kentucky consider it no crime to kill them, when the
opportunity offers. After Richardson's release, he went to Philadelphia
to reside, so as to escape mob violence; the malignity of the
revolutionists, however, followed him, and a scurrilous effusion was
published there entitled "The Life and Humble Confession of Richardson
the Informer."

The broadside was embellished with a rude wood cut of Richardson firing
into the mob, and the killing of the boy Snider. The same has been
recently republished, and the author states "Whatever facts it may
contain, are doubtless expanded beyond the limits of the actual
truth."[250]

[250] William R. Cutter, Librarian of the Woburn Public Library.

COMMODORE JOSHUA LORING.[251]

Thomas Loring came from Axminster in Devonshire, England, to Dorchester
with his wife, Jane, whose maiden name was Newton, in the year 1634,
they removed to Hingham, and finally settled and died at Hull in 1661,
leaving many descendants, who still reside in Hull, and Hingham.

[251] Ancestral Records of the Loring family. Type Written Copy in the
New England Historic Genealogical Society. Pp. 129 to 182.

COMMODORE JOSHUA LORING was descended from Thomas Loring. He was born at
Boston, Aug. 3, 1716. He was apprenticed to Mr. Mears, a tanner of
Roxbury. When he was of age he went to sea. About 1740 he married Mary,
daughter of Samuel Curtice, of Roxbury. In 1744 he was master of a
Brigantine Privateer of Boston, and while cruising near Louisburg, was
taken by two French Men of War.

He purchased an estate in 1752, on Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, of Joshua
Cheever, on which he erected what has since been known as the Greenough
mansion. It is said to have been framed in England and was one of the
finest residences in Roxbury. It was situated opposite the intersection
of Center and South streets, opposite the soldiers' monument.

On December 19, 1757, He was commissioned captain in the British Navy,
was Commodore of the naval forces on Lakes Champlain and Ontario, and
participated in the capture of Quebec under Wolfe, and in the conquest
of Canada in the succeeding campaign of Amherst. He was severely wounded
in the leg while in command on Lake Ontario, and at the close of the war
he retired on half pay, at which time he settled down at Jamaica Plain,
Roxbury. He was one of the five Commissioners of the revenue, and
General Gage by writ of mandamus appointed him a member of his Council,
and he was sworn in Aug. 17, 1774. This immediately subjected him to the
strictest surveillance by the revolutionists, and the greatest pressure
was brought to bear upon him to throw up the obnoxious office. A
diarist, under date of Aug. 29, speaking of a Roxbury town meeting
recently held says, "Late in the evening a member visited Commodore
Loring, and in a friendly way advised him to follow the example of his
townman Isaac Winslow, (who had already resigned). He desired time to
consider it. They granted it, but acquainted him if he did not comply he
must expect to be waited on by a large number, actuated by a different
spirit. (Tarred and feathered and rode on a rail). On the morning of the
Lexington battle, after passing most of the previous night in
consultation with Deacon Joseph Brewer, his neighbor and intimate
friend, upon the step he was about to take, he mounted his horse, left
his home and everything belonging to it, never to return again, and
pistol in hand, rode at full speed to Boston, stopping on the way only
to answer an old friend, who asked 'Are you going, Commodore?' 'Yes,' he
replied. 'I have always eaten the king's bread, and always intend to.'"
The sacrifice must have been especially painful to him, for he was held
in high esteem by his friends and neighbors, but he could not spurn the
hand that had fed him, and rather than do a dishonorable act, he would
sacrifice all he possessed, even the land of his birth. At the
evacuation he went to England. He received a pension from the crown
until his decease at Highgate, in October, 1781, at the age of
sixty-five. Joshua Loring was proscribed, banished and his large estate
confiscated. His mansion house was in May, 1775, headquarters of General
Nathaniel Greene, and afterwards for a brief period, a hospital for
American soldiers, many of whom were buried on the adjacent grounds.
Later Captain Isaac Sears bought the property of the State, and lived
there for several years.

Mary, his widow, was through the influence of Lord North, pensioned for
life; she settled at Englesfield, Berkshire County, England, where she
died in 1789 at the age of eighty.

JOSHUA LORING, JR. was a twin brother of Benjamin Loring, sons of
Commodore Loring. He was born Nov., 1744. He was an Addresser of
Governor Hutchinson in 1774, and of Gen. Gage in 1775. One of the last
official acts of the latter in Boston was his proclamation of June 7,
1775, appointing Mr. Loring "sole vendue-master and auctioneer." He was
High Sheriff and a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery
Company in 1769. In 1776 he went to Halifax with the Royal Army, and,
early the next year, he was appointed Commissary of Prisoners by Sir
William Howe. He was severely criticized at the time by the
Revolutionists, for cruelties to his unfortunate countrymen who were
prisoners, but as Sabine truly says, "it is not easy to ascertain the
truth or to determine his personal responsibility in the treatment of
prisoners."[252] He was proscribed and banished, and died in England in
1789, aged forty-five. His wife was a Miss Lloyd, to whom he was married
at the house of Colonel Hatch in Dorchester in 1769. His son,

SIR JOHN WENTWORTH LORING was born in Roxbury, Oct., 1773; was baptized
in Trinity church by Rev. D. Walters, Nov. 29; was a midshipman in the
British navy, and from 1819 to 1837 was Lieut. Governor of the Royal
Naval College. In 1841 was advanced to the rank of Rear Admiral of the
Red and in 1847 was promoted Vice Admiral of the White. His son,
William, was Captain of the "Scout" in the Royal Navy.

[252] A similar case occurred during the Civil War, there was probably
no man whose memory was more execrated, and who was regarded as a
monster than Wirz, the Commander at Andersonville, who was hanged by the
U. S. Government, and yet forty-five years afterwards the Daughters of
the Confederacy have erected a beautiful monument to his memory at
Andersonville.

DR. BENJAMIN LORING, twin brother of Joshua Loring, Jr., born in 1744,
graduated at Harvard College in 1772. He was a Surgeon in a Regiment in
the King's service in South Carolina. At the peace, accompanied by his
family of five persons, and by one servant, he went from New York to
Shelburne, Nova Scotia. His losses in consequences of his loyalty were
estimated at $15,000. He was an absentee but not proscribed. He returned
to Boston and died there in 1798, aged sixty-five.

COMMODORE JOHN LORING, son of Commodore Joshua, was a midshipman in the
Royal Navy, at fourteen years of age. In 1776 he was one of four
prisoners taken in the schooner Valent, and sent into Boston, as there
was no place provided for prisoners he was sent to Concord Jail by the
Council, who ordered "that Edward Marsh, and John Loring should not use
pen or paper, nor any one allowed to speak to them, but in the presence
of the jailor". His uncle Obediah Curtis being a very influential man,
interceded for him so strenuously, he being but quite a youth, that he
was released and sent to the care of Col. Buckminster of Framingham, his
wife's father. His kind host was in danger of having his home demolished
for harboring a "young Tory", on account of the young man calling his
neighbors "rascally rebels." In 1776 he was exchanged and returned to
England. He was early a Post Captain. In 1793 he had command of the
British Squadron in the Camatic. In 1803 he had command of the Frigate
Bellerophon (which in 1813 conveyed Napoleon to St. Helena) and captured
the French Frigate Duquesne, 74 guns, and a national schooner. In the
same year he was Commodore of the British Fleet off Cape Francoix,
which blockaded and defeated the French squadron, and the troops under
Rochambeau, Nov. 30, 1803. Commodore John Loring died at his seat in
Farehan, Nov. 9, 1808, leaving a widow and children. The Naval service
lost in him "one of its most brave, zealous and humane officers." He
married Miss Macneal of Campleton Argyleshire, a lady of great beauty.
His son Hector, became captain of the Howe, 120 guns, of the Royal Navy.
He married Miss Charlotte Jessy, daughter of James Jamison of the Royal
Bengal Medical Service. His eldest son John, a midshipman on board of
the Eurylas, in 1820, died of the yellow fever at Bermuda.

JOSEPH ROYAL LORING, son of Commodore Joshua, probably never married. He
was captain of the Brigantine "William," owned by Richard Clarke and
Sons, of Boston, engaged in bringing tea from London to Boston. It was
the fourth and last vessel on the East India Company's account to sail
there. She was cast ashore at Provincetown on Cape Cod. The tea was
saved and conveyed to the Castle in Boston Harbor. Very little is known
afterwards of Captain Royal Loring.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO JOSHUA LORING IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To John Keyes, Aug. 31, 1779; Lib. 130, fol. 191; Land 19 A.,
mansion house and barn in Roxbury, Joshua Loring N. and N.E.;
Lemuel May E.; Ebenezer Weld S.; road leading to Dedham W.; then
running S.; E. and N. on land of John Keyes.

To Isaac Sears, Oct. 28, 1779; Lib. 130, fol. 237; Farm, 54 A. 3
qr. 9 r., and mansion house in Roxbury, road leading by Jamaica
meeting-house to Boston W.; heirs of Mr. Burroughs deceased N. and
N.W.; lane N.E.; lane and Capt. May E.; land of Joshua Loring,
absentee, now of John Keyes S.----5 1-2 A. salt marsh, creek W.;
Mr. Bowdoin S.; heirs of Joseph Weld deceased E.; heirs of John
Williams deceased N.

To James Swan, Feb. 1, 1782; Lib. 134, fol. 6; Wood or pasture
land, 8 A. 31 r., in Brookline, road W.; Mr. Crafts N.W. and N.E.;
Capt. Baker S.E.

To John Tufts, Apr. 28. 1783; Lib. 138, fol. 101; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, common or training-field N.W.; West St. N
E.; David Colson S.E.; heirs or assigns of Dr. George Stewart S.W.

To Ellis Gray, Nov 23, 1795; Lib. 181, fol. 275; Wood and pasture
land, 24 1-2 A. 7 r., in Roxbury, near Henry Williams; Caleb
Williams and Mr. Morries S.E.; Ebenezer Chanies S.W.; Mr. Bourn
N.W. and N.E.

ROBERT WINTHROP.

The most prominent name in Massachusetts History is that of Winthrop.
Governor John Winthrop has been called the "Father of Boston." From the
date of the first settlement of Massachusetts to the present time, the
name of Winthrop has been prominent in each generation.

The family of Winthrops of Groton Manor, Suffolk County, England, took
its name by tradition, from the village of Winthrope, near Newark, in
Nottinghamshire. The earliest ancestor of whom anything is known with
certainty is

I. Adam Winthrop, known to have been living at Lavenham, in Suffolk in
1498, who had, by his wife Jane Burton, a son--

II. Adam Winthrop second of that name, born in Lavenham, Oct. 9, 1498,
died in Groton, Nov. 9, 1562, who became a wealthy London merchant,
acquired the manor of Groton, near Lavenham, in 1544; was inscribed
Armiger by Edward VI. in 1548, and in 1551 was Master of the influential
Company of Clothworkers. He had thirteen children, several of whom
became distinguished. His third son was--

III. Adam Winthrop, third of that name, who came into possession of
Groton Manor. He was born in London, Aug. 10th, 1548, died at Groton
March 28, 1623. He was a lawyer and county magistrate, and married
Alice, sister of Dr. John Still, Bishop of Bath and Wells. His only son
was--

IV. John Winthrop, born Jan. 12, and died in Boston, March 26, 1649. He
was a lawyer and magistrate, and became a great Puritan leader, and led
the greatest emigration that had ever gone forth from England up to this
time. In February, 1630, preparations began to be made with vigor for
the embarkation of a great colony, by the end of the month a fleet of
fourteen vessels was ready with men, women and children, and all
necessary men of handicrafts, and others of good condition, wealth, and
quality, to make a firm plantation. In this fleet were congregated the
forefathers of Massachusetts, with their wives and little ones, about to
quit forever their native country, kindred, friends, and acquaintances.
They were to leave the land of their fathers, perhaps forever, to break
assunder those chords of affection, which so powerfully bind a good man
to his native soil, and to dissolve those tender associations which
constitute the bliss of civil society, and to seek in an unknown
wilderness, a new home, which in time would become a great nation. On
the 8th of June, 1630, the fleet sighted land, Mt. Desert, and regaled
themselves with fish of their own catching. "So pleasant a scene here
they had, as did much refresh them, and there came a smell off the
shore, like the smell of a garden." On the 12th, they came to anchor in
Salem harbor, and by 14th of July, thirteen out of the fourteen ships
had arrived safely, the other vessel, the Mary & John, was the first to
arrive, and had landed their passengers at Dorchester. Governor
Winthrop, after his arrival at Salem, determined to remove to a point of
land between two rivers flowing into Boston Harbor, and named the town
Charlestown, in honor of Charles I. The next year the Governor caused
the settlement to remove across the Charles river to another point of
land called by the Indians "Shawmut," signifying the place of living
waters, which caused the removal there. The Governor settled alongside
of the "Great Spring" on the present site of the Old South church, next
to Spring Lane, which runs into Water street, hence the name. The place
was called Boston, named after Boston, Lincolnshire, England, from which
place some of the settlers came, and the County was named Suffolk. Thus
Boston was settled by the English Puritans under the leadership of
Governor Winthrop.[253]

[253] For a detailed account of the career and writings of this
illustrious man, see two volumes of his "Life And Letters," by his
descendant, Hon. Robert C. Winthrop.

Governor Winthrop had five daughters and two sons, the elder resided
chiefly in Connecticut and the younger in Massachusetts, generally known
as, VI, Wait Still Winthrop or Wait Winthrop, born in Boston, Feb. 27,
1642, died Nov. 7, 1717. A soldier of the Indian wars, for more than
thirty years Major General commanding the Provincial Forces of Mass.,
Judge of the Superior Court, Judge of Admiralty and some time Chief
Justice of Mass. He married Mary, daughter of Hon. William Brown, of
Salem, by whom he had one daughter, Ann, wife of Thomas Lechmere,
brother of Lord Lechmere, and an only son, VII, John Winthrop, born in
Boston, Aug. 26, 1681, died at Sydenham Aug. 1, 1742, graduated at
Harvard College in 1700. Failing to receive the political preferment to
which claim he conceived a sort of hereditary claim, he went to England
to reside in 1727. He became an active member of Royal Society, of whose
transactions one volume is dedicated to him, he resided there until his
death. He had five daughters and two sons, the eldest, VIII, John Still
Winthrop, born in Boston, Jan. 15, 1720, died June 6, 1776. Graduated at
Yale College in 1737. In early life he resided with his father in
England, and occasionally in Boston, but after his marriage, chiefly in
New London, Conn., where he built a large house, still standing at the
head of Winthrop's Cove, described in 1787 as the best house in the
Province. He had fourteen children, five daughters and nine sons. Of his
sons, two died in childhood. John and William died unmarried. Francis
Bayard Winthrop went to New York, also Benjamin Winthrop. Joseph
Winthrop went to Charleston, S. C.

THOMAS LINDALL WINTHROP. Born March 6, 1760, died in Boston, Feb. 21,
1841. Graduated at Harvard College 1780, was Lieutenant Governor of
Massachusetts from 1826 to 1833. He married in 1786, Elizabeth, daughter
of Sir John Temple, Bart., and granddaughter of James Bowdoin of Boston,
Governor of Massachusetts. Their son, the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, was
the most conspicuous member of the family in America for a long period.
In his memoir of the Winthrop family he says "From the above five
brothers descend the numerous branches of the Winthrop family, now
widely scattered in different parts of the United States and
Europe."[254] It does not appear that either of them joined the
revolutionists or took any part in the war, except the youngest son, who
was a staunch loyalist, and was of great service to his country.

[254] A Short Account of the Winthrop family by Robert C. Winthrop.

The youngest son of John Still Winthrop, was, IX, Robert Winthrop, the
subject of this sketch, born in New London, Dec. 7, 1764, died at Dover,
England, May 10, 1832. During the Revolution he was appointed a
Midshipman in the Royal Navy. In 1790 he was a Lieutenant; and six
years later a Post Captain. He attained the rank of Rear Admiral in
1809, and of Vice Admiral in 1830. He served on board of the flagship of
Sir George B. Rodney in the memorable victory over the French April 12,
1782. The French Admiral, Count de Grasse, fresh from his victory at
Yorktown, had refitted at Martinique's dock yards, and with the
assistance of the Spaniards, who had fitted out a fleet at Havana,
intended to capture Jamaica, and drive the English out of the West
Indies. All the Lesser Antilles were his own, except St. Lucia. There
alone the English flag still flew as Rodney lay in the harbor of
Castries, and saw the French fleet becalmed under the high lands of
Dominica. All day long the cannon roared, and one by one the French
ships struck their flags or fought on till they sank. Rodney's flagship
came alongside of the Ville de Paris, the pride of France and the
largest ship in the world, on which De Grasse commanded in person. He
fought after all hope had gone, with her masts shattered, her decks
littered with mangled limbs and bodies. He gave up his sword to Rodney.
The French fleet was destroyed, fourteen thousand were killed, besides
the prisoners. On that memorable day the British Empire was saved and
Yorktown was avenged. He was at the conquest of Martinique and St. Lucia
in 1794, also captured a French corvette. He was wrecked in the frigate
Undaunted. He was on duty in the North Sea. He superintended the landing
of troops in the expedition against Ostend. Entrusted with a small
squadron to cruise off Holland, his boats burned a store-ship, made
prize of fifteen merchant vessels, a sloop-of-war, and an armed
schooner. He assisted in the capture of the Helder. Stranded in the
frigate Stag, he was compelled, after saving her stores, to burn her.
Stationed on the coast of Spain, in the Ardent of sixty-four guns, he
drove on shore a French frigate, which was set on fire and burned by her
own crew. Such is the bare outline of the great services he rendered on
the ocean.

In 1807 the Sea Fencibles of the Dover district was placed under his
orders. He married Miss Farbrace. He died at Dover in 1832. Two sons and
four daughters survived him.

NATHANIEL HATCH.

Colonel Estes Hatch was one of the most prominent and wealthy men of
Dorchester. He owned many negro slaves who worked on his extensive
estate, comprising sixty acres of land on the southerly side of Dudley
street, lying part in Roxbury and a part in Dorchester. It included
Little Woods, afterward known as Swan's woods.

Col. Hatch commanded the Troop of Horse, in Boston, led a company at the
capture of Louisberg and died in 1759. He was prominent in town affairs,
and held the principal military offices, and at the time of his death
was Brigadier General of Horse. His wife was Mary, daughter of Rev.
Benjamin Rolfe, her father and mother and their youngest child were
killed by the Indians in their home at Haverhill in 1708. Col. Hatch and
Mary Rolfe were married Nov. 9th, 1716.

NATHANIEL HATCH, son of Col. Hatch, graduated at Harvard College in
1742, and subsequently held the office of Clerk of the Courts. He was a
firm loyalist, and at the evacuation of Boston in 1776, he went to
Halifax with the British troops. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished,
and in 1779 was included in the Conspiracy Act, by which his large and
valuable estate was confiscated, it was bought afterwards by Captain
James Swan, who paid £18,000 for it, and who soon afterwards offered it
to Gov. Hancock for £45,000. Writing to Hancock, Swan say: "The mansion
house can be refitted in as elegant a manner as it once was for about
£4,000." During Swan's residence here he made the house a seat of
hospitality, entertaining among others persons of distinction. The
Marquis de Viomel, second in command of Rochambeau's army, Admiral
d'Estaing, the Marquis de Lafayette and General Knox.[255]

[255] Town of Roxbury by F. S. Drake. P. 134, 135.

Nathaniel Hatch married July 7, 1755, Elizabeth Lloyd. They had several
children. Paxton, born Oct. 9, 1758; Mary, born Jan. 14, 1760;
Addington, born Sept. 22, 1761; Jane, born March 10, 1767; Susannah
Paxton, born March 13, 1770. Nathaniel Hatch died in 1780.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO NATHANIEL HATCH IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Samuel Dunn, Jr., July 11, 1781; Lib. 132, fol. 263; Land, 60
A.; and mansion house in Dorchester, road to Dorchester meeting
house N.; Jonas Humphrey, Thomas Wiswall and James Bird E. and S.;
John Holbrook S.; John Williams, Samuel Humphrey and brook between
Dorchester and Roxbury W. and N.

CHRISTOPHER HATCH.

Of Boston. When the Royal Army evacuated that town, March 17, 1776,
cannon, shot, and shells were left on his wharf, and in the dock. In
1778 he was proscribed and banished. He accepted a commission under the
crown, and was a Captain in the Loyal American regiment. He was wounded
and commended for his gallantry. At the peace he retired on half pay,
about £80 per annum. He was a grantee of the city of St. John, N. B.,
soon after going there established himself as a merchant near the
frontier, and finally at St. Andrews. He was a magistrate, and colonel,
in the militia. He died at St. Andrews, 1819, aged seventy. Elizabeth,
his widow, died at the same place, 1830, at the age of seventy-five.

HARRIS HATCH, son of Christopher, was a gentleman of consideration in
New Brunswick, where he held the office of Member of her Majesty's
Council Commission of Bankruptcies, Surrogate, Registrar of Deeds,
member of the Board of Education, Lieut. Colonel in the Militia, and
Judge of the Court of Common Pleas.

HAWES HATCH, of Boston, brother of Christopher Hatch. He went to Halifax
with the Royal Army in 1776. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished. He
entered the service, and in 1782 was a captain in De Lancey's Second
Battalion. He retired on half pay at the close of the war, and was a
grantee of the city of St. John. For some years after the Revolution, he
lived at and near Eastport, Maine, on the frontier. He died at Lebanon,
N. H., in 1807.[256]

[256] Sabine's Loyalists.

WARD CHIPMAN.

John Chipman was born in Whitechurch, near Dorchester, England, about
1614, and died April 7, 1708. He sailed from Barnstable, Devon County in
May, 1631, in the ship Friendship, arriving in Boston July 14th, 1631.
John Chipman was the first and only one of the name to seek a home in
America, and up to 1850 there was no Chipman in this country who was not
descended from him. He was for many years a selectman, then in Plymouth
County invested with the authority of a magistrate, and was often a
"Deputy to Court" and he, with three assistants, was designated to
frequent the early Quaker meetings and "endeavor to reduce them from the
errors of their wayes". In 1646 he married Hope, second daughter of John
and Elizabeth Howland, born in Plymouth, Mass., 1629, died 1683.

John Chipman had eleven children, and except a son and daughter who died
in infancy, all survived him. His eldest son Samuel Chipman, was born in
Barnstable, Mass., 1661, and died in 1723. He built on the paternal
homestead near the Custom House the "Chipman Tavern," which continued in
the line of his posterity until 1830. He was by record a yeoman, and an
inn-holder. He too had eleven children.

Rev. John Chipman, of the third generation, was the third son of Samuel
aforesaid, was born in Barnstable 1691, died March 23, 1775. He
graduated from Harvard College in 1711, and was ordained 1715 as pastor
of the first church in the precinct of Salem and Beverly, now North
Beverly. He married, first, Rebecca Hale, and, second, Hannah, daughter
of Joseph Warren, of Roxbury. He had fifteen children, all by the first
marriage.

John Chipman of the fourth generation, eldest son of Rev. John Chipman,
was born in Beverly 1722, died 1768. Graduated from Harvard College in
1738, admitted to the practice of law, which at the time of his death
embraced only twenty-five barristers in Massachusetts, which also
included then the district of Maine. He had abilities of a rare order,
his services were appreciated and sought in distant localities. While
arguing a case before the Superior Court at Falmouth (Portland), Maine,
he was suddenly seized with apoplexy, from which he died. He had twelve
children.

WARD CHIPMAN, the subject of this biography, was of the fifth
generation, and the fourth son of the aforesaid John Chipman. He was
born in Marblehead, Mass., July 30, 1754, and died at Fredericton, N.
B., Feb. 9, 1824. He graduated from Harvard College in 1770. His
graduation oration being the first delivered there in the vernacular
language. He studied law in Boston under the direction of Hon. Daniel
Leonard, and Hon. Jonathan Sewell, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts. Ward Chipman and Daniel Leonard, with fifteen other
names, appear upon "The Loyal Address" to Gov. Gage on his departure
from Boston in 1775 as "of those gentlemen who were driven from their
Habitations in the country to Boston."[257] He left Boston at the
evacuation and went with the army to Halifax, "being obliged to abandon
his native land." He then went to England, where he was allowed a
pension in common with a long list of his suffering fellow-countrymen,
but a state of inaction being ill-suited to his ardent mind, in less
than a year he relinquished his pension and rejoined the King's troops
at New York, where he was employed in the Military Department and in the
practice of the Court of Admiralty. In 1782 he held the office of Deputy
Mustermaster-General, of the Loyalist forces.

[257] Chipmans of America.

In 1783 he was one of the fifty-five who petitioned for extensive grants
of lands in Nova Scotia, out of which was erected the province of New
Brunswick, of which province he was appointed Solicitor-General and
continually afterwards bore a conspicuous part, and attained the highest
honors. He was a member of the House of Assembly and Advocate at the
Bar, a Member of his Majesty's Council, a Judge of the Supreme Court,
Agent for the settling of disputed points of boundary with the United
States until he closed his mortal career while administering the
Government of the Colony as President, and Commander in Chief, during a
vacancy in the office of Lieut. Governor. His remains were conveyed from
Fredericton to St. John where a tablet, adds to above quoted statement,
the following: "Distinguished during the whole of his varied and active
life, for his superior abilities and unweariable zeal, for genuine
integrity and singular humanity and benevolence, his loss was
universally deplored; and this frail tribute from his nearest connection
affords but a feeble expression of the affectionate respect with which
they cherished the memory of his virtues."

Hon. Ward Chipman married Elizabeth, daughter of Hon. William Hazen of
Haverhill, Mass., and his wife, the only daughter of Dr. Joseph LeBaron
of Plymouth, Mass. She died at St. John in 1852 in her eighty-sixth
year. The wife of Hon. William Gray of Boston was his sister. Ward, his
only child, was born July 21, 1787, graduated at Harvard College in
1805, where so many of his ancestors had before him. He held many places
of honor and trust; was finally chief justice of New Brunswick, and died
at St. John in 1851 in his sixty-fifth year. While the Prince of Wales,
now King Edward VII., was in that city in August, 1860, he occupied the
Chipman mansion.

GOVERNOR EDWARD WINSLOW.

Edward Winslow was born at Droitwich, Worcestershire, England, 19
October, 1595. He appears to have been a well educated and accomplished
man. In the course of his travels on the continent of Europe he went to
Leyden and there became acquainted with Mr. John Robinson, and the
church under his pastoral charge, which he joined in 1617. He married
the 16th of May, 1618, and settled in that city till the church removed
to America in 1620. In his "Brief Narration" he says: And when the ship
was ready to carry us away the bretheren that stayed feasted us that
were to go at our pastor's home. After tears and singing of psalms they
accompanied us to Delph's Haven, where we were to embark, and there
feasted us again. But we, going aboard ship lying at the quay ready to
sail, the wind fair, we gave them a volley of small shot and three
pieces of ordnance, and so lifting up our hands to each other and our
hearts to the Lord we departed, etc.

Winslow's name is third on the list of those who subscribed to the
Covenant, or compact, before the disembarkation at Cape Cod. He was one
of the first who came on shore to seek out the most eligible place for
founding a settlement in this wild and unknown land. He was a gentleman
of the best family of any of the Pilgrims, his father, Edward Winslow,
Esq., being a person of importance in Droitwich. In all the initiatory
labor for establishing this little colony, the nucleus of a great
nation, he was ever active and influential in promoting the welfare of
the Pilgrims, who on account of the respectability of his family, and
the excellent qualities of his mind and heart appear to have regarded
him with more than ordinary respect and confidence, which was never
misplaced.

At the annual election in 1624 Mr. Winslow was elected Assistant and in
1644 Governor of Plymouth Colony.

In 1655 Oliver Cromwell appointed three commissioners, of which number
Winslow was the chief, to go with an expedition against the Spaniards in
the West Indies under Admiral Penn and General Venables. The three
commissioners to direct their operations. After an unsuccessful attack
on St. Domingo, the fleet sailed for Jamaica, which surrendered without
any resistance. But Mr. Winslow, who partook of the chagrin of defeat,
did not live to enjoy the pleasure of victory. In the passage between
Hispaniola and Jamaica the heat of the climate threw him into a fever,
which put an end to his life on May 8, 1655, in the sixty-first year of
his age. His body was committed to the deep, with the honors of war,
forty-two guns being fired by the fleet on that occasion.

After Bradford, Plymouth Colony owed to no man so much as to Edward
Winslow. Always intelligent, generous, confident, and indefatigable, he
was undoubtingly trusted for any service at home or abroad which the
infant settlement required.

JOSIAH WINSLOW, the only surviving son of Governor Edward Winslow, was
born at Plymouth in 1629 and died on the family estate, Careswell,
Marshfield, Dec. 18, 1680, in the 52nd year of his age. He was buried at
the expense of the colony "in testimony of the colony's endeared love
and affection for him." He married Penelope, daughter of Herbert Pelham,
Esq., who came to Boston in 1645.

He stood upon the uppermost heights of society, he reached every
elevation that could be obtained, and there was nothing left for
ambition to covet, because all had been gained. He was the first
native-born general and the first native-born governor. The governor
acquired the highest military rank and had engaged in active and
successful warfare with the highest command in New England. He presided
over the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
government. In addition to his military and civil distinction he
acquired that of being the most delightful companion in the colony. He
lived on his ample paternal domain and his hospitality was magnificent
and the attractions of the festive board at Careswell were heightened by
the charm of his beautiful wife. He was elected governor in 1673, which
office he held until his death. He was succeeded by his only surviving
son.

ISAAC WINSLOW, born in 1670 and died Dec. 6, 1738. This eminently
distinguished man sustained the chief places of power and honor in the
colony, and was a worthy successor to his father in being its chief
military commander, a member of the Council for more than 20 years and
for some time its president, and for several years Chief Justice of the
Court of Common Pleas, and Judge of Probate; the last office he held at
his death. His eldest son, Josiah, graduated at Harvard College in 1721,
was killed in battle with the French and Indians at Georges Island, May
1st, 1724. His second son, great grandson of the first governor of
Plymouth, was the celebrated

JOHN WINSLOW, born in Marshfield, May 27, 1702, and died in Hingham,
1774, in his 73rd year. No native of New England, probably, except Sir
William Pepperell, was more distinguished as a military leader. In
1740-1 he was a captain in the unfortunate expedition to Cartagena under
the command of Admiral Vernon, and subsequently endured much hard
service in the several enterprises against Crown Point and Nova Scotia.
He will be remembered in our annals principally in removing the
Arcadians from Nova Scotia. The forces employed by the Colony at this
period was composed almost entirely of Massachusetts troops, specially
enlisted for the service to act as a distinct body. They formed into a
regiment of two battalions, of which Governor Shirley was the Colonel,
and of which Winslow, then a half-pay Captain in the British army and a
Major-General in the Militia, was Lieutenant-Colonel. As Shirley could
not leave his government to take command in person, Monckton, a
Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army, was appointed to conduct the first
battalion and Winslow the second. The plan for abducting the Arcadians
was kept a profound secret, both by those who formed it and by those who
were sent to execute, the home government knew nothing about it and it
appears to have been done solely by the Colonial government; Colonel
Winslow was but the instrument and acted under the Governor's written
and positive instructions.

In 1756 Major-General Winslow took the field with eight thousand men
raised in New England and New York to repel the French invasion and
marched against Montcalm, who to save Crown Point and Ticonderoga made a
movement from Oswego by the St. Lawrence River. As soon as the French
General returned to Canada, Winslow and his army returned to
Massachusetts.

In 1762 he was appointed with William Brattle and James Otis to act as
Commissioner "to repair to the river St. Croix, determine where the
easterly line of Maine is to begin and extend the said line as far as
should be thought necessary." In compliment to General Winslow, "the
fourth of a family more eminent for their talents, learning and honors
than any other in New England," one of the towns on the Kennebec River
in 1771 was called by his name. Of this town he was one of the original
grantees. He died at Hingham in 1774, aged seventy-one, leaving two sons
and a widow, who embarked with the Royal Army from Boston in 1776. She
was in England in 1783, and enjoyed a pension from the government.

Pelham Winslow, eldest son of General John, was born June 8th, 1737,
graduated at Harvard College in 1753, and entered the office of James
Otis to fit himself for the bar, was a staunch loyalist. In 1774 he
abandoned his home to escape mob violence and took refuge in Boston. At
the evacuation in 1776 he accompanied the Royal Army to Halifax, and
thence went to New York, where he entered the military service of the
Crown, and was Major. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished. He died at
Brooklyn, New York, in 1783, leaving a wife and an infant daughter.

Dr. Isaac Winslow, second son of General John, born April 7, 1739,
graduated at Harvard College in 1762, died in 1819. He commenced the
practice of physic, and though of the same principles as other members
of his family, remained upon his estate during the war, and his life,
thereby saving it from confiscation, for although he was a strong
loyalist his medical services were of such great value to the
revolutionists that they did not drive him forth and deprive him of his
property. Sabine says: I find it said, and the authority good, that in
1778 he treated about three hundred patients inoculated with smallpox,
and such was his remarkable success not one of them died. His son John,
an eminent lawyer, deceased at Natchez in 1820. His widow, Frances, died
at Hingham in 1846, aged eighty-four. The family tomb of the Winslows is
at Marshfield, on the Careswell estate, of which Governor Winslow was
the first owner. It was afterwards purchased by Daniel Webster, on which
he resided until his death.

EDWARD WINSLOW, only brother of General John, born June 7, 1714, died at
Halifax in 1784, aged seventy-two years. He graduated at Harvard College
in 1765, resided at Plymouth, was Clerk of the Courts, Register of
Probate, Collector of the Port. He was obliged to seek shelter in Boston
from mob violence, at the evacuation in 1776 went with the Army to
Halifax, Nova Scotia, where he died. The ceremonies at his funeral were
of a style to confer the highest honors to himself, and his illustrious
family. His estates in Massachusetts were confiscated, but every branch
of his family was amply provided for by the generosity of the British
Government.

EDWARD WINSLOW, JR., only son of the aforesaid Edward. He was born in
1745, died at Fredericton, N. B., 1815, aged seventy years, graduated at
Harvard College in 1765. In 1774, the Plymouth County Convention
"Resolved, That Edward Winslow, Jr., one of the two clerks of the Court
of General Sessions of the Peace and Court of Common Pleas for this
County, has, by refusing this body a copy of an Address made at the last
term in this County, to Thomas Hutchinson, Esq., betrayed the trust
reposed in him, by refusing his attendance when requested, treated the
body of this county with insult and contempt, and by that means rendered
himself unworthy to serve the county in said office."

In 1775 he joined the Royal Army at Boston, and entering the service
became a Colonel. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished. In 1782 he was
Muster-Master-General of the Loyalist forces employed under the Crown.
After the war he settled in New Brunswick, and was a member of the first
Council formed in that Colony, Surrogate-General, Judge of the Supreme
Court, and finally Administrator of the Government. The Royal Arms which
for many years were displayed in the Council Chamber in the Old State
House in Boston, still exist, and are carefully preserved in Trinity
church, St. John, N. B. The story of their exit from Boston, and by what
means they came to find a permanent home at St. John, were not known
till recently, when documents were found, which leave no question or
room for doubt.

In the winter of 1785 Edward Winslow was at Halifax and Ward Chipman, a
fellow refugee from Boston, had taken up his residence at St. John. In a
letter of Mr. Winslow to Mr. Chipman on the 16th January, 1785, he says,
"Give my old Custom House seal to Mr. Leonard, and tell him I'll forward
_the famous carv'd Coat of Arms_ by the first conveyance from Halifax."
A subsequent letter to Mr. Chipman, refers more fully to the subject
which is in part as follows:

Halifax, 25 March, 1785.

My Dear Fellow:

By the schooner Halifax I send a small assortment of stationery as
per invoice.... In the box with your stationery is a venerable Coat
of Arms, which I authorize you to present to the Council Chamber,
or any other respectable public Room, which you shall think best
entitled to it. They (Lyon & Unicorn) were constant members of the
Council at Boston (by mandamus) ran away when the others did--have
suffered--are of course Refugees and have a claim for residence at
New Brunswick.

Cordially yours
ED. WINSLOW.[258]
Ward Chipman, Esq.

[258] See Royal Memorials by Rev. Edmund F. Shafter. Also cut of Coat of
Arms on outside cover of this work.

Judge Winslow was one of the founders of the Old Colony Club, at
Plymouth, and was one of its most active members. He delivered the first
anniversary address of that association on the 22 of December or
Forefathers' Day, in 1770.

ISAAC WINSLOW was a Boston merchant, son of Col. Edward Winslow, born
May 2, 1709. He was the third in descent from John Winslow who came from
Droitwich to Boston in 1655, and died in 1674. He was a brother of
Governor Edward of the Plymouth Colony. He was a gentleman highly
esteemed for his benevolence and other virtues. He graduated at Harvard
College in 1727, then entered the counting room of James Bowdoin, and
subsequently with his brother Joshua carried on an extensive and
profitable business in Boston. They also became considerable ship
owners, and had one ship constantly in the London trade. Joshua was one
of the consignees of the tea destroyed by the mob. Isaac retired from
business in 1753, and became a resident of Roxbury. He was the last
occupant of the Dudley mansion, which was razed to the ground a few days
after the battle of Bunker Hill, to make way for the works erected here
by the Americans. The Universalist church was built upon its site. In
making the necessary excavation for the church, the wine cellar of the
mansion was unearthed and strange to say, as it may seem, the liquors
were, after a lapse of forty-five years, found intact.[259]

[259] The Town of Roxbury. Francis S. Drake, pp. 355-6.

In June 1760 he received the thanks of the town for a gift of land near
Meeting House Hill. His first wife, Lucy, daughter of Gen. Samuel Waldo,
died in Roxbury in 1763, at the age of forty-three.

In 1774 he was an Addresser of Gov. Hutchinson, and 1775 of Gen. Gage.
He was appointed Mandamus Councillor, and was qualified. This was an
offence that could not be forgiven by the disunionists.

Though a loyalist, his moderation and his character made him less
obnoxious to the revolutionists than his neighbors, Auchmuty, Hallowell,
and Loring. His virtues, however, could not save him from the fury of
the mob. Immediately after the Lexington affair, he took refuge in
Boston.

In 1776, with his family of ten persons, he accompanied the Royal Army
to Halifax, and in 1778 was proscribed and banished, and his estates
confiscated. In his religious belief he was a Sandemanian. Jemima, his
widow, died at London in 1790.

REV. EDWARD WINSLOW was an Episcopal minister of Braintree, now Quincy,
Mass. He was born in Boston in 1722. Graduated at Harvard College in
1741. His father Joshua was a brother of the aforesaid Isaac Winslow,
and son of Colonel Edward Winslow.

The North Precinct of Braintree, now Quincy, had the reputation of being
a "nest of Tories," owing to the presence of the Church of England
people, connected with Christ Church. The mother English society was
most liberal in dealing with its offshoot and until the Revolution, it
annually sent over sixty pounds sterling for the support of the
minister. In all, it is said to have spent over thirteen thousand
dollars in building up this church. Naturally the society was inclined
to a friendly feeling toward the hand which fed it. To it the
Apthorpe's, the Vassall's, the Borland's, the Cleverly's and the
Millers, indeed all the gentry of the neighborhood with the exception of
the Quincy's, belonged, the Adam's not being in this class at that time.
It was here the same as elsewhere throughout the colonies, the ministers
of the Established Church of England stood condemned in the eyes of
revolutionists, neither seclusion, insignificance nor high character was
able to save the clergy from the fury of the mobs.

In June, 1777, a town meeting was called for the purpose of agreeing
upon a list of those persons who were "esteemed inimical" to the popular
cause. This was in the nature of a formal indictment of the whole
society, for among the names of those recorded as "inimical" were its
rector, its wardens, and all its leading members.

The Rev. Edward Winslow, the rector of Christ Church, found his
situation uncomfortable in the extreme, nor was it any longer safe for
him to read the prayer for the King. Yet he seems to have struggled on
vainly hoping for better days, until his salary was stopped, and many of
his people had moved away. Then in 1777, taking very properly the ground
that his ordination oath compelled him to conform literally to the
Prayer Book he "with sad and silent musings" resigned his charge. Going
to New York, which was then in British occupation, Mr. Winslow died
there in 1780 before the close of the war. He lies buried under the
altar of St. George's Church in that city. Jane Isabella, his widow,
died at Fayetteville, North Carolina, in 1793, aged sixty-six.

Joseph Winslow of Boston was a merchant, he was born in 1724, and died
in 1777, was the son of Kenelm, the great grandson of Kenelm of
Droitwich, the brother of Governor Winslow, who died at Salem in 1672.

[Illustration: SIR ROGER HALE SHEAFFE, BARONET.

Born in Boston in 1763. Though reluctant to serve against his
countrymen, yet at Queenstown's Heights he drove the American army over
the heights into the Niagra river, for which he received the title of
Baronet. Died at Edinburgh in 1851.]

He was possibly the Joseph Winslow who took part at the Siege of
Louisberg, and was amongst the number to volunteer under the command of
Bacon to attack the island Battery, and was the Joseph Winslow referred
to by the Committee of Newport, R. I., of which Jonathan Otis was
chairman, who wrote to the Committee of Easthampton, New York, in June,
1775, that he was "an inveterate enemy of our country" and that "it was
generally thought he had gone to a hospital to take the small pox for
the purpose of spreading the disease in the Whig Camp at Cambridge."
Sabine says the truth of this averment may be doubted.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO ISAAC WINSLOW IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Ebenezer Crosbey, June 15, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 20; Assignment
of mortgage Joseph Crosby to Isaac Winslow, dated Aug. 5, 1768.

SIR ROGER HALE SHEAFFE, BARONET.

WILLIAM S. SHEAFFE, of Charlestown, was born in 1649, and married in
1672 Ruth Woods. He was a mariner, and they had three sons and three
daughters. His son William, born 1683, married Mary Longfellow, a widow,
in 1704. He died in 1718, and his widow in 1720. They had five sons and
two daughters. His eldest son William Sheaffe, Jr., was born 13 Jan.,
1705. He graduated at Harvard College in 1723, and married Susanna
Child, Oct. 1st, 1752.[260]

[260] There was a family of Sheaffe's in Boston much earlier than 1672,
when William Sheaffe's name first appears on the records, but I do not
find any connection between the two families, except that James Sheaffe
of Portsmouth, N. H., of the Boston family, was a loyalist. He was
allowed to remain, although much persecuted. (See Heraldic Journal, Vol.
IX. p. 85, also Wyman's Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, and
History of Portsmouth, N. H.)

WILLIAM SHEAFFE was Deputy Collector of Customs of Boston. He frequently
acted as Collector in the absence of Sir Henry Frankland, who held that
office in 1759, and when the Baronet was removed for inattention to his
duties, he was appointed to fill the vacant place, and issued the
celebrated "Writs of Assistance," giving the Revenue officers the right
to search for smuggled goods. Roger Hale succeeded as Collector in 1672,
when Sheaffe was again Deputy. He continued in that office under Joseph
Harrison, who was the last Royal Collector of the port. Mr. Sheaffe died
in 1771, leaving a large family in poverty. There is ample evidence that
Mrs. Sheaffe was an intelligent, excellent woman, and bore many trials
with pious resignation, and that the Sheaffe's were a loving and happy
family. Mrs. Sheaffe died in 1811.

SUSANNA, Mr. Sheaffe's eldest daughter, who died in 1834, married
Captain Ponsonby Molesworth, a nephew of Lord Ponsonby. The family
account is that on the day of the landing of the British troops in
Boston, a regiment halted in Queen (Court) street, opposite Mr.
Sheaffe's house, that, Susanna attracted by the music, accompanied by
her younger sisters, went upon the balcony, that Captain Molesworth saw
her, was struck with her great beauty, gazed upon her intently, and at
last, said to a brother officer, who like himself was leaning against a
fence, "That girl seals my fate." An introduction, and a visit followed,
and the maiden's heart rapidly won, but then came sorrow, for Susanna
was barely fifteen, and parental consent to her marriage was refused.
Her governess, to whom she entrusted her grief, espoused her cause, and
favored immediate union, and the result accordingly was, the flight of
the three to Rhode Island, where the loving pair were married.
Molesworth sold his commission in 1776, and in December of that year was
in England with his wife. Their married life proved uncommonly happy;
and they lived to see their children's children.

Another daughter, Helen, of remarkable beauty, married a revolutionist,
James Lovell, who became Naval Officer of Boston. Their grandson,
Mansfield Lovell, was a General in the Confederate service, and was in
command at New Orleans, when it was captured by the Union forces. The
General was true to the disunion instincts of his grandfather.

SIR ROGER HALE SHEAFFE, BARONET, the subject of this sketch, was son of
William Sheaffe. Born in Boston in 1763. His mother, after the death of
his father, removed to a wooden house which was standing till recently
on the corner of Essex and Columbia (formerly Auchmuty street) which was
owned by her father. Lord Percy, afterward, Duke of Northumberland hired
quarters there, soon became attached to Roger, and assumed the care of
him. It would seem that the original intention of his Lordship was to
provide for the boy in the Navy, for Mrs. Sheaffe wrote, in December
1776, she was told "Earl Percy had taken my son Roger from the Admiral's
ship, given him a commission in the Army (which I must not say that I am
sorry for), and sent him to England to an academy for education under
his patronage." In 1778 Roger was dangerously ill, and on becoming
convalescent, passed two months in Devonshire, with his sister, Mrs.
Molesworth. In a letter dated at the Academy, Little Chelsea, early in
1779, he said, Lord Percy is as good as ever. He has given me a
commission in his own regiment, the Fifth, now in the West Indies. I
shall not join it for a year.

My love to my dear sister and brother. Remember me kindly to all my
friends in Boston. You may be sure that I shall follow your advice
strictly, that I may be all that you wish, shall be the endeavor of your
most dutiful and affectionate son.

In 1786 Captain Molesworth said in a letter to his mother-in-law, Mrs.
Sheaffe, The Duke of Northumberland has lodged money to buy Roger a
Company, which, when he is in possession of, he will have it in his
power more fully to manifest his affection for so good a mother. Roger's
sister, Mrs. Molesworth, at the same period wrote her mother, "He is as
good a young man as ever lived. Lord Percy continues his kindness to
him. He improves very much, and is a great favorite with all his
masters." Again, "Roger behaves remarkably well, is much liked in the
Regiment; he is tall, well made, and reckoned handsome, very lively, yet
prudent and steady in matters of consequence. He wishes, as much as we
do, to go to Boston."

In 1791 Lieutenant Sheaffe was at Detroit, which post was still held by
England, on account of the non-fulfillment of some of the terms of the
treaty of peace. In 1794, before the surrender of the "Western Posts" as
they were called, Lieutenant Sheaffe delivered a letter to Capt.
Williamson, which was unequivocally of a military and hostile nature.

"I am commanded to declare that during the inexecution of the treaty of
peace between Great Britain and the United States, and until the
existing differences respecting it, shall be mutually and finally
adjusted, the taking possession of any part of the Indian territory,
either for purposes of war or sovereignty, is held to be a direct
violation of his Britannic Majesty's rights, as they unquestionably
existed before the treaty, and has an immediate tendency to interrupt,
and in its progress destroy, that good understanding which has hitherto
subsisted between his Britannic Majesty and the United States of
America. I, therefore require you to desist from any such aggression. R.
H. Sheaffe, Lieut. 5th Reg't. and Qr. M'r. Gen. Dept. of his Britannic
Majesty's service."

In 1801 he was in service in the attack on Copenhagen under Lord Nelson;
and though poor, just one-half of his prize money was sent to his mother
in Boston.

At the battle of Queenstown Heights, he was a Colonel in General Brocks
army; that gallant officer was slain at 7 o'clock in the morning. At
noon, Colonel Sheaffe moved up from Niagara, took command of the forces
and drove the Americans over the rocky heights into the river. For this
victory he was made a Major General, and created a Baronet. At this
period General Scott (who was the conqueror of Mexico, and Commander in
Chief of the United States forces at the outbreak of the Civil War,) was
a Colonel, and was taken prisoner by General Sheaffe, who related to him
some of the circumstances of his military career, in substance, that in
1775, he was living in Boston with his widowed mother with whom Earl
Percy had his quarters, that his Lordship was very fond of him, and took
him away with him in view of providing for him, which he did, by giving
him a military education, and by purchasing a commission and promotion
to as high rank as is allowed by the rules of the service, and that the
war then existing found him stationed in Canada. He stated moreover,
that, reluctant to serve gainst his own countrymen, he solicited to be
employed elsewhere, but at that time his request had not been granted.

Major General Sheaffe, commanded the British Army in person, and after
the battle of Queenstown Heights, he moved upon Little York, now
Toronto, and captured it. During these operations he lost his baggage
and papers, which General Dearborn informed the Secretary of War "were a
valuable acquisition."

In April, 1813, within a week of the fall of Little York, in a letter
from his wife's mother to her niece, Miss Child, dated at Quebec, she
says, "It is possible that you may not have heard that your cousin, Sir
Roger Sheaffe has had the title of Baronet of Great Britain conferred on
him, by our Prince Regent, a handsome compliment, which I trust will be
followed by something substantial to support it. Sir Roger is so pressed
with public business as to allow him scarcely time to attend to his
private concerns. My dear Margaret is still in Quebec, with her lovely
little Julia, as Upper Canada is still the seat of war. Her elevation to
rank, has not in the least deprived her of her native humility and
meekness. The manner it was announced to her was rather singular. She
was met by a gentleman in the street, as she was going to church, who
accosted her by the title of 'Lady Sheaffe', and put a letter in her
hand from the Duke of Northumberland, addressed to 'Lady Sheaffe' which
she received with her usual equanimity."

In 1841 he writes to his cousin, Miss Susan Child of Boston, "The year
1834 was indeed a sad one, in it we lost the last of our children, and
in the same year died my sister Molesworth, a brother of Lady Sheaffe,
my late brother William's eldest son, named after me, a Captain in the
Army, and also Lord Cragie, the brother of your cousin, Mrs. Cragie's
husband. I retain a good share of activity, as well as of erect military
carriage, my sight is good, my teeth in a state to create envy in a
majority of American misses, my appetite never fails and I sleep well."
In January, 1842, he spoke of William, eldest surviving son of his
brother William thus: "He is my natural heir, and having adopted him when
he was ten years of age; and it having pleased God to take all my
children from me. I regard him as a son."

Sir Roger H. Sheaffe died at Edinburgh in 1851, aged eighty-eight. He
visited Boston, his native town, four times, namely, in 1788, in 1792-3,
in 1803 and in 1806. He was respected and loved by his kinsmen to a
remarkable degree. He was of medium stature, his person was well formed,
his face was fine, his eyes of the deepest blue, full and prominent; and
his teeth were of the purest white, regular and even, and were retained
to the close of his life. Lady Sheaffe was Margrate, daughter of John
Coffin and a cousin of Lieutenant-General John and of Admiral Sir Isaac
Coffin. She was the mother of four children, who, as we have seen, died
before her husband. The remains of Sir Roger's father and mother, of his
brother Thomas Child, of his sisters Helen, Salley, Nancy, and Margaret,
and of others of his lineage, were deposited in the Child Tomb, Trinity
Church, Summer street, Boston.[261]

[261] Most of the information contained in this article was obtained by
L. Sabine, from Miss Isabella Child, Thomas Hale Child and Miss Mary P.
Hale, relatives of Sir Roger H. Sheaffe.

Nathaniel Sheaffe, oldest brother of Sir Roger, was a clerk in the
Custom House, but at the death of his father in 1771, he left, in order
to better provide for his mother and sisters, of whom he had the care.
At the outbreak of the Revolution, he went to Jamaica, "where he
intended to stay till the times will permit him to come home." He died
January 29, 1777, and was buried in the churchyard at Morant Bay,
Jamaica.

THOMAS CHILD SHEAFFE, brother of Sir Roger, went to New York after the
evacuation of Boston. He was engaged in trade with the West Indies and
Souther Ports. He died in Boston previous to 1793.

JONATHAN SAYWARD.

The name Saward or Sayward is an ancient Teutonic personal name, sae,
the sea and weard, a keeper--the Guardian of the Sea, and was applied to
the high admiral in Saxon times.

Henry Sayward came over to this country from England in 1637. He resided
a few years at Hampton and Portsmouth, and then came to York. He was by
occupation a millwright and carpenter, a man much needed, as mills were
the principal sources of income to the new settlers. The town of York
granted him three hundred acres of upland on the west side of the York
river, and the selectmen laid the same out to him June 20th, 1667. Here
he settled, and built a saw mill, and carried on a large business. He
also at this time built the meeting house at York. He was constable of
York in 1664, Selectman in 1667, Grand Juryman in 1668-9. His wife's
name was Mary, and it has been claimed she was the daughter of John
Cousins, of Casco Bay. He died in 1679. There is no record of the birth
of their children, as the records of the Town of York were destroyed by
the Indians on Feb. 5, 1692, but there is a deposition and deeds, which
prove they had three sons and three daughters.

JONATHAN SAYWARD, the second son of Henry and Mary Sayward, resided in
York. Very little is known concerning him. In 1687 there was a grant of
land made to him by the town, on Little River, near Wells. He died
previous to 1699.

JOSEPH SAYWARD, son of the aforesaid, was born at York, March 17, 1702.
He was constable in 1716. Moderator and Selectman in 1721. At this date
the meeting voted "that Mr. Joseph Sayward shall have the full
management to build a sufficient fortification about our Parsonage home,
of ten foot high, and fifty foot square, with two good buskins, or
flancers, of ten foot square, all to be built of square hard timber, of
ten inches thick, to be built forthwith, and said Sayward to keep a just
and full account of ye cost and charge thereof." In 1723 the Indians
were troublesome. A company under Captain Bragdon was sent in pursuit of
them, a journal of their proceedings was kept by Joseph Sayward, which
is in the Mass. Archives.

He married Mary, daughter of Samuel and Deborah Webber, of York, and had
five sons and four daughters.

JONATHAN SAYWARD, eldest son of the aforesaid Joseph, and of the fourth
generation in this country, and the subject of this sketch, was born at
York, November 9, 1713. He began to take an interest in public affairs
early in life. He was chosen town clerk in 1736, and constable in 1741.
He was commissioned by Governor Shirley to command the sloop "Sea
Flower" in the expedition against Louisburg in 1744, in which he took an
important part.

He was chosen Representative to the General Court of Massachusetts for
the years 1766, 7, 8.

In 1772 he was appointed by Governor Hutchinson as Special Justice of
the Court of Common Pleas, and Judge of Probate for York County.

He was for many years extensively engaged in shipping, and at one time
owned about twenty vessels, which were employed in the Southern and West
India trade. He was one of the most extensive land owners in York, and
was one of the proprietors of the town of Shapleigh.

When the Revolution broke out he was living in affluence in the
beautiful mansion which he had built on the York river, near the mill
site granted to his ancestors. At this time he had several vessels with
valuable cargoes in the West Indies, and large sums of money invested in
personal securities, on the income of which he enjoyed a satisfactory
and honorable independence, but all was swept away in the Revolution.

Judge Sayward was one of the seventeen "Rescinders." He was not only
decided in his attachment to the Crown, but was of the opinion that the
Revolution would cause the decline of national virtue and prosperity in
America. He fared hard at the hands of the "Sons of Liberty," and by
remaining was obliged to bear contempt and insult, and by his own
account never went out without £100 in his pocket, so as to be ever
ready to escape from his persecutors. But, however bad he was treated in
the early days of the great struggle, he seems to have regained the
confidence of his townsmen, for in 1780 he was elected Moderator of the
town meeting, and auditor of selectmen accounts in 1782.

His mansion home previously referred to is among the most interesting of
the many historic homes in the ancient town of York, and what makes it
doubly so is the fact that it contains all the original furniture,
books, painting, silver plate, and the "loote" he obtained at the
capture of Louisburg and brought home with him, consisting of rare
chinaware, two very large candlesticks, a pair of andirons, a warming
pan and brass tongs, all of which are now in a good state of
preservation. There is also a full length portrait of Judge Sayward and
another of his wife, with costumes of their times, and one of his
daughter Sarah, at the age of twenty-three, painted by Blackburn at
Charleston in 1761, a pupil of Copley. As works of art these paintings
are pronounced by connoisseurs as exceedingly fine. The family coat of
arms of the Saywards, in color, occupies a conspicuous place over the
mantel piece, on the back of which is the following memorandum, which
proves conclusively that it was legally granted:

London, July 1st, 1762.

The arms of Jonathan Sayward, Esqr., of Old York, in the Province
of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, Merchant, Rec'd this 1st
of July, 1762, from the College of Arms, Herald's Office. The
painting, Vellum, Frame and Glass as it now stands cost 32-6
Sterling Rec'd by his most dutifull Humble Servt.

Nath. Barrell.

There is also a commission from Governor Shirley to Jonathan Sayward, to
command the sloop "Sea Flower" in the Louisburg expedition. The mansion
is full of articles worth the attention of those of historical,
antiquarian taste. Judge Sayward died May 8, 1797, and is buried in the
old burying ground in York Village.

He married in 1736 Sarah Mitchell, who died in 1775. They had only one
child, Sarah, born 1738, who married Nathaniel Barrell of Portsmouth,
merchant. They were married at the judge's mansion in 1758. She was a
great belle in her time, and was the general favorite of the village.
She died in 1808, and her husband in 1831, aged 99 years. They had
eleven children.

The mansion was for many years owned and occupied by Elizabeth and Mary
Barrell, daughters of Jonathan Sayward Barrell, granddaughters of the
Judge. They took great pleasure in exhibiting the house and the many
interesting relics and heirlooms of their grandfather, and it is largely
due to them that the same was kept intact, and not distributed at their
death, as many members of the family desired. Elizabeth died in the old
mansion November 12, 1883, aged 84 years, and her sister Mary died at
the same place, June 6, 1889, aged 85 years.[262]

[262] The Sayward Family, 1890.

DEBLOIS FAMILY.

ETIENNE DEBLOIS was born in France, and for a time lived in Belgium. He
was a French Huguenot, and the family name was DeChatillon. He was
descended from the last counts of Blois and was banished from France at
the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. After living in the Low
Countries, he removed to England and was present at the battle of the
Boyne. His sister was burnt at the stake in Ireland by the Papists, and
he died in England.

Stephen Deblois, son of Etienne, was born in Oxford, England, in 1699.
He came to New York in the Frigate Sea Horse, commanded by Captain
Dumaresq. In 1720 he removed to Boston. He married February 6, 1721, Ann
Farley, of English parentage. His death occurred in Boston in 1785, and
his large estate was settled in 1790. In his will he says: "My two sons
has been obliged to leave and I do not expect to see them again."

GILBERT DEBLOIS, son of the latter was born in New York city, March 17,
1725. He became a prosperous Merchant in Boston. In 1749 he married Ann,
daughter of William and Ann Holmes Coffin, and granddaughter of
Nathaniel Coffin. In 1774 Gilbert Deblois was an Addresser of
Hutchinson, and in 1775 an Addresser of Gage. In 1776 he went to Halifax
with his younger brother Lewis, and then must have returned to New York
before his departure for England, according to an account in
Hutchinson's Diary.

Dec. 23, 1776--Gilbert Deblois arrived in one of the transports from New
York.

While residing in Boston, Mr. Deblois planted some elms in front of the
Granary, just opposite his house on Tremont Street. These famous trees
afterwards became known as the Paddock elms. Mr. Deblois had asked
Paddock to keep an eye to their safety, and Adino Paddock performed this
duty faithfully.

In a letter written by James Murray to a friend in New York, dated
September 30, 1769, he speaks of Mr. Deblois' assistance to him when he
was attacked by a mob. "Mr. Deblois threw himself in my rear, and
suffered not a little in my defence."

In 1778 Gilbert Deblois was proscribed and banished, and his estate
confiscated. The year following he was in London and addressed the king.
His death occurred in that city in 1792, aged sixty-seven.

LEWIS DEBLOIS, brother to Gilbert, married Elizabeth Jenkins of Boston,
in 1748. He was a prominent merchant in Boston, was an Addresser of
General Gage in 1775. He went to Halifax on the evacuation of Boston in
1776.

He was proscribed and banished. He died very suddenly in England, (after
being out all day) in 1779, aged seventy-one.

George Deblois, son of the aforesaid was born in Boston in 1753. He was
a merchant in Salem. He was an Addresser of General Gage in 1774. He
went to England. In 1784, there was a George Deblois, a merchant at
Halifax, N. S., probably his son. The widow of a George Deblois died in
the same city in 1827, aged seventy-four.

LEWIS DEBLOIS, brother of the aforesaid, was born in Boston in 1762. He
went to New Brunswick and was a prominent merchant in St. John, and in
1795 a member of the company of Loyal Artillery. He died in that city in
1802. His daughter Elizabeth Cranston married James White, Esq., Sheriff
of the County of St. John.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO GILBERT DEBLOIS IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Gilbert Deblois, Jr., Feb. 3, 1783; Lib. 137 fol. 28; Two thirds
of land and brick warehouse in Boston, Cornhlll W., Spring Lane N.;
Stephen Minot E.; land of Old South Church S.

To Ann Deblois, wife of Gilbert Deblois, Oct. 17, 1783; Lib. 151
fol. 217; Two thirds of land and house in Boston, Common St. W.;
Martha Symmes N.; E.; N. and E.; Moses Gill N.; William Dana E.;
Rawsons Lane S.

LYDE FAMILY.

Edward Lyde married in 1660 Mary, daughter of Rev. John Wheelwright, and
died before 1663. He had an only son Edward, who married Susanna Curwin,
daughter of Captain George Curwin. His second wife was Deborah, daughter
of Hon. Nathaniel Byfield, 1696. In 1685 Edward Lyde and William
Williams witnessed a deed that the Indian Chief Wamatuck and his
Counsellors signed by making their marks. It was concerning land in
Boston Harbor. In 1702-3 he was a warden of Kings Chapel.

Byfield Lyde, eldest son of the preceding, was born in Boston in 1704.
Graduated at Harvard College in 1723. He was an Addresser of Governor
Hutchinson in 1774, and a Protester against the disunionists the same
year, and in 1775 he was an Addresser of General Gage. His wife, Sarah,
the only daughter of Governor Belcher, died in Boston, October 10, 1768,
aged sixty-one. In 1776 he accompanied the Royal Army to Halifax and
died there the same year.

EDWARD LYDE, second son of Edward Lyde, was born in Boston in 1725. He
was a merchant, and was proscribed, banished, and his property
confiscated. It was bought in by his brother Nathaniel (born in 1735)
who was allowed to remain.

Hutchinson, in his diary May 3rd, 1770, says: "Landed at Halifax. Edward
Lyde, Esq., invited me to his house, where I tarried till I embarqued
for England. I was very happy in being at Mr. Lyde's as there was so
great an addition to the inhabitants from the navy and army and Refugees
from Boston which made the lodgings for them very scarce to be had, and
many of them when procured, quite intolerable." Again in his diary June
7, 1776, Hutchinson says: "Ned Lyde had arrived with others at Dover."

Edward Lyde died in New York in 1812, aged eighty-seven.

GEORGE LYDE, of Boston, in 1770, was appointed Collector of the Port of
Falmouth, (Portland) Maine, and continued there until the beginning of
the Revolution. He was an Addresser of Governor Hutchinson in 1774, and
in 1778 was proscribed and banished. He was in England in 1780.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO EDWARD LYDE IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Nathaniel Byfield Lyde, Feb. 21, 1785; Land and buildings in
Boston, Summer St. S., Bishop's Alley W.; heirs of Andrew
Cunningham deceased N.; land formerly of John Simpson deceased E.

JAMES BOUTINEAU.

STEPHEN BOUTINEAU was one of the French Protestants, or Huguenots who
came to Falmouth (Portland), Maine, in 1687, in company with Peter
Bowdoin, Philip LeBretton, Philip Barger and others. He married Mary,
daughter of Peter and Elizabeth Bowdoin in 1708. He was in 1748 the only
surviving elder of the French Church on School street, Boston, of which
Andrew Le Mercier was minister.[263] His son James Boutineau was born 27
January, 1710, he was an Attorney-at-law. In 1774 he was appointed
Mandamus-Counsellor, and was one of the ten who took the oath of office.
His daughter Nancy was married on Oct. 5, 1769, to John Robinson, a
commissioner of the customs, but previous to this marriage Robinson was
accused of assault upon James Otis, the latter, one of the most
formidable of the "Patriots" met Commissioner Robinson at the
Coffee-house and trouble ensued. As usual in all such cases, the friends
of each party made out a good case for their respective sides, the
matter was carried into court, where it was kept for about four years
and the jury finally brought in damages in favor of Otis. In the
meantime Robinson and his wife had gone to England, and as Mr. Boutineau
was a lawyer, he managed the case for his son-in-law, who apologized for
injuring Otis. Mr. Otis refused the fine of 2,000 pounds sterling, and
nothing was demanded of Robinson but the costs of court and the amount
of Mr. Otis' surgeon's bill, altogether amounting to about 112 pounds,
lawful money. The affair ended in the Courts about 1772.

[263] New Eng. His. Gen. Vol. 8, p. 247.

James Boutineau was included in the Conspiracy Act of 1779, and his
estate was confiscated under its provisions. He went to England, and his
death occurred in that country. Mrs. Boutineau was a sister of Peter
Faneuil, and another sister married Edward Jones, a merchant in Boston.
Mrs. Jones went to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and while there received a
letter from the Boutineaus in England, in which she was informed that,
"Mr. and Mrs. Faneuil, who lodge in the same house with us, make it
agreeable;" and that "there are one or two other genteel gentlemen and
ladies, so that during the winter we drank tea with each other four days
in the week." Of other fellow Loyalists, Mrs. Boutineau writes, that
"Lodgings have been taken for Mr. Sewell, of Cambridge, and
family,--they are expected here this day. Colonel Murray's family are
gone to Wales, as well as Judge Browne and Apthorp's. All the New
England people here, are Barnes and family, Captain Fenton and daughter,
besides those in the house." In a postscript, she adds: "I desire you to
inform me (if you can) who lives in my house in Boston." In a letter to
her sister, dated April 1, 1785, Mrs. Boutineau tells Mrs. Mary Ann
Jones who was residing in Boston at that time that her health is "very
indifferent," and that "Mr. Faneuil had a letter lately from Mr. Jones,
who is going soon to be very well married," etc.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO JAMES BOUTINEAU, ET AL., IN
SUFFOLK COUNTY AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Samuel Clark, Feb. 26, 1780; Lib. 131 fol. 58; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, School St. S.; the town's land W.; John
Rowe N., Joseph Green E.--Garden land near the above, Cook's Alley
W.; Leverett Saltonstall N., William Powell E,; S. and E.; Leverett
Saltonstall S. [Description corrected in margin of record.]

To Samuel Broome, July 24, 1780; Lib. 131 fol. 327; Land and
dwelling-house in Boston, Milk St. S.; land of old South Church W.;
Stephen Minot N.; widow Jones E.; N. and E.--Pasture land, 1 A. 10
r. opposite said dwelling-house, Milk St. N.; Cole, Decoster et al.
E.; heirs of Barnabas Binney et al. S.; heirs of John Greenleaf
deceased W.

COLONEL WILLIAM BROWNE.

The Brownes of Salem, Mass., are descended from an old respected family
of "Browne Hall," Lancashire, England. Simon Browne, Barrister, resided
there in 1540, and removed to Brundish, Suffolk. His son Thomas died
there in 1608, and his son Francis died there in 1626. His son Hon.
William, born 1608, came to Salem in 1635, became a merchant in Salem,
and was eminent for his exemplary life, and public charities. He died in
1687. Major William Browne, son of the preceding, was born in 1639. He
was a Councillor and Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Essex
County. He was a successful merchant, and a man of great influence in
the Colony. He married Hannah, daughter of Captain George Curwin. He
died in 1716, at the age of seventy-eight.

COLONEL SAMUEL BROWNE, son of the aforesaid, was born in 1669. He was
the first town Treasurer of Salem, was many years a Representative,
Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Essex County, was also Chief
Justice of said Court, also Colonel and Councillor. He was said to be by
far the greatest merchant in his day, in the County of Essex. He
emulated the beneficence of his father, uncle, and grandfather, in
bequeathing large sums to Harvard College, and to schools in Salem. He
died in 1731, aged 62. His son Samuel graduated at Harvard College,
1727. He married a daughter of John Winthrop, F. R. S., of New London,
Conn., and died in 1742, aged 34. He was concerned in mercantile
affairs.

COLONEL WILLIAM BROWNE, son of the aforesaid Samuel, was born at Salem
in 1737, was a grandson of Governor Burnet. He graduated at Harvard
College in 1755, the third in his class. He married his cousin, a
daughter of Governor Wanton of Rhode Island, and was doubly connected
with the Winthrop family, the wives of the elder Browne and Governor
Wanton being daughters of John Winthrop, F. R. S., great-grandson of
the first governor of Massachusetts. William Browne was Colonel of the
Essex regiment, a member of the General Court in 1768, was one of the
seventeen Rescinders, Judge of the Supreme Court, one of the ten
Mandamus Counsellors who was sworn in. Colonel Browne was esteemed among
the most opulent and benevolent individuals of the province before the
Revolution, and so great was his popularity that the gubernatorial chair
was offered him by the "Committee of Safety" as an inducement for him to
remain and join the "Sons of Liberty." But he felt it his duty to remain
on the side of the government, which represented law and authority, even
at the expense of his great landed estates, both in Massachusetts and
Connecticut, in the latter there were fourteen valuable farms, all of
which were afterwards confiscated. After the passage of the Boston Port
Bill, he was waited upon by a committee of the Essex delegates, which
consisted of Jeremiah Lee, Samuel Holton, and Elbridge Gerry. They
informed him that "It was with grief that the country had viewed his
exertions for carrying into execution certain acts of parliament,
calculated to enslave, and ruin his native land, that while the country
would continue the respect for several years paid him, it resolved to
detach every future connection all such, as shall persist in supporting
or in any countenancing the late arbitrary acts of Parliament; that the
delegates in the name of the country, request him to excuse them from
the painful necessity of considering, and treating him as an enemy to
his country, unless he resigned his office as counsellor and judge."
Colonel Browne replied as follows: "As a Judge, and in every other
capacity, I intend to act with honor, and integrity, and to exert my
best abilities, and be assured, that neither persuasion can allure me,
nor menaces compel me, to do anything derogatory to the character of a
Counsellor of his majesty's province of Massachusetts. I cannot consent
to defeat his Majesty's intentions, and disappoint his expectations by
abandoning a post to which he has been graciously pleased to appoint
me."

He was an Addresser of General Gage, was included in the Banishment Act
of 1778, and in the Conspiracy Act of the year following. He was in
London as early as May 4, 1776, and gave his fellow exiles some
particulars relative to the evacuation of Boston. His wife, who
complained of her treatment at Salem, and Boston, after his departure,
does not appear to have joined him in England until the spring of 1778.
In 1781 he was appointed Governor of the Bermudas, and administered the
affairs of these islands in a manner to secure the confidence of the
people. Under his judicious management the colony flourished. He found
the financial affairs of the islands in a confused and ruinous state,
and left them flourishing. In 1788 he left for England, deeply and
sincerely regretted by the people. He died in England, February, 1802,
aged sixty-five.

William Browne, son of the aforesaid, born at Salem, was an officer in
the British Army, and was at the siege of Gibraltar. He was in England
in 1784.

Colonel Benjamin Pickman, writing in 1793, said of the Brownes: "I would
observe that the family of the Brownes has been the most remarkable
family that has ever lived in the Town of Salem, holding places of the
highest trust in the Town, County, and State, and possessing great
riches. Their donations to the schools have been considerable, and their
mercantile engagements have very much contributed to the growth of the
Town."

The Browne mansion, erected by William Browne in 1740, upon the summit
of Browne's Hill. He named "Browne Hall" after a place in Lancashire,
England, that belonged to his ancestors.

The building consisted of two wings, two stories high, connected by a
spacious hall, the whole presenting 80 feet front. The dwelling was one
of the most magnificent in the Colony, it was finished in a most
thorough and costly manner, corresponding with the wealth of the owner.
The house was confiscated and later came into the possession of Hon.
William Gray, who resided there till 1800. Subsequently it was known as
"Sun Tavern," and then taken down.[264]

[264] Essex Inst. His. Coll. Vol. xxxii., pp. 201-238. Curwen's Journal,
pp. 500-1, Sabine's Loyalists, pp. 265-6.

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM.

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM, of Boston, Massachusetts, was a prosperous
merchant and a member of the North church in that city. He was high in
office among the Free Masons. In 1776 he went to New York and on account
of his loyalty was proscribed and banished in 1778.

At the peace he went from New York to Shelburne, Nova Scotia,
accompanied by his family of six persons and one servant. In Nova Scotia
he was Clerk of the Peace, and Register of Probate. On account of
adhering to the royal cause his losses were estimated at £1100. As he
was a man of learning, a reader, and of an observant nature, he left
many valuable papers. His death occurred in 1820.

CAPTAIN JOHN MALCOMB.

There is not much known of this person. I find that he lived at
Brunswick, Maine, and that in 1760 he married Abigail Trundy, of
Falmouth (Portland). He was commissioned Ensign by Governor Shirley, and
served under Colonel Waldo, in the 2nd Massachusetts Regiment against
Louisburg in 1745. He was also Captain of a vessel that took despatches
from there to Boston in the same year.

It was not often that the same man was tarred and feathered mere than
once, but this unhappy experience twice befell John Malcom. His offence
appears to have been in the exercise of his duty as custom house
officer, of seizing a vessel at Falmouth, now Portland, for want of a
register, and freely speaking of the actions of the "Sons of Liberty."
We are informed by the papers of that period[265] "That John Malcom was
genteely Tarr'd and Feathered at Pownalborough" (now Dresden, Maine) "on
November first, 1773, and on January 25th, 1774, a mob in Boston tore
his cloaths off, and tarr'd his Head and Body, and feathered him, then
they set him on a chair in a cart, and carried him through the main
Street into King Street, from thence they proceeded to 'Liberty Tree,'
and then to the Neck, as far as the Gallows, where they whipped, beat
him with Sticks, and threatened to hang him."

[265] Boston Gazette, Nov. 15, 1773. Boston News Letter, Jan. 27, 1774.
Feb 3, 1774. Massachusetts Spy, Jan. 27, 1774.

The "Sons of Despotism" detained him under the gallows for an hour. He
was then conveyed to the north end of the town, and thence back to his
house. He was kept stripped four hours, and was so bruised and benumbed
by the cold that his life was despaired of. It was by such means that
the disunionists made converts to their cause. His offence for this
Boston outrage, was that he struck one of his tormentors, a tradesman
who had frequently insulted him, when a warrant was issued against him,
but as the constable had not been able to find him, a mob gathered about
his house and broke his windows. Malcomb was in the house, and pushing
his sword through a broken window, wounded one of his assailants. The
mob then made a rush, broke in, and finding him in a chamber, lowered
him by a rope into the cart, and treated him as before mentioned in the
newspapers.

THE RUSSELL FAMILY OF CHARLESTOWN.

The Russell family was eminent in social station and distinguished in
the many public offices held by them in Boston and Charlestown for
nearly two centuries. The first of this family to come to this country
was the Hon. Richard Russell, son of Paul, of Hereford, England, born
1611, was an apprentice at Bristol, 1628, arrived here in 1640 with his
wife, both admitted to the church in 1641, was a prominent merchant,
Representative, Councillor, Speaker, Treasurer, Assistant. He died in
1676, aged 63. His son James, born 1640, died 1709. He also was judge,
Councillor and Treasurer, etc. He had an only son Daniel, born 1683,
died 1763. He married Rebecca Chambers, and was also Councillor,
Commissioner, Treasurer, etc.

CHAMBERS RUSSELL, son of the preceding, was born 1713. He was Judge,
Councillor and a prominent lawyer, in whose office John Adams and Judge
Sewall studied law. He graduated at Harvard College 1731, married Mary
Wainwright, resided at Lincoln, which was incorporated in 1754, and
named by him, after Lincoln in England, where some of his ancestors
resided. His wife died in 1762, and he went to England, and died Nov.
24, 1767, at Guilford County, Surrey.

JAMES RUSSELL, brother of Chambers, married Catherine Greaves, 1738. He
was Judge, Representative, and in 1774 was appointed Mandamus
Councillor, but did not take the official oath. This saved him from the
wrath of the revolutionists. He was not solicitous to shine, but was
anxious to do good, and to be on friendly terms with his neighbors. He
was incessant in his endeavors to promote the happiness and advance the
prosperity of the community in which he lived. A bridge from Charlestown
to Boston was among the enterprises which he projected. By his
persevering efforts, the work was accomplished, and the Charlestown
Bridge was the first structure of the kind ever build across a broad
river in the United States. Through his great benevolence, and public
spirit, he was not driven from his home as his sons were, the
revolutionists allowed him to remain, and he died at Charlestown, Sept.
17th, 1798, aged 83 years.

JAMES RUSSELL, JR., son of the preceding, was obliged to leave and go to
England. Was in London, February 1776, and at Exeter in 1779. A year
later the fortunate captures made by a privateer gave him a fortune, and
he was "bound in the matrimonial chain" to Mary, second daughter of
Richard Lechmere, a Boston Loyalist. They were married in 1780 at St.
Peter's Church, Bristol, where he resided as a merchant. Among their
children was Lechmere-Coor-Graves, Charles James, who died in service of
Royal Navy, Katherine-Sarah, who married Major Miller of Bombay
Artillery, Lucy Margaret, married Rev. Robert Cope Wolf.

DR. CHARLES RUSSELL, brother of James, was also a staunch loyalist.
Graduated at Harvard College 1757. Married Feb. 15, 1768, Elizabeth,
only daughter of Colonel Henry Vassell of Cambridge. He succeeded to his
uncle, Judge Chambers Russell's estate at Lincoln, was proscribed and
banished, and his estate confiscated. He was a physician at Antigua,
where his wife owned considerable property. He died there in 1780, and
his wife died at Plymouth in 1802.[266]

[266] Wyman Genealogies and Estates in Charlestown.

EZEKIEL RUSSELL

Was a Printer and born in Boston, he served an apprenticeship with his
brother Joseph. This family had no connection with the Charlestown
Russells. In November, 1771, he commenced a political publication called
"The Censor." It was printed in Marlboro Street, was a weekly
publication, designed to defend the action of the government, and was
supported by the loyalists. The articles were written with great
ability by Lieut. Gov. Oliver, Dr. Benjamin Church, and other
loyalists. The first number reprinted from the Massachusetts Spy, the
then famous letter of Joseph Greenleaf attacking Governor Hutchinson,
and answered it with vehemence and spirit. In succeeding numbers the
controversy was prolonged with increasing bitterness, and at last became
intensely personal. The issue of Feb. 8, 1772, contained a recipe to
make a modern patriot for the Colonies, especially for Massachusetts, as
follows:

"Take of impudence, virulence and groundless abuse =quantum
sufficit=, atheism, deism and libitinism =ad libitum=; false
reports, well adapted and plausable lies, with groundless alarms,
=one hundred wt. avoirdupois=; a malignant abuse of magistracy, a
pusilanimous and diabolical contempt of divine revelation and all
its abbettors, =an equal quantity=; honor and integrity not quite
=an atom=; fraud, imposition, and hypocrisy, any proportion that
may seem expedient; infuse therein the credulity of the people =one
thousand gallons=, as a =menstrum= stir in the =phrenzy= of the
=times=, and at the end of a year or two this judicious composition
will probably bring forth a A =***= and Y =***= an O =***= and a M
=*****=."

"Probatum est I. N."

The Censor not proving a success, Mr. Russell attempted to establish a
newspaper at Salem, but that also failed. He returned to Boston, where
he obtained support principally by printing and selling ballads, and
small pamphlets. His wife was an active and industrious woman, who not
only assisted him in printing, but sometimes wrote ballads on recent
tragical events, which were published, and had frequently a considerable
run. Ezekiel Russell died September 1796, aged fifty-two years. Joseph
Russell, brother of Ezekiel, son of Benjamin and Elizabeth Russell, was
born at Boston, 8 September, 1734, and died at St. John, New Brunswick,
in 1808, aged 74 years.

JONATHAN SEWALL.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS.

The family of Sewall is traced to two brothers, Henry, and William
Sewall, both Mayors of Coventry, England, Henry Sewall born about 1544,
was a Linen Draper, Alderman of Coventry, Mayor in 1589 and 1606. Died
1628, aged 84. Buried in St. Michael's Church, Coventry. Married
Margaret, eldest daughter of Avery Grazebrook.

Their son Henry Sewall, emigrated to New England in 1634. He came over
"out of dislike to the English Hierarchy" and settled at Newbury. He
died at Rowley in 1657, aged 81 years. Married Anne Hunt. They brought
with them their son, Henry Sewall, born in Coventry, in 1614, died in
1700, aged 86. Married Jane Dummer in Newbury, 1646. He went back to
England and resided for some years at Warwick. In 1659 he returned to
New England, "his rents at Newbury coming to very little when remitted
to England." His son Stephen was born at Badesly, England in 1657. He
came to New England in 1661, settled at Salem and was a Major in the
Indian wars. He died in 1725. Married Margaret, daughter of Rev.
Jonathan Mitchell of Cambridge in 1682. They had an only son Jonathan,
who was a merchant at Boston. He married Mary, sister of Edward Payne,
of Boston. They had a son,

JUDGE JONATHAN SEWALL, the subject of this notice. He was born at Boston
in 1728. Graduated at Harvard College in 1748, and was a teacher at
Salem till 1756. He married Esther, daughter of Edmund Quincy, Esq., of
Braintree, afterwards of Boston, and sister of Dorothy Quincy, wife of
Governor Hancock, and of Elizabeth Quincy, wife of Samuel Sewall, of
Boston, the father of Samuel Sewall, Chief Justice of Massachusetts.
Jonathan Sewall studied law with Judge Chambers Russell, of Lincoln,
commenced practice in his profession at Charlestown. He was an able and
successful lawyer. He was Solicitor General, and his eloquence is
represented as having been soft, smooth and insinuating, which gave him
as much power over a jury as a lawyer ought ever to possess. At the
death of Jeremy Gridley, he was appointed Attorney-General of
Massachusetts, September, 1767. In 1768 he was appointed Judge of
Admiralty for Nova Scotia. He went there twice in that capacity, and
remained but a short period.

He was a gentleman and a scholar. He possessed a lively wit, a brilliant
imagination, great subtlety of reasoning and an insinuating eloquence.

He was an intimate friend of John Adams, they studied together in Judge
Russell's office, and afterwards, while attending court, they lived
together, frequently slept in the same chamber, and often in the same
bed, and besides the two young men were in constant correspondence.

He attempted to dissuade John Adams from attending the first Continental
Congress, and it was in reply to his arguments, and as they walked on
the Great Hill at Portland, that Adams used the memorable words, used so
often afterwards in 1861 when the ordinance of secession was passed:
"The die is now cast, I have now passed the Rubicon; sink or swim, live
or die, survive or perish with my country, is my unalterable
determination." They parted, and met no more until 1788. Adams, the
Minister of the new republic at the Court of St. James, and the eloquent
and gifted Sewall, true to the Empire, met in London. Adams laying aside
all etiquette made a visit to his old friend and countryman, he said, "I
ordered my servant to announce John Adams, I was instantly admitted, and
both of us forgetting that we had ever been enemies, embraced each other
as cordially as ever. I had two hours conversation with him in a most
delightful freedom, upon a multitude of subjects." In the course of the
interview, Mr. Sewall remarked that he had existed for the sake of his
two children, that he had spared no pains or expense in their education
and that he was going to Nova Scotia in hope of making some provision
for them.

In 1774, he was an Addresser of Governor Hutchinson, and in September of
that year his elegant home in Cambridge (which he rented from John
Vassal, afterwards Washington's head-quarters, since occupied by the
poet Longfellow) was attacked by the mob and much injured. He fled to
Boston to escape from the fury of the disunionists. He had ably
vindicated the characters of Governors Bernard, Hutchinson and Oliver,
he was esteemed an able writer, and a staunch loyalist. He was
proscribed in the Conspirators Act of 1779. He resided chiefly in
Bristol till 1788, for the education of his children, then he removed to
St. John's, N. B., having been appointed Judge of Admiralty for Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick. He immediately entered upon the duties of his
office, which he held till his death, which occurred September 26, 1796,
at the age of sixty-eight. His widow survived him, and removed to
Montreal, where she died January 21, 1810.

JONATHAN SEWALL, son of the aforesaid, was born at Cambridge, 1766, was
educated at Bristol, England, and afterwards resided at Quebec, where he
occupied the offices of Solicitor and Attorney General and Judge of the
Vice Admiralty Court, until 1808, when he was appointed Chief Justice of
Lower Canada, which he resigned in 1838. For many years he was President
of the Executive Council, and Speaker of the Legislative Council.

In 1832 he received the degree of Doctor of Law from Harvard College. He
died at Quebec in 1840, aged seventy-three. His brother Stephen was
Solicitor General of the same Province in 1810 and resided in Montreal.
He died there of Asiatic cholera in the summer of 1832.

SAMUEL SEWALL son of Henry Sewall and brother of Major Stephen Sewall,
was the first chief justice of Massachusetts. This was the famous Sewall
that sat in judgment upon the witches and afterwards repented it, who
refused to sell an inch of his broad acres to the hated Episcopalians to
build a church upon, who was one of the richest, most astute, sagacious,
scholarly, bigoted and influential men of his day, who has left us in
his Diary a transcript almost vivid in its conscientious faithfulness of
that old time life, where he tells us of the courts he held, the drams
he drank, the sermons he heard, the petty affairs of his own household
and neighborhood, and where he advised with the governor touching
matters of life and death. He married Hannah, the only child of John
Hull, the mintmaster, who it is said gave her, on her marriage, a
settlement in pine tree shillings equal to her weight. Hull owned a
large farm of 350 acres in Longwood, Brookline, which descended to his
son-in-law, and was known afterwards as Sewall's Farm.[267]

[267] Curwen Journal, pp. 463-5. 506. Sabine's Loyalists, pp, 265-8.

Samuel Sewall, son of the aforesaid, married Rebecca Dudley, a daughter
of the governor. His son, Henry Sewall, born in 1719, died in 1771, was
a gentleman much respected, and a lawyer of prominence. His son,

SAMUEL SEWALL, the subject of this article, was born at Brookline,
December 31, 1745. Graduated at Harvard College in 1761. He studied law
and settled in Boston. His name occurs among the barristers and
attorneys who addressed Governor Hutchinson in 1774, and in the
Banishment and Proscription Act in 1778, when his large estate which he
had inherited from his ancestors, was confiscated. He went to England,
and in 1776 was a member of the Loyalist Club, London. Two years later
he was at Sidmouth, a "bathing town of mud walls and thatched roofs." In
1780 he was living in Bristol, and on the 19th of June amused himself
loyally celebrating Clinton's success at Charleston in the discharge of
a two-pounder in a private garden, and three days later was shot at by a
highwayman and narrowly escaped with his life. Early in 1782 he was at
Taunton, and at Sidmouth. He died at London, after one day's confinement
to his room, May 6th, 1811, aged fifty-six years. He was unmarried.

LIST OF CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO SAMUEL SEWALL IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
AND TO WHOM SOLD.

To Edward Kitchen, Wolcott, July 19, 1782; Lib. 135, fol. 113; Land
263 A. 1 qr., in Brookline, Thomas Aspinwall E.; marsh road to
Charles River N E.; Charles River N.; Thomas Gardner and Moses
Griggs S. and S.W.; Solomon Hill S. and S.E.----Land, 16 A. 3 qr.,
and half of house in Brookline on Sherburn Road and the marsh lane,
bounded by Capt. Cook, Samuel Craft and Elisha Gardner.

To John Heath. Nov. 12. 1782; Lib. 136, fol. 102; Land and
buildings in Brookline. 9 A. 33 r., Sherburn Road S.E.; a town way
N.E.; Mr. Aker N.W.; a town way S.W.----32 A. 3 r., Daniel White
and the pound S.W.; road and Joseph Williams S.E.; Joshua Boylston
and William Hyslop N.E.; Sherburn Road N.W.----18 A. 2 qr. 5 r.,
Samuel White N.W.; John Dean S.W. and S.; a town way S.E., said
Dean N.E.; S.E. and S.; said town way E.; road N.E.----59 A. 3 qr.
4 r., Benjamin White and Dr. Winchester N.E.; Sarah Sharp S.W.;
Samuel White and heirs of Justice White S.E.; Benjamin White N.E.;
S.E. and N.E.; Sherburn Road N.E.----23 A. 3 qr. 33 r., Ebenezer
Crafts and Caleb Gardner N.W.; said Gardner and Benjamin White
S.W.; Moses White S.E.; Benjamin White and Moses White N.E.; Moses
White S.E.: a town way N.E.--- 3 A. 28 r, Ebenezer Craft S.W.; S.E.
and N.E.; the County line N.W.----8 A. 1 qr., 31 r., Daniel White
N.W.; the County line S.W.; David Cook S.E.; heirs of Ebenezer
Davis N.E.----5 A. 2 qr. 38 r., said Craft N.W.; saw mill meadow
W.; William Heath S. and S.E.; Benjamin White and William Hammon
N.E.----7 A. 2 qr., 32 r., Edward K. Walcott S. and W.; Benjamin
White S.; William Acker S.E.; John Child E.; Charles River N.;
Joseph Adams and Daniel White W.----4 A. 26 r., Moses White W.,
Esquire White, Ebenezer Craft and a creek S.; Nehemiah Davis and
heirs of Caleb Denny S.E.; the marsh road N.

To John Molineux, William Molineux, Aug. 11, 1783; Lib 139, fol.
153; Land and buildings in Boston, Newbury St. W.; Daniel Crosby,
John Solely and heirs of Benjamin Church deceased S.; land late of
Frederick William Geyer E.; Thomas Fairweather, Sampson Reed, John
Homands and Edward Hollowday N.; said Sewall W.; N.; W. and N.

To John McLane, Dec. 18, 1783; Lib. 140. fol. 207; Land and
buildings in Boston, Newbury St. W.; said Sewall S.; E.; S. and E.;
Edward Hollowday N.

THOMAS ROBIE.

William and Elizabeth Robie were inhabitants of Boston as early as 1689,
when their son Thomas was born on March 20th of that year. He graduated
at Harvard College in 1708, and died in 1729. He was tutor, librarian,
and Fellow of the college. He published an account of a remarkable
eclipse of the sun on Nov. 27, 1772, also in the _Philosophical
Transactions_ of the Royal Society, papers on the Alkaline Salts, and
the Venom of Spiders (1720-24). The following extract from the diary of
President Leverett shows the estimation in which he was held. "It ought
to be remembered that Mr. Robie was no small honor to Harvard College by
his mathematical performances, and by his correspondence thereupon with
Mr. Durham and other learned persons in those studies abroad." In
mathematics and natural philosophy he was said to have no equal in New
England.

His mother was Elizabeth Taylor, daughter of James Taylor, long
treasurer of the Province.[268] He went to Salem and established himself
in the practice of physic, and married a daughter of Major Stephen
Sewall.

[268] Memorial His., of Boston. Vol. iv. p. 492. Vol. ii. p. 549.

Thomas Robie, of Marblehead, was a son of the preceding Dr. Robie. He
was a merchant, and married a daughter of the Rev. Simon Bradstreet, who
was the great grandson of Gov. Bradstreet, called the Nestor of New
England. Mr. Robie was a staunch loyalist, was an Addresser of Gov.
Hutchinson, and thus brought upon himself and family the ire of the
Revolutionists. They were obliged to leave the town and take refuge in
Nova Scotia. Crowds of people collected on the wharf to witness their
departure, and many irritating and insulting remarks were addressed to
them concerning their Tory principles, and their conduct towards the
Whigs. Provoked beyond endurance by these insulting taunts, Mrs. Robie
retorted, as she seated herself in the boat that was to convey her to
the ship: "I hope that I shall live to return, find this wicked
rebellion crushed and see the streets of Marblehead run with rebel
blood." The effect of this remark was electrical among the
Revolutionists and only her sex prevented them from doing her person
injury. But there were other loyalists in Marblehead who, if not so
demonstrative, were not less sincere in this opinion. With fortitude and
silence they bore the taunts and insults to which they were subjected,
honestly believing that their friends and neighbors were engaged in a
treasonable rebellion against their lawful sovereign.

Mr. Robie first went to Halifax, but afterwards to London, Feb. 5, 1776.
He passed his time of exile mostly in Halifax, where one of his
daughters married Jonathan Stearns, Esq., another refugee; another was
married to Joseph Sewall, Esq., late treasurer of Massachusetts.

After the war was over some of the refugees attempted to return to their
former homes. During the month of April, 1783, the town was thrown into
a state of the greatest excitement by the return of Stephen Blaney, one
of the loyalists. Rumors were prevalent that other refugees were also
about to return, and on April 24 a town meeting was held, when it was
voted that "All refugees who made their appearance in town were to be
given six hours notice to leave, and any who remained beyond that time
were to be taken into custody and shipped to the nearest port of Great
Britain." Late one afternoon after this action of the town a vessel from
the provinces arrived in the harbor. It was soon ascertained that the
detested Robie family were on board, and, as the news spread through the
town, the wharves were crowded with angry people, threatening vengeance
upon them if they attempted to land. The dreadful wish uttered by Mrs.
Robie at her departure still rankled in the minds of the people and they
determined to give the Robies a significant reception. So great was the
excitement that it was feared by many of the influential citizens that
the unfortunate exiles might be injured and perhaps lose their lives at
the hands of the infuriated populace. During the night, however, a party
of gentlemen went on board of the schooner and removed them to a place
of safety. They were landed in a distant part of the town and secreted
for several days in a house belonging to one of the gentlemen. In the
meantime urgent appeals were made to the magnanimity of the turbulent
populace, and the excitement subsided.

Mr. Robie went into business again in a limited extent, and died at
Salem about 1812, well esteemed and respected. The large brick mansion
house of Thomas Robie is situated on Washington street, near the head of
Darling street, Marblehead.

SAMUEL BRADSTREET ROBIE, son of the above, of Halifax, was appointed
solicitor-general of Nova Scotia in 1815, speaker of the house of of
assembly in 1817, 1819-20, member of the council in 1824, and master of
the rolls in 1825, and died at that city January, 1858, in his
eighty-eighth year.

BENJAMIN MARSTON.

The origin of the name Marston, is the English of Marsius (Lat.) Marson
(Ger.) and signifies warrior, being derived from Mars, the god of war.

John Marston, the first of this name to come to America came from
Ormsby, Norfolk, England, to Salem, in 1637, when he was 22 years of
age. He married Alice, surname unknown, on Aug. 4, 1640, and on June 2,
1641 was admitted freeman. He had ten children between 1641 and 1661.
His occupation was that of carpenter. He was diligent and prosperous in
his business, and at his death bequeathed to his children "his house and
land, and some money." His sons were influential in town matters, and
three were chosen representatives to the general court.

He died Dec. 19, 1681, and was buried in the Old Salem Burying Ground.

BENJAMIN MARSTON, the first of this name and lineage, was the fourth son
of the preceding John Marston, and was born in Salem, Jan. 9, 1651. He
was an active and enterprising merchant and carried on for many years an
extensive and profitable business with the West Indies, Spain, Nova
Scotia, and Southern Colonies. He owned two warehouses, and the wharves
on which they stood, several vessels, Brigantines, Ketches, Shallops and
Sloops. In the year 1700 he built a large and handsome brick dwelling
house, the first brick house in Salem. It was built by George Cabot, a
mason from Boston. Its location was afterwards occupied by the Lee
house on the corner of Essex and Crombie streets. Towards the close of
his life, his estate suffered great losses, some of his vessels were
lost at sea, some taken by the French and pirates, and others having
lost all their crew by disease, or otherwise, "ye voiages were spiled."
In June, 1719, he sailed with his son Benjamin, Jr., in "The good
Briganteen Essex" from Salem to Ireland. His son wrote from Dublin, Nov.
6, 1719, to his mother announcing "the death of his father there, from
the Small Pox, and that he was taken ill of the same distemper, the
night he died, and that he had recovered and was not much marked."

BENJAMIN MARSTON, the second of this name, son of the preceding Benjamin
Marston, was born in Salem, Feb. 24, 1697. He graduated from Harvard
College in 1715. It appears after the death of his father he remained in
Ireland, conducting all the business matters connected with the Essex,
with a degree of energy and capacity not often found in a young man of
22 years of age. The voyage turned out to be much more profitable than
was expected, and much of the property that had been sold or mortgaged
by his father was redeemed.

He engaged in business at Salem as a merchant and gained a reputation
among his fellow townsmen as a "man of honorable motives and strict
integrity of character." He was chosen representative to the general
court in 1727-28-29. Was High Sheriff of Essex till 1737, was Justice of
General Session and Common Pleas Courts. In 1729 he married Elizabeth
Winslow, daughter of Hon. Isaac Winslow of Marshfield. In 1740 he
retired from business, and bought a large and valuable property at
Manchester, known for many years as the Marston farm. Here he passed the
remainder of his days, and died May 22, 1754, aged 57 years, leaving a
large estate including the Great and Little Misery Islands, for which he
had paid £516. 13.9. A part of the income of the island he left for the
purpose of "Propagating the Gospel among the Indians."

BENJAMIN MARSTON, the third of this name, and family, and son of the
preceding, was born in Salem, Sept. 30, 1730. He graduated at Harvard
College in 1749. After leaving college he travelled in Europe and
visited some other of the British colonies. He married Sarah Sweet,
whose sister, Martha, married Col. Jeremiah Lee of Marblehead. After his
marriage he "settled down" in Marblehead, where for many years he
carried on a large and successful business as a merchant. He owned a
store in King street, and other stores, and warehouses, and jointly with
his partners, Jeremiah Lee and Robert Hooper, several large ships. He
also owned a pleasant and commodious dwelling house, and much real
estate, and other property in Marblehead and elsewhere. He was
considered by his friends and neighbors as a man of pure life, and great
integrity of character, active in business, energetic in public matters,
hospitable and benevolent in private, a great reader and scholar, and
fond of literary pursuits, always occupying one of the most respectable
positions in society, and greatly esteemed by all who knew him. Here he
continued to live for twenty years, actively engaged in business, and
doing his duty towards his town. He was chosen selectman, and overseer
of the poor, thirteen times in fifteen years, fireward twelve times in
fourteen years, assessor in 1760, moderator of town meetings, fourteen
times in eight years, and occupied many other important offices of
trust. After 1768, however, when the troubles which preceded the
Revolution began to increase the confidence of the people, that were
influenced by the Revolutionists, appear to have been withheld. They
still chose him moderator of all town meetings, but he was not again
appointed on any important committees. He was known to be "an
uncompromising adherent to the lawful government of the British
Colonies," but as he had violated no agreements, and never attempted to
counteract the plans of the conspirators, though frequently and openly
expressing his disapprobation of their violent proceedings, he was for
some time unmolested. At an early period, however, he discovered the
storm brewing, and as if apprehensive of future difficulties he began
"to sell off some of his property."

Benjamin Marston was one of the Addressers of Governor Hutchinson, and
thus incurred the displeasure of the Revolutionists. After this he was
harshly and brutally treated by the "Sons of Liberty." In the year 1775,
his home was mobbed by a Marblehead _Committee_, who without any legal
authority, entered his doors, broke open his desk, embezzled his money,
and notes, and carried off his books and accounts. He made his escape
from the town with difficulty, the turbulent "Sons of Despotism" would
have probably tarred and feathered him if he had come within their
reach. He remained concealed among his friends for some time, till he
could reach Boston and place himself under the protection of the
British. A letter from Hon. Wm. Brown, who also had sought shelter in
Boston, to his friend Judge Curwen, a fellow Loyalist, said "About 2
months ago, Mr. Marston came here by night from Col. Fowle's farm. He
knows nothing about Salem. His wife died last summer."

After the evacuation of Boston he went to St. John, N. B., and then to
Windsor, N. S., finally settling down at Halifax, and there engaging in
trade and venturing to sea, he was taken prisoner and carried into
Plymouth, and remained in duress in Boston until he was exchanged, and
then went to Halifax. He returned to Boston after the peace in 1787, in
the spring of which year he visited his friends in Plymouth, for the
last time, and soon after embarked for London. His after life is best
described in a letter to his sister, Mrs. Elizabeth Watson, of Plymouth,
wife of William Watson, Esq., under date of London, March 19, 1792. He
says: "I now sit down and write to you with satisfaction, for I have at
length fairly waded thro the _Slough of Despond_. I am now landed on the
opposite side and shall go on my way rejoicing, having once more emerged
into active life. In fact, I am engaged to go with a large Company, who
are going to make a Settlement on the Island Bulama, on the coast of
Africa, as their Land Surveyor General on a pretty good lay. No
expedition could have hit my taste and humor more exactly than this one
promises to do. It is so of the _Robinson Crusoe_ kind, that I prefer
it, vastly to any employment of equal emolument and of a more regular
kind, that might have been offered to me in this country.

"You say you have mourned me as _dead and buried_. In truth, my dear
Sister, I have been much worse off. I have for more than four years been
_buryed alive_. As to gratifying your wish in making my native country
the residence of the remainder of my days, it is not at present in my
power to do, for want of means. There is not remaining in my mind the
least resentment to the Country because the party whose side I took in
the late great Revolution, did not succeed, for I am now fully
convinced. It is better for the world that they have not. I don't mean
by this to pay any complements to the first instigators of our American
Revolution, although it has been of such advantage to mankind, I should
as soon think of erecting monuments to Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate
and the Jewish Sanhedrim for betraying and crucifying the Lord of Life,
because that event was so importantly and universally beneficial."

The expedition to Africa resulted disastrously, and Benjamin Marston
died on the Island of Bulama of the African fever, on the 10th of
August, 1792.

From the scanty materials which have been here brought together, will be
sufficient to convince the reader that it was no personal consideration,
no expectation of honors and rewards, or desire of rank and distinction,
but simply from a deep conviction of duty, a clear sense of loyalty to
the British crown, that he gave up everything that was dear to him, his
"pleasant and spacious dwelling" house, with its "fine old garden for
morning exercise," his cherished library, his "much property," his
well-earned reputation as a merchant, a magistrate and a citizen, his
relatives, friends, and native country, and become a refugee and a
wanderer on the face of the earth, "without a place that he could
command to lay his head," and those that bore his name, were more proud
of it than if he left rank and honor and large possessions to his
representatives. There were very few of those who embraced the cause of
the Mother Country, in those trying times, that were led by more
honorable, or disinterested motives, or are more deserving of
remembrance than Benjamin Marston of Marblehead.

HON. BENJAMIN LYNDE CHIEF JUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

It appears from the registry in the Church of St. John, the parish
church of Hackney, near London, that Enoch Lynde was married on the 25th
of October, 1614, to Elizabeth Digbie, a descendant of Sir John Digby.
Enoch Lynde resided in London, was a merchant engaged in foreign trade,
and was for some years connected with the postal service between England
and Holland. He died the 23rd of April, 1636, aged fifty years.

SIMON LYNDE, the third son of Enoch Lynde, was born in London in 1624.
He engaged in mercantile pursuits, and went to Holland. In 1650 he came
to New England, and in the following year married Hannah, a daughter of
Mr. John Newgate. During the thirty years of his life in the colony, he
was a person of prominence, and acquired large landed possessions, in
Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. In 1687 he was appointed
one of the Justices of the Superior Court. He died 22nd Nov. 1687,
possessed of a large estate, and many children, who survived him.

BENJAMIN LYNDE, the sixth son of Simon, was born 22nd September, 1666.
He records of himself that he was admitted to Harvard College on the 6th
of September, 1682, by the Rev. Increase Mather, after having received
his preparatory education under the famous grammar Master, Ezekiel
Cheever, and received his first Degree in 1686. His father desired that
he should complete his education in England. On 27th June, 1692, he
sailed for England, and was admitted he says "for the study of Law, into
the honorable Society of the Middle Temple, Oct. 18, 1692." "I was
called to the Bar as Counsellor at Law in 1697, and received a
commission under the great Seal, for King's Advocate, in the New Court
of Admiralty, in New England, in the same year." He returned to America
Dec. 24, 1697. On the 27 of April, 1699, he married Mary, daughter of
Hon. William Browne of Salem. In 1712 he was appointed a Judge of the
Superior Court, and in the following year a Councillor. On the
resignation of Judge Sewall in 1728, he was made Chief Justice of the
Province, which office he held at the time of his death, Jan. 28, 1745,
in the 79th year of his age. The Boston Evening Post said of him,
"Inflexible justice, unspotted integrity, affability, and humanity were
ever conspicuous in him. He was a sincere friend, most affectionate in
his relations, and the delight of all that were honored with his
friendship and acquaintance." He left two sons, the younger, William,
died unmarried, in 1752. His eldest son,

BENJAMIN LYNDE, JR. was born on the 5th of October, 1700. He graduated
from Harvard College in 1718, and in 1721 he took his master's degree at
Cambridge. He soon after received the appointment of Naval Officer for
Salem. In 1734 he was appointed a special judge of the Court of Common
Pleas, for Suffolk. In 1737 he was one of the agents in the settlement
of the boundary line between New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Two years
later he was made one of the Standing Judges of Common Pleas for Essex,
and in 1745, the year of his father's death, he was raised to the
Superior Bench of the Province. He was a member of the Council for many
years, but declined a re-election in 1760, in consequence of the
controversy that arose in that year between the House and Government as
to the right of Judges to sit as Councillors. On the promotion of Chief
Justice Hutchinson to the executive chair, in 1771, Judge Lynde was
appointed to the place now vacant, and became Chief Justice of the
Province. He resigned not many months after, pending the controversy
respecting the payment of judges' salaries by the town. He had now
reached the age of 72, and "not being inclined to ride the Circuit
longer" he accepted the more humble and less laborious position of Judge
of Probate for Essex, which office he held until the breaking out of the
Revolution, not many years before his death, which was occasioned by the
kick from a horse, from the effects of which he did not recover, and he
died Oct. 5th, 1781, aged 81 years. It was a remarkable coincidence that
both father and son should have been Chief Justices of the Supreme
Court, and occupied a seat on that bench, between them for nearly sixty
years. The most important trial that took place during his judicial term
was that of the so-called "Boston Massacre," where the soldiers fired on
the mob in King street. At this trial Judge Lynde presided. It was a
time of great political excitement, and the occasion was one that
required the utmost firmness, and skill on the part of the judge, to
ensure a just and impartial decision. These trials lasted several days,
and, as has been said, "proceeded with care and patience, on the part of
the Bench, and counsel, and both judges and jury seemed to have acted
with all the impartiality that is exhibited in the most enlightened
tribunals." "The result," says Judge Washburn, "is a proud memorial of
the purity of the administration of justice in Massachusetts." Judge
Lynde was noted for his learning, his liberality, and his public spirit.
He was a diligent student of our Colonial history, and his diary,
published by one of his descendants, Dr. F. E. Oliver, recalls names and
events, that belong to the earlier years of the province, and records
the daily life of persons holding official positions during a period
with which many are not now familiar. He left three daughters, of whom
Mary, the eldest, married Hon. Andrew Oliver, Jr., one of the Judges of
the Court of Common Pleas for Essex; Hannah, who died unmarried and
Lydia who married Rev. William Walter, the rector of Trinity Church of
Boston.[269] Both of his sons-in-law being staunch loyalists.

[269] Diaries of Benjamin Lynde and of Benjamin Lynde, Jr.

PAGAN FAMILY.

ROBERT PAGAN was a native of Glasgow, Scotland, was born in 1750 and
came to Falmouth in 1769. From that time to the commencement of the war
he carried on a large lumber business and ship building. The ships which
were built were not generally employed in our trade, but with their
cargoes sent to Europe and sold. Robert Pagan & Co. kept on the corner
of King and Fore Streets, the largest stock of goods which was employed
here before the war. He was a man of popular manners, and much beloved
by the people. He early became involved in the controversies of the
times, and abandoned his business and country soon after the burning of
Falmouth by Mowatt. In his testimony before the Claim Commission he
testified[270] "That he uniformly declared his sentiments in favor of
Great Britain. Never submitted to join the rebels or to take no part
with them." He early applied for leave to quit Casco Bay with the
property belonging to himself and copartnery. This was refused him. In
the month of February, 1776, he privately embarked his family on board a
Brig he had in the harbor of Falmouth and sailed for Barbados. From that
he went home. He afterwards carried on trade at New York and Penobscot,
at the latter place he remained until the end of the war, when he
removed to St. Andrews. Mr. Pagan was proscribed and banished. He
settled at St. Andrews, N. B., in 1784, and became one of the principal
men of Charlotte County. After serving the Crown as agent for lands in
New Brunswick, and in superintending affairs connected with grants to
Loyalists, he was in commission as a magistrate, as a Judge of a Court,
and as Colonel in the militia, and, being a favorite among the
freeholders of the county, was elected to the House of Assembly, and for
several years was a leading member of that body. Judge Pagan died at St.
Andrews, November 23, 1821 and Miriam, his widow, (a daughter of
Jeremiah Pote), deceased at the same place January, 1828, aged 81. They
were childless.

[270] Bureau of Archives, Ontario, 2nd Report, Vol. I. p. 340.

THOMAS PAGAN, brother to Robert Pagan. He was with his brother during
the war, and at the peace went to St. John, New Brunswick; was one of
the grantees of that city, and established himself there as a merchant.
He removed to Halifax, and while absent in Scotland for the benefit of
his health, died in 1804.

WILLIAM PAGAN, brother of Robert and Thomas, was with his brothers
during the war, and at the peace settled in New Brunswick, and was a
member of the House of Assembly and of the Council. His death occurred
at Fredericton, March 12, 1819.

THE WYER FAMILY OF CHARLESTOWN.

Edward Wyer came from Scotland. He was a tailor, and in 1658 married
Elizabeth Johnson. He died May 3rd, 1693, aged 71 years. His son William
was a sea captain, and married Eleanor Jennes, Oct. 26, 1701. He died
Feb., 1749, aged 69 years.

DAVID WYER, son of William, was born at Charlestown, Feb. 24th, 1711. He
also was a sea captain. Married Rebecca Russell, Feb. 2, 1738. He
removed to Falmouth (Portland) and was an officer of the Customs there.
All the officers of the revenue of that port were loyal except one,
Thomas Child, who joined the Revolutionists. They all became refugees,
and abandoned their country. During the military possession of the town
by Thompson (before the burning of it by Captain Mowatt) he was required
to give his presence before the Board of War as being a Tory.

DAVID WYER, JR., son of the aforesaid David was born at Charlestown in
1741, and graduated at Harvard College in 1758. In 1762 he was admitted
to the bar, and commenced the practice of law at Falmouth. On the
testimony of other lawyers who practiced in Maine prior to the
Revolution, it was said of Wyer, that "he was a high-minded stirling
fellow of strong talents, an able and eloquent advocate, and extremely
independent in his opinions and character." Without the regular
appointment and commission of Attorney of the Crown, Mr. Wyer acted in
that capacity when occasion required the services of such an officer in
the Courts of Maine. He died in 1776 at Stroudwater, to which place he
removed after the burning of Falmouth, at the age of thirty-five, of an
epidemic which prevailed at that time, and which carried off many
persons old and young. Mrs. Wyer, a niece of Hon. Thomas Russell and two
children survived him. One of the latter married Captain Samuel Waite of
Portland.

THOMAS WYER, brother of David Wyer, Jr., was born at Charlestown, June
15, 1744. Married Sarah Francis, March 8th, 1766 in Medford. He removed
to Falmouth with his father, was also employed as an officer of the
Customs. He lost £325 in real and personal estate by the burning of the
town in 1775. He did all he could to support the government; he refused
to serve in the rebel army, on which he was taken up and abused by the
mob, and obliged to pay a fine. Was taken before the Provincial Congress
at Watertown, and obliged to quit Falmouth in 1777 in an open boat with
his father-in-law, Jeremiah Pote, in which they went to Nova Scotia. In
1778 he was proscribed and banished. In 1779 he was in New York and was
commissioned as captain of an armed vessel, the brigantine "British
Tar," 65 men. He was in command of this vessel for nine months, during
which time he had two engagements with two rebel privateers at different
times. He had a house and lot in Falmouth, which was confiscated, and a
half interest in a cargo burned at Falmouth. In 1784, he went to St.
Andrew, N. B., with other Loyalists, and continued there until his
decease. He was an Agent of the British Government for settling and
allotting lands to adherents of the Crown in the Revolution. The first
Sheriff of Charlotte County, was a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas
and Deputy Colonial Treasurer. In 1790 he went on a year's tour to
Europe, and on his return became a merchant, and had extensive lumber
interests. He died February 24th, 1824. He had a numerous family, was
married three times, his first wife Sarah Francis of Medford, second
Joanna Pote of Falmouth, third Mary Hunt, who died 25 October, 1801,
aged 37. An only son survived him.

THOMAS WYER, JR., a member of her Majesty's Council, Justice of the
Common Pleas, member of the Board of Education, Commissioner of Wrecks,
and Lieutenant-Colonel in the militia. He married Sarah, daughter of
Thomas Tompkins, of St. Andrews, 24 March, 1808, and died at St.
Andrews, December, 1848, aged sixty-nine.

JEREMIAH POTE.

WILLIAM POTE was in Marblehead as early as 1688. He married Hannah
Greenfield. His second wife was Ann Hooper, whom he married in 1689. His
son William was born at Marblehead, 1690, who married, June 2, 1718,
Dorothy Getchell.

JEREMIAH POTE, son of the aforesaid, was born at Marblehead, Jan. 18,
1724. His father removed to Falmouth, now Portland, and died there.
Jeremiah Pote became one of the principal merchants of the town, he
owned and occupied one of the two principal wharves in that town
previous to the Revolution. He transacted a large business and filled
offices of trust and honor. In his testimony before the Claim
Commission[271] "Claimt says He is a native of America. Lived at
Falmouth, Casco Bay, when trouble broke out. He did everything in his
power against the measure of the Rebels. He happened to be one of the
selectmen at Falmouth, whose business it was to give notice of Town
Meetings. Claimt refused to notify the meetings desired by the Rebels.
In consequence of this he was persecuted. Was imprisoned several times.
Had his things taken from him by force, so that he was forced to quit
home, got to Nova Scotia, went in open boat. Went from Halifax to New
York in 1778. Was employed by Admiral Gambin to pilot a vessel to New
Hampshire, which was going with Sir Henry Clinton, Manisfestoes. The
vessel was seized and the whole crew made prisoners and kept in prison
during the winter. Went to Penobscot in 1780 to St. Andrews in the
beginning of 1784."

[271] Bureau of Archives, Ontario, 2nd Report, Vol. II, p. 904.

In 1774 a public meeting was called to consider the state of public
affairs, which he attended, but he desired that his dissent might be
entered against a resolution relative to the Ministry and East India
Company, which was introduced and passed.

In 1775, during the trouble with Captain Mowatt, which resulted in the
burning of the town, in which he lost £1,000, he brought upon himself
the vengeance of the Revolutionists, who under Thompson, assumed the
government, and organized themselves into a board of war, and required
him to contribute money and provisions, and to give a bond of £2,000 to
appear at the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, and give an account
of his conduct. In 1778 he was proscribed and banished. After the peace
he settled at St. Andrews at the mouth of the St. Croix river, the
boundary line between Maine and New Brunswick, where he died November
23, 1796, aged seventy-one years. His son Robert, deceased at the same
place November 8, 1794, at the age of twenty-five, and his daughter,
Joanna, married Thomas Wyer, Jr., his widow Elizabeth Berry of Kittery,
died December 24, 1809, aged seventy-nine.

EBENEZER CUTLER.

JOHN 1 CUTLER came from Spranston, two miles from north of Norwich, and
about eight miles south of Hingham, in the County of Norfolk, England.
His name first appears among the persecuted adherents of Rev. Robert
Peck, A. M., of Hingham, who "sold their possessions for half their
value, and named the place of their settlement after their natal town."
He embarked, it is believed, in the Rose of Yarmouth, William Andrews,
Jr., Master, which sailed on or about April 18, 1637. He was at Hingham
by or a little after June 10th following, when land was assigned him. He
came attended by his wife Mary, seven children, and one servant. He died
the following year, which must have subjected his widow and children to
great hardships. His third son,

SAMUEL 2 CUTLER, was born in England in 1629, was of Marblehead in 1654,
of Salem in 1655, of Topsfield and Hingham in 1671, and of Gloucester,
March 17, 1693. In 1671 he as heir and attorney for his brothers and
sisters, united with his mother in the sale of their patrimonial estate
in Hingham. He was often called to settle and appraise estates. He died
in 1700, 71 years of age. He had two sons and three daughters. His
second eldest son,

EBENEZER 3 CUTLER, was born at Salem in 1664, where he married Mary,
daughter of Zacheray and Mary March. Mr. Cutler died about 1729 at Salem
and the widow in 1734, the sale of the homestead being effected soon
after, and the family removed from Salem. He had six children, four sons
and two daughters. The eldest son,

EBENEZER 4 CUTLER, was born in Salem, October 1, 1695. He was a farmer
and brickmaker. He married May, daughter of William Stockwell, Oct. 16,
1732. He inherited the farm in Sutton, Mass., purchased of William
Stockwell by his father, and on which he settled previous to 1728. It is
said that three of his sons resided on this farm at one time, each
occupying separate houses. He died in 1779, and had two daughters and
five sons.

EBENEZER 5 CUTLER, son of the aforesaid,[272] settled in the town of
Oxford, Mass., as an inn keeper and trader. He married Miriam Eager,
sister of his brother Zackeus' wife, and daughter of James Eager of
Westboro, Mass., Nov. 24, 1764. Mrs. Cutler was a sister of Colonel
Eager, who was a Loyalist and settled in Victory, Nova Scotia.

[272] See Cutler Genealogy for descent of Ebenezer 4.

Before the commencement of hostilities he tried to be neutral, but when
the tea troubles arose, he went quietly at night, and purchased a
quantity of it, on the return with his supply a masked band interrupted
him, took the tea from him and burnt it. That decided him, which side to
take, and he became a staunch loyalist.

Ebenezer Cutler was a trader which caused him to travel considerably
about the country, and being very independant and outspoken he soon had
many enemies among the Revolutionists, and a price was set on his
capture. He had many narrow escapes before they got him. Once he was
hidden in a farmhouse between the chimney and outer wall, most
suffocated by smoke.

The Committee on Correspondence made charges against him, and sent him
with the evidence of his misconduct to General Ward at Cambridge, the
charges were as follows:

Northboro, May 17th, 1775.

Sir:

We the Committee of Correspondence of the Town of Northboro having
taken into our custody Mr. Ebenezer Cutler, late of Groton, but now
of this town, which from his conduct appears to us to be an avowed
enemy of his Country, he has set at naught and despises all the
Resolutions of the Continental and Provincial Congress, and also
utterly refuses to act in any defence of his now perishing country
whatever, and as he has from his past conduct, ever since we have
been struggling for the Liberties of our Country appeared in the
eyes of the Public to be aiding and abetting, in defeating the
plans of the good people of this Province, and has been riding from
one part of this province to the other, and in our opinion for no
good design, we think it highly necessary to send him to the
Council of war, to know whether he may (as he desires) have a pass
to go into Boston: we also inclose the substance of two evidences
concerning said Cutler.

By order of the Committee of Correspondence,
GILMAN BASS, Clerk.

N. B. General Ward, we apprehend is well acquainted with the
character and conduct of said Cutler.[273]

[273] "Royalists" in Mass. Archives, Vol. 1, p. 6.

His case was submitted to Congress, when it appeared that he had spoken
"many things disrespectful of the Continental and Provincial Congress"
that he had "acted against their resolves," had said that "he would
assist Gage," had called such as signed the town-covenant or
non-consumption agreement "dammed fools" etc., etc. A resolve to commit
him to prison was refused a passage, and a resolve that he be allowed to
join the British troops at Boston was also lost. But subsequently he was
allowed to go into that town "without his effects." On the evacuation of
Boston he accompanied the British Army to Halifax. He settled at
Annapolis Royal, and with the money which the British government paid
him in compensation for his losses, he established himself in business
there. After his home in Oxford was broken up, his wife Miriam, and
children, went to her mother, Mrs. Eager, in Worcester. His wife died
there. Mrs. Eager was a strong Loyalist, one day a party of Rebels
visited her, and she sent them off by some ready quotations of
scripture. She and her sons brought the family to Annapolis and then
settled on a farm in Nisteaux.

After a few years Ebenezer Cutler went to England on a visit and there
married Mary, daughter of Colonel Hicks, of the 70th Regiment. Two
children were born in England and four in N. S. He was protonotary of
the County of Annapolis, and was a zealous Episcopalian. He died there
in 1831, quite aged. Mary, his widow, died at the same place in 1839. He
was proscribed and banished in 1778, and his property was confiscated
and inventoried April 5th, 1779. Aug. 3rd the judge appointed a
commission to settle his estate. His first wife, Miriam, died at
Northboro, Mass., and her estate was inventoried Sept. 10, 1784,
amounting to £100. He had by her eight children.

EBENEZER 6 CUTLER, son of the aforesaid, was born at Oxford, Mass. Aug.
27th, 1765. He was a student at Harvard at the commencement of
hostilities, when he was obliged to leave. Opposite his name in the
College archives, is the name "Traitor," which means just the opposite,
that he was a Loyalist. He went to Nova Scotia with his father. He was
an expert accountant, and crown land surveyor. Here he resided several
years, but settled finally at Moncton. One day in going up the street,
passing Mr. Wilmot's, he saw a very beautiful girl leaning over the
gate, a visitor of Mrs. Wilmot, Olivia Dickson. It was a case of love at
first sight. He met a friend a few minutes after and told him that he
had just seen his wife that was to be. In due time they were married. On
one of his voyages as supercargo, the vessel was taken by a Spanish
privateer, off Jamaica. The captain recognized him as a Free Mason, gave
him liberty, set him ashore at Port Antonio, where he obtained a mule,
and crossed the mountains to Kingston where he took a vessel for Nova
Scotia. He died in 1839. He had ten children, six daughters and four
sons, the tenth child born was

REBECCA 7 CUTLER, who married John Whitman of Annapolis whose ancestor
came from Plymouth County, Mass., and settled in Nova Scotia previous to
the Revolution. William Whitman of Boston and Clarence Whitman of New
York are children of John Whitman and Rebecca Cutler.

Robert J. Dysart and Hugh Dysart, accountants of Boston, are descendants
in the third generation from Ebenezer Cutler and Olivia Dickson.

[Illustration: The Engagement at the North Bridge in Concord.

1 The Detachment of the Regulars who fired first on the Provincials at
the Bridge.

2 The Provincials headed by Colonel Robinson & Major Buttrick

3 The Bridge]

APPENDIX.

THE TRUE STORY CONCERNING THE KILLING OF THE TWO SOLDIERS AT CONCORD
BRIDGE, APRIL 19TH, 1775. THE FIRST BRITISH SOLDIER KILLED IN THE
REVOLUTIONARY WAR.

See page 53.

After the skirmish at Lexington, the king's troops marched into Concord
in two columns, the infantry coming over the hill from which the
Americans had retreated, and the grenadiers and marines followed the
high road. On reaching the Court house Colonel Smith ordered six
companies (about two hundred men) under Captain Parsons, to hold the
bridge and destroy certain stores on the other side. With the balance of
his command he remained in the center of the town destroying such
warlike stores as could be found, this being the object of the
expedition.

Captain Parsons in the meantime, posted three companies under Captain
Laurie at the bridge, while he proceeded to Colonel Barrett's home in
search of stores. The Americans had gathered on the high ground, west of
the bridge, and now numbered about four hundred and fifty men,
representing many of the neighboring towns. The Acton company in front,
led by Capt. Isaac Davis, marched in double file and with trailed arms
for the bridge. The British guard, numbering about one hundred men, drew
up in line of battle on the opposite side of the bridge, and opened fire
upon them. Capt. Davis, and Abner Hosmer, of the same company, both fell
dead. Seeing this, Major Buttrick shouted "Fire, fellow soldiers! for
God's sake fire!" The order was instantly obeyed. One of the British was
killed, and several wounded, one severely, who was left on the ground,
when the British retreated to the center of the village. The Americans
turned aside to occupy favorable positions on the adjacent hills.[274] A
young man named Ammi White was chopping wood for Rev. William Emerson at
the "Old Manse" at the east end of the bridge, while the firing was
going on he hid under cover of the wood-pile, when it was over he went
to the bridge, saw one British soldier dead, another badly wounded,
grasping his axe he struck the wounded soldier on the head crushing in
his skull, then taking the soldier's gun, he went off home. The gun is
now in the rooms of the Antiquarian Society of Concord. In the meantime,
the detachment under Capt. Parsons returned from the Barrett house,
crossed the bridge, passed the dead bodies of the soldiers and joined
the main body unmolested. They reported when they arrived at Boston,
that the wounded soldier at the bridge had been scalped and his ears cut
off.

[274] This description of the affair at Concord Bridge, was written by
Rev. E. G. Porter, President of the New England Historic Genealogical
Society for a work entitled "Antique Views of Boston." Pp. 234-8
compiled by me in 1882. J. H. Stark.

Very little was said during the past hundred years concerning the
inhuman act of Ammi White, in fact this is the first time the name of
the perpetrator of the outrage has been published. It was not a popular
subject to be discussed in the Council of the "Sons and Daughters of the
American Revolution" when assembled to recount the "brave deeds of their
patriotic forefathers." Hawthorne mentions it in the "Old Manse" pp. 12,
13.

The writer's attention was first drawn to it by an article in the Boston
papers concerning the observances of "Patriots Day," April 19th, 1903.
It was as follows:

"A story of the Concord fight not told by guides who take tourists
to the graves of the soldiers by the Concord bridge was told by the
Rev. Franklin Hamilton, preaching on "Patriots' Day and Its
Lessons" last evening at the First Methodist Episcopal Church.

"It shows," said he, "that the British soldiers were men like you
and me. It shows that the story of that fateful battle hour found
many weeping hearts across the sea. Your histories tell you how two
British soldiers, a sergeant and a private, were killed, and are
buried under the pines by the wall. One was killed and the other
wounded. As the wounded soldier was crawling away he was met by a
boy who had been chopping wood, and who, inflamed with the spirit
of the hour, struck him dead with his axe. Mr. Bartlett of Concord
tells me that not so long ago a young woman came to Concord and
asked to be shown where the British soldiers lay. She came from
Nottinghamshire, and was a relative of one of them. She went to the
graves and placed upon them a wreath, singing as she did so 'God
Save the King.'"

This led me to examine into the case. I found that there was
considerable rivalry of feeling between the towns of Concord and Acton
as to the part each took in the fight. There was a saying that "Acton
furnished the men, and Concord the ground." And that there was not a
Concord man killed, wounded or missing in the "Concord Fight." In the
Centennial observances at Acton in 1835, the Address was delivered by
Josiah Adams. He said:

"That two were killed at the bridge is certainly true, and it is
true too that historians have published to the world that they were
killed in the engagement.

"It is true also, that a monument is about to be placed over them on
the spot to perpetuate American valor. The manner in which one of
them met his death as disclosed in the depositions of Mr. Thorp,
Mr. Smith and Mr. Handley, namely by a hatchet after he was wounded
and left behind, was well known at the time. It was the action of
an excited and thoughtless youth who was afterwards sufficiently
penitent and miserable and whose name therefore will not be given.
But the attempt to conceal the act from the world which was made at
the time, and has since continued, cannot be approved. It would
surely have been better to have given it to the world accompanied
by the detestation and horror which it merited and received. Thorp
in his deposition said: 'Two of the enemy were killed--one with a
hatchet after bring wounded and helpless. This act was a matter of
horror to all of us. I saw him sitting up and wounded as we passed
the bridge.'"

Smith said: "One of them was left on the ground wounded and in that
situation was killed by an American with a hatchet." Handley said:
"The young man who killed him told me in 1807 that it worried him
very much."

This inhuman act was of course reported by the British and a Boston
paper represented that one killed at the bridge at Concord was
scalped and the ears cut off from his head. This led to a
deposition from Brown and Davis that the truth may be known. They
testified that they buried the bodies at the bridge, that neither
of those persons were scalped, nor their ears cut off.

If there be any one left to advocate such a proceeding, he will say
that the deposition was true to the letter. But alas! it was in the
letter only. It had the most essential characteristic of
falsehood--the intention to make a false impression in regard to
what was known to be the subject of inquiry to have it believed
that both men were killed in the engagement."

"If a monument is to be erected by the authority of a town, one of
the most respectable in the County of Middlesex, let it be seen
that its inscription contains the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, relative to the subject matters
thereof."[275]

[275] Centennial Address delivered at Acton, July 21, 1835, by Josiah
Adams, pp. 44-5-6.

My attention was next attracted to the soldiers' graves at Concord
Bridge by the following letters that appeared in the Boston Transcript:

BRITISH GRAVES AT CONCORD.

To the Editor of the Transcript:

I want to say in your columns something which has been on my mind
frequently since I went to Concord Bridge on my recent visit to
America. It has mingled some sadness with an otherwise most
delightful visit.

By the side of the road there are the graves of the British
soldiers who fell there, unnamed and unhonored by us, yet they died
doing what they conceived to be their duty just as your men did.
The loneliness and unrecognized character of these graves struck me
sadly, and I have often since wished that they, too, might have
some tribute to their stanch, if misplaced bravery. Now in looking
(as I constantly do) through the writings of my most dear friend
and counsellor, James Russell Lowell, I find he has exactly struck
the note I want in his poem, "Lines suggested by the graves of the
two English soldiers on Concord Battleground." The third verse
would make a fitting tribute to the character of these men. It runs
as follows:

"These men were brave enough and true
To the hired soldiers' bull-dog creed;
What brought them here they never knew,
They fought as suits the English breed;
They came three thousand miles and died
To keep the past upon its throne--
Unheard, beyond the ocean tide,
Their English mother made her moan."

Do you think there might be found, among the splendidly patriotic
Daughters of the Revolution, some sufficiently generous-minded to
put this American poet's recognition of the worth of these poor
fellows on a small tablet near the graves? I would at least ask
whether the last two lines of this verse do not move the heart of
any woman.

I do not know how public sentiment toward the sacred ground of
Concord battlefield might regard such an intrusion, and if the
words were those of any but such a man as Lowell, so associated
with the locality and imbued with all that that fight meant to your
nation, I would not be so bold as to suggest it. I know that this
is really a national, not an individual, matter and that a
stranger ought not to intermeddle with it. I am only making my
little moan in sympathy with the English mother whose heart Lowell
so beautifully understands.

ALBERT WEBB.
Elderslie, London Road, Worcester, Eng., March 31, 1909.

The editor's comments on the letters was in part as follows:

"The letter in another column pleading for a memorial tablet,
bearing suggested and suggestive lines from Lowell, at the grave of
the two British soldiers slain at the North Bridge, Concord, should
challenge attention and it is difficult to see why it should
challenge antagonism. The grave is now marked by two stones half
sunken in the mold with which kindly nature everywhere seeks to
efface the evidences of human strife. It is protected by chains
which were provided some thirty years ago by a British resident of
Boston. On a stone of the wall sheltering the grave is an
inscription setting forth who sleep below. Neither the inscription
nor the defence was strictly necessary, for all Concord knows where
the grave is, and tradition has preserved the names of the two men
who buried the slain, giving them hasty but not irreverent
interment. Nor has there ever been danger of vandalism. The old New
England reverence for the last resting place of the dead protected
the sleepers for one hundred years, and the chain fence is more the
tribute of a countryman to these friendless and nameless victims of
George III.'s policy than a precaution. The same spirit which
protected those two soldiers' resting place would doubtless not see
anything objectionable in a bronze tablet carrying Lowell's lines.
Certainly the people of Concord, the descendants of the Minutemen,
would be the last to feel incensed at this tribute, if tribute it
be, or this reminder of permanent material, of the historic dust
that must in these one hundred and thirty-four years have turned
into earth.

"These two soldiers are none the less historical characters because
their identity is unknown. What their names or grades neither
history nor research tells. They were just common men in the ranks,
in the era when the private soldier was simply so much food for
powder.

"But apart from the influence of local sentiment, there is a broad
public opinion that guards a soldier's sepulchre, even if he was an
enemy in life. This opinion is expressed in the general custom in
this country to allow both sides memorials on the great
battlefields of our Civil War.

"If the suggested tablet should be erected at Concord, if
'patriotism' should at first think too much honor were done these
'hireling soldiers,' would not reflection remind that when the
'embattled farmers'--who, by the way, were led by a veteran and
accomplished officer--and the regulars faced one another across the
narrow stream both were proud of the name of Englishmen? Concord
was then a microcosm of English America, which up to the very verge
of hostilities had drunk the King's health and had clung
desperately to the foolish fond belief that he was a good sovereign
misled by designing ministers."

This led me to further investigate this matter, for I had been informed
that the graves had been desecrated some years ago under authority of
the town officials. I therefore caused to be published in the Boston
Transcript under the heading of "Notes and Queries" the following query:

(7891.) 1. Can anyone give the names of the two British soldiers
killed at Concord Bridge, or inform me if there were any papers
taken from their bodies that would identity them? I have been
informed that there were.

2. One of the soldiers was left wounded on the bridge; what was the
name of the "young American that killed him with a hatchet"?

3. When did the selectmen of Concord give Professor Fowler
permission to dig up the two bodies of the British soldiers and
remove the skulls to be used for exhibition purposes?

J. H. S.
April 6, 1906.

[Illustration: MONUMENT TO COMMEMORATE THE SKIRMISH AT CONCORD BRIDGE.

The letter A on the left of the engraving, marks the site of the graves
of the two British Soldiers. The first killed in the Revolution.]

The only answer received was the following:

"7891. 3. The indirect intimations of J. H. S. are shrewd, but
before the alleged action of the selectmen excites the Concord
people, they should insist upon his producing adequate evidence.
ROCKINGHAM."

The adequate evidence was produced and is as follows:

"The Worcester Society of Antiquity,
Worcester, Massachusetts, April 12, 1909.

Mr. James H. Stark,

Dear Sir:

Mr. Barton has handed your letter to me and I write to say that the
skulls of those two British Soldiers killed at the bridge in
Concord were once the property of this Society, we having purchased
them of the Widow of Prof. Fowler, the phrenologist, who some years
ago went about the country giving lectures and illustrating his
subjects. Prof. Fowler got permission to dig up those skulls from
the Selectmen of Concord, and he carried them about with him and
used them in his lecturing. After his death one of the members
learned of them and we purchased the skulls and they were in our
museum some time. The late Senator Hoar learning that we had them,
came to know if we would be willing to return them to Concord that
they might be put back in the ground from whence they were taken.
As he seemed quite anxious about it, consent was given, and they
were sent to Concord to be placed in their original resting place.
Presume they are there at the present time.

Yours,
ELLERY B. CRANE.
Librarian."

The only excuse offered for the inhuman act of Ammi White was found over
one hundred years after the crime was committed. It is now said that he
was only a boy, and that the wounded soldier cried out for water, and
that while giving it to him he tried to kill him with his bayonet. This
is all false, there is no evidence whatever to prove it, in fact Thorp,
one of the deponents said "he was killed with a hatchet after being
wounded and helpless, and the act was a matter of horror to all of us."
Handley said "The young man who killed him told me in 1807 that it
worried him very much." Here is not the slightest evidence that White
killed him in self defence, neither was he the boy as represented, for I
find that he enlisted five days after killing the soldier, in Capt.
Abishai Brown's Co. Col. John Nixon's (5) Regiment. He enlisted April
24, 1775, June 10, 1775 signed advance pay order at Cambridge, Aug. 1,
1775, Private on muster roll at that date. Service 3 months 15 days.
Company return dated Sept. 30, 1775.[276]

[276] Rev. Soldiers and Sailors. Vol. 17, p. 42.

I am pleased to state that a few weeks after the aforesaid letters
appeared in the Transcript, that the town authorities at Concord gave
permission to the "British Army and Navy Veterans" of Boston, to march
on Memorial Day, May 30, 1909, to the graves of the two soldiers and to
decorate same, which was accordingly done. The graves of the soldiers
are referred to in the Transcript article as being "protected by chains,
which were provided some thirty years ago by a British resident of
Boston." The party referred to was Mr. Herbert Radcliffe, a member of
the British Charitable Society. The facts which I have stated here,
concerning what occurred, "Where once the embattled farmers stood and
fired the shot heard round the world" is not done with a view of
reviving old grievances, or re-opening old sores, but that the historic
truth may be known concerning "the shot heard round the world," for
history should know no concealment, and as Josiah Adams truly said, "the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, should be told
relative to this matter."

If it be said that these are old stories of the past, we reply that
these misrepresentations are being quoted as having actually occurred
and are made living issues for to-day by numerous societies formed for
that; and kindred purposes. Even those societies designed to keep in
remembrance their honored ancestors' part in the Revolution, make it a
point to perpetuate their historic fables and falsehoods in the belief
that anything is good enough to be said of their historic opponent.

THE ENGAGEMENT AT THE NORTH BRIDGE IN CONCORD, WHERE THE TWO SOLDIERS
WERE KILLED.

In the American army which was formed at Cambridge immediately after the
affair at Lexington and Concord, there were two young artists from
Connecticut, Amos Doolittle, afterwards a well known engraver, and a
portrait painter by the name of Earl, both members of the New Haven
company. During their stay at Cambridge, these young men improved the
opportunity by visiting Lexington and Concord, for the purpose of
studying the battle field and making drawings of the several localities,
the buildings, and the forces in action. The drawings were mostly made
by Earl, and afterwards engraved by Doolittle, on his return to New
Haven the same year. The four plates were each twelve by eighteen inches
in size, and have been claimed to be the first series of historical
prints ever published in this country. "Plate III., the battle of the
North Bridge in Concord" shown here in reduced size from the
reproduction of the original in "Stark's Antique Views of Boston." In
this engraving, one soldier is seen falling, near the spot where the two
soldiers are buried.

THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

Boss or ring rule is not a modern invention, for at the time of the
Revolution, Sam Adams was the political boss of Boston, Gordon in his
"History of the American Revolution" under date of 1775, traces this
practice to a much earlier date. "More than 50 years ago Mr. Samuel
Adams' father and 20 others, one or two, from the north end of the town,
where all the ship business is carried on used to meet, make a caucus,
and lay their plans for introducing certain persons into places of trust
and power. By acting in concert, together with a careful and extensive
distribution of ballots, they generally carried the elections to their
own mind." In this manner Sam Adams first became a representative for
Boston, and then its Boss. At this period ship building was one of the
leading industries of Boston. Originally the "Caucus Club" was a
mechanics club called from the leading trade in it the "Calkers' Club,"
which name, with a variation it still retained after it had passed in
the hands of politicians.

It is impossible to exaggerate the influence such secret societies as
the Caucuses, and Sons of Liberty, had upon the events which helped to
bring on the conflict with the mother country. The "Sons of Liberty" met
in a distillery, and also the Green Dragon Tavern, and arose out of the
excitement attending the passage of the Stamp Act. John Adams in his
diary gives some interesting glimpses of their clubs, where the
Revolution was born, he says "Feb. 1, 1763. This day learned that the
Caucus Club meets at certain times in the garret of Tom Dawes, the
adjutant of the Boston regiment. He has a large house, and he has a
movable partition in his garret, which he takes down and the whole club
meets in one room. There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one
end of the garret to the other. Then they drink flip I suppose, and
there they choose a moderator, who puts questions to the vote regularly,
and selectmen, assessors, collectors, wardens, and representatives, are
regularly chosen before they are chosen in the town. Fairfield, Story,
Ruddock, Adams, Cooper, and a rudis indigestaque moles of others are
members."

"January 15, 1766. Spent the evening with the Sons of Liberty at their
own apartments in Hanover Square near the Tree of Liberty. It is a
counting-room in Chase & Speakman's distillery; a very small room it is.
There were present John Avery, a distiller of liberal education; John
Smith, the brazier; Thomas Chase, distiller; Joseph Fields, master of a
vessel; Henry Bass, George Trott, jeweler; and Henry Wells. I was very
cordially and respectfully treated by all present. We had punch, wine,
pipes and tobacco, biscuit and cheese, etc."

Chas. J. Gettemy in commenting on same, says:[277]

[277] The True Story of Paul Revere, p. 45, by Charles J. Gettemy, Chief
of the Bureau of Statistics and Labor of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

"From which it appears that politicians are much the same in all times.
Public officials were chosen by a ring in Boston in the year of our Lord
1763 before they were "chosen by the town" =and the Revolution was
hatched in a rum-shop=, while those upon whom history has placed the
seal of greatness and statesmanship filled themselves with "flip" in an
atmosphere dense with tobacco smoke as they plotted and planned the
momentous events of the time!"

PAUL REVERE THE SCOUT.

Paul Revere was born in Boston, Dec. 21, 1734, his father was a Huguenot
named Rivoire, which in time became Revere. When Revere left school he
went into his father's shop to learn the art of gold and silver smith.

His first military experience was when he was twenty-one years old, in
the expedition against Crown Point, in which he held the king's
commission from Gov. Wm. Shirley as second lieutenant of artillery. The
service proved uneventful, it continued for six months and then the
enterprise was abandoned.

On his return he took an increasing and prominent part in the political
life of the time, and on one occasion his pugnacious disposition got him
into the police court, in 1761, where he had to pay a fine and be bound
over to keep the peace.

Revere became quite skilled in drawing and engraving on copper, and the
exciting political events of the time readily lent themselves to
pictorial treatment. Probably the best known of Revere's copper-plate
engraving, was that of the so-called "State Street Massacre." It has
since, however, been discovered that in this instance he appropriated
the work of Henry Pelham, the half brother of Copley the artist[278] as
the following letter will show:

Boston, March 29th, 1770.

Sir:

When I heard that you was cutting a plate of the late Murder, I
thought it impossible as I knew you was not capable of doing it
unless you copied it from mine and as I thought I had intrusted it
in the hands of a person who had more regard to the dictates of
Honor and Justice than to take the undue advantage you have done of
the confidence and trust I reposed in you. But I find that I was
mistaken and after being at great Trouble and Expense of making a
design, paying for paper, printing, etc., find myself in the most
ungenerous Manner deprived not only of any proposed Advantage, but
even of the expense I have been at as truly as if you had plundered
me on the highway. If you are insensible of the Dishonour you have
brought on yourself by this Act, the World will not be so. However,
I leave you to reflect and consider of one of the most dishonorable
Actions you could well be guilty of.

H. PELHAM.

[278] See Atlantic Monthly. April 1893, "Some Pelham Copley Letters."

This is a serious charge against Revere's honor and integrity, for it
seems that Pelham loaned Revere a drawing of the "Massacre" from which
Revere made an engraving and sold copies without giving the real artist
credit for his sketch, since the Revere plate bears the inscription
Engraved, Printed and Sold by Paul Revere.

Revere was one of the chief actors in the tea mobs that destroyed the
tea which precipitated the Revolution. The North End Caucus had, on Oct.
23, 1773, declared that its members would "oppose at peril of life and
fortune the vending of any tea that might be imported by the East Indian
Company." A song was composed which became very popular. One of them
commenced with

"Our Warren's there and bold Revere
With hands to do and words to cheer."

[Illustration: PURSUIT AND CAPTURE OF PAUL REVERE.

He and another scout, named Dawes, was captured on the road to
Lexington, April 19, 1775.]

Revere took a prominent part in this tumultuous affair, and the next day
he was selected as the man to take the news to New York and
Philadelphia. From this time on he was the chief scout of the Boston
Revolutionists. He was one of a band of thirty formed to watch the
movements of the British that had been sent to Boston after the
destruction of the tea. Finally the vigilance of these scouts was
rewarded. It became apparent that something unusual was occurring in the
British camp on the evening of April 18th, 1775, for Revere says "On
Tuesday evening, the 18th, it was observed that a number of soldiers
were marching towards the bottom of the Common," which meant that they
were going in boats across the river to Charlestown or Cambridge,
instead of making a long march around by land. About ten o'clock Dr.
Warren sent in great haste for me and begged that I would immediately
set off for Lexington. I found he had sent an express by land, a Mr.
William Dawes." I then went home, took my boots and surtout, went to the
north part of the town, where I kept a boat; two friends rowed me across
Charles River. When I got into town, I met Colonel Conant and several
others. They said they had seen our signals. I told them what was
acting, and went to get a horse." Mounted on Deacon Larkin's horse, he
said "I alarmed nearly every home till I got to Lexington. After I had
been there about half an Hour, Mr. Dawes arrived, who came from Boston
over the Neck. We set off for Concord." They had gone but a short
distance when they were taken prisoners. Revere said "I saw four of
them, who rode up to me with their pistols in their hands, said G--d
d--n you, stop, if you go an inch further you are a dead Man." The
result was that neither Revere nor Dawes reached Concord.

On the day following these events Revere was permanently engaged by Dr.
Warren, as a scout to do outside business for the Committee of Safety.
This patriotic service had a commercial value, and the Committee in
auditing the bill thought he was disposed to value his labors too
highly, for they reduced his charges from five shillings to four
shillings a day.[279] In his financial dealings with the government he
hardly ever failed to send in bills for work done which the authorities
deemed extravagant charges and pruned down accordingly.

[279] Paul Revere's Bills can be seen in the Archives at the State
House, Boston.

Most men like Revere, somewhat above the masses, but not possessing the
elements of enduring fame, are remembered by a circle of admiring and
respecting friends until they pass away, and are ultimately forgotten,
finding no place upon the pages of written history. Paul Revere was
rescued from this fate by an accident, a poet's imagination of things
that never occurred. His famous ride remained unsung, if not unhonored
for eighty-eight years, or until Longfellow, in 1863 made it the text
for his Landlord's Tale in the Wayside Inn. It is to the "poetic
license" of Longfellow, that most persons owe their knowledge of the
fact that such a person as Revere ever existed. The poet did not mention
the name of Dawes, yet he was entitled to as much credit, for what he
did on the eve of the historic skirmish at Lexington, as Revere.

Poetry and history sometimes become sadly mixed, the poet and romancist,
in so far as they deal with matters of verifiable records should keep
closer to the truth, and make use of poetic license as little as
possible. To be sure the poet's statement concerning the lantern, and
that Revere reached Concord was long ago shown to have been incorrect,
but its persistent virility only goes to prove that truth is not the
only thing which crushed to earth, will rise again. Very little is said
by historians, concerning the Penobscot Expedition despatched in the
summer of 1779 by the Massachusetts Council against the British on the
coast of Maine. It was an episode of the Revolution that resulted in
disaster so complete, so utterly without excuse, and so thoroughly
discreditable to American arms as to make its contemplation without
feelings of shame and humiliation impossible. An overwhelming force of
Colonial troops, through the clear cowardice of an admiral bearing the
proud name of Saltonstall, allowed itself to be frightened into an
ignominious and panic-stricken desertion of its post of duty by a
ridiculously ill equipped enemy. The ensuing scandal besmirched
reputations hitherto untarnished, and the State of Massachusetts was
plunged, on account of the expedition, into a debt of eight million
dollars sterling. "To attempt to give a description of this terrible
Day," wrote General Lovell, "is out of my Power. It would be a fit
subject for some masterly hand to describe it in its true colors, to see
four ships pursuing seventeen Sail of Armed Vessels, nine of which were
stout Ships, Transports on fire. Men of War blowing up every kind of
Stores on Shore, throwing about, and as much confusion as can possibly
be conceived."[280]

[280] Lovell's Journal, p. 105.

Thus did this little Garrison with three Sloops of War, by the unwearied
exertions of soldiers and seamen, writes John Calef in his Journal under
date of August 14, 1779, whose bravery cannot be too much extolled,
succeed in an enterprise of great importance, against difficulties
apparently unsurmountable, and in a manner strongly expressive of their
faithful and spirited attachment to the interests of their King and
Country. Calef gives the total number of American ships of war, brigs
and transports as 37, of which 26 were burnt and 11 captured.[281] "The
soldiers and crew took to the woods, and singly or in squads, made their
way to the Kennebec, where most of them arrived after a week's suffering
from hunger and exposure."[282]

[281] The Siege of the Penobscot, etc., pp. 23, 25.

[282] Mass. Archives, Vol. 145, pp. 230-237. (Todds report).

Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Revere was in command of the artillery train,
and this episode was a serious event in his life, and came near
stripping him of the laurels he had won by his earlier exploits, he was
arrested on charges of cowardice, censured after an investigation, court
martialled, and was grudgingly acquitted, after three years persistent
effort.

Paul Revere's Masonic Record also has its blemishes. He received his
degrees in St. Andrews Lodge in 1760-1. He afterwards became Grand
Master. There being too many Loyalists or "Gentry" in St. Andrews Lodge
to suit the taste of Revere, the leader of the mechanics, he and his
friends therefore withdrew from same, and started "Rising States Lodge,"
but it did not succeed. The members soon fell to quarrelling among
themselves. Some twenty members came together and voted the lodge out of
existence, and divided the funds of the lodge, amounting to $1,577.50
among twenty-five members of the lodge, among whom was Paul Revere and
his son. This was contrary to all Masonic precedents. The funds and
paraphernalia of the Lodge should have been returned to the Grand Lodge.
A committee was appointed to investigate the matter. They made a very
scathing report in which it said "To divide it among members of a Lodge
whenever they think proper to dissolve this union, is making the funds
an object of speculation, it is treating the noble example of departed
donors with contempt and devoting their sacred deposit to individual
emoluments, it is taking bread from the hungry, It is multiplying the
tears of the widow and fatherless."

The Grand Lodge ordered that the funds of the lodge should be devoted to
charity and a report of same printed and sent to each member of Rising
States Lodge.[283]

[283] See copy of report in "Rising States Lodge," in Library of Mass.
Grand Lodge.

WILLIAM FRANKLIN, SON OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.

William Franklin, Last Royal Governor of New Jersey, was a natural son
of Dr. Benjamin Franklin. He was born about 1731. His father said of
him: "He imagined his father had got enough for him; but I have assured
him that I intend to spend what little I have myself, if it pleases God
that I live long enough; and, as he by no means wants acuteness, he can
see by my going on that I mean to be as good as my word." He served as
Postmaster of Philadelphia, and as clerk of the House of Assembly of
Pennsylvania. In the French war he was a captain and gained praise for
his conduct at Ticonderoga. Before the peace, he went to England with
his father. While there, Mr. Strahan wrote Mrs. Franklin, "Your son I
really think one of the prettiest young gentlemen I ever knew from
America. He seems to me to have a solidity of judgment, not very often
to be met with in one of his years." While abroad young Franklin visited
Scotland and became acquainted with the celebrated Earl of Bute, who
recommended him to Lord Fairfax, who secured for him, as is said, the
appointment of Governor of New Jersey, in 1763, without the solicitation
of himself or his father. All intercourse between him and his father was
suspended for more than a year before the actual commencement of
hostilities. He was involved in a helpless quarrel with the delegates,
and the people of New Jersey. In May, 1775, in a message he sent to the
Assembly he said, "No office of honor in the power of the Crown to
bestow would ever influence him to forget or neglect the duty he owed
his country, nor the most furious rage of the most intemperate zealots
induce him to swerve from the duty he owed his Majesty." On the 20th of
May, the day this message was transmitted, the Assembly was prorogued,
and Governor Franklin never communicated with that body again. Three
days after the first Provincial Congress commenced their session at
Trenton, and the Royal Government ceased, and William Livingston became
Franklin's successor.

Congress ordered the arrest of Governor Franklin as an enemy to his
country. He was accordingly placed in the custody of a guard commanded
by a captain who had orders to deliver him to Governor Trumball in
Connecticut. He was conveyed to East Windsor, and quartered in the house
of Captain Ebenezer Grant. In 1777 he requested liberty to visit his
wife who was a few miles distant, and sick. This Washington refused,
saying, "It is by no means in my power to supersede a positive
Resolution of Congress under which your present confinement took place."
His wife was born in the West Indies and it is said that she was much
affected by the severity of Doctor Franklin to her husband while he was
a prisoner. She died in 1778 in her 49th year, and is buried in St.
Paul's Church, New York. It is inscribed upon the monumental tablet
erected to her memory that "Compelled to part from the husband she
loved, and at length despairing of the soothing hope of his speedy
return, she sunk under accumulated distresses, etc."

In 1778, after the arrival in America of Sir Henry Clinton, an exchange
was effected and Governor Franklin was released, and went to England. In
West's picture of the Reception of the American Loyalists, by Great
Britain in 1783, Governor Franklin and Sir William Pepperell are the
prominent personages represented. (See page 214.)

In 1784, the father and son, after an estrangement of ten years, became
reconciled to one another, for Doctor Franklin writes, "It will be very
agreeable to me, indeed nothing has ever hurt me so much, and affected
me with such keen sensation, as to find myself deserted in my old age by
my only son, and not only deserted, but to find him taking up arms
against me in a cause wherein my good fame, fortune and life were all at
stake. You conceived, you say, that your duty to your king and regard
for your country required this. I ought not to blame you for differing
in sentiment with me in public affairs. We are all men, subject to
errors, etc." In his will, dated June 23, 1789, a few months before his
decease, he showed his shrewdness and craftiness for which he was always
noted, in leaving his Nova Scotia lands to his son, the title to which
was doubtful on account of the part he took in the Revolution. He says
"I give and devise all the lands I hold or have a right to in the
Province of Nova Scotia, to hold to him, his heirs and assigns forever.
I also give to him all my books and papers which he has in his
possession, and all debts standing against him on my account-books,
willing that no payment for, nor restitution of the same be required of
him by my executors. The part he acted against me in the late war, which
is of public notoriety, will account for my leaving him no more of an
estate he endeavored to deprive me of."

Governor Franklin continued in England during the remainder of his life.
He received a pension from the British Government of £800 per annum. His
personal estate valued at £1800, which was confiscated, the government
allowed him full compensation for. He had several shares in back lands
and grants and real estate in New York and New Jersey, all of which he
conveyed to his father, as he was indebted to him. He died in Nov.,
1813. His son, William Temple Franklin, was Secretary to Dr. Franklin,
and edited his works. He died at Paris in May, 1823.

ROYAL COAT OF ARMS.

The Royal Coat of Arms embossed on the outside cover of this work is an
exact reproduction of the Coat of Arms that was formerly above the
Governor's seat in the Council Chamber in the Old State House in Boston.
It was made from a photograph taken from the original in Trinity Church,
St. John, N. B., for a fuller description of same, see p. 436. The seal
embossed on the outside back cover, is a reproduction of the seal of
"The Colony of the Massachusetts Bay in New England" from which the
present seal of the State of Massachusetts is derived. It was the seal
that was used on all official documents down to the time of the
Revolution.

PELHAM'S MAP OF BOSTON.

This plan was made by Henry Pelham, the half brother of Copley the
painter. It was made under permission of J. Urquhart, Town Major, August
28, 1775. It shows the lines about the Town and the Harbor, and is the
most important of the early maps of Boston and the one upon which all
subsequent revolutionary maps are based. It was printed in two sheets
published in London, June 2, 1777, done in aquatinta by Francis Jukes.
This copy is reproduced from the original in the Massachusetts
Historical Society's Library and is drawn on a photographic print from
which this engraving is made.

JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN'S OPINION OF COL. THOS. GOLDTHWAITE.

Col. Goldthwaite was a man of ability, unbounded enterprise, and
considerable influence. Chamberlain in his History of Chelsea says of
him: "Some very unfavorable accounts of Col. Goldthwaite have been
published, which I do not feel at liberty to withhold, but in referring
to them suggest, first, that they were mainly written after he had
become obnoxious as a loyalist; secondly: that his position on the
Penobscot was one in which it would have been impossible to protect the
just rights of the Indians against turbulent frontiersmen outside any
efficient government without incurring their hostility, since their only
sense of justice was their desire for exclusive possessions of lands
which rightfully belonged to the original occupants."

GOV. JOHN WINTHROP--See Page 426.

John Winthrop, born Jan. 12, 1587, died at Boston March 26, 1649, by his
first wife Mary Forth, had

John, born Sept. 12, 1606
Henry, born Jan. 19, 1608
Forth, born Dec. 30, 1609
Mary, born probably 1612
Ann, baptised Aug. 8, 1614 and died soon after
Ann (again) baptised June 26, 1615

By his second wife, Thomasine Clopton, had a child who died at the
same time as its mother.

By his third wife, Margaret Tyndal, he had

Stephen, Mar. 31, 1619
Adam, April 7, 1620
Deane, March 23, 1623
Nathaniel, Feb. 20, 1625, died young
Samuel, August 26, 1627
Ann, April 29, 1630, who died on the voyage over
William, Aug. 14, 1632, probably died early
Sarah, baptized Jan. 29, 1634, probably died early

By his fourth wife, Martha, a widow of Thomas Coytmore, sister of
Increase Nowell of Charlestown, he had Joshua, baptised December
17, 1648

His eldest son, John Winthrop, born Sept. 12, 1606, at Groton, who
afterwards became Governor of Connecticut, died and was buried in
Boston; it is his line of descendants that is given on page 426; the
other branches of the family became extinct in the male line.

INDEX.

Abercrombie, 226.

Achmuty (see Auchmuty). Robert, 126.

Adams, Charles Francis, 37.
Frances, 286.
James, 286.
John, 5, 24, 25, 29, 32, 35, 37, 45, 46, 48, 54, 68, 69, 77,
83, 89, 93, 95, 105, 153, 163, 181, 226, 317, 318, 327,
334, 340, 366, 368, 379, 385, 391, 392, 452, 455, 477.
John, Mrs., 282.
John Quincy, 180, 365.
Joseph, 138.
Josiah, 472, 473, 476.
Samuel, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, 48, 51, 59, 83, 152, 153, 157, 160,
161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 189, 219, 310, 322, 476.
Zab, 334.

Albemarle, Duke of, 419.

Allen, Ebenezer, 134.
James, 295.
Martha, 295.
William, 204.

Almon, W. J., 279.

Altamont, Earl of, 316.

Ambrose, Robert, 128.

Ames, Fisher, 98.
Gov., 47.

Amherst, 20, 198, 227.

Amory, Abigail Taylor, 345.
Ann Geyer, 395.
Ann McLean, 395.
Anne, 343.
Catherine Green, 345.
Charles, 221, 345.
Elizabeth Fitzmaurice, 343.
Esther Sargent, 345.
Hattie Sullivan, 345.
Hugh, 343.
John, 137, 249, 344, 345, 346, 350.
Jonathan, 343, 344, 345, 346, 410.
Martha Greene, 345.
Mrs., 234.
Nancy Geyer, 350.
Nathaniel, 345.
Rebecca, 343, 344.
Robert, 128, 343.
Rufus, 350.
Rufus Greene, 395.
Thomas, 132, 343, 344, 345, 410.
Thomas C., 233, 242, 243, 345.
Thomas Coffin, 51.
William, 345.

Ancient and Honorable Artillery Co., 118, 181, 356, 424.

Anderson, James, 125, 132, 137.

Andrews, Elizabeth, 412.
Thomas, 412.
William, Jr., 468.

Andros, 419.
Barrett, 133.
Edmond, Sir, 16.

Appleton, John, 262.

Apthorp, 60, 438, 448.
Alicia Mann, 352.
Charles, 351, 352, 354.
Charles Ward, 352.
Charlotte Augusta, 352.
East (Rev.), 353.
Grace Foster, 353.
Grizzell, 352, 354.
Grizzell Eastwicke, 351.
Hannah, Greenleaf, 352.
John, 351, 352.
John T. (Col.), 353.
Mary, 352, 353, 396.
Mary McEvers, 352.
Mary Thompson, 354.
Susan, 353.
Susan, Ward, 351.
Thomas, 125, 137, 354.
William, 137, 354.

Arbuthnot, Abigail Little, 399.
Christian, 399.
John, 399.
Miss, 251.

Archer, Mary, 287.

Argenson, 23.

Arnold, 90.
Benedict, 180.

Asby, James, 125.

Ashburton, Lord, 114, 115.

Ashley, Joseph, 133, 138.

Ashton, Jacob, 131.

Astor, John Jacob, 209.

Atkins, David, 139.
Gibbs, 134, 137, 323.
Ruth, 321.
Thomas, 323.

Atkinson, John, 125, 132, 133, 137.

Attucks, Crispus, 44, 83.

Auchmuty, 163, 437.
James, 302.
Maria M., 304.
Richard, Harrison, 304.
Robert, 138, 142, 249, 300, 302.
Robert Nicholis, 304.
Samuel, Sir, 304.
Samuel, Rev., 303, 304.

Austin, Capt., 364.
Mrs., 364.

Avery, John, 477.

Alywin, Thomas, 125.

Ayres, Eleanor, 134.

Bache, Benjamin F., 75, 76.

Bacon, 439.

Badger, Moses, Rev., 134, 138, 275.

Bagley, Col., 358.

Bailey, Jacob, Rev., 399.

Baird, D., Sir. 304.

Baker, John, 134, 139.
Walter, 183.

Baldwin, Henry, 361.
Loammi, Col., 262, 266, 271, 358.

Ball, Robert, 361.

Bancroft, George, 390.
Rev. Dr., 391.

Bangs, Seth, 139.

Barber, Major, 406.

Barger, Philip, 448.

Barker, Ann, 310.

Barnard, John, 134.
Thomas, 127.

Barnes, Catherine, 400.
Christian Arbuthnot, 399.
Elizabeth, 255, 399.
Henry, 132, 138, 235, 399, 400, 401, 402.
Mr., 251.
Surgeon-General, 112.

Barnett, John, 239.

Barnsfare, 244.

Barre, 28, 31.

Barrell, Elizabeth, 445.
Jonathan Sayward, 445.
Mary, 445.
Nathaniel, 445.
Samuel B., 136.
Sarah Sayward, 445.
Theodore, 136.
Walter, 133.

Barrett, Col., 471.

Barrick, James, 133, 137.

Barron, Jonathan, 286.
Lucy, 286.

Barry, 218.

Barton, David, 132.
M., 475.

Bass, Gilman, 469.
Henry, 477.
Mr., 340.

Bath, Lord, 23.

Beaman, Thomas, 139.

Beath, Mary, 134.

Beaumarchais, 84, 85.

Beecher, Henry Ward, 111.

Belcher, Andrew, 181.
Eliza, 181.
Governor, see Jonathan.
Jonathan (Gov.), 181, 233, 275, 276, 344, 447.
Joseph (Rev.), 338.
Rebeccah, 338.
Sarah, 447.

Bennett, Barbara, 255.
Spencer (see Phips, Spencer), 420.

Bentham, Jeremy, 164.

Benton, Senator, (Thos. H.), 115.

Bernard, 292, 301.
Amelia, 201.
Francis, Rev., 191.
Francis, Sir, 35, 41, 42, 50, 137, 142, 149, 157, 176, 191,
192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 199, 200, 203, 204, 207.
Godfrey, 191.
Governor, see Sir Francis.
John, 201.
John, Sir, 203.
Julia, 193, 201, 202.
Scrope, 201, 202.
Thomas, 191, 196, 197, 200, 202, 203, 204.

Berry, Edward, 137.
Elizabeth, 467.
John, 125.

Bethel, Robert, 133.

Bethune, George, 125, 239.
George A., 229.

Bicker, William, 342.

Bigelow, Timothy, Col., 400.

Bissett, George, 361.

Black, David, 137.
John, 134.

Blackburn, 444.
Mr. Justice, 151.

Blackstone, Mr., 364.
William, 217, 413.

Blackwell, John, Jr., 139.

Blair, John, 134.
Robert, 137.
William, 124.

Blanchard, 394.

Bland, 80.

Blaney, Joseph, 131.

Bligh, Thomas, 13.

Bliss, Daniel, 126, 138.
Jonathan, 249.
Samuel, 138.

Blodgett, Susannah, 261.
Thomas, 261.

Blowers, Sampson S., 126, 137, 249.
Sampson Salter, 137.

Bloye, Henry, 125.

Boardman, Andrew, 420.

Bollan, Mr., 301.

Bolton, Col., 234.
Mrs., 234.

Borland, 438.
John, 125, 409.
Mrs., 251.
Sarah, 409.

Boucher, 202.

Bourn, Edward, 139.
Elisha, 139.
Lemuel, 139.
William, 139.

Boutineau, James, 125, 136, 142, 448.
Mary Bowdoin, 448.
Mrs., 448.
Nancy, 448.

Bowen, John, 134, 139.
Nathan, 128.

Bowes, Ann Whitney, 224.
Arthur, 224.
Dorcas Champney, 224.
Edmund Elford, 224.
Emily, 224.
Harriet Troutbeck, 224.
Lucy Hancock, 224.
Martha Remington, 224.
Martin (Sir), 224.
Mary Stoddard, 224.
Nicholas, 224.
Sarah, 224.
Sarah Hubbard, 224.
William, 125, 132, 134, 137, 224, 225.

Bowditch, 412.
Joseph, 131.

Bowdoin, 163, 165.
Elizabeth, 448.
James, 29, 399, 402, 428, 437.
Judith, 403.
Mary, 448.
Peter, 448.

Bowman, Archibald, 132, 134.

Boyd, Gen., 104.

Boydell, Alderman, 218.

Boyer, Daniel, 409.

Boyle, John, 405.

Boyleston, Mr., 250.

Boylston, Ward Nicholas, 249.

Braddock, Gen., 19, 51, 179.

Bradford, Gov., 434.

Bradish, Ebenezer, 126.
Mr., 388.

Bradshaw, Sarah Thompson, 297.

Bradstreet, 11, 17.
Simon, 458.

Bragdon, Capt., 443.

Brandon, 134.

Brattle, Katherine, 295.
Katherine Saltonstall, 296, 297.
Thomas, 137, 294, 296.
William, 132, 134, 161, 294, 295, 296, 435.

Braxton, 80.

Bray, John, 205, 208.
Margery, 205.

Breck, Abigail, 313.
John, 313.
Margaret, 313.

Brewer, Daniel, 140.
Joseph, 424.

Breynton, Rev. Dr., 348.

Bridgewater, Chief Justice, 279.
Mary, 279.

Bridgham, Ebenezer, 125, 133, 137.
Hannah, 358.
Joseph, 358.

Briggs, Mathyas, 285.

Brigham, Ebenezer, 132.

Bright, John, 110.

Brimmer, Martin, 196.

Brindley, see Brinley.

Brinley, also Brindley.
Catherine Craddock, 396.
Deborah, 377, 396.
Edward, 396.
Elizabeth, 396.
Elizabeth Pitts, 397.
Francis, 377, 396.
George, 125, 132, 137.
Mary Apthorp, 396.
Mrs. (Nathaniel), 397.
Nathaniel, 132, 396.
Robert, 397.
Sylvester Oliver, 190.
Thomas, 125, 132, 134, 137, 249, 395, 396, 397.

Britton, David, 131.

Brock, Gen., 103, 441.

Broderick, John, 134.

Brooks, Susanna, 298.

Broomer, Joshua, 139.

Brown, Abishai (Capt.), 475.
Capt., 400, 401.
Gawler, 280.
Gen., 104.
Lieut., 353.
Mary, 428.
Mather, 280.
Shearjashub, 126.
Thomas, 134.
William, 138, 428.

Browne, 250.
Elizabeth, 242.
Hannah Curwin, 449.
Judge, 448.
Mary, 463.
Samuel, 449.
Simon, 449.
William, 131, 136, 142, 189, 449, 450, 451, 461, 463.

Bruce, James, 137.

Brunsden, Charles, 220.

Bryant, Seth, 139.

Brymer, Alexander, 137.

Bubler, Joseph, 128.

Buckminster, Col., 425.

Bulfinch, Charles, 352, 354.
Susan Apthorp, 353.
Thomas, 349, 354.

Bumpus, Thomas, 139.

Bumstead, Thomas, 307.

Burch, William, 137, 142, 319.

Burden, William, 139.

Bureau, Ann, 229.

Burgoyne, Gen., 84, 85, 250.

Burke, 28, 31, 164.

Burnett, Gov., 449.

Burr, Aaron, 180.

Burrell, Colbourn, 125.
Martha, 356.

Burton, Jane, 427.
Mary, 134.
William, 125, 137.

Bush, David, 139.

Bute, Lord, 40, 153, 481.

Butler, Benjamin F., 109.
Dr., 353.
Gen., 111.
Gilliam, 134.

Buttrick, Maj., 471.

Byfield, Deborah, 447.
Nathaniel, 447.

Byles, Anna, 280.
Belcher, 280.
Elizabeth, 275, 280.
Josiah, 275.
Mather, Rev., 134, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 410.
Mather, Jr., 137, 279.
Mather (3), 279, 280.
Rebecca, 279.
Sarah, 275.

Bymer, Alexander, 132.

Cabot, 251.
Francis, 127, 131.
George, 459.
William, 131, 249.

Calef, John, 480.

Calhoun, John C., 102, 116, 180.

Callahan, Charles, 140.

Callendar, Edward B., 5.

Callender, James Thompson, 76.

Camden, 28.

Campbell, Alexander, 312.
Duncan, 404.
Elizabeth, 256.
John, 404.
Thomas, 255.
William, 134.

Caner, Ann, 347.
Henry (Rev. Dr.), 134, 202, 346, 347, 348, 349, 411.

Canner, Henry, 137.

Canning, 77.

Capen, Hopestil, 125.

Carew, Charles Hallowell, 284.
Robert Hallowell, 284.

Carleton, Guy (Sir), 234, 237, 241, 242, 244, 396.

Carlisle, Earl of, 413.
Mr., 55.

Carpenter, 251.

Carr, Mr., 134.
Patrick, 46.
Robert (Sir), 13, 14.

Carroll, Charles, 31, 80.
John (Rev.), 31, 32.

Carter (Lieut.), 89.

Cartwright, Geo. (Col.), 13, 14.

Carver, Caleb, 139.
Melzor, 134, 139.

Cary (Dr.), 353.
Nathaniel, 125, 132.

Cazneau, Andrew, 126, 132, 134, 137.
William, 125, 132.

Cednor, William, 134.

Chambers, Rebecca, 452.

Chace (see also Chase).
Ami, 139.
Levi, 139.
Shadrach, 139.

Chadwell, Abraham, 374.
M. A., 374.
Samuel, 133.

Chalmers, (Richard-?-), 212.

Chamberlain, Joseph, 8.
Mrs., 358.

Champney, Dorcas, 224.

Chandler, Ann, Leonard, 392.
Annice, 388.
Clark, 390.
Dorothy, Paine, 390.
Dr., 212.
Eleanor Putnam, 391.
Elizabeth Ruggles, 379.
Gardner, 139, 391.
Hannah Gardner, 389.
John, 35, 132, 134, 139, 383, 385, 388, 389, 390, 391.
John (Col.), 389.
Lucretia, 382.
Nathaniel, 133, 134, 139, 391.
Rufus, 126, 139, 379, 385, 390.
Sarah, 383.
William, 133, 134, 139, 388, 399.

Channing, Dr., 114.

Charles I., 10, 427.

Charles II., 11, 12, 16.

Chase (see also Chace and Speakman, 477).
Samuel, 31.
Thomas, 477.

Chatham, 25, 28, 31.

Chauncy (Rev. Dr.), 321.

Checkley, Anthony, 308.

Cheever, Ezekiel, 406, 463.
Joshua, 423.
Mary, 414.

Chickatabut, 365.

Child, Isabella, 442.
Susan, 442.
Susannah, 439.
Thomas, 442, 465.
Thomas Hale, 442.

Chipman, Hannah Warren, 431.
Hope Howland, 431.
John, 431, 432.
John (Rev.), 431.
Rebecca Hale, 431.
Samuel, 431.
Ward, 133, 431, 432, 436.

Church, Benjamin, 137, 166, 286, 406, 454.
Benjamin, Jr., 417.
Colonel, 390.
Mary, 390.

Ciely, John, 133.

Clap, Rachel, 333.

Clarence, Duke of, 243.

Clark (see also Clarke).
Benjamin, 124, 415.
Isaac, 137.
John, 137, 415.
Jonathan, 137, 249.

Clark, Mary, 188.
Richard, 132, 137, 249.
Samuel, 415.
Sarah, 383.
Thomas, 260.
Timothy, 383.
William, 188, 415.

Clarke (see also Clark), 60.
Anne, 394.
Francis, 405.
Isaac Winslow, 245, 409.
Jonathan, 407, 409.
Margaret Winslow, 245.
Richard, 165, 216, 217, 245, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409.
Susan, 409.
and Sons, 405.

Clay, Henry, 102, 180.

Cleveland, President, 117.

Cleverly, 438.

Clinton, Henry (Sir), 467, 482.

Cobb, Nicholas, 139.

Cochrane, Alexander (Sir), 240.
Capt. 51.

Codner, William, 124, 132, 137.

Coffin, Ann, 243, 446.
Ann Holmes, 446.
Aston (Sir), 283.
Caroline, 239.
Ebenezer, 234.
Elizabeth, 233.
Elizabeth Amory, 344.
Elizabeth Barnes, 399.
Francis Holmes, 245.
Froman H. (Admiral), 233.
Guy Carleton (Gen.), 238.
Hector (Capt.), 243.
Henry Edward, 238.
Isaac, Sir (Admiral), 233, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 283,
400, 442.
Isaac Sir (Gen.), 245.
Isabella, 244.
James, 233, 245.
John, 125, 137, 234, 243, 244, 245, 442.
John (Gen.), 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 242, 243, 283, 400.
John T. (Admiral), 242.
John Townsend, 238.
Jonathan Perry, 243.
Lieut. Col., 244.
Margaret, 244.
Margrate, 442.
Mary, 239.
Nathaniel, 125, 132, 133, 137, 233, 234, 235, 239, 243, 245,
249, 251, 350, 399, 446.
Nathaniel, Jr., 125.
T. (Admiral), 238.
Thomas, 245.
Thomas Aston, 234.
Thomas Aston (Sir), 233, 243.
Tristram, 233, 243.
William, 125, 134, 137, 233, 234, 235, 243, 245, 309, 344, 350,
446.
William, Jr., 132, 134, 234.
William Foster, 245.

Collins, Stephen, 248.

Colonial Club, 183.

Conant, Col., 479.

Congreve, Mary, 215.
William (Sir), 215.

Conkey, Israel, 139.

Connors, Mrs., 134.

Converse, Hannah, 261.

Cook, Robert, 134.

Cookson, 133.

Cooley, John, 134.

Coombs, Mr., 252.

Cooper, Jacob, 312.
Samuel, 163.
William, 314.

Coote, Eyre, 414.

Coores, 414.

Copley, Elizabeth Clark, 221.
Georgiana, Susan, 221.

Copley, John Singleton, 125, 165, 216, 217, 218, 219, 249, 280,
394, 404, 409, 412, 413, 444.
John Singleton (2) (See also Lyndhurst, Lord), 219, 220,
221, 283.

Copley, Richard, 216.
Sarah Elizabeth, 221.
Sophia, Clarence, 221.
Susan Penelope, 221.

Cornwallis, 236, 251.

Corwell, Anna, 223.
Jemima, 223.
Richard, 223.

Cotton, John, 145, 338.
Maria, 338.
Mr., 272.

Courtney, Thomas, 132, 134, 137.

Cousins, John, 443.

Cox, Edward, 125, 137.

Cradock, Catherine, 396.
Elizabeth, 396.
George, 396.

Crage, James, 139.

Cragie, Lord, 442.
Mrs., 442.

Craigie, Admiral, 244.
John, 244.
Lord, 244.

Cranch, 334.

Crane, Ellery B., 475.
Major, 194.

Crehore, Zeedah, 129.

Cromwell, Oliver, 11, 71, 122, 417, 433, 439.

Crowne, William (Col.), 12.

Cummins, A., 134.
E., 134.

Cunningham, Archibald, 132, 137, 451.

Curtice (See also Curtis).
Mary, 423.
Samuel, 423.

Curtis (See also Curtice).
Charles, 132, 138.
Obediah, 425.

Curwen, George, 246, 254, 447, 449, 461.
Hannah, 449.
Jonathan, 246.
Samuel, 64, 131, 246, 247, 254.
Susannah, 447.

Cushen, John, 285.

Cushing, William, 189.

Cushman, Elkanah, 133.

Cutler, Ebenezer, 134, 139, 468, 469, 470.
John, 230, 468.
Mary, 230, 468.
Mary Hicks, 470.
Mary Marsh, 468.
May Stockwell, 468.
Miriam, 469, 470.
Miriam Eager, 468.
Olivia Dickson, 470.
Rebecca, 470.
Samuel, 468.
Zackeus, 468.

Cutts, Joseph (Capt.), 209.
Sally, 209.
Thomas, 208.

Dabney, Nathaniel, 127.

Dalglish, Andrew, 127, 131.

Danforth, Judge, 187.
Samuel, 136.
Thomas, 126, 134, 138.

Daphne (a slave), 400.

Dartmouth, Lord, 162, 291, 292.

Daubney (See also Dabney).
Nathaniel, 131.

Davenport, Addington, 232.
Jane, 232.
Samuel, 129, 130.

Davie, 86.

Davis, Ann, 288.
Benjamin, 125, 132, 137.
Governor, 390.
Isaac (Capt.), 471.
James, 324.
Jefferson, 110, 111, 112.
Miss, 251.

Dawes, William, 479.

Daws, Edward, 359.

D'Bernicre (Ensign), 400.

D'Estaing (Admiral), 240, 430.

De Brisay (see Des' Brisay).

De Chatillon, 445.

De Grasse, 240, 252, 283, 428.

De la Bere, David, 235.

De Lancey, 431.
Oliver, 396.

De Viomel, 430.

Deane, Silas, 84, 102.

Dearborn (Gen.), 104, 441.

Debarrett, Mrs., 248.

Deblois (including De Blois).
Ann, 446.
Ann Coffin, 446.
Ann Farley, 445.
Elizabeth Cranton, 446.
Elizabeth Jenkins, 446.
Etienne, 445.
George, 131, 446.
Gilbert, 125, 132, 134, 137, 306, 307, 446.
James Smith, 306.
Lewis, 125, 132, 134, 137, 223, 446.
Mrs., 234.
Ruth, 223.
Stephen, 445.

Dechezzar, Adam, 134.

Decrow, Thomas, 139.

Deering, James, 399.

Dennie, William, 406.

Dennison, Samuel, 387.

Derby, Richard, Jr., 127.

Des' Brisay, Thomas (Gen.), 280.

Devens, Richard, 405.

Devereaux, Anna, 222.
Hannah, 222.
John, 222.

Dewey, George (Admiral), 118.

Dexter, Aaron, 344.

Dexter, Mrs., 234.
Rebecca Amory, 344.

Dickenson, Nathaniel, 134, 138.

Dickerson, William, 132.

Dickson, Olivia, 470.
William, 124.

Dieskau, Baron, 19, 226.

Digby, Admiral, 268, 269.
John (Sir), 462.

Dillon, 110.

Doolittle, Amos, 476.

Dorchester Historical Society, 184.

Dorchester, Lord (see also Sir Guy Carleton), 234.

Dougherty, Edward, 134.

Dowse, Joseph, 131.

Doyle, Major, 268.

Doyley, Francis, 134.
John, 134.

Drake, Samuel G., 43.

Draper, Ann, 404.
Edward, 404.
John, 404.
Margaret, 134, 404, 405.
Richard, 361, 404, 405.
William, 404.

Driver, Richard, 225.

Duane, 102.
William, 76.

Duche, Jacob (Rev.), 78, 83.

Duddington (Lieut.), 52.

Dudley, Charles, 133.
Joseph (Gov.), 410.
Katherine, 410.
Rebecca, 456.
William, 410.

Duelly, William, 134.

Dulaney (Daniel ?), 212.

Dumaresq, Capt., 445.
Philip, 125, 132, 133, 137, 316.
Rebecca, Gardiner, 316.

Dummer, Jane, 454.

Dunbar, Daniel, 138, 421.
Jessie, 421.
Joseph, 421.
Robert, 421.
Rose, 421.
William, 254.

Duncan, Alexander, 134.
James (Major), 273.

Dunlap, Daniel, 134.

Dunn, Samuel, 430.

Dunning, Mr., 164.

Du Portail, 25.

Dupuis, Abram, 405.

Durham, 458.

Du Vassall (see also Vassall), 285.

Duyer, Edward, 133.

Dysart, Hugh, 470.
Robert J., 470.

Eager, James, 468.
John, 139.
Miriam, 468.
Mrs., 469, 470.

Earl, James, 468.

East India Company, 124.

Eastwicke, Guzzel, 351.
John, 351.

Eaton, Benjamin, 397.

Eckley, Thomas E., 395.
Julia Ann Jeffries, 395.

Edgar, James, 139.

Edward IV., 427.
VII., 433.

Edwards, Thomas, 411.
Mary Johonnot, 411.

Edson, Josiah, 133, 136, 138, 142.

Eldridge, Joshua, 139.

Eliot, Andrew, 160.
Andrew (Rev.), 348.
Asaph, 290.
Elizabeth, 290.
Jacob, 309.
John, 309.
John (Rev.), 338, 355.
William, 272.

Ellis, Ephraim, Jr., 139.
Joshua, 418.

Ellsworth, 86, 108.

Emerson, John, 134.
William (Rev.), 471.

Emsley, Chief Justice, 282.
Mrs., 282.

Endicott, John (Gov.), 10.

Eppes, Abigail, 314, 317.
Love, 215, 317.
William, 316.

Erving, Abigail, 298.
Col., 250.
George, 125, 133, 137, 142, 292, 293, 299.
John, 132, 133, 298, 306, 399.
John, Jr., 125, 136, 137, 142.
Maria Catherine, 299.
Mr., 320.
Shirley (Dr.), 299.

Etter, Peter, 134.

Eustis (Gov.), 179.
William (Dr.), 335.

Evans, 133.

Everett, Edward, 184.
Oliver, 184.

Eyre, John, 394.
Katherine, 394.

Fairfax, Lord, 179, 481.

Fales, 228.

Faneuil, 60, 250, 251, 406.
Andrew, 230.
Benjamin, 134, 137, 165, 229.
Benjamin, Jr., 132.
Jane, 232.
Mary, 232.
Mary Ann, 232.
Peter, 165, 229, 230, 231, 232, 351, 415, 448.

Farbrace, Miss, 428.

Farley, Ann, 445.

Farnum, Susannah, 216.

Fellows, Gustavus, 397.

Fenton, Capt., 448.

Ferguson, Major, 90.

Fields, Joseph, 477.

Finney, Francis, 139.
John, 131.
Wilfret, 134, 137.

Fisk, John, 397.

Fitch, 212.
Martha, 295.
Samuel, 126, 132, 134, 137, 142.

Fitzclarence, Mary, 289.

Fitzmaurice, Elizabeth.

Flagg, Samuel, 131.

Fleming, John, 138.

Fletcher, Robert, 293.

Flucker, Elizabeth Luist, 402.

Flucker, Hannah, 404.
Hannah Waldo, 403.
James, 402.
Judith Bowdoin, 403.
Lucy, 403.
Mrs., 134.
Sally, 404.
Thomas, 136, 137, 142, 159, 249, 402, 403, 404.
Thomas, Jr., 403.

Foote, 349.

Forbes, John (Rev.), 257, 260.
Dorothy, 258.

Forest, James, 134.

Formon, Sarah, 360.

Forrest, James, 125, 137.
James (Capt.), 228.

Foster, Comfort, 183.
Edward, 125, 134.
Edward, Jr., 134, 137.
Grace, 353.
Jonathan, 298.
Mary, 353.
Thomas, 133, 134.

Fowle, Col., 461.
Elizabeth Prescott, 422.
Jacob, 128.
John, 128, 422.
Rebecca, 422.

Fowler, Professor, 474, 475.

Fox (Charles James), 28, 31, 165, 289.

Francis, Sarah, 466.

Frankland, Agnes (Lady), 417, 418.

Frankland, Charles Henry Sir, (alias Sir Henry and Sir Harry),
416, 417, 418, 439.

Franklin, Benjamin, 5, 22, 24, 25, 26, 31, 37, 38, 75, 91, 102,
115, 152, 163, 164, 181, 214, 280, 362, 367, 481, 482.
William (Sir), 214, 481, 482.
William Temple, 482.

Frary, Mehitable, 308, 309.
Theophilus, 309.

Frazer, Nathan, 350, 351.
Rebecca, 351.

Freeman 76.
James, 288.

Freneau, Philip, 75.

Frye, P., 131.

Full, Thomas, 134.

Gage, Thomas (General and Governor), 50, 52, 58, 127, 131, 132,
144, 168, 187, 189, 200, 295, 306, 344, 397, 400, 408, 413,
446.

Gale, Anna, 275. Ruth 286.

Gallison, John, 128.

Gallop, Antill, 411.

Gallop, Joan, 411.

Galloway (Richard), 212.

Golway, William, 138.

Gambin, Admiral, 467.

G. A. R., 120.

Gardiner, Abigail, 316.
Ann, 316.
Ann Gibbons, 314.
Benoni, 313.
Catherine Goldthwait, 314.
Hannah, 281, 316, 377, 389.
Henry, 131, 335, 345.
John, 102, 315, 316, 377, 389.
John Sylvester John, 316.
Jonathan 251.
Joseph, 313.
Lucretia Chandler, 377.
Mrs., 250.
Rebecca, 316.
Robert Hallowell, 315, 316.
Svlvanus, 316.
Sylvester (also Silvester) 125, 132, 137.
(Dr.), 134, 281, 313, 314, 315, 316.
Weld, 131.
William, 313, 316.

Garrick, Mr. (David), 249.

Garrison, 48.
Gates, General, 85.

Gay, Ebenezer (Rev.), 321.
Ebenezer, 324.
Joanna, 321.
John, 321.
Jotham, 322.
Lydia Lusher, 321.
Martin, 125, 132, 134, 137.
Martin, Capt., 321, 322, 323, 324, 325.

Gay, Mary, 323.
Mary Pinckney, 321.
Nathaniel, 321.
Ruth, 323, 324.
Ruth Atkins, 321.
Samuel, 324.
W. Allen, 322.
Wickworth Allen, 324.

Gayer (see also Geyer).
John (Sir), 233.
William, 233, 350.

George (Capt.), 17.

George III., 83, 97.

Geray, Sarah, 220.
Thomas (Lt. Col.), 221.

Germain, Lord George, 213, 267, 280.

Gerrish, Cabot, 131.
Joseph, 336.
Mary, 336.
William, 131.

Gerry, Elbridge (Gov.), 188, 450.

Getchell, Dorothy, 467.

Gettemy, Charles J., 477.

Geyer, Damaris, 350.
Frederick William, 137, 350, 351.
Henry Christian, 350.
Maria Guard, 350.
Nancy, 350.
William, 350.

Gibbons, Ann, 314.
John, 314.

Gibbs, Henry (Sir), 246.

Gilbert, Bradford, 139.
Perez, 139.
Samuel, 134, 139.

Gilbert, Thomas, 134, 139.
Thomas, Jr., 139.

Glover, Jonathan, 128.

Gladstone (William E.), 110.

Goffe, 12.

Goldsbury, Samuel, 134, 138.

Goldsmith, Georgiana, 221.
Lewis, 221.

Goldthwait, Benjamin, 339.
Catherine, 314, 357, 402.
Catherine Barnes, 400.
Charles, 361.
Elizabeth, 355.
Ezekiel, 125, 334, 356, 358.
Hannah, 358, 359.
Hannah Bridgham, 358.
Henry (Lieut.), 360.
Henry Barnes, 361.
Jane Halsey, 355.
John, 355, 356.
Joseph, 125, 137, 356, 358, 359, 360.
Martha Lewis, 356.
Mary Jordan, 359.
Mehitable, 355.
Michael B., 125, 132, 360.
Philip (Capt.), 359.
Rachel, 355.
Samuel, 355, 360.
Sarah, 355.
Sarah Formen, 360.
Sarah Hopkins, 355.
Sarah Winch, 360.
Thomas, 355, 356, 357, 360, 400.

Goodale, Nathan, 127, 131.

Goodhue, Jonathan, 131.

Gordon, Hugh Mackay, 283.

Gore, Abigail, 392.
Christopher (Gov.), 394.
Elizabeth Weld, 392.
Frances Pinckney, 392.
Hannah, 392.
John, 125, 132, 134, 137, 392.
Mary, 392.
Mylain, 392.
Obadiah, 392.
Rebecca Payne, 394.
Rhoda, 392.
Samuel, 392, 422.
Sarah Kilby, 392.

Gorham, David, 126.
Nathaniel, 253.

Goss, Phebe, 286.

Gould, Anne, 281.
General, 281.

Gouldthwaight, Thos. (see Goldthwaite), 355.

Grant, Charles, 239.
Ebenezer (Capt.), 481.
Gen., 111, 120.
James, 131, 134.
Major, 237.

Grattan, Thomas Colley, 114.

Graves (Admiral), 240, 314.
John, 140.

Gray, 60.
Andrew, 134.
Benjamin Gerrish, 336.
Edward, 334.
Elizabeth, 336.
Ellis, 426.
Harrison, 125, 133, 136, 137, 142, 249, 280, 319, 334, 336, 345.
Harrison, Jr., 125, 137.
Gray, Horace, 29n, 151.
John, 134, 336.
Joseph, 336.
Lewis, 132, 137.
Mary, 134.
Mary Gerrish, 336.
Rebecca, 336.
Susannah, 334.
Thomas, 125.
William, 336, 432, 451.

Grazebrook, Avery, 454.
Margaret, 454.

Grazier, Col., 237.

Greathouse, 90.

Greecart, John, 132.

Green (see also Greene).
Abigail, 413.
Bartholomew, 404, 405.
Benjamin, 125.
Benjamin. Jr., 125.
David, 125, 137, 249.
Francis, 125, 132, 134, 137.
Gen., 267.
Jeremiah, 124.
Joseph, 125, 136, 137, 249.
Joseph, Rev., 378.
Mr., 249.
Phoebe, 290.
Richard, 132.
Rufus, 125.
Thomas, 404.

Greene, Catherine, 345.
David, 249, 372.
Gardiner, 218, 221, 230, 394.
Hannah, 392.
Martha, 345.
Martha B., 221.
Mary, 345.
Nathaniel, 354, 424.
Rufus, 345.
Singleton Copley, 394.

Greenfield, Ann, 222.
Hannah, 222, 467.
Peter, 222.

Greenlaw, John, 124, 137.

Greenleaf, Hannah, 352.
Joseph, 454.
Stephen, 132, 352.

Greenough, Thomas, 416.
William, 275.

Greenwood, Mr., 363.
Nathaniel, 125.
Samuel, 134.

Grenville, George (Lord Chancellor of Exchequer), 22, 24 37,
38, 151, 198.

Gridley, Benjamin, 125, 126, 132, 134, 137.
Jeremy, 193, 455.

Griffin, Edmund, 134.

Griffith, Mrs., 134.

Grison, Edward, 134.

Grozart, John, 134.

Guard, Maria, 350.

Guild, Curtis, Jr., 326.

Hale, Mary P., 442.
Rebecca, 431.
Roger, 439.
Samuel, 135.

Hall, Adam, (3rd), 139.
Ebenezer (Jr.), 298.
James, 124, 137, 354.
Luke, 134, 139.

Hallowell, 35, 154, 302, 437.
Ann, 281.
Benjamin, 133, 320.
Benjamin (Capt.), 281, 282.
Benjamin (Admiral), 284.
Benjamin (Sir), 283 (see Carew).
Hannah, 281.
Hannah Gardiner, 316.
Henry, 142.
Robert, 132, 133, 137, 251, 281, 316.
Rebecca, 134.
Sarah, 281.
Ward, Nicholas (see Boylston), 282.

Halsey, Jane, 355.

Halson, Henry, 137.

Hamilton, Alexander, 66, 75, 77, 352.
Franklin (Rev.), 472.
John C., 352.
Mary Eliza Heuvel, 352.

Hammock, Sarah, 332.

Hammond, Green, 133.

Hancock, John, 5, 35, 42, 48, 49, 50, 59, 79, 153, 160, 161, 165,
166, 224, 281, 288, 298, 315, 319, 320, 322, 335, 366, 430,
455.

Hancock, Lucy, 224.
Thomas, 224.

Handley, 472, 473, 475.

Harcourt, Vernon (Sir), 29.

Hardwicke, Lord, 24.

Harris, Benjamin, 223.
Lucy Devereaux, 223.
Mary, 223.

Harrison, Joseph, 319, 320, 321, 439.
Richard Acklom, 320.
Susannah, 334.

Hassam, John T., 174.

Hatch, Addington, 430.
Christopher, 137, 430.
Col., 425.
Elizabeth Lloyd, 430.
Estes (Col.), 429.
Harris, 430.
Hawes, 134, 137, 431.
Jane, 430.
Mary, 430.

Nathaniel, 125, 133, 138, 142, 407, 429, 430.
Paxton, 430.
Susannah, 430.

Hathaway, Calvin, 139.
Ebenezer, Jr., 139.
Luther, 139.
Shadrach, 139.

Haven, G. C., 395.
Katherine Jeffries, 395.

Haward, John, 197.

Hawley, Joseph, 161.

Hawthorn (Justice), 246.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 194.

Hay, Dr., 262.

Hazen, Elizabeth, 432.
R. L., 377.
William, 432.

Heard, Isaac (Sir), 300.

Heath, William, 135.

Hefferson, Jane, 135.

Henly, Samuel, 349.

Henchman, Thomas (Major), 355.

Henderson, James, 134, 137.
Mr., 406.

Henry, Patrick, 36, 37, 40, 83.

Hester, John, 135.

Heuvel, Charlotte Augusta Apthorp, 352.
John Cornelius Vanden, 352.
Mary Eliza, 352.

Hichborn, Benjamin (Col.), 183.
Samuel, 183.

Hicks, Colonel, 470.
John, 134, 138.
Mary, 470.

Higginson, Henry, 131.
Stephen, 131.

Hill, Henry, 368, 373.
William, 134.

Hillsborough (Earl of), 159, 200, 367.

Hinkly, Richard, 128.

Hinston, John, 137.

Hirons, Richard, 125.

Hirst, Grove, 207.
Mary, 207.

Hitchcock, E. A., 112.
Gen., 111.

Hoar, George F. (Senator), 5, 475.

Hobby, Ann, 416.

Hodges, Samuel, 137.

Holland, Georgianna Anne, 289.
Henry, 289.
Lady (see Webster, Elizabeth), 289.
Lord, 289.
Mary Elizabeth (see Lilford), 289.
Richard, 139.

Holmes, Benjamin M(ulberry), 125, 132, 134, 137.
Francis, 343.
Rebecca, 343.

Holton, Samuel, 450.

Holyoke, E. A., 127, 131.
Edward, 379.
Edward A. (Dr.), 385.
Edward H., 379.

Hombersley, Ruth, 177.

Homer, Michael, 412.
Sarah, 412.
Sarah Kneeland, 412.

Honourable Artillery Company, 118.

Hood, Admiral, 240, 284.

Hooper, Ann, 467.
Anna Corwell, 223.
Alice Tucker, 222.
Elizabeth Whittaker, 224.
Greenfield, 222.
Henry, 222.
Jacob, 134.
John, 222.
Joseph, 128, 223.
"King," 221, 222, 223.
Mary Harris, 223.
Mary McNeil, 223.
Rev. M., 339, 342, 398.
Robert, 128, 136, 222, 223, 224, 460.
Robert, Jr., 128.
Robert, 3d, 128.
Sweet, 128, 223.

Hopkins, Mr., 335.
Sarah, 355.

Horn, Henry, 135.

Horrey, Col., 267.

Horsemauden, Samuel, 302.

Horton, Benjamin, 129.

Hosmer, Abner, 471.
Joseph, 271.

Hotham, 283.

House, Joseph, 134, 139.

Houston, Rebecca, 343.

Hovey, C. F. & Co., 350.

How, Josiah, 129, 130.

Howe, Abraham, 361.
Gen., 250, 266, 344, 345, 410.
Isaac, 361.
James Murray, 260.
John, 138, 361, 362, 363, 364, 405.
Joseph, 361, 363, 364.
Lord, 20, 79, 81, 192.
Martha (Mrs.), 364.
Murray, 257.
Sarah, 364.
William, 364.
William (Sir), 304, 394, 425.

Howland, Elizabeth, 431.
Hope, 431.
John, 431.

Hubbard, Daniel, 125.
Joshua, 285, 286.
Margaret, 286, 288.
Sarah, 224.

Hubbel, Lewis, 140.

Hughes, Peter, 125.
Samuel, 125, 132, 134.

Hull, 103, 345.
Hannah, 456.
John, 365, 419, 456.
Judith Quincy, 365.

Hulton, Henry, 133, 142.

Hunt, Anne, 454.
John (3rd), 132.
Hannah, 395.
Mary, 466.
William, 395.

Hunter, William, 132.
William (Lieut.), 240.

Hurlston, Richard, 134.

Hutchinson, Abigail, 177.
Anne, 178.
Edward, 132.
Edward H., 145.
Eliakim, 178, 179, 180, 308.
Elisha, 137, 165, 177, 249, 308, 309.
Elizabeth Brinley, 396.
Foster, 133, 136, 137, 142, 177, 189, 312, 313, 353.
Hannah, 309.
John Rogers, 117.
Mary, 177.
Mary Oliver, 176, 177, 190.
Mrs., 135.
Peter Orlando, 175.
Richard, 178.
Sarah, 172, 188.
Thomas (Governor), 29, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 48, 50, 60,
84, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 137, 142, 145, 147,
148, 149, 150, 151, 153 to 173, 177, 178, 188, 189, 192,
193, 199, 200, 247, 249, 283, 292, 298, 299, 302, 309, 311,
317, 322, 326, 348, 349, 353, 406, 408, 422, 436, 444, 447,
454, 463.
Thomas, Jr., 132, 136, 137, 165, 175, 176, 177, 191.
Widow, 399.
William, 177, 178, 180, 249, 396.

Hutton, Elizabeth, 215.
Henry, 215.

Ingersoll, David, 126, 140.

Inglefield (Commissioner), 284.

Inglis, 59.
Dr., 340.

Ingraham, 212.

Inman, John, 125, 132, 135.
Mrs., 259.
Ralph, 132, 258.

Ireland, John, 135.

Jackson, Richard, 154.
William, 125, 132, 137.

Jaffrey, George, 395.
George J., 395 (see also Jeffries, George J.).
Lucy Winthrop, 395.
Sarah, 394.

James, II., 16, 419.

Jamison, Charlotte Jessy, 426.
James, 426.

Jarvis, Caroline Leonard, 333.
Charles (Dr.), 215.
John (Admiral, Sir), 283.
Leonard, 342.
R. M., 333.
Robert, 124, 132, 135, 137.

Jay, John, 25, 64, 75, 105.

Jeanson, Jean, 409 (see also Johnson, John).

Jefferson, Thomas, 25, 36, 75, 77, 87, 102, 103, 104, 183.

Jeffries, Ann, 394, 395.
Ann Geyer Amory, 395.
Anne Clarke, 394.
Augustus, 395.
Catherine, 395.
David, 394.
Edward P., 395.
Elizabeth Usher, 394.
George J., 395 (see Jaffrey, George J.).
Hannah Hunt, 395.
Henry W., 395.
John, 46, 137, 394, 395.
John (Dr.), 135, 395.
John, Jr., 132.
Julia, Ann, 395.
Katherine, 395.
Katherine Eyre, 394.
Sarah, 395.
Sarah Jaffrey, 394.
Sarah Rhoads, 395.

Jenkins, Elizabeth, 446.
Robert, 225.

Jennes, Eleanor, 465.

Jephson, Mr., 404.
Sally Flucker, 404.

Johnson, Capt., 248.
Elizabeth, 465.
Gabriel, 255.
Gov., 255.
Holton (Capt.), 252.
John, 409.
Mary, 410.
Mr., 346, 347.
Susan, 409.
William (Sir), 226, 358.

Johonnot, Andrew, 411.
Daniel, 409, 410.
Elizabeth Quincy, 410.
Francis, 354, 410.
Gabriel, 406.
Katherine Dudley, 410.
Mary, 411.
Margaret Le Mercier, 410.
Peter, 125, 132, 135, 137, 344, 409, 410, 411.
Serzane, 410.
Susan Johnson, 409.
Zachariah (also Zasherie), 410.

Joice, Isaac, 139.

Jones, Deacon, 321.
Edward, 232, 448.
Elisha, 140.
Ephraim, 140.
John, 232.
Jonas, 140.
Mary, 135.
Mary Ann, 232, 448.
Miss, 230.
Paul, 250.

Jordan, Mary, 359.

Jouy, 411 (see Joy).

Joy, Abigail Green, 413.
Benjamin, 413.
Charles, 412.
Elizabeth Andrews, 412.
Henry Hall, 413.
James R., 412.
Joan Gallop, 411.
John, 125, 132, 135, 137, 411, 412.
Joseph, 412.
Lydia Lincoln, 412.
Michael, 413.
Mary Prince, 412.
Sarah Homer, 412.
Thomas, 411.

Junius Americanus (see Arthur Lee), 182.

Kalm, 23.

Kast, P. G., 131.

Kent (Duke of), 238, 245, 351, 382.

Keyes, John, 426.

Kerry (Lord), 343.

Kidd, Capt., 145.

Kidder, Samuel, 298.

Kilby, Sarah, 392.

King, Edward, 125, 135, 317, 318.
Rufus, 270.
Samuel, 135.

Kirk, Thomas, 319.

Kirkwood, Col., 239.

Knight, John (Sir), 190.
Thomas, 125, 137.

Knox, Henry (Gen.), 277, 384, 402, 403, 430.
William, 331.

Knutton, John, 137.

Knutter, Margaret, 135.

Lafayette, 89, 183, 430.

Lansdowne (Marquis of), 343.

Laughton, Henry, 125, 135, 137.

Laurens, Henry, 240.

Laurie, Capt., 471.

Lavicourt, Mr., 372.

Lavosier, Anthony Lawrence (General), 270.

Lawton, Henry, 132.

Lazarus, Samuel, 135.

Leach, Rachel, 355.

Learned (Col.), 344.

Leavitt, Mr., 251.

Le Baron, Joseph (Dr.), 432.

Le Bretton, Philip, 448.

Lechmere, Ann Winthrop, 413, 428.
Lord, 413, 428.
Mary, 453.
Mary Phips, 413.
Mrs., 402.
Nicholas, 251, 414.
Richard, 125, 133, 136, 137, 142, 184, 251, 413, 414, 420, 453.
Thomas, 413, 414, 428.

Lecky (W. E. H.), 35, 70.

Leddel, Henry, 135, 137.

Lee, Arthur (Junius Americanus), 182.
Charles (Gen.), 230, 293, 414.
Jeremiah, 450, 460.
John, 128.
Joseph, 128, 136, 420.
Judge, 187.
Martha Sweet, 460.
Richard Henry, 248.

Leffingwell, E. H., 39.

Leigh, Egerton (Sir), 212.

Lemaistre, Elizabeth, 287.

Le Mercier, Andrew, 410, 448.
Margaret, 410.

Leonard, 60, 212.
Ann, 392.
Anna, 332.
Anna White, 332.
Caroline, 333.
Charles, 326, 332.
Daniel, 126, 133, 136, 139, 142, 325, 327, 331, 332, 432.
Ephraim, 332.
George, 125, 132, 135, 137, 332, 333.
George, Col., 333.
George, Judge, 333.
Henry, 325.
James, 325, 332.
Maria, 333.
Nathaniel, 333.
Philip, 325.
Rachel Clap, 333.
Richard, Col., 333.
Sarah, 332, 333.
Sarah Hammock, 332.
Thomas, 325.

Leslie, Col., 408.

Lester, John (Sir), 317.
Love Eppes, 317.

Leverett, President, 458.

Lewis, Ann, 286.
Ezekiel, 414, 415.
John, 133, 286.
Martha, 356.
Martha Burrell, 356.
Mary Cheever, 414.
Philip, 356.
Thomas, 128.
William, 414, 415.

Lilford, Lord, 289.

Lillie, Ann, 313.
Edward, 308.
Elizabeth, 308.
John, 309, 313.
Mehitable, 309, 313.
Samuel, 308, 309.
Samuel (Mrs.), 309.
Theophilus, 124, 132, 135, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313.

Lilly, William, 131.

Lincoln, Abraham, 112.
Lydia, 412.
Samuel, 412.

Lindall, Henry, 132.

Linkieter, Alexander, 135.

Linzee (Capt.), 345.

Liste, Mrs., 135.

Little, Abigail, 399.

Livingston, R. R., 161.
William, 481.

Lloyd, 212.
Dr., 394.
Elizabeth, 430.
Griselda, 351.
Henry, 132, 135, 137.
James, 132.
John (Sir), 351.
Miss, 425.
Samuel, 133.

Logan (Cayuga, chief), 90.

Longfellow, Henry W., 287, 479.
Mary, 439.
Samuel, 139.

Longueuil, Baron de (see Grant, Charles), 239.

Loring, 437.
Benjamin, 424, 425.
Charlotte Jessy Jamison, 426.
Hector, 426.
Jane, Newton, 423.
John, 425, 426.
John, Commodore, 425.
John Wentworth (Sir), 425.
Joseph, Royal, 426.
Joshua, 138, 142, 423.
Joshua (Commodore), 136, 423.
Joshua, Jr., 125, 132, 135, 138, 424.
Mary, 424.
Thomas, 423.
William (Capt.), 425.

Loudon (Gen.), 379.

Louis XVI., 115.

Love, John, 132.

Lovel, John, Sir, 135.

Lovell, General, 480.
James, 440.
John, 346.
Mansfield (Gen.), 440.
Master, 231.

Lovewell (Capt.), 422.

Lowe, Charles, 135.

Lowell, James Russell, 184, 188, 473.
John 126, 326, 414.

Luist, Elizabeth, 402.

Lusher, Lydia, 321.

Lutwiche, Edward Goldston, 135.

Lyddell, Henry, 125.

Lyde, Byfield, 132, 135, 447.
Catherine, 396.
Deborah, 396, 447.
Edward, 137, 396, 447.
George, 139, 447.
Mary Wheelwright, 447.
Nathaniel, 447.
Sarah Belcher, 447.
Susanna, Curwin, 447.

Lyman, Theodore (Gen.), 394.

Lynch, 80.

Lynde, Benjamin, 131, 342, 462, 463, 464.
Byfield, 125.
Chief Justice, 46, 190, 193.
Elizabeth Dizbie, 462.
Enoch, 462, 463.
George, 125.
Hannah, 464.
Hannah Newgate, 463.
Lydia, 342, 464.
Mary, 190, 464.
Mary Browne, 463.
Simon, 308, 463.
William, 463.

Lyndhurst, Lord (see also John Singleton Copley, 2nd.), 216, 332,
345, 394, 409.

Macauley, Thomas Babington, 289.

Macdonald, Dennis, 135.

Mackay, 239, 256.
Mrs., 135.

Mackey, Mungo, 225, 414.

MacKinstrey, Mrs., 135.

Mackintosh, 157.
("Capt."), 166, 167, 234.

Macknight, 212.

Maclean (Col.), 244.

Macneal, Miss, 426.

Madison, James (President), 25, 102.

Magdalen, Earl of (see Sir Isaac Coffin), 243.

Malbone, Godfrey, 396.

Malcolm, Daniel, 320.

Malcomb, Abigail Trundy, 451.
John (Capt.), 451, 452.

Manchester, Duke of, 345.

Mann, Alicia, 352.
Horace (Sir), 352.

Mansfield, Isaac, 128.
Lord, 29, 83, 151, 173.

Mansfield, Mr., 363.

March, Mary, 468.
Zacheray, 468.

Marion, 90.

Marsh, Edward, 425.

Marshall, Ebenezer, 397.
John, 77.
John (Capt.), 319.

Marston, Alice, 459.
Benjamin, 128, 135, 138, 459, 460, 461, 462.
Benjamin, Jr., 460.
Elizabeth Winslow, 460.
John, 459.
Sarah Sweet, 460.

Martin, Capt., 244.
John, 382.
Michael, 139.
William, 137.

Maryatt, Captain, 350.
Joseph, 350.
Mrs., 350.

Mascarene, John, 131.

Mason, Jonathan, 218.
Mr., 187.
and Slidell, 110.

Masters, John, 312.

Mather, Cotton, 309, 355.
Elizabeth, 275.
Increase, 275, 338.
Samuel, 133.
Sarah, 338.

Matthews, Ann, 237.
William, 237.

Manduit, Mr., 249.

Maverick, Moses, 222.
Samuel, 13, 14.

Maxwell, Mary, 284.
Murray (Sir), 284.

May, Dr., 353.

McAlpine, William, 124, 132, 135, 137.

McArthur (Gen.), 104.

McCall, George, 128.

McClintock, 135.

McCobb, Samuel, 297.

McClure (Gen), 104.

McEwen, James, 124.

McEvers, Mary, 352.

McIntosh, Elizabeth, 291.

McKeron, John, 135.

McLanathan, Elizabeth, 377.

McLean, John, 346.

McLellan, Arthur, 308.

McMasters, Daniel, 132, 135.
James, 125.
Patrick, 125, 135.

McMullen, Alexander, 135.

McMurdo (Col.), 244.
Isabella, 244.
Susannah, 244.

McNiel, Archibald, 125, 132, 135, 137.
Hector, 223.
Mary, 223.

McSparran, James (Rev.), 313.

Mears, Mr., 423.

Meserve, George, 133.

Messengham, Isaac, 133.

Middleton, 80.

Mifflin (Col.), 89.

Miller, 438.
Katherine Sarah Russell, 453.
Col., 194.
Major, 453.
Stephen, 128, 129, 130.

Mills, Nathaniel, 135, 138.

Minns, Martha, 361.
William, 361.

Minot, Christopher, 133, 137.
John, 398.
Mercy, 398.
Samuel, 125.

Mitchell, Jonathan, 455.
Margaret, 455.
Sarah, 445.
Thomas, 135, 137.

Mitchelson, David, 125, 135.

Molesworth, Ponsonby (Capt.), 439, 440, 442.

Molineaux, Mr., 406, 407.

Montague (Admiral), 240, 394, 408.
Rev. Mr., 335.

Montgomery, 89.
(General), 244.

Moody, John, 135.
John J., 135.

Moore, John, 135.

Moreland, 239.

Morgan, 250.

Morris, Gouverneur, 75.
Henry Gage, 209.
Roger, 209.

Morrison, John, 135.

Morton, Perez, 354, 361.

Mowatt (Capt.), 357, 398, 399, 465, 467.

Mulcainy, Patrick, 135.

Mulhall, Edward, 133.

Mullins, Thomas, 139.

Munroe, 77, 183, 354.

Murdock, Ephraim, 354.

Murray, Alexander, 377.
Col., 382, 448.
Daniel, 139, 377.
Dorothy, 257, 260.
Elizabeth, 255, 257, 260.
Elizabeth McLanathan, 377.
James, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 137, 254, 255, 256, 257,
258, 259, 446.
John, 133, 139, 142.
John (Col.), 136, 376, 377, 378, 396.
John (Sir), 254.
Lucretia Chandler Gardner, 377.
Miss, 377.
Robert, 377.
Samuel, 139, 377.
William, 135.

Nagers, John, 225.

Nassawano, Lawrence, 225.

Nelson, Lord, 283, 284.

Nevin, Lazarus, 135.

Newcastle (Duke of), 26.

Newgate, Hannah, 463.
John, 463.

Newhall (Deacon), 344.

Newton, Jane, 423.

Nicholls, Richard, 131, 303.
Richard (Col.), 13, 14.
William, 161.

Nixon, John (Col.), 475.

Noble, Benjamin, 140.
Francis, 140.

Nooth (Dr.), 386.

North, Lord, 250, 424.

Northumberland (Duke of), 440.

Norton, 12.

Nutting, John, 127, 131, 138.

O'Brien, 110.

O. C., 406.

Ochterlony, 239.
Alexander, 300.
Catherine, 300.
Charles Metcalf, 300.
David (Sir, Maj. Gen.), 283, 299, 300.
David Ferguson (Sir), 300.
Gilbert, 300.
Katherine Tyler, 300.

O'Donoghue, Henry O. B., 349.

Offley, Amelia, 191.
Stephen, 191.

Ogden, Charles R., 239.
Charles Richard, 409.
Mary, 239.
Susan Clarke, 409.

Oliver, Andrew (Lt. Gov. etc.), 40, 136, 153, 159, 175, 181,
183, 184, 190, 454, 464.
Andrew (of Salem), 190.
Ann, 183.
Daniel, 126, 133, 139, 181, 188, 189.
Eben, 411.
Elizabeth, 183, 287.
F. E. (Dr.), 464.
Isaac, 183.
James, 138.
Lt. Gov., 113, 164, 251.
Mary Lynde, 464.
Peter, 132, 133, 136, 138, 142, 150, 181, 188, 189, 190,
302, 410.
Peter (Dr.), 135, 175, 189.
Richard, 183.
Robert, 183, 184.
Thomas (Lt. Gov., etc.), 125, 136, 137, 142, 181, 183, 184,
187, 188, 287, 331.
W. S. (Cap. R. N.), 176.
William Sanford, 135, 190.
William Sanford (Jr.), 190.

O'Neil, Joseph, 135.

Orange, Prince of (William III.), 16.

O'Reilly, John Boyle, 47.

Orne, Lois, 386.
Timothy, 131.

Otis, Harrison Gray, 218, 219, 334, 336, 403.
James, 5, 21, 35, 37, 149, 150, 153, 157, 160, 318, 319, 435, 448.
James (Col.), 192, 193.
Jonathan, 439.
S. A. (Mrs.), 335.

Overing, Henrietta, 304.
Henry John, 304.

Oxford, Earl of, 289.

Oxnard, Edward, 139, 249.
Thomas, 139.

Ozell, Mr., 343.

Paddock, Adnio, 125, 132, 135, 137, 305, 306, 307, 322, 446.
Adino (the younger), 307.
John, 305, 307.
Lydia Snelling, 307.
Mary McLellan, 307.
Rebecca Thacher, 305.
Robert, 305.
Thomas, 307.
Zachariah, 305.

Pagan, Miriam Pote, 465.
Robert, 139, 464, 465.
Thomas, 465.
William, 465.

Page, Abiel, 310.
George, 135.

Paine, Dorothy, 390.
Dorothy Rainsford, 383.
Lois Orne, 386.
Nathaniel, 383, 387, 390.
Samuel, 135, 387, 388.
Sarah Chandler, 383.
Sarah Clark, 383.
Stephen, 382, 383.
Robert Treat, 368.
Rose, 382.
Thomas, 76.
Timothy, 136, 382, 383, 384, 385, 387, 390.
William, 139, 385, 386.
William (Dr.), 385, 386, 387.

Paley (Dr.), 353.

Palmer, Charles Thomas (Sir), 215.
Harriet, 215.
Thomas, 136.

Parker, Rev. Dr., 342.
Samuel (Rev.), 348, 349.
William, 48.

Parmenter (Goodwife), 388.

Parnell, 110, 111.

Parr, 380.

Parsons, Capt., 471, 472.

Patten, George, 135.
Thomas, 298.

Patterson, 133, 212.
William, 135.

Paxton, 154, 200, 302.
Charles, 133, 138, 142, 318, 319.

Paxton, Faith, 318.
Wentworth, 318.

Payne, Edward, 455.
Mary, 455.
Rebecca, 394.

Pearson, Thomas (Sir), 239.

Peck, Robert (Rev.), 468.

Peddock, Leonard (Capt.), 305.

Pedrick, John, 128.

Pelham, Henry, 135, 216, 478.
Herbert, 434.
Penelope, 434.
Peter, 216.

Pemberton, Eben (Rev.), 413.
Rev. Mr., 310.

Penn, Admiral, 433.

Pepperell, Andrew, 206.
Elizabeth, 207, 208, 214.
Harriet, 214, 215.
Margery Bray, 205.
Mary, 215.
Mary Hirst (Lady), 207, 208.
William, 205.
William, Sir (1st), 206, 209.
William, Sir (2nd), 136, 138, 142, 176, 194, 201, 205, 207, 208,
209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 292, 293, 294, 356, 434, 482.

Percy, Earl, 314, 440, 441.

Perkins, James, 124, 132.

Perkins, Nathaniel, 132, 135, 138.
William, Lee, 132, 135, 138.

Perrie, Elizabeth, 399.

Perry, Samuel, 139.
Seth, 139.
Silas, 139.
Stephen, 139.
Thomas, 139.
William, 125, 132.

Peters, Parson, 249.

Petit, John Samuel, 133.

Phillips, Ebenezer, 135, 139.
Frederick, 209.
John (Col.), 358.
Joseph, 139.
Martha, 135.
Mary, 209.
Richard, 128.

Phips (also Phipps).
A. F., 125.
David, 125, 132, 135, 138, 418, 420.
Elizabeth, 184, 286.
James, 418.
Lady, 419.
Mary, 413.
May, 184.
Sheriff, 187.
Spencer, Lt. Gov., 184.
Spencer 286, 413, 420.
William Sir, 17, 418, 419.

Pickering, Benjamin, 249.
Timothy (Col.), 108.

Pickman, Benjamin, 131, 138, 249.
Benjamin (Col.), 316, 451.
C. Gayton, 127, 131.
William, 126, 131.

Pierce, Edward Lillie, 313.
George, 313.
Josiah, 262.
President, 87.

Pine, Samuel, 132.

Pinckney, Mary, 321.

Pinkney, Frances, 392.
John, 392.

Pitcairn, 314.

Pitt, 19, 33, 98, 193.

Pitts, Elizabeth, 397.
John, 397.
Samuel, 354.

Pollard, Benjamin, 135.

Pond, Eliphalet, 125.

Ponsonby, Lord, 439.

Porter, Alexander S., 307.
E. G. (Rev.), 471.
James, 133.
Samuel, 126, 131, 138, 249.

Pote, Ann Hooper, 467.
Dorothy Getchell, 467.
Elizabeth Berry, 467.
Hannah Greenfield, 467.
Jeremiah, 465, 466, 467.
Joanna, 466, 467.
Miriam, 465.
Robert, 467.
William, 467.

Powell, Jeremiah, 136.
John, 125, 132, 135, 138.

Pownall, Thomas (Gov.), 191, 292.

Poynton, Thomas, 131.

Pratt, Benjamin, 367.
Judge, 301.

Preble (Commodore), 345.

Prentice, John, 128.

Prescott, 240.
James, 297.
William H., 343.

Preston, Captain, 43, 44, 45, 46, 158, 366, 368.

Price, Benjamin, 135.

Priestly, 164.

Primatt, Mrs., 357.

Prince, John, 128, 131, 412.
John, Capt., 196.
Margaret, 412.
Mary, 412.
Samuel, 125, 137.
Thomas, Rev., 275.

Prindall, Jonathan, 140.

Proctor, Mr., 406.
Thomas, 128.

Proctor & Gray, 336.

Punderson. Mr., 249.

Purchis, Oliver. 13.

Putnam, Archelaus, 131, 379.
Ebenezer, 127, 131, 379, 380.
Eleanor Sprague, 379.
Elizabeth, 380, 391.
General, 94.
Israel, 382.
James, 126, 132, 135, 139, 378, 379, 380, 387, 382, 385, 390.
James, Jr. 133.
John 378, 382.
Nathaniel, 378.
Rufus, 382.
Thomas, 378.

Pynchon, 251.
William, 126, 127, 131.

Quincy, 59, 277, 438.

Quincy, Daniel, 365.
Dorothy, 455.
Edmund, 105, 365, 366, 376, 455.
Elizabeth, 410, 455.
Esther, 455.
Hannah, 366.
John, 365.
Josiah, 45, 50, 98, 100, 102, 108, 155, 166, 365, 366, 367, 376.
Judith, 365.
Samuel, 126, 138, 142, 249, 364, 366, 367, 368, 369, 374, 375.

Radcliffe, Herbert 475.

Rainsford, Dorothy, 383.
Jonathan, 383.

Ramage, John, 135.

Randolph, 80, 212.
Edward, 15.
Miss, 316.

Read, Charles, 135.
John, 179.

Reed, Joseph, 72, 248.
Richard, 128.
Samuel, 128.

Remington, John, 392.
Martha A., 224.
Rhoda Gore, 392.

Revere Copper Co., 324.
Joseph Warren, 324.
Paul, 5, 260, 477, 478, 479, 480.

Reynolds, Fleetwood B. (Sir), 289.
Joshua, Sir, 218.

Rhoads, Sarah, 395.
Henry, 135.

Richards, Owen, 133, 138.

Richardson, Ebenezer, 310, 311, 421, 422.
Ezekiel, 421.
John, 422.
Miss, 135.
Mrs., 135.
Phineas, 422.
Samuel, 422.
Timothy, 422.
Thomas, 422.

Rives, Mr., 115.

Roath, Richard, 135.

Robbins, Edward Hutchinson, 260.
Mary, 260.

Roberts & Co., 124.
Mr., 55.

Robertson, William (Gen.), 212, 213, 344.

Robie, Elizabeth, 457.
Elizabeth Taylor, 458.
Samuel Bradstreet, 459.
Thomas, 128, 138, 457, 458, 459.
William, 459.

Robinson, John, 433, 448.

Rochambeau, 426, 430.

Rochfort, Gustavus, 333.
Maria Leonard, 333.

Rodney, Lord, 240, 241, 252, 283, 428.

Rogers, 163.
Daniel Dennison, 354.
Elizabeth, 398.
Jeremiah Dummer, 126, 135, 138.
Samuel, 135, 138, 398.

Ruck, Hannah, 309.
John, 309.

Ruggles, Elizabeth, 391.
Hannah, 229.
John, 135, 139, 229.
Joseph, 139.
Nathaniel, 139.
Richard 135, 139, 229.
Samuel, 225.
Sarah, 229.
Timothy, 133, 136, 137, 142, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 380, 391.
Timothy (2nd), 229.
Timothy, Rev., 225.

Ruggles, Timothy, Amherst, 229.

Rolfe, Col., 263.
Benj., 265.
Benj. (Rev.), 430.
Mary, 429, 430.
Sarah, 263.

Rome, 212.

Root, Elihu, 116.

Rose, Peter, 135.

Ross, Margaret, 307.
Thomas, 139.

Rotch, 408.

Routh, Richard, 131, 317.

Royall, 60.
Elizabeth, 208, 294.
Isaac, 136, 138, 291, 292, 293, 299, 309.
Isaac (of Antigua), 286.
Isaac (Gen.), 192, 290.
Mrs., 309.
Penelope, 286, 291.
William, 290.

Roycroft, Ann, 284.

Rumford, Count (see also Sir Benjamin Thompson), 261, 262, 263,
264, 266, 270, 271, 272.
Countess (Sarah), 272.

Rummer, Richard, 135.

Rush, Mr., 77.

Russell, Benjamin, 412, 454.
Catherine Greaves, 453.
Chambers, 301, 302, 452, 453, 455.
Charles, 138.
Charles James, 453.
Daniel, 452.
Dr., 372, 453.
Edward (Sir), 414.
Elizabeth, 454.
Elizabeth Vassall, 453.
Ezekiel, 453, 454.
James, 136, 253, 452, 453.
James, Jr., 453.
John (Lord), 289.
Joseph, 453, 454.
Katherine, 453.
Lechmere (Col.), 414.
Lechmere-Coor-Graves, 453.
Lucy Margaret, 453.
Mary Lechmere, 453.
Mary Wainwright, 453.
Nathaniel, 135.
Paul, 452.
Rebecca, 465.
Rebecca Chambers, 452.
Richard, 452.
Thomas, 466.

Sabine, 71.

Sackett, Hannah, 229.
Thomas (Dr.), 229.

Salisbury, Lord, 117.

Saltonstall, 59.
Gurdon, 295.
Katherine, 295, 296.
Leverett, 136, 274.
Mr., 250.
Nathaniel, 273, 274, 275.
Richard, 132, 138, 273, 274.
Richard, Col., 358.
Richard (Sir), 272.
Thomas, 272.

Sampson, John, 132.

Sanford, Margaret, 146.

Sargent, Esther, 345, 356.
John, 131, 138.

Saumerez, Thomas L. Marchant, 288.

Saunders, Henry, 128.

Savage, Abraham, 125, 136, 138.
Arthur, 133, 139, 335.
Rowland, 131.
Thomas, 308.

Saward, see Sayward.

Sayward, Henry, 443.
Jonathan, 443, 444, 445.
Joseph, 443.
Mary, 443.
Mary Webber, 439.
Sarah, 444, 445.
Sarah Mitchell, 445.

Scammel, Thomas, 136.

Scheaffe (see also Sheaffe), 239.

Schuyler, Gen., 89.

Scoit, Joseph, 135.

Scollay, John, 166.

Scott, Duncan C., 61.
Governor, 299.
Joseph, 125, 132, 138.
Winfield (Gen.), 245, 441.

Scoville, William, 280.

Sears, Anna, 345.
David, 345.
Ebenezer, 411.
Isaac, 424, 426.
Rebecca, 336.

Selby, John, 133.

Selkrig, James, 124, 132, 136, 138.
Thomas, 138.

Semple, John, 125, 132, 138.
Robert, 132, 135, 138.

Sergeant, Peter, 420.

Serjeant, John, 135.

Service, Robert, 136, 138.

Sewall, 59, 60.

Sewall, Ann Hunt, 454.
Chief Justice, 149, 192, 404, 452, 463.
Esther Quincy, 455.
Hannah Hull, 456.
Henry, 454, 456.
Jane Drummond, 454.
Jonathan, 125, 138, 142, 207, 249, 327, 367, 379, 432, 454,
455, 456.
Joseph, 458.
Joseph (Rev.), 275.
Judge, 250, 251, 254, 327, 350.
Margaret Grazebrook, 454.
Margaret Mitchell, 455.
Mary Payne, 455.
Mr., 448.
Rebecca Dudley, 456.
Samuel, 126, 138, 249, 251, 412, 455, 456, 458.
Stephen, 454, 456.
William, 454.

Shattock, Samuel, 12.

Shays, Daniel, 396.

Sheaffe, Col., 245.
Helen, 440, 442.
Lady, 442.
Margaret, 442.
Margaret Coffin, 442.
Mary Longfellow, 439.
Mrs., 439, 440.
Nancy, 442.
Nathaniel, 442.
Roger Hale (Sir), 244, 245, 283, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443.
Ruth Woods, 439.
Sally, 442.
Susannah, 439, 440.
Susannah Child, 439.
Thomas Child, 443.
William, 439, 440, 442.
William, Jr., 439.
William S., 439.

Shepard, Joseph, 136.

Sherburn, Thomas, 355.

Sherman, Gen., 111.

Sherwin, Richard, 138.

Shippen, Dr., 248.

Shirley, Elizabeth, 178.
Maria Catherina, 299.
William, Gov., 178, 179, 180, 273, 301, 347, 435, 444, 445,
451, 477.

Sigourney, Andrew, 409.

Sigournie, Andrae, 409.

Silsby, Daniel, 125, 249.
David, 138.

Simcoe, Gov., 59, 90.

Singleton, Mary, 216.

Simonds, Ruth, 262.
William, 135.

Simpson, John, 135.
Jonathan, 125, 132, 136, 138.
Jonathan, Jr., 135.
Mr., 251.
William, 138.

Skinner, 133.
Francis, 138.

Slidell, 110.

Small, Major, 314.

Smith, Abigail, 37.

Smith, 472, 473.
Adam, 33, 34, 38.
Anna Leonard, 332.
Col., 471, 472.
Edward, 136, 354.
Elizabeth, 258.
Goldwin, 58.
Henry, 135, 138.
Isaac, 249.
James, 255, 256, 257, 305, 306.
John, 477.
Joseph (Rev.), 202.
Joshua, 138.
Richard, 125, 138.
Solomon, 139.
Sydney, 276.
Thomas, 248.
William, 161.

Symthe, Frederic, 302.

Smythers, Walter Tyson, 284.

Snelling, Jonathan, 124, 132, 136, 138.
Lydia, 305.
Lydia Dexter, 305.
Robert, 305.

Snider, Christopher, 310, 422.

Southwick, Solomon, 362.

Sparhawk, Andrew, 215.
Andrew Pepperell, 207.
Harriet Hirst, 215.
Mary Pepperrell, 207, 215.
Nathaniel, 127, 131, 207, 215.
Samuel, 133.
Samuel Hirst, 124, 132, 207, 215.
William Pepperrell, 207.

Speakman, William, 286.

Spooner, Ebenezer, 136.
George, 125, 138.
John J., 183.

Sprague, Eleanor, 379.
John, 126.

Spry, Commodore, 209.

Square, Richard, 140.

Stacy, Richard, 128.

Stanton, E. M., 112.

Stark, Caleb (Major), 84.
James H., 250, 471, 474, 475, 476.
John, 71, 293.
John (Gen.), 84.
William, 293.

Stayner, Abigail, 136.

Stearns, Jonathan, 133, 136, 458.

Sterling, Benjamin Ferdinand, 135.
Elizabeth, 135.
Lord, 303.

Stevens, 212.

Stewart (Col.), 72.
Duncan, 332.
Emily, 332.
John (Capt.), 332.
Leonard, 332.
Sarah, 332.
Sarah Leonard, 332.

Stiles, Ezra (Dr.), 358.

Still, Alice, 427.
John (Dr.), 427.

Stimson, John, 128.

Stockwell, May, 468.
William, 468.

Stoddard, Mary, 224.
Simeon, 125, 286.

Story, Josep, 114.

Stow, Edward, 135, 138.

Strachan, John (Dr.), 103, 104.

Strahan, Mr., 481.

Strange, Lot (3rd), 139.

Stromach, 228.

Stuart, H. Lechmere (Sir), 414.

Sturgis, Hannah, 366.
John, 366.

Sullivan, Bartholemew, 136.
Gen., 51, 90.
George, 135.
Hettie, 345.
James (Gov.), 296, 345.

Sumner, Increase, 302, 374.
Prof. (W. G.), 77, 78.

Sumpter, 90.

Surriage, Agnes (see also Lady Frankland), 417.
Isaac, 418.

Swain, 401.

Swan, James, 426.
James (Capt.), 430.

Swasey, Joseph, 128.

Sweet, Martha, 460.
Sarah, 460.

Swift, Jonathan, 276.

Sylvester, John (Rev.), 102.

Symmes, Francis, 354.

Symonds. Mr., 237.

Tailor, Rebecca, 275.
William, 125.
William (Lt. Gov.), 275.

Tarbett, Hugh, 132.

Taylor, Abigail, 345.
Elizabeth, 458.
James, 458.
John, 125, 132.
Joseph, 138, 249.
Mrs., 136.
Nathaniel, 132, 133, 138.
William, 132, 136, 138.

Temple, 163.
Elizabeth, 428.
John, Sir, 428.

Terree, Zebedee, 139.

Terry, William, 136.
Zebedee, 136.

Thatcher, "Citizen," 351.
Oxenbridge, 366.
Samuel, 297.

Thayer, Arodi, 138.
Ziphion, 125.

Thomas, Mary, 336.
Nathaniel, Ray, 133, 136, 139, 142, 336, 421.

Thompson, 465, 467.

Thompson, Benj. (Sir), Count Rumford, 261, 262, 263, 264, 266,
267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 297.
Ebenezer, 261, 262.
Elizabeth, 261.
James, 136, 261.
Joseph, 297, 298.
Mary, 354.
Miss, 256.
Rebecca, 297.
Samuel (Col.), 398.
Sarah, 270.
Sarah Bradshaw, 297.

Thorp, 472, 475.

Tiernay, 240.

Tilden, Israel, 139.

Tilghman, 80.

Timmins, John, 125, 132.

Tisdel, 139.

Tomlinson & Trecothick, 352.

Tompkins, Sarah, 466.
Thomas, 466.

Tonancour, 245.

Townsend, Gregory, 125, 138.

Tropmane, Lewis, 239.

Trecothick, Barlow, 352.

Trott, George, 477.

Troutbeck John, 132, 138, 224.
Harriet, 224.
Mr., 249.

Trowbridge, Edmund, 189, 379.

Trumbull, Gov., 481.

Trundy, Abigail, 451.

Tucker, Alice, 222.
Andrew, 222.

Tufts, John, 426.
Simon, 138.

Tupper, Eldad, 139.

Turbett, Hugh, 125.

Turner, John, 131.
Miss, 215.

Turill, Joseph, 124, 132.

Tylden, John Maxwell (Sir), 304.
Richard, 304.
William Burton, 304.

Tyler, Andrew, 300.
Thomas, 396.
Katherine, 300.
Miriam Pepperell, 300.
Sarah Brinley, 396.

Tyng, Elizabeth, 294.
William, 139, 294.

Tyron, Gov., 90, 161.

Upham, Joshua, 138.

Upshall, Nicholas, 11.

Urquhart, Hannah Flucker, 404.
James (Capt.), 404.
Major, 249.

Usher, Elizabeth, 394.
John, 394.
Lt. Gov., 291.

Van, Murray, 86.

Vane, Harry (Sir), 145.

Vans, William, 131.

Vassaile (see also Vassall).
Anna, 285.
Anne, 285, 286.
Frances, 285, 286.
John, 285.
Judith, 285.
Margaret, 285, 286.
Mary, 286.
William, 285.

Vassall, 60, 372, 438.
Ann, 288.
Anne Davis, 288.
Catherine, 288.
Charlotte, 288.
Elizabeth, 184, 289, 453.
Elizabeth, Lemaestre, 287.
Fanny, 288.
Florentinus, 288.
Francis, 288.
Henry, 286, 288.
Henry (Col.), 291, 453.
John, 125, 138, 251, 285, 286, 287, 420, 455.
John, Col., 184.
John (Jr.), 183.
John (Maj.), 287, 288.
Leonard, 286, 287, 288, 350.
Lucretia, 288.
Margaret, 288.
Margaret Hubbard, 288.
Mary, 287.
Mary Archer, 287.
Nathaniel, 288.
Rawdon, John Popham (Col.), 288.
Richard, 289.
Robert Oliver, 287.
Ruth Gale, 286.
Samuel, 285, 286.
Sarah, 288.
Spencer Lambert Hunter, 287.
Spencer Thomas, 287.
Thomas Oliver, 287, 288.
William, 136, 138, 285, 286, 287, 288.

Vaughn, Charles, 352.
Samuel, 281, 352.
Sarah, 281.

Venables, Gen., 433.

Vergennes, 23, 115.

Vernon, Admiral, 434.

Victoria, Queen, 118, 238.

Vose, Elizabeth, 313.
Elizabeth Putnam, 391.
Solomon, 391.

Wainwright, E. D. (Col.), 304.
Maria M., 304.
Mary, 453.

Wait, Richard, 13.

Waite, Samuel, 466.

Waldo, Col., 451.
Frances, 139, 251.
Hannah, 403.
Joseph, 249.
Lucy, 437.
Samuel, 437.
Samuel (Gen.), 403.

Walker, Adam, 139.
Benjamin, 139.
Col., 265.
Gideon, 139.
John, 139.
Timothy (Rev.), 263.
Zera, 139.

Walpole, 26.

Walter, Lydia Lynde, 342, 464.
Lynde, Minshall, 342.
N. (Rev.), 279.
Nehemiah (Rev.), 338.
Rebecca, 279, 339.
Rebeckah Belcher, 338.
Rev. Dr., 282, 425.
Sarah Mather, 338.
Thomas, 338.
Thomas (Rev.), 338, 339.
William, 132, 138.
William, Rev., 338, 339, 340, 464.

Wamatuck (Indian Chief), 447.

Wanton, Gov., 302, 449.

Ward, Elizabeth, 273.
Gen., 469.
John, Rev., 273.
Lord, 351.
Samuel Curwen, 254.
Susan, 351.

Warden, James, 125.
Joseph, 136.
William, 136, 138.

Ware, Nicholas, 285, 286.

Warren, Abraham, 136.
Hannah, 431.
Joseph (Dr.), 165, 322, 335, 394, 406, 431, 479.
Peter (Sir), 209, 396.

Washington, George, 5, 24, 25, 36, 37, 45, 51, 70, 71, 72, 73,
75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 87, 89, 103, 108, 153, 179, 216, 230,
248, 315, 344, 481.
John Augustine, 74.

Waterhouse, Samuel, 133, 138.

Watson, Elizabeth, 461.
George, 136.
George, Col., 177.
William, 461.

Watts, 278.
John, 161.

Wayte, Gamaliel, 350.

Webb, Albert, 474.
John, 128.
Nehemiah, 139.

Webber, Deborah, 443.
Mary, 443.
Samuel, 443.

Webster, Daniel, 114, 115, 180, 436.
Elizabeth (Lady Holland), 289.
Godfrey (Sir), 289.
Godfrey Vassall (Sir), 289.
Harriet, 289.
P----, 249.

Wedderburn (Solicitor Gen.), 164, 165.

Weld, Elizabeth, 392.
John, 392.

Wells, Henry, 477.
William V., 39.

Welsh, James, 136.
Peter, 136.

Wendell, John, 412.
John Mico, 295, 297.
Madame, 295.
Mr., 372.

Wentworth, Gov., 263.
John, 404.
John (Sir), 51.
Lord, 386.

West, Benjamin, 213, 214, 216, 249, 280, 336, 482.
Nathaniel (Capt.), 253.
Rebecca, 336.

Wetmore, William, 131.

Whalley, 12, 323.

Whatley, Thomas, 162.
Thomas William, 162.

Wheaton, Caleb, 131.
Judge, 332.

Wheelwright, John, 354.
John, Rev., 447.
Joseph, 136.
Mary, 447.

Whipple, Abigail Gardiner, 316.
Ebenezer, 139.
Oliver, 316.

Whiston, Obadiah, 136, 138.

White, Ammi, 471, 472, 475.
Anna, 332.
Benjamin, 225.
Charles, 202.
Cornelius, 138, 139.
Daniel, Jr., 139.
Elizabeth Cranston Deblois, 446.
Gideon, 136.
Gideon (Jr.), 139.
James, 446.
John, 124.
John, 138.
Mary, 225.
Mr., 237.
Peregrine, 286.
R. H. & Co., 308.
Resolved, 285.
Samuel, 128, 332.
Susannah, 225.

Whitman, Clarence, 470.
John, 470.
William, 470.

Whitney, Ann, 224.

Whittaker, Elizabeth, 224.
Nathaniel (Rev.), 224.

Whitworth, Miles, 124, 132.

Wilbore, Joshua, 139.

Wildridge, James, 139.

Wilkes, 28, 83, 84.

Wilkinson, Gen., 104.

Willard, Abel, 126, 136, 139.
Abijah, 133, 136, 139, 142.
President, 404.
Samuel (Rev.), 336, 409.

William III., 45.

Williams (Indian Sachem), 89.
Col., 159, 401.
Elijah, 138.
Henry H., 125.
Israel, 136.
Job, 136.
John, 184, 320.
Seth, 136.
Seth, Jr., 132, 139.
William, 447.

Williamson, Capt., 441.

Willis, David, 136, 138.

Wilmot, George, 310, 311, 470.

Wilson, Archibald, 124, 136, 138.
Mr., 272.

Winch, Sarah, 360.

Winchelsea, Lord, 386.

Winnet, John, Jr., 136.

Winslow, 59, 406.
Edward, 132, 133, 136, 321, 433, 434, 436, 437, 438.
Edward, Jr., 133, 138.
Edward, Rev., 438.
Elizabeth, 460.
Frances, 436.
Hannah, 136.
Isaac, 125, 132, 136, 138, 424, 434, 437, 438, 439, 460.
Isaac (Dr.), 435.
Isaac, Jr., 125, 132.
Jane Isabella, 438.
John, 124, 125, 136, 434, 435, 436, 437.
John, Gen., 322.
John, Jr., 138.
Joseph, 438, 439.
Joshua, 125, 165, 434, 437, 438.
Kenelm, 438.
Lucy Waldo, 437.
Pelham, 133, 136, 138, 435.

Winthrop, 59.
Adam, 308, 395, 427.
Alice Still, 427.
Ann, 413, 414, 428.
Benjamin, 428.
Elizabeth Temple, 428.
Francis Bayard, 428.
Jane Burton, 427.
John, 9, 69, 261, 426, 427, 428, 449.
John Still, 428.
Joseph, 428.
Lucy, 395.
Mary Brown, 428.
Robert, 426.
Robert, Admiral, 428.
Robert C., 298, 428.
Thomas L., 428.
Wait Still, 427.
William, 428.

Wiswell, 11, 249.
Elizabeth Rogers, 398.
Inchabod, 398.
John, 139, 398.
John (Rev.), 39.
Mercy Minot, 398.
Noah, 398.
Peleg, 398, 399.
Thomas, 398.

Wittington, William, 136.

Wolf, General, 19, 293.
Lucy Margaret Russell, 453.
Robert Cope (Rev.), 453.

Woods, Ruth, 439.

Woodbridge, Timothy, 136.

Woolen, 133.

Wormley, Admiral, 345.

Worrall, 414.
Thomas Grooby, 136.

Worthington, John, 136.

Wright, Daniel, 136.
James (Sir), 213.
John, 139.

Wyer, David, 465.
David (Jr.), 466.
Edward, 465.
Eleanor James, 465.
Elizabeth Johnson, 465.
Joanna Pote, 466, 467.
Mary Hunt, 466.
Rebecca Russell, 465.
Sarah Francis, 466.
Sarah Tompkins, 466.
Thomas, 139, 466.
Thomas (Jr.), 466, 467.
William, 465.

Young, Thomas (Dr.), 165.

Space in this volume would not permit of the giving of the biographies
of all of the Loyalists of Massachusetts, while the names of all the
Loyalists obtainable are given, yet there is material enough to fill
another volume with their biographies which it is the intention of the
author to publish if he receives sufficient encouragement in the sale of
this volume.

=List of Loyalists of Massachusetts whose names or Biographies
are not found in this work.=

Acre, Thomas Haskins, John
Allen, Jeremiah Hewes, Shubal
Allen, Jolley Hodgson, John
Auchard, Benjamin Hodson, Thomas
Barclay, Andrew Homans, John
Barrell, Colburn Jeffrey, Patrick
Beath, Mary Jennex, Thomas
Black, William Kerland, Patrick
Borland, John Lindall Knutton, William
Bowman, Archibald Laughton, Joseph
Bowles, William Lawler, Ellis
Boylston, John Lear, Christopher
Boylston, Thomas Leslie, James
Bradstreet, Samuel Linning, Andrew
Brown, David Lovell, Benjamin
Bryant, John Lush, George
Bulfinch, Samuel Lynch, Peter
Burroughs, John McKean, Andrew
Butler, James McNeil, William
Butter, James Madden, Richard
Calef, Robert Magner, John
Capen, Hopestill Massingham, Isaac
Carr, Mrs. Mein, John
Case, James Mewse, Thomas
Caste, Dennis Moore, Augustus
Thomas (Dr.) Morrow, Col.
Cazneau, Edward Mossman, William
Ceely, John Norwood, Ebenezer
Cheever, William Down Orcutt, Joseph
Clark, Joseph Pashley, George
Clemmens, Thomas Pecker, Dr. James
Clement, Joseph, Capt. Phillips, Benjamin
Clementson, Samuel Pitcher, Moses
Colepepper, James Powell, William D.
Courtney, James Prout, Timothy
Richard Ramage, John
Cox, Lemuel Rand, Dr. Isaac
Crane, Timothy Randall, Robert
Crowe, Charles Reeve, Richard
Davies, William Rice, John
Davis, Edward Roberts, Frederic
Demsey, Roger Rogers, Nathan
Dickinson, Francis Simpson, Jeremiah
Elton, Peter Spillard, Timothy
Emerson, John Stevens, John
Fall, Thomas Stewart, Adam
Fillis, John Story, William
Fisher, Turner Taylor, Charles
Wilfred Thomas, Jonathan
Fullerton, Stephen Thompson, George
Gamage, James Townsend, Shippy
Gemmill, Matthews Tull, Thomas
Goddard, Lemuel Turill, Thomas
Goldthwait, M. B. Vincent, Ambrose
Gookin, Edmund Wendell, Jacob
Gorman, Edward Wentworth, Edward
Gray, Samuel Wheaton, Obediah
Green, Hammond Wheelwright, Job
Greenwood, Isaac Whitworth, Nathaniel
Harper, Isaac Wilson, Joseph

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Absentees Act, 143.

Acadia, operations against, 18, 19.

Acadians, removal of, 434, 435.

Acton, centennial of, 472.

Adams, John, on restoration, 24;
on mobs, 49;
on the loyalists, 49;
quotes tory opinion of disunionists, 68;
on jealousies in Congress, 68;
on his conduct during the revolution, 69.
Josiah, Centennial address at Acton, 472.
Samuel, defaulting tax collector of Boston, 5, 38;
his character and career, 38.

Aeronaut, Dr. John Jeffries, an early, 394.

American Military Academy, proposed, 270.

Amnesty for Loyalists, 94, 95.

Amory, Thomas, biog., 343;
mobbed, 344.

Andros, Edmund, Sir, administration of, 16.

Annapolis, N. S., 229.

Apthorp, East, biog., 353.

Antigua, 183.
Family, 351.

Aroostook War, 113.

Ashburton Treaty, 113, 114;
American duplicity in, 114, 115.

Ashted, Warwickshire, 190.

Association of Loyalists in London, 211;
proposed American, 227, 228.

Attuks monument, 47.

"Aurora," The, 76 (see also Bache, Benj. F.).

Aylesbury, 203.
Bache, Benjamin F., attacks Washington in the "Aurora," 76.

Bahamas, 180.

Banishment Act of Massachusetts, 137.

Barbadoes, 204.

Barnes, Henry, biography, 399.
Barristers and Attorneys address to Gov. Hutchinson, 125.

Barre, 172.

Bastra, Siege of, 283.

Bath, 203.

Bavaria, Benjamin Thompson, in the service of, 269.

Beaumarchais, furnishes arms and powder, 85.

Berkley, 139.

Bernard, Francis (Sir), biog., 191.

Berwick, 208.

Blackstone's title to early Boston, 364.

Black List of Pennsylvania, 55.

Blanchard, with Dr. Jeffries, crosses the English channel in
a balloon, 394.

Blurton, 177.

Boston, Founding of, 427.

Boston Massacre, 43, 366;
Captain Preston and his men tried for, 45;
Revere's engraving of, stolen from Pelham, 478.
Mobs:
Attack on Hutchinson, 40;
Hutchinson's account of, 151, 154, 155, 156;
destruction of guard house at the Neck, 43;
attack on Andrew Oliver and destruction of his house, 40;
attack on Amory, 344;
on Col. Erving, 298;
on Hallowell, 281;
on Theophilus Lillie, 310;
Stamp Act Mob, 181;
Sloop "Liberty" affair, 321;
the "Tea Party" Mob, 48, 231, 405, 406, 407, 408, 478.

Boston Latin School, 300.

Boston News Letter, 361.

Boston, Pelham's Map of, 483.

Boston People who went to Halifax at the Evacuation, 133.

Boston Port Bill, 168.

Boston, Streets and places in:
Auchmuty Lane, 302.
Beacon Hill, 217.
Bunch of Grapes Tavern, 233.
Copp's Hill, 172.
Elm Street, 396.
Essex Street, 234.
Fleet Street, 174.
Fort Hill, 182.
Freeman Place, 399.
Griffin's Wharf, 182.
Hancock's Wharf, 320.
Hanover Street, 174, 396.
Harrison Avenue, 234.
Hollis Street, 233.
Hutchinson Street, 172.
Kilby Street, 233.
King Street, 233.
Long Wharf, 182, 254.
Mackeral Lane, 233.
Marlboro Street, 453.
Middle Street, 310.
Murray's Barracks, 258.
North Square, 151.
Old Corner Book Store, 178.
Olivers Dock, 182.
Pearl Street, 172.
Pemberton Hill, 287.
Queen Street, 255.
Rainsford Lane, 234.
Short Street, 302.
Smith's Barracks, 258.
State Street, 233.
Summer Street, 207.
Swing Bridge, 117.
Union Street, 182, 350.

Bounties paid to Continental Soldiers, 72.

Bowes. William, biog., 224.

Boylston, Nicholas Ward, biog., 282.

Braddock's Defeat. 179.

Brattle House, 295, 296.
William, Gen., biog., 295.

Breynton, Rev. Dr., possession of King's Chapel Plate, 348.

Bridgewater, 138.

Bright, John, opposed to Southern Confederacy, 110;
Congress refuses to pass resolutions on his death, 110.

Brightwell, 110.

Brinley, Thomas, biog., 396.

Bristol, England, 181, 188.

British graves at Concord, 473;
skulls taken from, 474;
Prof. Fowler exhibits them, 474, 475.
Soldier, murdered at Concord, 53, 472.

British troops, removed to the Castle, 44;
arrival of in Boston, 199;
quartered by James Murray, 258.

Brookfield, 139.

Brown, Capt. and Ensign D'Berniere make a reconnaissance of
Suffolk, Middlesex and Worcester County, 400.
Lieut. murdered at Cambridge, 353.
Mather, Artist, biog., and account of his work, 280.

Browne, William. Col., biog., 449.

Brush Hill, Milton, 257.

Bulfinch, Charles, Architect, his work, 354.

Bungay, England, 223.

Bunker Hill, battle of, 235;
Gay's description of, 322;
John Coffin at, 235.

Burgoyne Convention at Saratoga, violation of, 67.

Byles, Mather, Rev., biog., 275;
Anecdotes of, 276, 277, 278.

Calker's Club, (see Caucus Club), 476.

Callender, James Thompson, professional lampooner, 76.

Cambridge, Gage captures powder at, 52;
Mob threaten Danforth, Lee and Oliver, 281.

Canada, Rev. John Carroll sent to by Congress, 31;
failure of his mission, 32;
Loyalist settlement of, 93 to 97;
attempted invasion of in 1812, 98;
Jefferson on the acquisition of, 102;
Gen. McArthur invades, 104;
boundary line, 113;
Ashburton treaty. 113.

Canadian Confederation regarded as a menace to the United States, 116.

Caner, Henry, Rev., biog., 346.

Caner's Pond, 347.

Cape Breton (see Louisbourg). Auchmuty advocates expedition against, 301.

Cape Fear. N. C., 255.

Cape St. Vincent, Battle of, 283.

Carlisle, execution of, 55.

Carlton, N. B., 380.

Carr, Patrick, Account of Boston Massacre, 46.

Carroll, Rev. John, sent to Canada by Congress to induce Canadians
to join the Americans, 31.

Cartagena, 239.

Castle William, 44, 198.

Caucus Club, origin of, 476.

Caughnawaga Indians confer with Col. Mifflin about joining
revolutionists, 89.

"Censor," The Newspaper, 453.

Chamberlain, Mellen, Estimate of Col. Thos. Goldthwaite, 483.

Chandler, John, biog., 308.

Charles II. Accession of observed with sorrow in Boston, 12.

Charlestown, Destruction of Convent at, 48.

Charleston, S. C., Investment of, 267, 268.

Charter,
The first, 7;
limitations of, 11;
arrival of Royal Commissioners under, 12, 13;
annulment of, 15.
The second, 16.

Chippewa, devastated, 104.

Christ Church, 342.

Church of England, 18;
Puritan belief in, 8. (See Established church)

Citizenship, restored to Loyalists, 391.

Civil War, Great Britain's attitude during, 107.

Clark, Richard (biog.), 405.

Confiscation Act, 94, 141;
of doubtful legality, 208, 209;
legal aspect of, 288;
Congress to recommend repeal of, 66.

Confiscation, Commissioners of, Judge Curwen on, 64.

Coffin Family, The, 233.
Isaac, Admiral Sir (biog.), 239.
John, General, biog., 235.
Thomas Aston, Sir, biog., 234.

Coinage in Massachusetts Bay, Illegal, 13.

Colonization of New England, Character of, 8.

Committees of Correspondence organized, 54.

Concord, skirmish at, 53, 471;
no Concord men killed or wounded. 472;
Ammi White kills wounded British soldier at, 472;
town of gives permission to Prof. Fowler to open graves of
soldiers and remove skulls, 474;
skulls returned, 475;
correspondence concerning same, 475.

Constitutional Aspect of the relations between Colonies and Great
Britain, 27.

Continental Army, Desertions, mutiny in, 73;
complaints against officers, violations of parole, rascally
surgeons, 73;
Adams on quarrels of officers, 74;
stealing of stores. 74;
Washington on the character and inefficiency of officers, 74;
plundering and incendiarism, 74.

Continental Congress, second, Adams on jealousies in, 68;
Jay and Morris on rascality in, 75;
Rev. Jacob Duche, chaplain, of letter to Washington on the
personnel of, 80, 90.

Conway, 138.

Copley, John Singleton, biog., 216;
litigation over estate of, 218, 220;
paintings by at Harvard and Public Boston Library, 218, 221.

Crime of adhering to Great Britain made capital, 55.

Crown Point Expedition, 226, 477.

Croydon, England, 172.

Culloden, 50.

Cumberland, N. S., 322.

Currency, Continental, Resolve relating to, 75.
New England, 146;
Mass., 148;
Adams on Hutchinson's knowledge of, 148.

Curwin, Samuel, biog., 246.

Custom House, Mob, 42.

Danvers, 227, 378, 379.

Dartmouth, 139.

Davis, Jefferson, Complains of English Government favoring northern
cause, 111.

D'Berniere, Ensign, reconnaissance of Suffolk, Middlesex and Worcester
Counties, 400.

Deblois Family, Account of, 445.

D'Estaing, Admiral, 240, 430.

Demerara, 352.

Democracy, John Winthrop, on, 69.

Democratic Party, fosters feeling against England, 99.

Derbyshire, 191.

Detroit, Fort, 197.

Dominica, Engagement at, 241.

Dorchester, 182.

Draper, Richard, Founds Massachusetts Gazette, 361.

Draper, Margaret, biog., publishes Massachusetts Gazette, 404.

Duane, William, assists Bache in the "Aurora" attacks on
Washington, 76.

Duche, Jacob, Rev. Chaplain of Congress, letters to Washington
on Second Continental Congress, 78 to 83.

Dudleian lecture, 342.

East Granby, Conn., Loyalists confined in prison at, 56. See
"Newgate."

East Hoosuck, 146.

Eastport, 203.

East Tergnmouth, Eng., 176.

Elective franchise, 8, 12.

Episcopal Church, Puritan alleged belief in, 8, 9;
Endicott's view of, 8;
reference to, 8, 18, 339, 340, 438;
clergy of Support the Government, 54;
Eighteen of the clergy leave Boston at the Evacuation and go to
Halifax, 348;
Services conducted in Boston after evacuation by Rev. Samuel
Parker, 348.

Fairfax County Resolves, 25.

Fairfield, Conn., 347.

Falmouth (Now Portland), 140, 357; burned by Capt. Mowatt, 390.

Faneuil Family, 229.
Hall, gift of, 230;
dedication of, 231.

Federalists, on the results of the war of 1812, 105.

Fenian Raid of 1866, 113.

Fisheries, Loss of, 105.

Flucker, Thomas, Sec'y of Mass. Bay, biog., 402.

Fontenoy, 50.

Forbes of Milton, 257.

Fort Pownal, 356, 357.

Fort William Henry, Surrender of, 273.

Fort William and Mary (Newcastle, N. H.), attack on, 51.

France, Maj. Caleb Stark on Aid from, 84.

Frankland, Lady Agnes, biog., 417.

Franklin Treaty, 86.

Franklin, Benj., his false scalp story, 91;
denounced for his part in the theft of the Hutchinson letters, 163.

Franklin, William, Gov., biog., 481.

Frenau, Philip, in the National Gazette attacks Washington and his
cabinet, 75.

French Spoliation Claims, 85, 86, 87.

Freetown, 139.

Gage, Addresses and Addressors, 131, 132.

Gardiner, Sylvester, Dr., biog., 313;
his medicines seized for use of revolutionists, 315.
Maine, 281.

Gaspee, Destruction of, 52;
inquiry into the destruction of, 302.

Gay, Martin, biog., 321;
letters of, 322, 324.

Geyer, Frederick, William, biog., 350.

Gladstone, William E., favors Southern Confederacy, 110.

Goldthwaite Family, Account of, 355.
Thomas, Col., biog., 356. (See also Chamberlain, Mellen.)

Gore, John, biog., 393.

Granby, Conn., Escape of Loyalist prisoners at, 57.

Grand Manan, 105.

Grattan, Thomas Colley, on the Ashburton Treaty, 114.

Gray, Harrison, Treas. of Mass. Bay, biog. of, 334;
John Hancock heavily indebted to, 335.

Great Barrington, 140.

Green Dragon Tavern, 363.

Green Field, 138.

Grenada, 279.

Grenville's Scheme of American taxation, 22.

Guadaloupe, 23.

Gunpowder Plot, anniversary of observed in Boston, 239.

Halifax, 138, 177, 190, 362.

Halifax Journal, original publication of, 362.

Hallowell, Maine, named, 281.

Hallowell, Benjamin, mobbed at Cambridge, 281.
Family, account of, 281.
Robert, mobbed, 281.

Hamilton, Alexander, biog. of, 77.

Hampstead, 201.

Hampton, 208.

Hancock, John, Suits against, 5;
engaged in smuggling, owner of the sloop "Liberty," 42;
leader in Tea Party mob, 48;
his sloop Liberty seized, 49;
as treasurer of Harvard college, defaulter, 50;
inclined to Toryism, papers suppressed, 160;
heavily indebted to Harrison Gray, 335.

Hardwick, 139, 225.

Harper's Ferry Raid, 107, 139.

Harvard College, John Hancock as treasurer of defaults in his
accounts, 50;
Many graduates of among those who departed with Gage, 58;
reference to, 146, 177;
Harvard Hall burned, Gov. Bernard assists in rebuilding, 197;
buildings of converted into barracks, 271;
a nest of Tories, 393.

Harwich, 139.

Hatfield, 138.

Haverhill, 138, 274;
Mob at, Attacks Saltonstall, 273.

Henry, Patrick, character and training, 36;
Jefferson on, 36.

Hiers Islands, Naval Engagement off, 283.

Hooper, King, biog., 221.

Howe, John, biog., 361.
Joseph, speech at Boston, July 4, 1858, 363.

Howe, Lord, Mass. erects a monument to at Westminster Abbey, 20.

Hubbard, History of Mass., reason for its want of completeness, 208.

Hubbardston, 208.

Hull, John, Colonial Mint Master, 365.

Huntington, Long Island, 268.

Hutchinson, Eliakim, biog., 178.
Elisha, biog., 177.
Foster, biog., 177.

Hutchinson Letters, Franklin complicity in theft of, 162, 163.
Thomas, biog., 146;
his home destroyed by mob, 40;
addresses to, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129.

Indians, in the Revolution, 88, 89;
troubles with in 1763, 197, 198;
Lovewell's fight at Pigwacket, 422.

Inhabitants of Boston who removed Halifax at the evacuation, 133.

Intolerance of Puritans, 13, 14.

Ipswich, 273.

Irish volunteers (Loyal) formed at Boston, 228.

Isle of Shoals, 205.

Jamaica, 240.
Pond, 207.

Jay, John, opinion of second Continental Congress, 75;
burned in effigy, 105.

Jefferson, Thomas, suggests burning of London, 102.

Jeffries, John, biog., 394;
crosses English Channel in balloon, 394.

Journalism, Scurrilous American, 75.

Judith, Point, named in honor of Judith Quincy, 365.

Kalm, on the dependency of the Colonists, 23.

King's American Dragoons, 268, 378.
American Regiment, 237.

King, Richard, biog., 317.

King's Chapel, 179, 209, 230, 255, 346, 347;
change in liturgy of, 288;
erection and rebuilding of, 347;
worship suspended in, 347, 348;
church plate taken to Halifax, 348;
final disposition of plate and records, 349;
Charles Apthorp contributor to, 351.

King's College, N. Y., saved by British troops, 303.

Kirk, Ireton, Derbyshire, 177.

Kittery, 205, 208, 215.

Lafayette, raises troop of Indians, 89.

Lancaster, 139.

Land Bank, The, 38, 147, 333.

Lanesborough, 140.

Lecky, W. E. H., on the Revolutionary movement, 70.

Leominster, 139.

Leonard, Daniel, biog., 325;
home fired on by mob, 326;
author of "Massachusettenses Letters," 327, 328, 329, 330, 331.

Leonard, Geo., Col., biog., 333.

Lexington, engagement at, 53, (see Concord).

"Liberty" Sloop, a smuggler, (see also John Hancock), 42, 48, 49;
account of seizure, 319.

"Liberty Tree," Site of, 234, 235.

Lillie, Theophilus, biog., 308.

Limerick Academy, 224.

Lincoln, 138.

Litchfield, Eng., 177.

Littleton, 138.

Liverpool, N. S., 105.

Logan, Indian Chief, family murdered by Greathouse, 90.

London (Eng.), Jefferson suggests burning of, 102.

Loring, Joshua, Commodore, biog., 423.

Louisbourg, Cape Breton, 246, 451, 429;
Cost of expedition to reimbursed, 18;
surrender of, 19;
description of, 206.

Lovewell's Fight at Pigwacket, 422.

Loyal American Regiment, 430.

Loyal American Association formed in Boston, 228.

Loyalists of Massachusetts, 54;
denied legal rights, 55;
character of, 58, 65;
expulsion of, 93;
Associations formed in London, 211;
Club, 218.

Lyndeborough, N. H., 222.

Lyndhurst, Lord, biog., 216.

Machias, 203.

Magdalen Islands, 238.

Mandamus Councillors, 137, 167, 184.

Marblehead, 222;
address of inhabitants of to Hutchinson, 127.

Marshfield, 139.

Martinique, 23.

Maryatt, Captain, Sea writer, mother of a native of Boston, 350.

Massachusetts Gazette, founded by Richard Draper, 361;
continued publication by Margaret Draper, 404.

Massachusetts General Hospital, endowment of, 346.

Medford, 138, 291.

Medicines of Dr. Sylvester Gardiner seized for the use of Continental
Army, 315.

Merry Meeting Bay, Vassal holdings near, 289.

Middleborough, 138, 189.

Middleton, N. S., 229.

Mifflin, Col., confers with Caughnawaga Indians, 89.

Militia, John Adams on the cowardice of, 75.

Milton, Inhabitants of Address to Hutchinson, 128, 171.

Minorca, 242.

Mobs, see Boston, Cambridge, Haverhill, Salem, N. H., Scarborough.

Molasses Act, Gov. Bernard request reduction of duties under, 197.

Monroe Doctrine, 77, 110, 118.

Moose Island, 105, 203.

Moravian Indians, Massacre of, 92.

Mount Desert, 192, 196, 203.

Mowatt, Capt., at Fort Pownall, 357;
burns Falmouth, 399.

Mowhawk Indians, Congress addresses, 88.

Murray, James, biog., 254.
John, Col., 376.

Nantucket Settlement, 233.

"National Gazette," The, see Frenan Philip.

Naval Officers, British of American birth usually remained
loyal, 239.

Nazing, Eng., 225.

Nepaulese War, Gen. Ochterlony's services in, 300.

Neutrality of England in Civil War, 109.

New Castle, New Hampshire, Attack on and powder from, used at
Bunker Hill, 51.

New England Coffee House, London, 249.

New Englanders in London and Bristol, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254.

"Newgate Prison," at East Granby, Conn., desc. of, 56.

New Hampshire, boundary line dispute settled by Hutchinson, 146.

New Plymouth Company, 156.

Newport, Evacuation of, 240, 362.
"Gazette," 362.
"Mercury," 362.

New York, burning of attributed to New England troops, 74;
saved from destruction by British troops, 303.

Nile, Battle of, 190.

Non-importation agreement, 310.

Norridgewock, 289.

Norton, 325.

Norwalk, Conn., 347.

Nottinghamshire, 472.

"Novanglus," letters by John Adams, 327.

Oakham, 139.

Octherlony, David, Maj. Gen., Sir, biog., 299.

Old Colony Club at Plymouth, 437.

Oliver, mob, 153.

Oliver, Andrew, biog., 180;
mob destroys his house, 40.

Oliver, Thomas, biog., 183;
mobbed at Cambridge, 185.

Orange, Rangers, 236.

Oregon Boundary, 116.

Ossawatomie Engagement, 107.

Otis, James, on taxation of the Colonies, 35;
Hutchinson's opinion of, 35;
assault on, by Robinson, 448.

Oxford, Mass, 312.

Paddock, Adino, Col., biog., 305;
Paddock building named for, 307;
Paddock Elms, 306, 307.

Paine, Thomas, attacks Washington, 76.
Timothy, Judge, biog., 382.

Parker, Rev. Samuel, conducts services for Episcopalians in Boston
after Evacuation, 348.

Parr, Town, 190, 380.

Patriot, recipe for making one, 454.

Paxton, Charles, biog., 318.

Pennsylvania Line, Mutiny in, 69.

Penobscot Expedition, 479.

Pepperrell, William Sir, biog., 205.

Petersham, 139.

Phips, Sir William, career of, 418.

Pickering, Timothy, of Salem, an early secessionist, 108.

Pigwacket, Lovewell's Indian fight at, 422.

Pine Tree Shillings, The tradition of, 365.

Pittsfield, 140.

Pleasant Point, 203.

Plymouth, 138.
Purchase, 314.

Point Judith, named for Judith Quincy, 365.

Pontiac Conspiracy, 90.

Poole, Eng., 314.

Port Mahon, 242.

Port Talbot, devastated, 104.

Portsmouth, Eng., 13.

Portsmouth, N. H., 208, 215.
Athenaeum, 395.

Pownalborough, 140, 315.

Preston, Capt., Trial of, in connection with Boston Massacre, 45;
defence of, 366.

Princeton, 139.

Prisoners of War, Northern and Southern, comparative losses, 111, 112.

Providence, 52.

Provincial Congress, address Mowhawk Indians, 88.

Province House, description of, 194.

Puritans, Intolerance of, 8, 9, 13, 14.

Putnam, James, Judge, biog., 378;
letters of, 380, 381.

Quakers, Puritan maltreatment of, 11, 13.

Quebec Act., 29, 336;
effect of, 29, 30;
denounced by Colonists as a "Popish Measure," 31.
Address to the Inhabitants of, by Congress, 31;
see Carroll, Rev. John.
Capture of, 20;
Montgomery's Attack on, and the Defence of, 244.

Queenstown Heights, battle of, 245, 441.

Quincy, 438.
Josiah, defends Capt. Preston et al, "Boston Massacre," 366,
367, 368.
Josiah, on the War of 1812, 98.
Josiah, on John Hancock as defaulting Treasurer of Harvard
College, 50.
Judith, her name given to Point Judith, 365.
Samuel, biog., Solicitor General of Mass., biog., 364, 368, 369,
370, 371, 372, 373;
letters of, 374, 375, 376.

Ramillies, 45.

Randolph, Edward, arrival at Boston, 14;
reception and treatment of, by Colonial authorities, 15.

Recanters, 126.

Repudiation, Congress makes, of financial obligations, 75.

Restoration, Desires for, by Adams Jefferson, Jay, Washington,
Madison, 25.

Revere, Paul, Scout of the Revolution; his ride, financial dealings
with state authorities, Penobscot Expedition, 479;
Masonic record, 480.

Revolution, Causes of, 27 to 29.

Revolutionists, A Tory opinion of, 68.

Richardson, Ebenezer, biog., 422;
mobbed, 422;
treatment of, by historians, 423;
trial of with Wilmot, 311.

Riots, see Boston Mobs.

Rivingston's Gazette, 267.

Roberts, Execution of, at Philadelphia, 55.

Rochester, Mass., 225, 229.

Roman Catholicism, 336;
see Quebec Act, and Carroll.

Roxbury, 138, 178.
First church at, 338.

Royal Arms of the Old State House, 436, 437, 482.

Royal Society, Benjamin Thompson, a member of, 267.

Royall, Isaac, Gen., biog., 290.
Mansion, description of, 291, 292.
Professorship of Law at Harvard, 293.

Ruggles, Timothy, biog., 225.

Rumford, Count, see Thompson, Benj., 263.

Rutland, 139.

Russian friendship for United States, 118.

Sabine, on the rascality of the Whigs, 72.

Saco, 208.

Salaries to Supreme Court Judges, Royal Grant of, 188, 189.

Salem, 138, 168, 246.

Salem Village, 378, 379. See also Danvers.

Saltonstall, Col Richard, biog., 272.

Sandemanianism, founder of in Boston, 363;
description of their services at Halifax, 363.

Sandwich, 139.

Saratoga Convention, Violation of, 85.

Savannah, D'Estaing repulsed at, 240.

Scarborough, 208;
mob at destroys property of Richard King, 317.

Scituate, 138, 285.

Scott, General, captured by Gen. Sheaffe, 411.

Search Warrants, 149;
see also "Writs of Assistance."

Secession in early period, 108.

Sewall, Jonathan, Atty. Gen., biog., 454.

Shay's Rebellion, 69, 381.

Sheaffe, Sir Roger Hale, biog., 439.

Shelburne, N. S., 340.

Shepton, Mallet, (Eng.), 250, 283.

Ships,
Arbella, 9, 272.
Aston Hall, 235, 282.
Barfleur, 240.
Bellerophon, 425.
Culloden, 190.
Diligent, 240, 382.
Duquesne, 425.
Fowey, 240.
Gaspee, 240.
Glorieux, 241.
Kingfisher, 240.
King George, 281.
Liberty, 298.
Le Pincon, 240.
London Packet, 319.
Mary and John, 427.
Melampus, 242.
Minerva, 170.
Neptune, 244.
Philadelphia, 345.
Pocahontas, 240.
Prince George, 269.
Rose, 17.
Royal Oak, 240.
Scarborough, 266.
Shrewsbury, 241.
Swiftsure, 283.
Sybil, 240.
Thisbe, 241, 242.
Undaunted, 429.
Ville de Paris, 241, 429.
William, 426.

Shirley Hall, Roxbury, 178.

Shrewsbury, Eng., 139.
Mass., 189.

Sidmouth, Eng., 175.

Simcoe's Queen's Rangers, 90.

Simsbury, Conn., 57.

Smith, Adam, On taxation of the Colonies, 34.
James, biog., 255.

Smuggling, Extent of, 33, 35, 193;
Gov. Bernard orders seizure of vessels for, 197;
Hancock's sloop "Liberty" seized, 319;
see Hancock.

Snider, Christopher, killing and burial of, 310.

Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 339.

Sons of Despotism, 54, 179, 264, 318, 335, 453.
Liberty, 54, 158, 273, 477.

South Kingston, R. I., 313.

Spanish War, 117, 118.

Springfield, 138.

Spring, Garden Coffee House, London, meeting place of Loyalists,
249, 250.

St. Croix, 203.
David, village of, burned, 104.
Eustacia, 49.
John's Island, 237.
John. N. B., 190.
Kitts, 240.
Lucia, 23; reduction of, 284.
Paul's Parish, Portland, 398.
Vincent, 204.

Stamp Act, Passed, its enforcement, 37;
repeal of, 47;
incidents of, 152, 156, 157, 181, 198.
Bernard advocated its repeal, 199;
congress, 226, 346.

Stockbridge, Indians, Company of enlisted in Revolutionary army, 88.

Strachan, Dr. John, on the burning of York, Can., 103;
to Jefferson on American atrocities in Canada, 104.

Sumner, Prof. (W. G.) on Colonial distinctions in taxation, 78.

Sunderland, 138.

Supreme Court Judges, Royal Grant of Salaries to, 188, 189.

Surriage, Agnes, see Lady Frankland.

Taunton, 139.

Tavistock, 205.

Taxation, colonial notions of, 34, 35, 78;
see Stamp Act, Tea Tax, Molasses Act, Grenville.

Tea Mob alias Tea Party, 47, 165, 166, 167;
account of, 407.

Tea Tax, 47.

Thompson, Benj. Sir, Count Rumford, biog., 261.
Joseph, biog., 297.
Sarah, Countess Rumford, biog., 272.

Townsend, Mass., 138.

Transcript, Boston Evening, founded, 342.

Trinity Church, Boston, 338.
N. Y., Invaded by Lord Stirling; closed by Dr. Auchnuty,
destroyed by fire, 303.

Troops, British, Arrival and treatment of at Boston, 42, 157, 158.

United Empire Loyalists, 245.

Unthank (Scot), 254.

Vassal Family, 285.

Venezuelian, Episode, 117.

Walter, Lynde Minshall, founds Boston Evening Transcript, 342.
Nehemiah, Rev., biog., 338.
William, Rev., biog., 338.

War of 1812, Sketch of, 98.

Warren, Joseph, Dr., death of, 335.

Washington, Burning of, 103.

Washington, Geo. Gen., on the inefficiency and want of patriotism
in the Continental Army, 72;
on people supplying British in Philadelphia with provisions, 72;
places guard over grave of foreign officer to preventing robbing
of body, 73.

Waterloo, 45, 221.

Wedderburn, Sol., Gen., denounces Franklin for theft of Hutchinson
letters, 164, 165.

West, Benj., Picture, reception of the Loyalists, desc. of, 213.

West, Church, plate of preserved by Martin Gay, 321.

White, Ammi, kills wounded British Soldier at Concord. See Concord.

Whiskey Insurrection, 69.

Wilkes Riots, 83, 84.

Wilmington, N. C., 255.

Wilmot, N. S., 229.

Winslow, John, biog., 434.

Winthrop, John, on Puritan loyalty to Church of England, 9,
his children, 483;
on democracy, 69.
Robert, biog., 426.

Wiswell, John, Rev., biog., 398.

Witchcraft delusion, 17.

Woburn, 261, 263, 264, 265, 272.

Wolfe, Gen., captures Quebec, 19, 20.

Wollaston, Mount, 365.

Wooden Figure, affair at Lillie's Mob, 311.

Worcester, 139, 474.

Worcester Resolutions against Absentees and Refugees, 141.

Wrentham, 138.

Writs of Assistance, 29, 149, 150, 151, 193.

York, Canada, burning of, 104.

Yorktown, Surrender of, 237.

* * * * *

STARK'S ANTIQUE VIEWS
OF THE
TOWN OF BOSTON

Every Bostonian should own this book, it contains the largest and rarest
collection of ancient views of Boston ever published.

"I am familiar with many of the old prints copied in your book.
Some of them are now exceedingly rare, and all have historical
value."--_Samuel A. Green, Librarian of the Massachusetts
Historical Society and Ex-Mayor of Boston._

Upward of 150 reproductions, with descriptive text. Arranged in
chronological order, they form a history of the town and city.

Quarto, cloth, $5.00 net. If by mail, $5.32.

=JAMES H. STARK=
=17 MILK ST., BOSTON, MASS.=

W. B. CLARKE CO. REVOLUTIONARY SERIES

=Myths and Facts of the American Revolution=

A Commentary on United States History as it is Written.

=By ARTHUR JOHNSTON=

WALDO H. DUNN, in Wooster Quarterly

"The object of the volume is 'to refute the American Revolutionary
Myth.' This Mr. Johnston proceeds to do by declaring and, no doubt,
from his point of view, proving that all histories of the American
Revolution, those written by Americans as well as many written by
Englishmen, are for the most part unreliable, misleading,
unfaithful to the facts, in many cases, even mythical."

Cloth, 8vo. 303 pages. Price, $1.50 net. Postage 12c extra.

=Rowe. Letters and Diary of John Rowe, Boston Merchant, 1764-1779.=

"Brief jottings by a busy man. A welcome addition to our knowledge of
the Revolutionary era."--_The Nation._

The book is of interest to all old Massachusetts families, over one
hundred of which are mentioned.

8vo. cloth, with illustrations, $3.00 net. If by mail, $3.25.

=Murray. Letters of James Murray, Loyalist, 1713-1781.=

Books containing the raw material of the early history of our
country are of much interest at the present time, and those on the
Tory or Loyalist side are perhaps the more interesting because more
rare.--_The Dial._

The Appendix gives genealogical information regarding the families
of Murray, Forbes, Inman, Innes, Hutchinson, Robbins, Revere and
Howe.

8vo. cloth, with illustrations. $2.50 net. If by mail, $2.67.

=W. B. CLARKE CO.=
=26-28 TREMONT ST., BOSTON, MASS.=

* * * * *

STARK'S GUIDES TO THE WEST INDIES.

=Stark's History and Guide to Trinidad=

=Two hundred pages and profusely illustrated.=

=From the London "Spectator."=

Mr. James H. Stark in his series of histories of, and guides to, the
West Indies has assumed the rôle of a modern Hakluyt to intending
voyagers to the islands. He gives a clear account of their present
state, their climate, season, and "natural commodities," and useful
information as to steamers and hotels. But to this is added a well
edited and illustrated history of each island, or group of islands,
which brings the present into vivid relation with the past. Each of the
books is interesting and suggestive and complete in itself, the present
political and commercial prospects of the different colonies, being
especially well set out. After following Mr. Stark, who writes both with
knowledge and enthusiasm, from island to island our personal choice
would fall on Trinidad as the centre and headquarters of a visit to the
West Indies. It is accessible, not expensive, and makes an admirable
centre for further voyages.--_London Spectator._

=Stark's History and Guide to Jamaica=

=Two hundred pages, and over fifty full-page illustrations.=

=From the Jamaica "News."=

Jamaica has not been without literature descriptive of her charms, but
there is no book which pays her so eloquent a tribute as Stark's
"History and Guide to Jamaica." It is a handsome volume and one which
cannot be absent from any well equipped West Indian bookshelf. Mr. Stark
hails from Boston, but the works which he will leave behind will
associate him more closely with the jewels of the Caribbean Sea. Few
better than he have appreciated to the full the dazzling beauties of the
West Indies, and few have pictured them with such graphic force. Mr.
Stark has not been content with skilled word-pictures in his portrayal
of Jamaica. The volume is made beautiful by fifty-six exquisite
full-page photographic reproductions. These must have added very
materially to the expense of production, but they serve to render the
book by far the best-illustrated work the island has ever possessed.
There are also a map of the West Indies, a detailed map of Jamaica and a
street plan of Kingston, all specially engraved for the "Guide."

The work which Mr. Stark has completed is one that the government of
Jamaica might have undertaken in an earnest effort to benefit the
island, but it could not have done it so well, nor would its labors have
been free from the suspicion of prejudice. Mr. Stark is a stranger, an
American, whose unqualified praise is not biased by consideration of
patriotism; and his work is likely to prove so potent a factor in the
working out of the island's salvation that the government could do no
more beneficent act than to make a present of a copy of the work to
every public library throughout the English-speaking world.

The book is full of interest from cover to cover. From the opening
chapter to the last there is much to instruct, and the writing is of
such excellence that we never wearied. There are in all nineteen
chapters to the work, and the book has been handsomely printed, bound,
and illustrated.--_News, Jamaica._

=Stark's Guide and History of British Guiana=

(PALL MALL GAZETTE).

"Stark's Guide and History of British Guiana, is a continuation of a
series of works of the Guide book type, dealing with our West Indian
possessions. It is both instructive and pleasantly written while the
illustrations and maps afford additional information. The history and
physical characteristics of the colony are sketched out, the show sights
duly detailed, and the inhabitants and products receive adequate
treatment. There are some useful hints on the gold industry and the
resources of the colony generally and should accordingly find a place as
a work of reference."

(THE LONDON GRAPHIC)

"Stark's Guide and History of British Guiana, is a complete and
compendious handbook for tourists and immigrants. At the present time
the history of the gold industry and hints to gold prospectors may be
commended as opportune and up-to-date."

(BOOKSELLER LONDON).

"Sampson Low, Marston & Co., now place upon the English market a cheap
and useful guide to British Guiana, which has been issued by an American
publisher. The bulk of the material, we are told, was prepared by Mr.
James Rodway, the well known authority on British Guiana, and may
therefore be accepted as trustworthy. The volume is profusely
illustrated and altogether furnishes a very satisfactory and sufficient
guide to the country with which it deals."

=For Sale by
James H. Stark, Publisher, 17 Milk St., Boston.=

* * * * *

Stark's Illustrated Histories
and
Guides to the West Indies

=Six volumes, $1.50 per volume net=

It is now more than a century since a series of works of this
description was published on the West Indies--McKinnen's in 1804 and
Bryan Edwards' in 1797. The large number of tourists visiting the West
Indies every winter, and the acquiring of tropical possessions by this
country, have caused the public to take a greater interest in and to
seek for information concerning these beautiful islands lying so near
our shores. The author has spent the past twenty winters among these
islands, and has incorporated in each book from twenty-five to fifty
Photo-Prints from negatives taken by him, printed on plate paper,
besides many rare and valuable maps. Each book contains a description of
everything on or about the islands, concerning which the public may
desire information, including History Inhabitants, Climate, Agriculture,
Geology, Government and Resources. The set consists of six volumes, each
complete within itself. Jamaica, Trinidad, British Guiana, Bahamas,
Bermuda, Barbados and Caribbee Islands. Every library should contain
these volumes as works of reference and text-books.

_STARK'S ILLUSTRATED BERMUDA GUIDE_

=Two hundred pages, profusely illustrated with Maps and Photo-Prints, 12
mo. $1.60 post-paid.=

"A most exhaustive book on Bermuda. Mr. J. H. Stark spent several
seasons in Bermuda for the express purpose of collecting material for a
history and guide-book, and nothing is omitted or overlooked which the
invalid or traveller for pleasure will wish to know."--_Boston
Transcript._

"The 'Illustrated Bermuda Guide,' written by Mr. James H. Stark, of this
city, is the latest book on the Bermuda Islands. It contains twenty-four
artistic photo-prints, besides several handy maps of the islands, which
will be of much convenience to the tourist who seeks rest and pleasure
in the miniature continent, 700 miles from New York.

"The text of the volume treats of the history, inhabitants, climate,
agriculture, geology, government and military and naval establishments
of Bermuda describing in an entertaining fashion the most noticeable
features of the Island, and furnishing a brief sketch of life in Bermuda
from the original settlement until to-day."--_Boston Herald._

_STARK'S HISTORY AND GUIDE TO THE BAHAMA ISLANDS_

=Fully illustrated with Maps, Photo-Prints and Wood-Cuts, 12 mo. $1.60,
post-paid.=

"I have read your book on the Bahamas with great care and interest, and
can confidently speak of it as the most trustworthy account of the
Colony that has yet been published." SIR AMBROSE SHEA, _Governor of the
Bahamas_.

"Your book has exceeded my expectations; you have filled up a gap in the
history of the English Empire, especially in the history of our
colonies, that deserve the encomiums of every Englishman, aye, and of
every American who reads your book. The colonists of the Bahamas owe you
a debt that they can never fully repay." G. C. CAMPLEJOHN, _Judge of the
Court of Common Pleas, Bahamas_.

_STARK'S HISTORY AND GUIDE TO BARBADOES_
_AND THE CARIBBEE ISLANDS_

=Two hundred and twenty pages profusely illustrated with Maps and
Photo-Prints, 12 mo, $1.60, post-paid.=

"MR. JAMES H. STARK visited these islands and derived his information at
first hand. He has given a brief history of their discovery and
settlement, and also an account of the manners and customs of the
inhabitants, which is superior to that of any other work on the subject.
The book is richly supplied with half-tone illustration, which give a
capital idea of the buildings, the localities, and the people throughout
these tropical islands.

"The information is practical, and the volume will be highly prized by
those who have interests in these islands or have occasion to visit
them. Mr. Stark has done much to lift them into notoriety by his
careful, accurate and instructive work."--_Boston Herald._

=For Sale by=
=James H. Stark, Publisher, 17 Milk St., Boston.=

* * * * *

Transcriber's note:

Minor typographical errors and inconsistencies have been silently
normalized. Archaic and variable spellings, and inconsistent hyphenation
have been retained. Example: both "Curwin" and "Curwen" appear.

Page vii: The Appendix contents list shows "LIST OF LOYALISTS WHOSE
NAMES OR BIOGRAPHIES ARE NOT FOUND IN THIS WORK" as on page 484, whereas
it is actually on page 503.

Page 69: The footnote anchor is missing. The transcriber has placed it
where it seems likely to have been required.

Page 103: (*) denotes missing footnote.

Page 111: There are two footnote markers but no foot note (*).

Page 126: "Whereare we the subscribers did ..." Replaced "whereare" with
"whereas".

Page 151: A currency "dispute took place in 1762 as regarde the parity
between gold and silver." "regarde" changed to "regards".

Page 157: 'the objects of the contempt even of woman, and children.'
"woman" changed to "women".

Page 180: "John Williams and Swan S.;" There is a blank area on the
original page; the transcriber has replaced it with ----

Page 211: "May 29th, 1779, and the next at the Crown and Anchor, in the
Strand on the 26th" are conflicting dates as found in the original.

Page 253: "the limits of the republican government. Wishes for the
welfare of my" "which cannot possibly be but of short continuance,
somewhere out of"

The above two lines seem to be out of order and have been put in reverse
order.

Page 332: "that the father and sisters of Charles were to partici- in
the enjoyment of the property." Changed "partici-" to "participate".

Page 425: There was no footnote anchor for the "Loring" footnote. The
transcriber has inserted it at the beginning of the COMMODORE JOSHUA
LORING section.

Page 477: 'Public officials were chosen by a ring in Boston in the year
of our Lord 1768 before they were "chosen by the town"'.

The date 1768 appears to be an error according to the previous
paragraphs. The transcriber has replaced 1768 with 1763.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Loyalists of Massachusetts - And the Other Side of the American Revolution" ***

Home