Boston City (part 35 of 41)

Ferdinando Gorges and Robert Mason had been active since the Restoration, and had not allowed their claims to sleep ; though, after the peaceful settlement of the towns in Maine and New Hampshire under the government of the Massachusetts, their complaints at Court had received little attention.2 In 1674 they proposed to surrender to the King their respective patents, on condition of having secured to them one-third part of the customs, rents, &c. But nothing was effected. Allegations were also renewed against Massachusetts by the merchants of London, for a violation of the Navigation Laws. This was a standing complaint, persistently made, and the occasion of it as persistently renewed by the Colony. In March, 1675, the Lords of the Committee of Trade and Plantations proposed to the King to send five commissioners to the colony, "to arrange its affairs," and to look after the violation of the Navigation Acts. At the same time the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General were directed to examine the claims of Mason and Gorges as presented in their renewed petition of the previous January. To inquiries submitted to the Commissioners of Customs in England, they replied that New England was equally subject with the rest of the colonies to the laws of trade. The law-officers reported that Mason had " a good legal title to the lands " in the Province of New Hampshire, and that Gorges had " a good title to the Province of Maine." 3

An earnest decision was now reached. The Privy Council, at a meeting in December, 1675, decided to recommend that copies of the claimants' petitions be sent to Massachusetts, and that the Government there should be required, within a specified time, subsequently fixed at "six months, to send over agents sufficiently empowered to answer for the Colony, and to receive the King's determination upon the matters in issue, and this plan was adopted. Edward Randolph, " the evil genius of New England," now first appears upon the stage. He was .a supple tool of arbitrary power. He was sent to Massachusetts with the King's letter, dated March 10, 1675-76, and

2 The Massachusetts Colony had, by an and Maine within its own jurisdiction, early interpretation of its northern boundary, a Palfrey, as above, pp. 280, 281.

with copies of the petitions and complaints of Mason and Gorges. He sailed about April i,and landed in Boston June 10, 1676, after a tedious passage of ten weeks. He found the colony involved in a war with the Indians, contending with them for the possession of the soil. The public distress was great, the loss of life was fearful, and the charge upon the Colony most embarrassing. The inquiry now set on foot, through the instrumentality of Randolph, and the proceedings under it, which struck at the powers of the Government of the colony, were continued from time to time, until finally, by a judicial process, judgment was pronounced against the charter. A full history of these proceedings in detail through all these years would fill many pages, and the same may be said of that part of the narrative already told ; but it comes only within my province to present the prominent features and the results of this controversy, so momentous to the colony.1

Randolph presented his papers to the Governor (Leverett), who admitted him into the presence of the Council. The letter of the King, in which he acquainted the magistrates with the representations of Gorges and Mason, the Governor read aloud. Randolph said that he had the King's orders to require an answer, and to wait for it one month. In the mean time he tried to stimulate a local faction in the colony. He complained to the Governor of infractions, which he had himself observed, of the Acts of Navigation. He visited several towns in New Hampshire, and found " the whole country complaining of the oppression and usurpation of the magistrates of Boston." At Portsmouth, several of the principal inhabitants of the Province of Maine came to him, making the same complaints. Returning to Boston, he embarked for home July 30, 1676. A full account of his observations of the country, made during this visit, is published in Hutchinson's Collection of Papers, with which compare, for dates, his Narrative in Massacliusetts Archives, vol. cxxvii.

Soon after Randolph sailed, the Governor summoned a special Court to meet on the 9th of August. The elders were consulted, and gave their opinion that " the most expedient way" to answer " the complaints of Mr. Gorges and Mr. Mason, about the extent of our patent line," is by the appointment of agents " to appear and make answer " for us ; and at the next session, in September, the Court adopted this advice, and William Stoughton and Peter Bulkley were chosen for the purpose. They sailed October 30, bearing an address to the King. The agents also were intrusted with a paper, entitled " A Brief Declaration of the Right and Claim of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, to the Lands now in their Possession, but pretended to by Mr. Gorges and Mr. Mason."

Randolph was already in England, and lost no time to report what he had done and seen; and the agents, on their arrival three months later, found the minds of the courtiers prejudiced against the cause they represented. Randolph had urged that the Colony had broken the laws of trade and navigation. After some months had passed, the Lords of the Committee, in June, 1677, advised the King that, in their opinion, this allegation had been proved, and recommended that the Government of the colony should be notified of his Majesty's pleasure that said acts be duly executed ; and that the Lord Treasurer should appoint officers of customs for Boston, and elsewhere in New England, for the better observation thereof. The Chief Justices, Rainsford and North, to whom the claims of Mason and Gorges had been referred, gave their opinion that the patent of 4 Car. I. (that is, to the Massachusetts patentees) was good, and made the adventurers a corporation upon the place, but that neither Maine nor New Hampshire was included within its chartered limits ; that the government of Maine belonged to the heir of Sir Ferdinando Gorges ; and that the government of New Hampshire had never been granted to John Mason, and was not legally invested in his heir. As to the right of soil in these territories, the Judges declared themselves not prepared to decide. This judgment was adopted by the Lords of the Committee and approved by the Privy Council. At a subsequent hearing of the parties, the whole matter was referred back to the committee, who, having debated the business again, and agreed to several heads, summoned the agents, and informed them that the Colony must adhere to the rule concerning the northern boundary of their patent as announced by the Judges; that they must solicit his Majesty's pardon for presuming to coin money; that the Act of Navigation must in future be observed ; that their faulty laws must be changed, &c. On being now dismissed for a week, the agents were informed " that his Majesty would not destroy their charter, but rather, by a supplementary one to be given to them, set things right that were now amiss." At a number of subsequent meetings, at which the agents were present, the same general ground was gone over. The agents renewed their request that the New Hampshire towns might be allowed to retain their present organization, that being the wish of the inhabitants as well as of the Government. Mason now informed their Lordships that he had been approached with an application, which hitherto he had resisted, to sell his patent to the Massachusetts, telling them at the same time that a similar application to Gorges had been successful. This was unwelcome intelligence to the King, who had intended to buy the Province of Maine for his illegitimate son the Duke of Monmouth, but he had been anticipated by the vigilant Colony. John Usher, the Boston merchant, was in London at this time, and he was the medium through whom the business was conducted for the Colony. Gorges was paid the sum of twelve hundred and fifty pounds for his patent, and the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay became " lord paramount of Maine."1 The transaction took place in March, i677~78.2

This measure was not at all calculated to mollify the feelings of the Lords of the Committee respecting the colony. Randolph fanned the flame. In the autumn of 1677 the General Court had ordered that the oath of fidelity to the country be revived and put in practice throughout the colony. Randolph had received notice of this, and urged that an order might be taken for the protection of persons loyal to the Crown.

Several addresses were made to the King from the General Court while the agents were in England, and several laws were made to remove some of the exceptions which were taken in England, particularly an act to punish treason with death. Oaths of allegiance to the King were required. The King's arms were ordered to be carved and put in the court-house. With regard to the Acts of Trade, they confessed in a letter to their agents that they had not conformed to them. They said they " apprehended them to be an invasion of the rights, liberties, and properties of the subjects of his Majesty in the colony, they not being represented in Parliament; and, according to the usual sayings of the learned in the law, the laws of England were bounded within the four seas, and did not reach America. However, as his Majesty had signified his pleasure that those acts should be observed in the Massachusetts, they had made provision, by a law of the Colony, that they should be strictly attended from time to time, although it greatly discouraged trade and was a great damage to his Majesty's plantation." 3 " Thus we hear for the first time," says Chalmers, " that the colonists, though in the same breath swearing allegiance to the Crown of England, were not bound by the Acts of Parliament, because they were not represented in it."

The agents continued to struggle against adverse influences; charges of perverseness and disloyalty were unceasingly made against the Colony, and doubts as to the original validity of the charter they held so sacred were industriously propagated. Resort was again had to the officers of the law, to whom a series of questions were propounded by the Lords of the Committee respecting this instrument. The Crown lawyers, Messrs. Jones and Winnington, in May, 1678, gave their opinion, under three heads, as follows : i. That, as to the patent of 4 Caroli, whether it were good in point of creation, it was most proper that the opinion of the Lords Chief Justices should be had thereupon, i. That neither the quo warrant o, mentioned to be brought against them (in 1635), nor the judgment thereupon, was such as to cause a dissolution of the charter. 3. That the misdemeanors objected against them do contain sufficient matter to avoid their patent*

2 The original deed of conveyance to Usher State House. See Proceed, for Jan. 1870, p. 201. is in the Library of the Mass. Hist. Soc. It bears 3 Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, i. 322.

in which all matters that had passed since the first settlement of New England should be recited; "the several encroachments and injuries which the Colony of Massachusetts had practised upon their neighbors; and their contempt and neglect of his Majesty's commands ; and will offer their opinion that a qtio warranto be brought against their charter, and new laws framed instead of such as were repugnant to the laws of England." And " their Lordships agreed to recommend Mr. Randolph unto the Lord Treasurer for a favorable issue of his pretensions to be employed as Collector of his Majesty's Customs in New England, in consideration of his zeal and capacity to serve his Majesty therein ; " 1 and Randolph was commissioned.

The agents made a written reply to Randolph's Narrative, in which they corrected many of his statistical errors. Their stay in England had now become very wearisome, yet they did not feel at liberty to depart without the King's leave. They were detained until the fall of 1679.2 They arrived at Boston December 23, and brought with them a letter from the King, dated July 24 preceding. In this he expressed disappointment that Stoughton and Bulkley had not been furnished with fuller powers, and he made the following requisitions: (i) That agents should be sent over in six months, fully instructed to answer and transact what was undetermined at that time; (2) that freedom and liberty of conscience be given to such as desire to worship God according to the way of the Church of England; (3) that all men of competent estates, ratable at icxy., be eligible to be made freemen and magistrates ; (4) that the number of assistants hereafter be eighteen, according to the charter; (5) that the oath of allegiance be administered to all persons in trust or office; (6) that all military commissions and proceedings of justice run in his Majesty's name; (7) that all laws repugnant to trade be abolished; (8) that an assignment of the Province of Maine be made to the King on the repayment of the sum for which they purchased it; (9) that Massachusetts recall all commissions granted for governing the Province of New Hampshire.3

During the sharp controversies between Massachusetts and the mother country which followed the Restoration, two parties naturally sprung up in the colony, both of whom agreed as to the importance of their charter privileges, but differed in opinion as to the extent of them, and as to the proper measures to preserve them. At the period which we now are considering, Mr. Bradstreet, who had succeeded Leverett as Governor in

1 Phillipps MSS., quoted by Palfrey, Nfio committed to our present honored Deputy- England, iii. 317. Governor [Thomas DanforthJ, Captain John

2 On the 3Oth of May, 1679, *ne General Richards, and Captain Daniel Fisher, with Ma- Court adopted the following order : " The se- jor Thomas Clarke, one of the last commitcuring of our original patent being matter of tee, who are to take care of the same ; to whose great importance, and the former provision in wisdom we refer it, to dispose of it as may best that respect, made in the year 1664, being at an tend to prevent any inconvenience relating end by the decease of most of the persons be- thereto." Mass. Col. AVr., v. 237.

1679, represented the more moderate party, joined to whom were Mr. Stoughton and Mr. Dudley. At the head of the other party was the Deputy-Governor, Mr. Danforth, with whom were associated Daniel Gookin, Elisha Hutchinson, and Elisha Cooke. This latter party opposed the sending over agents, or submitting to Acts of Trade, &c., advocating an adherence to their charter, agreeably to their own construction of it, and leaving the event.

Randolph, who took passage for New York about the time that the agents embarked, had arrived a fortnight earlier; but, being intrusted with business relating to New Hampshire, he did not appear in Boston till more than a month after them. On the 4th of February, 1679-80, the Court convened, and the letter of the King - already referred to - which had been brought by the agents was read. In it the King gave notice of the appointment of Randolph to be " Collector, Surveyor, and Searcher " for all the colonies of New England.

The Deputies were inclined to be unyielding, but the Court proceeded to act upon the King's instructions. They made provision for the election of eighteen assistants, according to the charter;1 and the Governor was instructed to take " the oath required by his Majesty for the observation and execution of the statutes for the encouraging and increasing of Navigation and Trade." The long and faithful service of their agents, Stoughton and Bulkley, was acknowledged, and a gratuity voted to them. The claim to New Hampshire was relinquished, and all commissions granted to persons residing in that territory were vacated. But, on the other hand, as Lord Proprietor of Maine by virtue of its purchase of Gorges, the Colony stepped into his place.

1 The reason why, originally, the number of assistants had been limited to eight or ten was "to leave room for persons of quality expected from England. Those expectations had long ceased. In a popular government, and where the magistrates were annually chosen, increasing the number would give a better chance to aspir- VOL. I. - 47.

ing men. On the other hand, the greater the number of assistants the less the weight of the House of Deputies, the election of all officers depending upon the major vote of the whole Court. This last reason might cause the Deputies to refuse their consent to an increase." Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, i. 326, note, a private letter in reply to that of the King, fearing, perhaps, that the action of the Court might be more resolute. Of Randolph, the Governor said that the people " generally looked upon him as one that bore no good-will to the country, but sought its ruin." The Court, soon after it met, dispatched a letter to the Secretary of State, excusing themselves for only partially replying to the King's letter, pleading as a reason the small attendance of members of the General Assembly then convened (owing to "the extremity of the season"), and the sudden departure of the ship by which the letter was conveyed. As to the Province of Maine, they affirmed that instead of laying " a severe hand " upon it, they had saved it from " utter ruin."

At a later period of the session, which continued into the month of June, the Court addressed a letter of greater length to the Secretary of State, going over again the subject of the requisitions made in the King's letter, then under consideration. They informed Lord Sunderland, " in order to his Majesty's more full satisfaction," that, in addition to the proceedings already reported of the last Court, a committee had now been raised for the review of the laws, "to the intent that, where any should be found repugnant to the laws of England, or derogatory to his Majesty's honor and dignity, they might be repealed or amended." They acknowledged that the chief design of their predecessors in coming over and planting this wilderness was that they might enjoy freedom in matters of religious worship, but they did not suppose his Majesty intended that the notorious errors and blasphemies of the Quakers should, with impunity, be openly propagated. As for other Protestant dissenters who carried themselves peaceably, they trusted there might be no cause of complaint on their behalf. They had extended the privilege of the franchise to others besides members of their own churches, though they humbly conceived their charter did expressly give them an absolute and free choice of their own members. They humbly begged to be excused for not having, as yet, sent over other agents to attend to their concerns, understanding that his Majesty and Privy Council were taken up in matters of far greater moment. They also pleaded their low condition, through the vast charges of the late war, and inability to meet the disbursements attending such a mission ; nor did they omit to mention the hazard of the sea, and the danger from Turkish pirates, " many of our inhabitants continuing at this day in miserable captivity among them." l

In the mean time, Randolph, who we have already seen arrived in Boston in the latter part of January, 1679-80, entered at once upon the duties with which he was charged. He seized several vessels with their lading, but the courts and juries refused to condemn them. " His Majesty's authority," he writes, summing up his first experiences, " and the Acts of Trade were disowned openly in the country, and I was cast in all these causes, and damages given against his Majesty." He informs the author- ities at home that it was now " in every man's mouth that they were not subject to the laws of England, neither were those of any force till confirmed by their authority." He was stimulated by his personal vexations, and sent home a memorial to the King, urging a proceeding against the charter by a writ of quo wttrrauto. He made a series of charges, reduced to several heads ; the first of which was " that the Bostoneers have no right either to land or government in any part of New England, but are usurpers, the inhabitants yielding obedience unto a supposition only of a royal grant from his late Majesty." 1 He now left Boston, retiring for a season to New Hampshire. His letters produced their natural effect on the Government at home, and stimulated it to renewed activity against the Colony.

On the 3Oth of September, 1680, the King addressed a letter to the Colony, charging them with neglecting to send over agents in the room of Stoughton and Bulkley, who obtained leave to return home ; and alleging that in other respects his directions to the Colony had not been complied with. He now commanded that agents be sent over in three months after the receipt of this letter, prepared also to answer a new claim which Robert Mason had made to lands between Naumkeag and Merrimack rivers. The King expressed " care and tenderness " for the Colony, and a desire to remove " those difficulties and mistakes that have arisen by the execution of the powers of your charter at such a distance from us, which by the first intendment and present constitution thereof (as by the charter appears) has its natural seat and immediate direction within our kingdom of England."2

On the receipt of this letter, which was brought by Robert Mason himself,3 who arrived December 17, a special session of the Court was called to meet Jan. 4, 1 680-81. After considerable debate, two agents, William Stoughton and Samuel Nowell, were chosen. The former declined, and John Richards was chosen in his place. But the popular party interposed delays, and the elected messengers still remained at home.

Randolph sailed for England before the Court broke up.4 This emissary kept a constant watch upon the Colony, going to and fro continually, and always returning home with fresh complaints, thereby arming himself with new orders and powers. In a representation of his services subsequently made to the Committee of the Council he says he had made eight voyages to New England in nine years.5 He now lost no time in urging upon the Government decisive action against the Colony. He said that a " quo warranto would unhinge their Government, and prepare them to receive his Majesty's further pleasure. I have often in my papers pressed the necessity of a General Governor as absolutely* necessary for the honor and service of the Crown."

where in this paper, are copied by Palfrey, New z The heir to New Hampshire. England, iii. 339, from Colonial Papers; with * He sailed from Boston, March 15, 1681.

As winter approached, Randolph again appeared in Boston. He was now armed with new power for mischief. He arrived December 17, 1681, with a commission as Deputy-Collector, or under officer, within all the colonies of New England, except New Hampshire ; William Blathwayt having been commissioned Surveyor, &c. He was coldly icceived, as his commission was looked upon as an encroachment on the charter of the Colony.1 He brought, at the same time, a long and remarkable letter from the King, which was well calculated to awaken serious apprehensions.

The letter charged the colonists with having, " from the very beginning, used methods tending to the prejudice of the Sovereign's rights, and their natural dependence on the Crown." It recited the proceedings under the quo warranto in the tenth year of King Charles the First. It complained of the protection that had been afforded to the fugitive judges of that monarch ; of the hard treatment dealt to many of his subjects, who had been denied appeals to English courts; of the ousting of Gorges and Mason from their estates, and the alleged usurpation of Massachusetts over the Eastern country; of the opposition to the commissioners sent to New England by Lord Clarendon ; of the offences more recently brought to light, as illegal coining of money, violations of the laws of trade and navigation, and legislative provisions " repugnant to the laws of England and contrary to the power of the charter;" of the pertinacious disregard of the royal command for an appearance of the Colony by agents, which continued to be evaded under "some frivolous and insufficient pretences;" and, finally, of the offensive obstructions which had been placed in the way of the Collectors of the Customs. The peremptory conclusion of the letter was as follows :

" These and many other irregularities, crimes, and misdemeanors having been objected against you (which we hope, nevertheless, are but the faults of a few persons in the government), we find it altogether necessary for our service and the peace of our Colonies that the grievances of our good subjects be speedily redressed, and our authority acknowledged, in pursuance of these our commands, and our pleasure at divers times signified to you by our royal letters and otherwise ; to which we again refer you, and once more charge and require you forthwith to send over your agents fully empowered and instructed to attend the regulation of that our Government, and to answer the irregularity of your proceedings therein. In default whereof, we are fully resolved, in Trinity Term next ensuing, to direct our Attorney- General to bring a quo warranto in our Court of King's Bench, whereby our charter granted unto you, with all the powers thereof, may be legally evicted and made void. And so we bid you farewell." *

The sending over of agents could now no longer be delayed. At a Court called in February, 1681 - 82, at which the King's letter was read, after several ballotings, " by papers," they finally chose Mr. Joseph Dudley and Mr. John Richards as agents.

The design of taking away the charter became more and more evident. The requisition of the King, that agents should be sent over empowered to submit to regulations of government, meant, in other words, agents empowered to surrender the charter. The General Court, however, were unwilling to place such an interpretation upon the language, being contrary to the King's repeated declarations ; and they instructed their agents to consent to nothing which should violate or infringe the liberties and privileges granted by charter, or the government established by it. To the charge of coining money, now added to the allegations, they excused themselves, " it having been in the times of the late confusions, to prevent frauds in the pieces of eight current among them, and if they have trespassed upon his Majesty's prerogative, it was through ignorance, and they humbly begged his pardon."1

In an address to the King, the General Court entreated forbearance. They ordered the Acts of Trade and Navigation to be forthwith proclaimed in the market place in Boston. They appointed naval officers, repealed the laws under the titles " Conspiracy" and " Rebellion," and directed that the word "jurisdiction" should be substituted for "commonwealth," and revised the law of treason.

But nothing could assuage the persevering hostility of Randolph. He had this year exhibited "Articles of high misdemeanor against a faction in the General Court," alleging their attempt to obstruct him in the business of his office, and refusing to admit his Majesty's letters-patent creating the office of Surveyor, &c., in America.2

The agents arrived in England after a long passage of nearly twelve weeks, and they immediately entered upon their labors of defending the Colony from the charges brought against it.3 In an elaborate paper they took up, in their order, the several allegations and requisitions in the King's letter of July 24, 1679, and made a full answer to them.4 As to the delay in sending agents, they urged the danger of the seas and the extreme poverty of the Colony, having incurred a debt of twenty thousand pounds sterling for the expenses of the Indian war; that there was no law or custom in Massachusetts preventing the use of the English liturgy, or the election of members of the Church of England to office ; that the ancient number of eighteen Assistants had been restored, agreeably to the royal command ; that all official persons took the oath of allegiance ; that military commissions and judicial proceedings were in the King's name; that " all laws repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the laws of England for trade were abolished ; " that Randolph's commission had been recognized and enrolled, and that he and his subordinates had been subjected to no penalties but such as were needful " to the providing damages for the officers' unjust vexing the subjects ; " and that in Massachusetts the Acts of Trade and Navigation had " been fully put in execution to the best discretion of the Government there."

3 They arrived about Aug. 1682. Their instruc- summary I give is from Palfrey's New England, tions may lie seen in Mass. Col. Rec. v. 346-349. iii. 369, 370.

They restated in full the position of their Colony in relation to the claims of Gorges and Mason, and they concluded by expressing the hope that the demand for appeals to the King " in matters of revenue " might be reconsidered.

All this, however, availed but little. The agents who had submitted their commission to Sir Lionel Jenkins, the Secretary of State, were soon told, as the decision of the Privy Council, that unless they obtained further powers without delay the Colony would be proceeded against upon " the first day of Hilary Term next," which fell upon the 23d or 24th of January; and " in the mean time the said agents were to continue their attendance here." 1

There was a determination now, on the part of the courtiers, to proceed to extremities. An order was sent to Randolph to return to England and prosecute a qtio warranto. Letters were received from the agents, dated September 28 and October 3, representing the case of the Colony as desperate, leaving it to the Court to determine whether it was most advisable to submit to the King's pleasure, or to suffer a quo warranto to issue.

The General Court of the Colony met in March, 1683, and after "due consideration and debate " resolved on a humble address to the King, and a new commission and instructions to the agents. The agents were authorized " to accept of and consent unto such proposals and demands as might consist with the main end of their predecessors in their removing hither with their charter, and his Majesty's Government here settled according thereto." But these new instructions imposed also serious restrictions to their powers. They were in no wise to consent to any infringement of their privileges of religion and worship. In a private letter the agents were authorized to deliver up to the King the deeds to the Province of Maine, if such a surrender would help to save their charter, &c.

Randolph sailed for England soon after the Court, whose proceedings have just been referred to, was dissolved. He was immediately closeted with the Attorney-General, and produced his proofs and charges against the Government of the Massachusetts. 2 The whole matter had been planned beforehand, and the proceedings were speedy. " Before Randolph had been a month in England he had virtually accomplished the purpose of his ambition and revenge. The blow with which the Colony had been so long threatened was struck. The writ was issued which summoned it to stand

2 The following abstract of Randolph's with a view to defraud the Customs ; 8. No charges is taken from Chalmers's Annals, p. verdicts are ever found for the King in relation 462 : " I. They assume powers that are not to customs, and the Courts impose costs on the warranted by their charter, which is executed in prosecutors in order to discourage trials; 9. another place than was intended ; 2. They make They levy customs on the importation of goods laws repugnant to those of England ; 3. They from England ; 10. They do not administer the levy money on subjects not inhabiting the colony oath of supremacy as required by charter ; n. (and consequently not represented in the Gen- They have erected a Court of Admiralty, though eral Court) ; 4. They impose an oath of fidelity not empowered by charter ; 12. They discounto themselves without regarding the oath of tenance the Church of England ; 13. They perallegiance to the King ; 5. They refuse justice sist in coining money, though they had asked by withholding appeals to the King in Council ; forgiveness for that offence." These articles 6. They oppose the Acts of Navigation, and were exhibited in June, 1683. He arrived in imprison the King's officers for doing their England, May 28.

for the defence of its political existence and of the liberty and property of its people, at the bar of a court in London." J The writ bore teste June 27, 1683, and was returnable in October following.

The agents, Messrs. Dudley and Richards, now petitioned the authorities, " setting forth that a quo warranto being issued against the Charter and Government" of Massachusetts, " they are not willing to undertake the defence and management thereof, and therefore praying they may be permitted to return home to take care of their private affairs," and leave was granted. They arrived at Boston Oct. 23, 1683, and the same week Randolph arrived with the quo warranto; the Privy Council having ordered, July 20, " that Mr. Edward Randolph be sent to New England with the notification of the said quo warranto, which he was to deliver to the said Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, and thereupon to return to give his Majesty an account of his proceedings therein." He was furnished with two hundred copies of all the proceedings at the Council Board concerning the Charter of London, to be dispersed in New England. A " Declaration " was received from the King, by the same conveyance, to be spread among the people, promising that if the Colony, before prosecution, would make full submission and entire resignation to his pleasure, he would regulate their charter for his service and their good, and with no further alterations than should be necessary for the support of the government there ; declaring, at the same time, that all persons who are questioned in or by the said quo warranto, and shall maintain suit against the King, shall make their defence at their own particular charge, and not at the expense of the Colony, and all persons who shall submit to the pleasure of the King shall be freed from all rates levied as contributions towards said suit.2

The Governor and a majority of the Assistants, despairing of any success from a defence, voted on the I5th November that a humble address be sent to his Majesty by this ship, saying that they would not contend with his Majesty in a course of law, as they relied on his gracious intimations that his purpose was only to regulate their charter, without any other alteration than what was necessary for the support of his government here. After a delay of fifteen days the deputies dissented, and the town of Boston, under the lead of Increase Mather, sustained them.

Hutchinson says that if this vote of the Assistants had " been made an act of the General Court, it is doubtful whether the consequent administration of government would have been less arbitrary than it was upon the judgment against the charter; but, upon the Revolution, they might have reassumed their charter, as Rhode Island and Connecticut did their respective charters, - there having been no judgment against them."3

" However agreeable to law this distinction the King's dominions, I suppose (unless Bermight be, yet equity does not seem to favor it. mudas is an exception), whether surrendered or

The Court sent a letter of attorney to Robert Humphreys, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, bearing date December 5, to appear and make answer for the Colony ; and, in a supplementary letter to him, they say, -

" We take not this course in law of choice, but of mere necessity, to save a default and outlawry for the present, until, if it be possible, we can find means, by an humble application, to satisfy his Majesty. Be sure you entertain the best counsel possible, and gain what time may be had, cunctando restituere rem, and that a better day may shine upon us."

In an additional letter of advice to Humphreys, of the same date, the General Court, through its secretary, suggested that there should be a plea made to the jurisdiction of the Court before whom their case was to be tried ; namely, -

" Whether a charter and privileges granted thereby, being exercised in America, can be tried in a court in England, or by what authority the sheriffs of London serve a writ on persons who never were inhabitants there, and particular persons are only mentioned in the writ, whereas we are to sue and to be sued by the name of the Governor and Company ; also, the writ was not served on the persons concerned until the time of appearance was past, and not served on our agents in England, nor any copy left with them by the secondary." l

Randolph sailed for England soon after the decision of the deputies just narrated, dissenting from their brethren of the upper branch who had voted to yield and not to contend with the King. He embarked Dec. 14, 1683, and arrived at Plymouth after a tedious and very dangerous passage of two months, and lost no time in laying before Sir Lionel Jenkins an account of his doings in Massachusetts. His more formal " Narrative of the Delivery of his Majesty's writ of quo warranto " was presented to the Privy Council ; and by that body, five days afterwards, it was referred to the Lords of the Committee.

Randolph at the same time presented a petition, setting forth the hazards and dangers he had encountered, both by sea and land, in his Majesty's service in the affairs of New England, together with his losses, amounting to two hundred and sixty pounds; and he asked for, money to indemnify him for the cost of having brought over two witnesses to make out the proof of what he had charged against the Colony.2

The intelligence that followed Randolph to England indicated no progress, on the part of the friends of the prerogative, in obtaining the submission of Massachusetts. Party spirit ran high in the colony. The Assistants could not prevail upon the deputies to surrender the charter. The General Court, May 10, 1684, sent another letter to their attorney, Mr. Humphreys, saying that they had not yet heard of his receipt of their former letters, and expressing the hope that he will use his endeavor " to spin out the case to the uttermost."

"We question not," the letter proceeds, "but the counsel which you retain will consult my Lord Coke - his Fourth Part - about the Isle of Man and of Guernsey, Jersey, and Gascoine, while in the possession of the kings of England, where it is concluded by the Judges that these, being extra regnum, cannot be adjudged at the King's Bench, nor can appeal lie from them. Also, if there be such a thing as an appeal from a judgment in the King's Bench, by a writ of error to the Exchequer Chamber, we hope you will endeavor for us ... whatsoever benefit the law affords." 1

They also sent another humble address to the King, in which they supplicate "that there may not be a farther prosecution had upon the quo warranto" This was enclosed in a letter to their agent, submitting it to his better judgment whether it were advisable to present it to his Majesty or to withhold it.2

Before these letters reached England, the fate of the charter had been substantially sealed. The proceedings by quo warranto had been dropped, and a new suit by scire facias begun in the Court of Chancery. This Court made a decree, June 18, 1684, vacating the charter, directing "that judgment be entered up for his Majesty as of this term; but, if defendants appear first day of next term, and plead to issue, so as to take notice of a trial to be had the same term, then the said judgment, by Mr. Attorney's consent, to be set aside ; otherwise the same to stand recorded." Record was made that the Governor and Company did not appear, but made default. "The first day of next term" (Michaelmas) was the 23d of October of this year.3

The intelligence of this conditional judgment against the charter reached Massachusetts in a private letter to Joseph Dudley in September, and by him it was communicated to the Governor. A special meeting of the Court was called for the tenth of the month ; but nothing was done regarding this business except hearing the letter read and addressing a brief note to their attorney, expressing amazement at the information just received. An adjourned meeting was held five weeks later, - October 15, - at which a humble address was ordered to the King, praying for his "clemency and justice," acknowledging "some unwilling errors or mistakes, for which we prostrate ourselves at your Majesty's feet, humbly begging and imploring your Majesty's pardon and forgiveness, with the continuance of our charter and privileges therein contained." A letter was also addressed to their attorney, Mr. Humphreys, expressing indignation at the proceedings against them, hoping they had not forfeited the privileges of Englishmen, and saying they are yet unwilling to despair of a further and a more favorable consideration of their case by those from whose justice they implore relief. "We know not what could be done more, nor cannot direct for the future." Before these papers had been despatched from the Colony, the final step was taken in London. On the first day of Michaelmas Term (October 23), the counsel for the Colony moved in the Court in Chancery for a stay in the proceedings, as sufficient time had not been given for procuring a letter of attorney from New England between the issuing of the writ and the day appointed for its return. But the Lord Keeper replied that no time ought to have been given, as all corporations ought at all times to have an attorney in court; and the order for time to appear and plead was set aside, and final judgment entered for vacating the charter.1

Dr. Palfrey, in his notes to his history of these transactions, discusses the reasons for the change of process from the King's Bench to the Court of Chancery. The sheriff's principal objection why he did not return a summons was that the notice was given after the return was past. " He did also make it a question whether he could take notice of New England being out of his bailiwick." Mr. Humphreys, the counsel of the Colony, had presented another difficulty, suggested in a letter to him from the General Court; namely, that "particular persons were only mentioned in the writ, whereas they were to sue and be sued by the name of the Governor and Company." He said he had no authority to appear in the Court of King's Bench except for the Governor and Company.

In answer to the question why these informalities and defects were not cured by a new writ of quo ivarranto rightly drawn and served, instead of transferring the case by a scire facias to the Court of Chancery, Dr. Palfrey cites a letter from his learned friend, Mr. Horace Gray, - now Chief-Justice Gray, - to whom this whole matter was submitted, in which Mr. Gray suggests two answers: i. A decision of the case for the Crown in Chancery would be more sure and weighty than in the Court of King's Bench ; and, 2. It would be more effectual and decisive ; and on the latter head he proceeds : " Great importance was attached in those days to the actual possession of the charter. Now a judgment for the Crown upon a quo ivarranto would have been only for a seizure of the franchises into the King's hands, but the judgment upon scire facias was not merely that the charter should be declared forfeited, but also that it should be cancelled, vacated, and annihilated, and restored into Chancery there to be cancelled. Blackstone, Commentaries, iii. 260, 262; 4 Mass. Hist. Coll., ii. 278. Indeed, Lord Coke (4th Inst. pp. 79, 88), in enumerating matters within the jurisdiction of the Chancellor, put this first, and even derives his title from it, saying : ' Hereof our Lord Chancellor of England is called cancdlarins, a cancellando, i.e., a digniori parte, being the highest point of his jurisdiction to cancel the King's letters- patents under the Great Seal, and damning the enrolment thereof by drawing strikes through it like a lettice.' "

1 Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, i. 339, 340 ; Mass. Col. Rec., v. 449, 451, 456-459 ; Palfrey, New England, iii. 393, 394. "Down to the time of Randolph's report to the Privy Council (Feb. 29, 1683-84), the proceedings against Massachusetts were under a writ of quo ivarranto, returnable into the Court of King's Bench. After that time we hear no more of that writ, or of proceedings in that court." What vacated the charter was a decree in Chancery in June of this year, confirmed in October. See Palfrey, iii. 390, 391, who has called attention to the perplexity in which this action of the authorities has been involved, and to the fact that Chalmers, Hutchinson, and Grahame, two of whom were bred lawyers, and one of whom was a Chief Justice, " all slur the matter over." Other writers have done the same, some of whom appear to have been unaware that the proceedings under the quo warranto were not consummated by that process. Contemporary writers in New England understood the matter in a general way, if they did not comprehend all its legal aspects. The author of a " Brief Relation of the State of New England," probably Increase Mather, says : " The Governor and Company appointed an attorney to appear and answer to the quo ivarranto in the King's Bench. The prosecutors not being able to make anything of it there, a new suit was commenced by a scire facias in the High Court of Chancery. But, though they had not sufficient time given them to make their defence, yet judgment was entered against them for default in not appearing, when it was impossible, considering the remote distance of New England from Westminster Hall, that they should appear in the time allowed." Andros Tracts, ii. 154, 155.

The first writ of scire facias, directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex, bore teste i6th April, 36 Car. II. (1684), whereupon, on the 8th of May, a nihil was returned. An alias was directed to the same sheriff on the I2th of May, upon which the same return was made on the 2d of June. The agent of the Company now moved, by his counsel, for time (until Michaelmas Term next, about the 23d of October) to send to New England for a letter of attorney under seal to plead to these writs ; and, on hearing both sides, the Court ordered the conditional judgment cited above, which was finally confirmed on the first day of Michaelmas Term next. Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, \. 340 ; 4 Mass. Hist. Coll., ii. 246-278.

" Thus ended," says Chalmers, " the ancient government of that colony by legal process, - the validity of which, however, has been questioned by very great authority."

After the decree vacating the charter, several months passed before intelligence of it reached the colony. A special meeting of the Court was called by the Governor and Assistants for the 28th of January, 1684-85, in the record of which the following is the first entry : -

" At the opening of this Court the Governor .declared it, that on the certain or general rumors in Mr. Jenner lately arrived, that our charter was condemned, and judg-

"The reason why the prosecutors could not make anything of it in the King's Bench may have been that suggested in relation to the former writ [in 1635], that, as the process of the court did not run into the colony, there could be no service there."

As to the proceedings in the Court of Chancery, Professor Parker says : "The proceedings may have been instituted in that court upon the ground of an ancient jurisdiction of the chancellor to repeal grants of the King which had been issued improvidently. But the assumption to enter a decree that a charter granting lands, and corporate powers, and powers of government, and which had existed more than half a century, should 'be vacated, cancelled, and annihilated ' on account of usurpations, which in case of ordinary corporations may be a subject for proceedings by writ of quo warranto in the King's Bench, - and especially to do this upon a writ issued £o the sheriff of Middlesex, in England, under'such circumstances that there could be neither service nor notice, - would be of itself a usurpation. And this seems to be its true character, whatever might be the reason alleged. . . .

" No judgment of forfeiture was entered, nor any decree ordering any person to bring in and surrender the charter, or to do any other act in relation to it. The Court adjudged that ' the letters-patent and the enrolment thereof be vacated, cancelled, and annihilated, and into the said court restored, there to be cancelled,' but there was no attempt to enforce the latter part of the decree."

It is certain that this parchment muniment of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay hangs to-day in the office of the Secretary of State in Boston, never having left the custody of its official guardian, and of course never having suffered the official mutilation decreed by the Court of Chancery ; and the same remark may be made of the parchment on which the " enrolment," subject to the same decree, is preserved, which now slumbers in its original entireness in her Majesty's Public Record Office in London, as inspected by the writer a few years ago.

" If the colonial government," continues Professor Parker, " was exercising power inconsistent with the charter or with colonial dependence, the true remedy would at this day appear to have been, not by process to enforce a forfeiture or to vacate the charter, which, if effective, would leave the inhabitants without any legal government, but by an enforcement or amendment of the charter, in regard to its public powers and character, by the Crown, from which it was derived, or by an Act of Parliament making the requisite provision for that purpose.

"The better opinion may be that, meeting with technical difficulties in the court of law, resort was had to Chancery because of a better assurance of a speedy success. (Palfrey, New England, iii. 391-394.) . . .

"The proceeding appears to have been no more effective in its character than might have been a judgment of seizure in a process at law ; and, in fact, little better than would have been an order of the King in Council, that the charter was forfeited, with a revocation of its powers. However, the decree answered its purpose. The colonists were not in a situation to contest it." - Lecture before the Mass. Hist. Soc., pp. 45-47.

After the Revolution, on the imprisonment of Andros in Boston, a provisional government was set up on the basis of the old charter, and an unavailing effort was made to procure its restoration. " The House of Commons, inflamed, probably," says Chalmers, " by the just and general indignation against the violent proceedings with regard to the corporations in England, at a subsequent period resolved, ' that those quo luarrantos against the charters of New England were illegal and void.' But, when the judgment before mentioned was reconsidered by those eminent lawyers and Whigs, Treby, Somers, and Holt, they gave it as their opinion 'that, were it reversed, and the General Court exercised the same powers that before the quo warranto it had done, a new writ would issue against it, and there would be such a judgment as to leave no room for a writ of error.'" - Annals, p. 415.

ment entered up, &c, they looked at it as an incumbent duty to acquaint the Court with it, and leave the consideration of what was or might be necessary to them, &c." '

They appointed a fast-day, to be held the following month, and made another attempt at pacifying the King, by a humble address, in which they say, as to the " scire facias late brought against us in the Chancery, . . . we never had any legal notice for our appearance, and making answer; neither was it possible, in the time allotted, that we could."

A committee was also appointed to write a letter to their attorney, Mr. Humphreys; and, in this brief epistle, they say they have as yet received no particular information from him concerning their affairs, - being as yet advised only by rumor that their charter was condemned ; and they enclose to him, for speedy presentation to his Majesty, the letter prepared for him. They express a wish to discharge all pecuniary obligations to their attorney, whenever they shall learn the extent of their indebtedness. For the reason that " several of our vessels yet behind in England, and so possibly we may yet hear further, either from Mr. Humphreys or some other, - we having as yet received no particular intelligence about the entering up of judgment against us, - it is therefore ordered and concluded that this General Court be adjourned till the i8th day of March next, being Wednesday, at one of the clock in the afternoon."

Hutchinson says that the copy of the judgment against the charter was received by Secretary Rawson on the 2d of July.2 This must refer to the official notice. In the mean time King Charles the Second had died (Feb. 6, 1684-85) ; and Mr. Blathwait, one of the principal Secretaries of State, had written to Mr. Bradstreet, transmitting a printed copy of the proclamation of King James, issued on the day of his accession to the throne, directing that all persons in authority in his kingdoms and colonies should continue to exercise their functions till further order should be taken. This was accompanied by an order to proclaim the new king. The Court met on the 6th of May, 1685, and registered the edict, and also made a record of the fact that the Governor had answered the letter of William Blathwayt, Esq., and informed him that the Government of the colony had already, on the 2Oth of April, proclaimed the new king, with all due solemnity, in the high street in Boston, - news of the death of Charles the Second and the proclaiming of his successor having been already received here by the arrival of a ship from Newcastle as early as the I4th of April. The Court met on the 2ist of July, by adjournment, "to consult the

2 [Rawson, b. 1615, d. 1693, was for many Geneal. A'eg., and in Drake's Boston. He is years Secretary of the Colony, 1650-1686. His buried in the Granary burial-ground. The portrait is preserved in the gallery of the Amer. present Bromfield Street bore his name, and was Antiquarian Society at Worcester, and there are known as Rawson's Lane up to 1796. - ED ] weighty concerns of this colony ; " and Mr. John Higginson was asked " to seek the face of God for his special guidance and direction." Another humble petition to the King was written, substantially rehearsing the arguments which had already proved so fruitless.

all the symptoms of an expiring Constitution. The Government was now regarded as only provisional ; and they awaited with anxiety the arrival of a royal governor, in the person of the noted Colonel Kirke, as a muchdreaded infliction. Several towns neglected to send their deputies to the General Court this year; and, at the session July 10, they were warned to attend to their duty at their peril. On the I2th of May, 1686, the last election took place according to the provisions of the charter.1 On the 1 4th of that month the " Rose" frigate arrived at Boston, bringing the persistent Randolph, with an exemplification of the judgment against the charter,2 and commissions for the officers of a new government. Joseph Dudley was appointed President. News had already been received that a new governor was impending ; and it was a relief to know that Kirke had not received the appointment.

The General Court was in session. On the i/th, a copy of the commission was presented and read, and a reply made on the 2Oth, complaining of its arbitrary character, and that the people were abridged of their liberties. A committee was appointed " for a repository of such papers on file with the secretary as refer to our charter and negotiations from time to time for the security thereof, with such as refer, to our title of our land, by purchase of Indians or othenvise ; and the secretary is ordered, accordingly, to deliver the same unto them." The concluding entry is as follows: "This day the whole Court met at the Governor's house ; and there the Court was adjourned to the second Wednesday in October next, at eight of the clock in the morning." But it never met.

1 [Professor Emory Washburn has a paper, " Did the vacating of the Colony Charter in 1684, or the adoption of the 1691 charter, annul the laws made under the former?" in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., March, 1875. - En.]

the causes of forfeiture, as set forth in the Court of Chancery, were : the assuming by the Governor and Company the power to levy money (by poll taxes and duties on merchandise and tonnage) ; to coin money ; and to require an oath of fidelity to the government of the colony.

By Henry Herbert Edes

THE territory now designated as Charlestown is a peninsula, lying between the estuaries of the Mystic and the Charles, containing less than a square mile of land. This now constitutes the third, fourth, and fifth wards of Boston, to which it was annexed in 1873. The oldest town, except Salem, in the Bay Colony, it was, in the year last named, the smallest municipality in the Commonwealth. At the time of its settlement, however, the area of Charlestown was much greater, including the whole or portions of the present cities of Somerville and Cambridge, and of the towns of Woburn, Burlington, Wilmington, Stoneham, Winchester, Melrose, Everett, Maiden, Wakefield, Medford, and Arlington. Woburn was the first town set off, - in 1642 ; and Somerville was the last, - exactly two centuries later.

The two Indian nations which occupied the region around Boston Harbor at the time of the settlement were the Massachusetts and the Pawtuckets. Chikataubut, or House-a-Fire, was the chief sachem of the former tribe, whose domain extended from Charles River on the north and west to Weymouth and Canton on the south. Nanepashemit, or The New Moon, was the chief sachem of the Pawtuckets, whose territory reached as far east as Piscataqua, and as far north as Concord, on the Merrimac River. These tribes, prior to 1613, could each bring into the field three thousand warriors, but they were soon after greatly reduced by pestilence. Nanepashemit lived in Lynn, when in 1615 he removed to the banks of the Mystic, where he was killed about 1619. l His queen, called The Squaw Sachem, subsequently married Webcowit, the medicine-man of the tribe; and from them, in 1639, the town received a deed of a large tract of land comprised within the present confines of Somerville. The Indian name of Charlestown was Mishawum.

The first eight pages of what was until recently regarded as the first volume of the town records have been printed by Dr. Young in his Chronicles of Massachusetts 1 While the account of the settlement of the town which is there given is not a contemporaneous record, it is not to be considered as untrustworthy except as regards the early chronology, - prior to 1631 ; for this compilation, mentions that these eight pages had been engrossed in the new book of records, and that the facts had been " gathered by information of known, honest men that lived and were actors in those times." Captain Richard Sprague was then living, and from him,

Everett, in his address commemorative of the bi-centennial of the arrival of Winthrop at Charlestown, in speaking of the three brothers, Ralph, Richard, and William Sprague, says they were " the founders of the settlement in this place," and " were persons of character, substance, and enterprise : excellent citizens ; generous public benefactors ; and the heads of a very large and respectable family of descendants." They arrived in Salem, - in 1628 says the record, but probably 1629 is the actual date of their coming, - and with three or four others journeyed through the woods " the same summer" to a " place situate and lying on the north side of Charles River, full of Indians, called Aberigians," whose chief at that time was Wonohaquaham (a son of Nanepashemit), called by the English Sagamore John, who lived either at Mystic Side or at Rumney Marsh (Chelsea), and owned land near Powder-Horn Hill. He was " a man naturally of a gentle and good disposition, by whose free consent they settled about the hill of the same place, . . . where they found but one English palisadoed and thatched house, wherein lived Thomas Walford, a smith, situate on the South End of the westermost hill of the East Field, a little way up from Charles River side."

Mention is made of Thomas Walford in a previous chapter2 of this volume, as one of Robert Gorges' company which arrived at Wessagusset (Weymouth) in 1623, and that he removed to Charlestown about 1625-1627, after the abandonment of the Wessagusset settlement. Wralford had a wife, Jane ; and Savage mentions two sons, Thomas and Jeremiah, besides several

Charlestown In The Colonial Period

May 3, 1631, the General Court fined him forty shillings, and enjoined him and his wife " to depart out of the limits of this patent before the twentieth day of October next, under pain of confiscation of his goods, for his contempt of authority, and confronting officers." He paid the fine by killing a wolf. September 3, 1633, the Court ordered "that the goods of Thomas VValford shall be sequestered ... to satisfy the debts he owes in the Bay to several persons." He removed with his family to Strawberry Bank (Portsmouth), where he was much esteemed ; had grants of land ; was often one of the selectmen, or "townsmen; " served on the grand jury; took an active interest in public affairs; and in 1640 was one of the church wardens with Henry Sherburne. His will is dated Nov. 15, 1660, and was proved six days later. The precise date of Walford's removal to Portsmouth is not known. In a deposition dated 1682, Henry Langstar, of Dover, testified that he knew Walford, of Portsmouth, fifty years before, which would indicate that 1632 was the year of his removal. In the Charlestown records, however, his name appears in a list of inhabitants on "the 9th of January, 1633-34," - four months after his goods had been sequestered. Probably he went to Portsmouth soon after this latter date, as his name does not again appear in our records.

On the tenth of March, 1628-29, the Massachusetts Company in England engaged Thomas Graves, a skilful engineer, of Gravesend, in Kent, to go to New England in their interest and lay out a town. Graves arrived at Salem in the fleet with Higginson in June, 1629; and during the same month, or early in July, in company with the Rev. Francis Bright and about one hundred other persons (among whom probably were the Spragues) he removed from Salem to Charlestown. Prince gives the date of their arrival here June 24 (or July 4, New Style), 1629, which, says Mr. Frothingham, is " the only date for the foundation of Charlestown for which good authority can be adduced."

The associates of the Spragues in the settlement of the town, whose names are recorded, were John Meech, Simon Hoyte, Abraham Palmer, Walter Palmer, Nicholas Stowers, John Stickline, Thomas Walford, " that lived here alone before," Thomas Graves, and the Rev. Francis Bright, who "jointly agreed and concluded that this place . . . shall henceforth, from the name of the river, be called Charlestown ; which was also confirmed by Mr. John Endicott, Governor." Mr. Graves proceeded without delay to " model and lay out the form of the town, with streets about the hill," which described an ellipse of which what are now Main Street and Bow Street constituted the periphery. It was agreed that each inhabitant should have a two-acre lot to plant upon ; and all were to fence in common. These lots were at once measured off. Ralph Sprague and others began to build their houses on Bow Street, and to fence the field laid out to them, which was situated on the northwest side of Town Hill. "Walter Palmer and one or two more shortly after began to build in a straight line upon their two-acre lots on the east side of the Town Hill, and set up a slight fence in common that ran up to Thomas Walford's fence ; and this was

It: was also the beginning of what is now the Main Street. Graves, with " some of the servants of the Company of Patentees . . . built the Great House . . . for such of the Said Company as are shortly to come over, which afterwards became the meeting-house." That this building was the only one deemed worthy to be called a house at the time of Winthrop's arrival in June, 1630, seems to be proved by the statement of Roger Clap (who visited the town a few days previously) that " we found some wigwams and one house;" unless, as Dr. Young1 suggests, reference was intended to Walford's house.

It was intended to place here the seat of government; but that purpose was speedily abandoned, chiefly on account of the lack of good water. The town records mention the arrival of Winthrop and of -

"Sir Richard Saltonstall, Knight, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dudley, Mr. Ludlow, Mr. Nowell, Mr. Pincheon [and] Mr. Bradstreet, who brought along with them the charter or patent for this jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Bay ; with whom also arrived Mr. John Wilson and Mr. [George] Phillips, ministers, and a multitude of people amounting to about fifteen hundred, brought over from England in twelve ships. The Governor and several of the patentees dwelt in the Great House. . . . The multitude set up cottages, booths, and tents about the Town Hill. They had long passage ; some of the ships were seventeen, some eighteen weeks a coming. Many people arrived sick of the scurvy, which also increased much after their arrival, for want of houses and by reason of wet lodging in their cottages ; and other distempers also prevailed ; and although [the] people were generally very loving and pitiful, yet the sickness did so prevail that the whole were not able to tend the sick as they should be tended ; upon which many perished and died, and were buried about the Town Hill."

The weather was hot, sickness prevailed, and a prejudice existed in the minds of many against water which was not taken from running springs. Only one of these could be found, and that " a brackish spring in the sands by the water side, on the west side of the North-west Field, which could not supply half the necessities of the multitude ; at which time the death of so many was concluded to be much the more occasioned by this want of good water." This spring, generally referred to as " The Great Spring," is believed to have been near the site of the State-prison.1 In this season of affliction Dr. Samuel Fuller came from Plymouth to minister to the sick; but lack of proper medicines prevented his rendering much assistance : -

" In the mean time, Mr. Blackstone, dwelling on the other side [of] Charles River alone, at a place called by yc Indians Shawmut . . . came and acquainted the Governor of an excellent spring there ; withal inviting him and soliciting him thither. Whereupon, after the death of Mr. Johnson 2 and divers others, the Governor, with Mr. Wilson and the greatest part of the Church [which had been gathered here July 30] removed thither [September 7] ; whither also the frame of the Governor's house, in preparation at this town, was also (to the discontent of some) carried ; where people began to build their houses against winter ; and this place was called Boston." 3

The first three sessions of the Court of Assistants were held in Charlestown: Aug. 23, 1630, when provision was made for the maintenance of the ministers, and the next session appointed at the Governor's house at eight o'clock in the morning; also September 7, and again September 28. From and after October 19, however, the Court convened in Boston.

The persons who came with Winthrop, but remained in Charlestown after his removal to Boston, were Increase Nowell, Esq., Mr. William Aspinwall, Mr. Richard Palsgrave, physician, Edward Converse, William Penn, William Hudson, Mr. John Glover, William Brackenbury, Rice Cole, Hugh Garrett, Ezekiel Richardson, John Baker, and John Sales. Besides these were also Captain Francis Norton, Mr. Edward Gibbons, Mr. William Jennings, and John Wignall, who " went and built in the Main on the north-east side of the north-west creek of this town."

September 6, 1631, the General Court granted to Governor Winthrop a farm of six hundred acres at Mystic, where his summer residence was located. Here he had built a bark of thirty tons called " The Blessing of the Bay," which was launched July 4th of the same year. The farm was called by the Governor " Ten Hills," from the number of elevations which could be counted upon it ; and what remains of it is so designated at the present day.4

July 2, 1633, the General Court ordered that "the ground lying betwixt the North river and the Creek on the North side of Mr. Maverick's, and up into the country, shall belong to the inhabitants of Charlestown." This was the territory known as Mystic Side.

March 3, 1635-36, the Court "ordered that Charlestown bounds shall run eight miles into the country from their meeting-house, if no other bounds intercept, reserv-

1 The site of the prison was, for more than a "fountains of living water;" but a later and better century, known as Lynde's Point. authority, Dr. Trumbull gives another meaning

3 A writer in Mass, ffist. Coll., xx. 174, thinks Winthrop, a reduced heliotype of a plan of this that " Mishawumut " means "a great spring," estate, made in October, 1637, is given in another and " Shawmut " (the Indian name for Boston), place in this volume.

ing the propriety of farms granted to John Winthrop, Esq., Mr. Nowell, Mr. Cradock, and Mr. Wilson, to the owners thereof, as also free ingress and egress for the Servants and Cattle of the said gentlemen, and common for their cattle, on the back side of Mr. Cradock's farm."

May 13, 1640, the Court made another grant to the town of "two miles at their head line, provided it fall not within the bounds of Lynn Village [Reading], and that they build within two years," - that is, begin the settlement of a town which subsequently was set off, in 1642, as Woburn, or "Charlestown Village" as it was then called. On the Seventh of October following, the Court granted to Charlestown " the proportion of four miles square with their former last grant to make a village,

By the terms of this grant Cambridge line was not to be crossed ; and the bounds of the tract granted were not to " come within a mile of Shawshine River ; and the Great Swamp and Pond " were to lie in common.

Nov. 12, 1659, the last considerable grant to the town was made by the General Court. It comprised one thousand acres at Sowheaganucke, on the west side of Merrimack River, and was laid out, " for the use of the school of Charlestown," in October, 1660.

The affairs of the town were conducted by the freemen in general townmeeting until June 13, 1634, when " it was agreed and concluded that Mr. Thomas Beecher, Mr. William Jennings, and Ralph Sprague be at townmeetings to assist in ordering their affairs, and that they present this town at the General Court held at New Towne in September next in the quality of Deputies." A fine was early imposed for non-attendance upon townmeetings. Feb. 10, 1634-35, the famous town order creating a board of selectmen was passed.2 It is expressed in the following words : -

" 1 634. - In consideration of the great trouble and chearg of the Inhabitants of Charlestowne by reason of the Frequent meeting of the townsmen in general!, and y' by reason of many men meeting things were not so easily brought unto a ioynt Issue : It is therefore agreed by the sayde townesmen ioyntly that these eleuen men whose names are written one the other syde, wth the advice of Pastor and teacher, desired in any case of conscience, shall entreat of all such busines as shall conscerne the townsmen, The choise of officers excepted, And what they or the greater part of them shall conclude of, the rest of the towne willingly to submit vnto as their owne pper act, and these 13 [sit] to contineu in this imployment for one yeare next ensuing the date hereof, being dated this : ioth of February, 1634.

2 A heliotype of what remains of the origi- of Charlestyiun. Cf. Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc., nal document and the signatures attached to it Oct. 21, 1870.

names are vnder written haue set to JOHN GREENE ABRA : MELLOWS WILL? FROTHINGHAM THOMAS GOBEL WALTER ~| POPE his mark RICHARD S SPRAGUE [his mark] JAMES % PEMBERTON his mark THOMAS SQUIRE WILLIAM SPRAGUE THOMAS PIEARCE EDWARD JOHNES RICE MAURIS ROBEART SHORTTAS GEAG HUCHINSON RICHARD PALGRAUE

The eleven selectmen first chosen under this order were Increase Nowell, Thomas Beecher, Ezekiel Richardson, Walter Palmer, Ralph Sprague, William Brackenbury, Edward Con- -. verse, Thomas Lynde, Abraham - - ~^fl/O -?& &^b Palmer, John Mousall, and Rob ert Moulton.

Mr. Nowell was the first Town Clerk of Charlestown. He was succeeded by Sergeant Abraham Palmer, who was chosen March 26, 1638. Elder Greene was the next incumbent of the office, upon which he entered Jan.

2, 1645-46. Captain Samuel Adams was Greene's successor ; but I am unable to determine the precise date of his first service. He acted in the capacity of Recorder as early as 1653 ; and a record is preserved of his election to office Jan. 3, 1658-59. He was a son of Henry Adams of Braintree ; married (i) he was town clerk; and died Jan. 24, 1688-89, aged 72. Edward Burt succeeded Adams. He was son of Hugh Burt of Lynn ; came with his father in the " Abigail" in 1635, then aged 8 years; had a patent to make salt granted him for ten years by the General Court, in 1652; and executed an agreement in that year with Governor Bradstreet, then of Andover, concerning salt works. He married Elizabeth Bunker daughter of George the Devonshire family." He was here as early as 1640 ; had wife Eleanor and six children ; was chosen Recorder Nov. 3, 1662; and died Nov. 2, 1681, aged 81. Captain Laurence Hammond was elected to succeed Cary, Jan. 27, 1672 - 73 ; and he in turn was succeeded by the Hon. James Russell, Jan. 14, 1677-78. John Newell was the next incumbent of the office, to which he (7 was chosen March u, 1678-79, holding <27^ the position nearly twenty years, with /"*

June 1688 till June 1689, - when Samuel Phipps, the Schoolmaster acted as Recorder. Newell was a cooper, but appears to have been well descended. His father, Andrew Newell, was a merchant from Bristol, England; and his mother was Mary Pitt, daughter of William Pitt, who had been sheriff of Bristol. Maud Pitt, who was the first wife of the Hon. Richard Russell, is believed to have been another daughter of the sheriff. Mr. Newell married Hannah Larkin; and he died Oct. 14 or 15, 1704, aged 70 years and 2 months.

One of the earliest orders of the town provided that " the great Cornfield shall be on the east side of the Town Hill, the fence to range along even with those dwellings where Walter Palmer's house stands and so along towards the neck of land ; and that every inhabitant dwelling within the neck be given two acres of land for an house-plot and two acres for every male that is able to plant." This field was subsequently known as the " East field within the Neck." It embraced all that section of the town lying between Main Street and Charles-River Avenue on the west and the Mystic River on the east, and was sometimes called the Town Field. Within its limits were three hills, - Bunker's,1 Breed's, and Moulton's, the last of which had formerly an elevation of thirty-five or forty feet. Breed's Hill was about sixty feet high, while Bunker's Hill - the highest land in the town - was one hundred and ten feet. In 1677 Moulton's Point Field is mentioned. It probably was the extreme easterly portion of the East Field. There were other " Fields " subsequently laid out, - East Field without the neck, which was sometimes known as Northfield and also as Highfield, was on the north side of Mystic River and extended to Penny Ferry; Waterfield, near Woburn ; Menotomy Field, contiguous to Arlington; Mystic-Side Field, now in the town of Maiden ; Linefield, which included the West Field, without the neck ; Northwest Field, within the peninsula,

* George Bunker, from whom the hill takes He died in Maiden in 1664. The Rev. Benjaits name, was one of the most wealthy inhabi- mm Bunker (H. C. 1658), who died Feb. 3, tants, and one of the greatest landed proprietors. 1669-70, was his son.

and located near Washington Street; besides other "Fields" of less extent and importance. There wa"s also the Stinted Pasture, so called, - a large tract of common land which lay between the Winter-Hill road and Cambridge.

The first considerable division of land among the inhabitants generally was voted Jan. 9, 1633-34, when it was ordered that ten acres be laid out to every inhabitant at Mystic Side. In 1635 twenty-nine persons voluntarily surrendered half of their allotments for the accommodation of new comers. This division appears not to have been recorded till 1637, and the date has given rise to an erroneous impression that the division was made in that year. In 1635 a large tract of " Hayground ... on Mystic Side" was laid out by a committee of the town to the inhabitants. In 1638 there was another considerable division of land on Mystic Side which was included in the tract set off to Maiden in 1726. On the 28th of October, 1640, two hundred acres were laid out to thirty-five persons ; and there was still another division in 1641. March i, 1657-58, another committee laid out " the wood and commons" on Mystic Side to two hundred and two families. In 1685 the Stinted Pasture was laid out to those having propriety in it; and the division of the common lands was thereby completed."

The importance of preserving a record of the ownership and transfer of land in the colony was early recognized by the General Court, and legislation to that end was had. In Charlestown the compilation of the volume known as the " Book of Possessions " 1 was begun in 1638 by Sergeant Abraham Palmer, who was then the Town . ^ ^-> n s~i

New England. He was a member of the first assembly of Representatives in 1634, and was held in high esteem in the town which he faithfully served in civil and military capacities. He died in Barbadoes, in 1653.

The Town Hill, upon which the present meeting-house of the First Parish stands, is sometimes called Harvard Hill. In early times it was called Windmill Hill, because of the mill upon its summit which William Tuttle had leave granted to him to build in 1635. In 1646 it was ordered that the ground on the top of this hill should lie common to the town forever. The hill was originally much higher than it is now, - a great quantity of gravel having been dug from it, at different times, prior to the Revolution.

Burial Hill, on the west side of the town, is first mentioned in the town records in 1648. Cobble Hill is the site of the McLean Asylum; Ploughed Hill, known later as Mount Benedict, the site of the Ursuline Convent which was destroyed in 1834; and Walnut-Tree Hill the site of Tufts College, - all in Somerville. Powder-Horn Hill, Prospect Hill, and Winter Hill, also referred to in the records, bear the same designations at the present day.

The Training Field, used for military purposes, and now known as Winthrop Square, is also mentioned in our records for the first time under date of 1648. A diagram showing its shape, dimensions, and principal abutters in 1713, found among the papers of the late Mr. Thomas Bellows Wyman, is here reproduced. The figures indicate the dimensions as shown by the surveys made in 1713-14 and 1802, respectively: -

John Edes, who was the founder in New England of the once numerous family of this name in Charlestown, was born in Lawford, in the county of Essex, England, March 31, 1651, where his grandfather, of the same name, had been rector of the parish for forty years, ending with his death in 1658.

The emigrant was the owner of the estate on the training-field as early as 1687; but the records fail to show his title. The property remained in the possession of his descendants till 1790, when Stephen Edes, a great-grandson of the emigrant, sold the estate to the town. An alms-house was subsequently built upon a part of the purchase ; but it long since gave place to brick dwelling-houses. Its location may be seen by reference to Peter Tufts's plan of Charlestown in 1818, which will appear in a later volume of this work.

" The Square " was for many years referred to as the Market Place, where " a market was kept constantly on the sixth day of every week." Wapping, or Wapping End, was the name given to a section of the town now included, for the most part, within the Navy Yard, and in the neighborhood of Wapping Street. Sconce Point lay between Wapping Street, Wapping Dock, the Town Dock, and Charles River; while Moulton's Point is identical with the region now known as " The Point," contiguous to Chelsea Bridge.

In 1670 the first survey and record of the streets and highways was made.1 The two principal ones were Main Street (otherwise known as Market Street, the Country Road, the Town Street, Fore Street, Street to the Ferry, and Wast Street) and Bow Street, also called Elbow Lane and Crooked Lane.

The Great House, first used as the official residence of the Governor, was purchased in 1633, by the town, of John Winthrop and other gentlemen, for £10, and used as a meeting-house until it was sold, for £30, to - Robert Long in 1635, when it became a tavern,

/ofS or "ordinary," sometimes known as the "Three Cranes," from its sign. It stood wholly in the market-place, in front of the building, lately the City Hall, at the corner of Harvard Street. The tavern was kept by Mr. Long and his descendants till 1711, when it was sold to Eben Breed, in whose family it remained until the land was bought by the town to enlarge the Square, after the Revolution. The building is believed to have been standing on the I7th of June, 1775, when the town was burned. In speaking of Governor Winthrop's discountenance of the custom of the drinking or pledging of healths at table, Mr. Winthrop, in his charming biography of his illustrious ancestor,2 remarks that "there is reason for thinking that 'the Great House' in Charlestown was still the Governor's abode when this reform was first introduced into the social circles of New England." March 16, 1 680-81, the General Court passed an order regulating the number of taverns which might be lawfully kept in each town in the colony. Three were permitted to Charlestown, and their keepers and one retailer of wine were all to be licensed annually by the selectmen.

The First Church of Boston was formed in this town July 30, 1630, when a covenant was entered into and signed by John Winthrop, Thomas Dudley, Isaac Johnson, and John Wilson, the last named being chosen teacher of the church August 27th following.3 This was the third church established in the colony, Salem and Dorchester only taking precedence of Boston.4

1 Printed in the Third Report of the Boston the Spragues in the preceding year. He was Record Commissioners, pp. 186-188. from Rayleigh in the County of Essex; leaned

The congregation worshipped under a large tree, more than once referred to as " Charlestown Oak," - which Dr. Bartlett1 located, from tradition, on Town Hill, - and afterwards in the Great House, until the removal for worship to Boston, which took place in September. For two years those members of the congregation who remained in Charlestown attended worship in Boston ; but this was found inconvenient, especially during the winter, and on the Fourteenth of October, 1632, thirty-five members "were dismissed from the Congregation of Boston," at their own request. These persons chose the Rev. Thomas James, then recently arrived from England, as their pastor, and entered " into church covenant the 2d of the 9th month 1632," as the First Church in Charlestown, which thus became the seventh church established in the colony, - the churches in Watertown, Roxbury, and Lynn having been organized in this order after the founding of the First Church in Boston.

The Great House was first used by the new church as a meeting-house. About 1636 another building appears to have been occupied by the congregation ; but its location - " between the town and the neck " - cannot now be determined. Nov. 26, 1639, William Rainsborough bought the old meeting-house for .£100, which was used towards paying for " the new meeting-house newly built in the town, on the south side of the Town Hill." This building occupied a site on the north side of the Square, between the late City Hall and the entrance to Main Street, - about where Mr. Swallow's grocery now stands, - and was the last house of worship here built and occupied during the colonial period.

among the colonists, was the only ^7 4~f i~? ) ^5-4 one °f tne Assistants who continued £A./}- *V&* a >l?*~ t° reside in Charlestown after the removal to Boston. He was the first ruling elder of the Boston church, but resigned the eldership upon a question being raised as to the propriety of his holding it while an incumbent of a civil office. He was for many years secretary of the colony. Dr. Budington regarded him as " the father of the church and the town " here ; and in an elaborate note in his History of the First Clnircli^ he has given a sketch of Mr. Nowell's family and his public services.

Mr. James's ministry appears to have been a short and troubled one ; and he was dismissed March 11, 1636. The Rev. Zechariah Symmes was next ordained teacher of the church, Dec. 22, ~z.if£: jy****'- 1634; and during his ministry the Antinomian controversy,3 which distracted the colony for some years, culminated, among other results, in the banishment of the Rev. John Wheelwright. A written remonstrance against this act of the General Court was presented to it. The document,

2 Pages 190-192. See also N. E. Hist, and Commonwealth" in the present volume. See Geneal. Reg., xxxiv. 253 et seq. [Cf. Mr. Whit- also the same writer's Life of Anne Hutchinson, more's chapter in the present volume. - ED.] published in Sparks's American Biography.

which bore the signatures of several Charlestown men, was held to be seditious ; and the signers were called to account for having subscribed it. Ten of them acknowledged their " sin," and requested to have their names erased from the paper. George Bunker and James Brown, however, maintained their position and refused to recant; whereupon the constables of Charlestown were ordered to disarm them unless they acknowledged their error " or give other satisfaction for their liberty." Deacon Ralph Mousall, another of the signers, " for his speeches in favor of Mr. Wheelwright" was dismissed from the General Court Sept. 6, 1638. Mr. Symmes died Feb. 4, 1671, aged 72. 1 The Rev. John Harvard was admitted an inhabitant Aug. I, 1637, and "was sometimes minister of God's word " in this town during Mr. Symmes's pastorate ; but no account of his ordination has been preserved. He was highly esteemed for his scholarship and piety; received grants of land from the town; was placed on an im- portant committee " to consider of some things tending towards a body of laws," April 26, 1638; and before his death, from consumption, Sept. 14 (24, New Style), 1638, he bequeathed, by a nuncupative will, to the proposed college, afterwards named in his honor.'one half of his estate, together with his library. His house occupied the site now making the southerly corner of Main Street and the alley, ascended by steps, formerly called Gravel Lane, leading up to Town Hill. He was graduated at Emanuel College, Cambridge,

1 [Cf. The Symmes Memorial. A Biographical Sketch of the Rev. Zechariah Symmes, with a Genealogy. By John Adams Vinton, Boston, 1873. For family alliances, see Mr. Whitmore's chapter in the present volume. - ED.]

is supposed to have been buried (somewhere about the foot of Town Hill, near the " Square "), but upon the highest ground on Burial Hill, which at the time of its erection commanded a view of the college. Cf. note in Sewall Papers, i. 447, and Budington's Hist, of First Church.

in 1631, and proceeded A.M. in 1635. He was admitted to the church in Charlestown Nov. 6, 1637. His widow, Ann, married the Rev. Thomas Allen. A monument to his memory was erected in our ancient burial ground by graduates of Harvard College. It was dedicated Sept. 26, 1828, when an address was delivered by Edward Everett, and prayer was offered by President Walker, who was at that time pastor of the Second (Unitarian) Church here. The next pastor, the Rev. Thomas Allen, came to New England in 1639 ; was installed the same year as teacher of this church, and continued as such till 1651, when he was dismissed and returned to England, where he died Sept. 21, 1673, at the age of 65. During his ministry occurred the troubles with the Baptists, of which there were many in the town. Stephen Fosdick was among the number. He was fined £20, and May 7, 1643, was excommunicated. But he was restored to membership Feb. 28, 1663-64. Thomas Gould, who was pastor of the First a member of this church and, like Fosdick, was excommunicated for his heresy July 30, 1665. Thomas Shepard (H. C. 1653) was ordained April 13, 1659, and died of small-pox Dec. 22, 1677, at the age of 43. He was a man of great learning and influence. He preached the Annual Election Sermon in 1672, and after his death ^~ ) Z President Oakes delivered a Latin oration and °^ composed an elegy upon him. He was succeeded by his son, Thomas Shepard (H. C. 1676), who was ordained May 5, 1680, when he received the Right Hand of fellowship from President Oakes. He was the last minister installed here before the abrogation of the colony charter, and died June 7, 1685, aged 27.1

John Greene was the only ruling elder which the Charlestown church ever had. He was prominent in civil as well as ecclesiastical affairs, being n <jrce;t£. . Recorder of the town for several years as wel1 as one of tne selectmen. His hand- ' writing was superlatively beautiful, at a time when chirography was generally very bad. He died April 22, 1658, aged 65.

Ordinations were celebrated with great hospitality, not to say hilarity; and the customs of the colonial peViod permitted much in the way of gastronomy and conviviality which in these days would shock the sensibilities of even the " advanced " thinkers among us.