Curiosities of History:

BOSTON

September Seventeenth,

1630-1880.

BY
WILLIAM W. WHEILDON.

SECOND EDITION.

BOSTON:
LEE AND SHEPARD, PUBLISHERS.
NEW YORK:
CHARLES T. DILLINGHAM.
1880.

Copyright, 1880,
By WILLIAM W. WHEILDON.

Author’s Address:
Box 229, Concord, Mass.

Franklin Press:
Rand, Avery, & Company,
117 Franklin Street,
Boston.

AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED
TO MY WIFE,
JULIET REBECCA WHEILDON,
IN COMMEMORATION OF THE
Fifty-first Year of our Married Life,
MAY 28, 1880.

WILLIAM W. WHEILDON.

[Pg v]

INTRODUCTION.

It seems proper to say in offering this little volume to the public, that no attempt has been made to exhaust the subjects of which the papers respectively treat; but rather to enlarge upon matters of historical interest to Boston, which have been referred to only in a general way by historians and previous writers.—This idea rather than any determination to select merely curious topics, has in a large measure influenced the writer; and the endeavor has been to treat them freely and fairly, and present what may be new, or comparatively new, concerning them, from such sources as are now accessible and have been open to the writer. It is not, however, intended to say that an impulse towards some curious matters of history has not been indulged, and, indeed, considering the subjects and materials which presented themselves, could scarcely have been avoided, which was by no means desirable. Although it has been impertinently said, that “the most curious[Pg vi] thing to be found is a woman not curious,” we submit that curiosity is a quality not to be disparaged by wit or sarcasm, but is rather the germ and quality of progress in art and science and history.

It has been impossible to correct or qualify, or perhaps we might say avoid, all the errors, mistakes, or contradictions, which have been encountered in preparing these pages; and very possibly we may have inadvertently added to the number. At all events, with our best endeavors against being drawn into or multiplying errors, we lay no claim to invulnerability in the matter of accuracy, or immaculacy in the way of opinions; and we very sincerely add, if errors or mistakes have been made and are found, we shall be glad to be apprised of them. There are errors in our history which it is scarcely worth the while to attempt to correct, although they are not to be countenanced and should not be repeated.

A period of two hundred and fifty years since the settlement of the town includes and covers a history of no ordinary character, involving progress and development, not merely of customs, manners and opinions, but of principles, passions and government. The city is a creation, as it were, by the art and industry of man; and, with the reverence of Cotton Mather himself, we add, “With the help of God!” and we [Pg vii]venture the comparison that no change or growth, improvement or embellishment, is to be found in the settlement or the city, that may not be paralleled in the growth, advancement and elevation of its people: indeed, we go even farther than this, the material progress to be seen around us, in all its multifarious forms and combinations, item by item, small or great, is indicative only of the advancement of the people, and marks the progress of moral, mental and intellectual power—of art, science and knowledge.

We take this opportunity to acknowledge our indebtedness to several friends for the loan and use of many rare and valuable works in the preparation of this history, and in particular to Messrs. John A. Lewis and John L. DeWolf, of Boston, and Mr. J. Ward Dean, of the N. E. His. Gen. Society.

[Pg viii]

[Pg ix]

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

[Pg xi]

[Pg xii]

Larger Image

[Pg 13]

I.

TOPOGRAPHY OF BOSTON.

THE ORIGINAL PENINSULA.

There is a line of Cowper to the effect that “God made the country, and man made the town;” and there is probably no more striking evidence of the truthfulness of the axiom than is to be found in the history and growth of Boston, between the years 1630 and 1880, confirming in a remarkable manner Capt. Wood’s prophecy concerning the town, in 1650: viz., “whose continuall inlargement presages some sumptuous city.” The original territory which has formed the basis, so to speak, of Boston proper, was a peninsula, and appeared like two islands, or, by the continued operation of the sea, was likely to become so. Its distinguishing feature was to be found in its three prominent hills, or, perhaps, its two hills and its three-peaked mountain. These were her jewels: they have since represented her fame, her history, her sentiments; for these were all wrapped around them. The peninsula was a point of land projected into the harbor, with a narrow neck connecting it with the mainland, and another narrow[Pg 14] place in the vicinity of what is now Dock Square, which was once quite open to the harbor. In length from the south line at Roxbury, it was something less than three miles (two and three-fourths and two hundred and thirty-eight yards). Its width at the widest point, between Wheelwright’s wharf (afterwards Rowe’s, and now Foster’s) to Barton’s Point, Leverett Street, was something over one mile, and its circumference about four miles.

CURIOUS EARLY DESCRIPTIONS.

The first impression of the “island” which has been recorded is that of Anne Pollard, who died in Boston, Dec. 6, 1725, at the age of 105 years, and left over one hundred descendants. She always said that she came over from Charlestown, in 1630, in the first boat that crossed with Gov. Winthrop’s party, and, being what might now be called a romping girl for those times, ten years of age, was “the first to jump ashore;” and she afterwards described the place “as being at that time very uneven, abounding in small hollows and swamp, and covered with blueberry and other bushes.” We do not think there is any one inclined to dispute this statement, or question its truthfulness.

There are several descriptions of early Boston, topographical and otherwise, which have been quoted by subsequent writers upon the subject, rather as curious and original than as having any particular merit in themselves. First among these is that of Capt. Edward Johnson, in his “Wonder-Working Providence of Sion’s Saviour in New England,” written[Pg 15] about 1640. He describes it as surrounded by the brinish flood, “saving one small Istmos which gives free access to the neighbor townes,” and says, “At their first landing the hideous thickets in this place were such that wolfes and beares nurst up their young from the eyes of all beholders.... The forme of this Towne is like a hearte, naturally situated for fortifications, having two hills on the frontice part thereof next the sea.” These were Fort and Mill (Copps’) Hills. “Betwixt these two strong armes lies a large cove or bay, on which the chiefest part of the town is built, overtopped with a third hill” (Sentry or Beacon Hill). There were two smaller hills on the Common, on one of which Gen. Gage afterwards built a battery, when the town was in his military possession, and on the other a powder-house.

Another curious description of Boston is given in Wood’s “New England’s Prospect:”—

“Boston is two miles North-east from Roxberry. His situation is very pleasant, being a Peninsula hemm’d in on the south side with the Bay of Roxberry, and on the north side with Charles River, the marshes on the back side being not half a quarter of a mile over; so that a little fencing will secure their cattle from the woolves. It being a Necke and bare of wood, they are not troubled with those great annoyances, wolves, rattlesnakes and musquetoes.... This Necke of Land is not above four miles in compasse, in forme almost square, having on the south side at one corner a great broad hill, whereon is planted a Fort, which can command any ship as shee sayles into any Harbour within the still Bay. On the north side is another Hill equall in bignesse, whereon stands a winde mill. To the north-west is a high Mountaine, with three little rising Hills on the top of it, wherfore it is called Tramount.... This town although it be neither the greatest, nor the richest, yet is the[Pg 16] most noted and frequented, being the Center of the Plantations, where the monthly Courts are kept. Here likewise dwells the Governor. This place hath very good land, affording rich Corne-fields, and fruitful gardens, having likewise sweete and pleasant springs.”

There were two large coves projecting into the peninsula,—one from the harbor and one from Charles River, nearly opposite to each other, and producing the narrow portion of the land already spoken of, so that if the peninsula was not formed of two islands originally, as has been supposed, the cutting of a creek across this narrow portion, nearly on the line of Blackstone Street, and uniting the waters of the two coves, had the effect practically to make it so, at least at such times as the waters of Charles River and the harbor met across the neck, near Roxbury; so that the peninsula can hardly be said to have been heart-shaped, much less square.

But the most curious description of Boston, though it may hardly be called such, is that given by Edward Ward—a low, but ingenious and scandalous author, whose book cannot enter a decent presence—in his “Trip to New England.”[1] He says of “Boston and the Inhabitants,”—

These extracts afford no idea of the scandalous character of the book, nor do even sentences like these: “The women, like the men, are excessive smokers.” “They smoke in bed, smoke as they knead their bread, smoke whilst they are cooking their victuals, smoke at prayers,” &c. “Eating, drinking, smoking, and sleeping take up four parts in five of their time,” &c. “Rum, alias kill-devil, is as much ador’d by the American English, as a dram of brandy is by an old billingsgate,” &c. We can give our readers no further idea of the gross and indecent character of the whole volume, without offending in the way the author has done.

THE SOUTH COVE.

The South Cove extended from what is now Batterymarch Street to near the North Battery, at the foot of Fleet Street, curving inward as far as Kilby Street and near the old State House, with creeks extending towards Spring Lane, Milk and Federal Streets. Dearborn says, “Winthrop’s Marsh, [Pg 18]afterwards called Oliver’s Dock, was near Kilby Street, and between the corner and Milk Street, a creek ran up to Spring Lane.” An aged citizen once said he remembered hearing Dr. Chauncy say that he had taken smelts in Milk Street; and a Mr. Marshall remembered that when a boy they were caught in Federal Street, near the meeting-house, (Dr. Channing’s). Another aged inhabitant is reported to have said, that, in the great storm of 1723, “we could sail in boats from the South Battery to the rise of ground in King Street,” near the old State House. Dock Square was at the head of a small cove, the tide rising nearly to the pump, which was formerly there, at the foot of Cornhill. The statue of Sam Adams, recently erected, is directly over the well in which the pump stood.

A narrow point or tongue of land projected into the cove between the Town Dock (then near Faneuil Hall) and Mill Creek, and upon this land stood the celebrated triangular warehouse,—a remarkable building for the time. It stood opposite the Swing Bridge, and a little north of the dock, measuring forty-one feet on Roebuck Passage (named after the tavern near it), and fifty feet on the back side. Near this place, in the small square formed by the junction of Ann, Union, and Elm Streets, was the Flat Conduit, so called. Ann Street was originally Conduit Street as far as Cross Street; and Union Street, in 1732, lead from the conduit to the Mill Pond.

Around the South Cove, as has been said, in the early time the chiefest part of the town was built; and from thence it gradually expanded along the shore[Pg 19] to the south and to the west. John Josselyn, in 1638, visited Boston, and wrote a volume entitled “New England Rarities,” in which he says, “It was then rather a village than a town, there being not above twenty or thirty houses.”

THE NORTH COVE.

The Cove on the north side of the peninsula, Charles River, commenced near the Charlestown Ferry, curving inwardly nearly to Prince Street, Baldwin Place, Haymarket Square, nearly on the line of Leverett Street, to Barton’s Point, where the almshouse formerly stood. “The Mill Pond,” as it was afterwards called, says Shurtleff, “was bounded by portions of Prince and Endicott Streets on the east, and Leverett Street, Tucker’s pasture, and Bowling Green on the west; and on the south it covered the whole space of Haymarket Square. Most of the estates on what is now Salem Street, ... and on the west on Hawkins Street and Green Street, extended to the Mill Pond Cove.” The margin of the cove, it is said by another, “passed across Union, Friend, and Portland Streets, to the bottom of Hawkins Street; thence westerly, across Pitts and Gouch Streets, to Leverett Street, which at one time was called Mill Alley. The descent of the land here was very steep. A street was laid out on the line of Temple Street [Staniford] from Leverett Street to Beacon Hill, where steps led to the top of the hill, a hundred and thirty-eight feet above the sea.”

 [Pg 20]

THE MILL CREEK.

The Creek, or the Mill Creek, as it was afterwards called, was undoubtedly prior to the formation of the Mill Pond; and it is doubtful if it was ever included in it, although Shaw conveys the idea that the North Cove was simply a piece of salt marsh, and that the creek was used for the purpose of covering it with water at flood-tide, and thus forming a mill-pond. As early as the 5th of July, 1631, an order was passed by the Court of Assistants, “that £30 be levied on the several plantations for clearing a creek, and opening a passage to the new town,”—the town at this time being the settlement around the South Cove; so that the “clearing of a creek” was “a work of industry” on a small scale for such an enterprise. It was made across the narrow neck of land between the two great coves, and while it united the waters of Charles River with the harbor, divided the peninsula into two islands or sections. The creek, whatever its relations may have been to the Mill Pond in the later years of its existence, was used by the boats coming from the Middlesex Canal, which terminated at Charlestown Neck, and furnished to them a shorter way to the harbor with their freights of wood, lumber, &c. A few extracts from the town records will afford some further insight into the character and uses of the creek.

In 1648, in describing the property of Thomas Marshall, who owned some land near the Water Mill, Mill Creek, it is stated, “with liberty of egress and regress in said creek with boats, lighters, and other[Pg 21] vessels;” and it is added, “Thomas Marshall shall not build any nearer the creek than the now dwelling-house of said Milom, and that he shall not hinder the mills going by any vessel in the creek.”

THE MILL POND.

The Mill Pond was formed by the building of a causeway across the head of the cove, as the street now runs, where there was, it would seem, a sort of Indian causeway, or pathway, at some prior time. It is represented by writers on the subject to have been built from Leverett Street to the Charlestown[Pg 22] Ferry; but as this would include the creek, built some ten or twelve years before, this seems to be impossible; for if the creek was connected with the pond, without a gate to shut it off, there could be no mill-power. The creek, therefore, must have been separated from the pond by a gate, while there was a gate from the pond into Charles River.

However, the causeway was built, and the mill-pond and the water-power it furnished, used for more than a hundred years without any special publicity or inquiry concerning them. In fact, it would seem as if the subject, and the large piece of territory involved, had been pretty much forgotten; so that in 1765, in March, a committee was appointed to inquire “by what terms the mill-owners held the mill-pond mills.” In May following, this committee reported, that on the 31st of July, 1643, there was granted to Henry Simons, George Burden, John Hill, and their partners, all the cove on the north-west side of the causeway leading towards Charlestown, with all the salt marsh bordering thereupon, not formerly granted, on these conditions: that within three years they erect thereon one or more corn-mills, “and maintain the same forever; also make a gate ten feet wide to open with the flood for the passage of boats into the cove,” &c. This gate was also to be “maintained forever.”

The Mill Pond, it is said, included about fifty acres,—nearly as large as the north end island,—and, of course, must have furnished during the time it was available—from an hour or two after full tide until an hour or two before the next tide, night and[Pg 23] day—a very large and extensive water-power, and was, no doubt, though probably not half used, a very valuable property.

It is stated by Drake, as if it were a consequence of the action of the committee, that, “four years after the above report, a committee took possession of the premises, as having reverted to the town.” These proceedings, it will be noticed, all refer to the “mill-pond mills,” but may be presumed to include the pond and the whole grant made in 1643; so that in 1769 the property was in the hands of the town, as appears from these statements.

After this time, by some means or other, the Mill Pond Company, or Corporation, came into possession of the property, as Shaw says, “for the consideration of five dollars;” and in 1807, the town became a partner in the matter of tilling it up, the town to have the streets, we presume, and one-eighth of the lots filled within twenty years. Permission was also given to use the gravel of Beacon Hill for the purpose. The filling was completed more than fifty years ago, and the entire space has long been covered with buildings, and in 1832 included a theatre. The Boston and Maine Railroad Station stands over the creek; and the large depot buildings of the Fitchburg, Eastern, and Lowell Railroads are all on land taken from the river outside the ancient causeway: so that no one of the great railroad depots in the city stands upon the original land of the town.

 [Pg 24]

CONCLUSION.

Thus we have seen what were the features and topographical characteristics of the original peninsula which forms the groundwork, as it were, of the city proper of to-day. In the steady march of progress and improvements which have marked its growth for two hundred and fifty years, such changes and enlargements have been made, that neither its early outlines or its original shape are any where to be observed. The great coves on either side of the town have disappeared; and the renowned Tri-mountain, around which so much of history gathered, and so much of puritanism and patriotism were enshrined, is shorn of its ancient prestige, although still, as it were, the summit of State authority; and of “Corne Hill,” whereon the settlers of Boston, Charlestown, Roxbury, and Dorchester, in 1632, built the first fort for the defence of the settlement, not a vestige now remains.

Yet, broad and extensive as these improvements and enlargements of the original peninsula have been, they are at least equalled, if not exceeded, by what has been accomplished in other parts of the town; so that Boston proper—at first two islands, or nearly so, and afterwards a peninsula—has long ceased to be either the one or the other, and must now be regarded as a portion of the mainland. And this, too, while Charles River, by encroachments upon its bed on both sides, the numerous wharves projecting into it, and the bridges, railroads, and other structures resting upon its bottom, has been reduced in its [Pg 25]proportions to one-third of its original size, and, in fact, has almost ceased to be a river in the proper sense of that term. So also on the south side of the town: Four Point Channel, which reached to Dover-street bridge, is now a narrow stream; and the South Bay, which lay between Roxbury and South Boston, has been greatly reduced in its proportions, and is crossed by the New England Railroad. So that it may be said, the city proper to-day stands consolidated on one side of the ancient neck with Roxbury and Dorchester, and on the other with Roxbury and Brookline. There still remain, however, a section of Charles River, forming a bay of itself, between Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline, and a considerable portion of the South Bay between Roxbury and South Boston. Brookline—originally Muddy Brook—was formerly considered as belonging to Boston, and its lands were apportioned among the early settlers of the town for agricultural purposes and the keeping of cattle. It is now nearly surrounded by the enlarged city, Brighton and Roxbury both belonging to Boston.

There is, however, one feature of Boston which may be said to remain intact, and that is Boston Common. When the settlers bought the peninsula of William Blackstone, or all his interest in it, excepting six acres, which he reserved for his own occupation, “the town laid out a place for a training-field, which ever since and now is used for that purpose, and for the feeding of cattle.” This was undoubtedly the origin of Boston Common; and the date of the transaction, as appears from the town records, was on[Pg 26] “the 10th daye of the 9th month, 1634,” which, as the year commenced with March, would be November, 1634. It has undergone many changes, some enlargement by filling up the marsh on the river side, and numerous improvements in its general appearance by laying out its malls and walks, setting out trees, excluding cattle, walling around Crescent Pond (formerly Frog Pond), introduction of the Cochituate water and fountains, and, last, by the erection of the Army and Navy Monument on its highest elevation, once occupied as a fortification against its rightful owners by Gen. Gage and Gen. Howe.

Thus we have seen Boston as it was in 1630 and subsequent years,—originally one of three prominent peninsulas on the coast of New England, known by the Indians as Shawmut, Mishawam, and Mattapan, and afterwards, by the settlers, as Boston, Charlestown, and Dorchester (now South Boston). Each of these was connected with the mainland by a narrow neck of its own, and now all three, with the addition of Roxbury, West Roxbury, Brighton, and Noddle’s Island (East Boston), are included in the present metropolis, while Muddy Brook (Brookline) and Winnisimmet (Chelsea), which were originally attached to Boston, are not included within her present limits. The growth and expansion of the town, we judge, are unparalleled, in some respects, by any other city in the world, with a character of her own and a position in the history of the country of which she may well be proud.

[Pg 27]

II.

THE PUBLIC FERRIES.

THE GREAT FERRY.

The first settlers of Charlestown and Boston of course saw an immediate necessity for the establishment of ferries on both sides of them; so that, after considerable numbers had arrived, this became imperative, especially that across Charles River,—“the great ferry,” as it was afterwards called. This may be called the first public enterprise undertaken by the colonists. There was, no doubt, from the first, means of crossing the river furnished by individuals before any public action had taken place, just as was done by Samuel Maverick at Noddle’s Island, who was disposed and prepared to accommodate everybody that came along. Measures were taken for the establishment of the Charlestown Ferry soon after the arrival of Gov. Winthrop’s party at Charlestown. At a meeting of the Court of Assistants, holden at Boston, Nov. 19, 1630,—present the governor, deputy-governor, Sir Richard Saltonstall, Mr. Ludlowe, Capt. Endicott, Mr. Coddington, Mr. Pinchon, and Mr. Bradstreet,—“It is further ordered, That whosoever shall first give in his name to Mr. Governor that he will undertake to set up a ferry betwixt Boston and Charlestown, and shall begin the same at[Pg 28] such time as Mr. Governor shall appoint, shall have 1d. for every person and 1d. for every 100 weight of goods he shall transport.”

The ferry was no doubt undertaken at this time by Edward Converse; and, probably as it did not then pay very well, in June 14, 1631, an order was passed, “That Edward Converse, who had undertaken to set up a ferry between Boston and Charlestown, be allowed 2d. for every single person, and 1d. apiece, if there be two or more.”

The lease to Mr. Converse, in 1631, was renewed Nov. 9, 1636, in form as follows: “The Governor and treasurer, by order of the general court, did demise to Edward Converse the ferry between Boston and Charlestown, to have the sole transporting of passengers and cattle from one side to the other, for three years from the first day of the next month, for the yearly rent of forty pounds to be paid quarterly to the treasurer: Provided, that he see it be well attended and furnished with sufficient boats; and that so soon as may be in the next spring he set up a convenient house on Boston side, and keep a boat there as need shall require. And he is allowed to take his wonted fees, viz., 2d. for a single person, and pence apiece, if there be more than one, as well on lecture days as at other times; and for every horse and cow with the man which goeth with them 6d., and for a goat 1d., and a swine 2d. And if any shall desire to pass before it be light in the morning, or after it is dark in the evening, he may take recompence answerable to the season and his pains and hazard, so as it be not excessive.”

[Pg 29]The ferry was a great accommodation, of course, and could not be dispensed with. Johnson mentions it quite early in his “Wonder-Working Providence.” In speaking of Charlestown, the “neighbor of Boston, being in the same fashion, with her bare neck,” he says “there is kept a ferry-boat to convey passengers over Charles River, which, between the two towns, is a quarter of a mile over, being a very deep channel.” But at times, no doubt, the ferry proved troublesome and annoying. So that in the month of October, 1632, Mr. Winthrop records that “about a fortnight before this, those of Charlestown, who had formerly been joined to Boston congregation, now, in regard of the difficulty of passage in the winter, and having opportunity of a pastor, one Mr. [Edward] James, who came over at this time, were dismissed from the congregation of Boston.” This, it was said, was after a rather boisterous summer on the bay and harbor.

WINNISIMMET FERRY.

At a General Court, holden at Boston, the 18th of May, 1631, there were present Mr. Winthrop, governor; Mr. Dudley, deputy-governor; Mr. Ludlowe, Capt. Endicott, Mr. Nowell, Mr. Pinchon, Mr. Bradford, assistants (at which the governor and lieutenant-governor were chosen),—“Thomas Willins [Drake gives the name as Williams] hath undertook to sett up a ferry between Winnisimmet and Charlestown, for which he is to have after three pence a person and from Winnisimmet to Boston four pence a person.” Mr. Savage, in a note to Winthrop’s[Pg 30] journal, speaking of Samuel Maverick at Noddle’s Island, says, “Winisemet Ferry, both to Charlestown and Boston, was also granted to him forever.” He certainly did conduct a ferry on one or both these routes for a time.

Jan. 23, 1635.—“Thomas Marshall was chosen by general consent for ye keeping of a ferry from Milne Point [Copps’ Hill] vnto Charlestowne, and to Wynnyseemitt, and to take for his ferrying vnto Charlestowne, as ye ferryman there hath, and vnto Wynnyseemitt for a single psn six pence; and for every one above ye number of two, two pence apiece.” It is not probable that this ferry was continued for many years.

In December, 1637, Edward Bendall was “to keepe a sufficient ferryboate to carry to Noddle’s Island and to the shippes ryding before the Town: taking for a single person ijd. and for two 3d.”

GRANT TO HARVARD COLLEGE.

In 1640, the Charlestown Ferry was granted to Harvard College, to the support of which the town had been annually contributing, and had received from the ferry fifty pounds for the year previous, 1639. This grant was continued, and, for nearly one hundred and fifty years before the bridge was built, it was a source of very handsome income to the institution. In 1644, it appears by the records of the town, William Bridge was appointed to keep the ferry in place of Mr. Converse, and “to have a penny a person for each that goes over, except they agree with him by the year, and two pence a person for[Pg 31] each that goes over unseasonably.” When the bridge was built in 1785, the gratuity to the college was continued by the terms of the Act authorizing it; and the sum of two hundred pounds per year was paid to it in commutation of its claim to the ferry.

Johnson, in his “Wonder-Working Providence,” describes Boston as surrounded by the brinish floods, and as having, on the north-west and north-east, “two constant Faires, kept for traffique thereunto.” A ferry to Cambridge is spoken of in 1652; and in the fall of that year Mr. Cotton took cold in crossing it, and died soon after.

COMPLAINTS OF THE FERRYMEN.

In 1648, “the ferrymen, Francis Hudson and James Heyden, state in a petition to the General Court, that the ferry never was less productive: that contrary to law disorderly passengers would press into the boats, and on leaving refuse to pay their fare; that some pleaded they had nothing to pay, and others that they were in the country’s service. And they further state, that the payment generally tendered was ‘usually in such refuse, unwrought, broken, unstringed and unmerchantable peag’ (wampum), at six a penny, that they lost two pence a shilling, being forced to take peag at six a penny and pay it at seven. They petition that if the Court intend ‘all soldiers with their horses and military furniture be fare-free,’ that they might be paid for it by the colony: that strangers, not able to pay, may be ordered to give in their names: that the ‘peag hereafter to us paid may be so suitably in[Pg 32] known parcels handsomely stringed, and their value assigned, that it may henceforth be a general, current and more agreeable pay.’”

At a session of the General Court, at Boston, the 10th of the eight month, 1648, “For preventing ferry men’s Damage by Persons not paying, &c., it shall be lawful for any Ferry man to demand and Receive his due before his Boat put off from the Shore, nor shall he be bound to pass over any that shall not give satisfaction, & any Ferry Man may refuse any wampum not stringed or Unmerchantable and such persons whether Horse or Foot which are passage free by Order of the Court must show something sufficient for their Discharge, or else pay as others do, except Magistrates and Deputies, &c., who are generally known to be free.”

And again, Oct. 18, the Court ordered that “all ‘payable peag’ should be ‘entire without breaches, both the white and the black, suitably strung in eight known parcels, 1d., 3d., 12d., 5s., in white; and 2d., 6d., 2-6d., and 10s., in black.’ The Court also ordered that for transporting officers in the colony service, the ferrymen should be allowed £4 per annum for the past, and £6 per annum for the time to come.”

PEAG, OR INDIAN MONEY.

“Peag,” or “wampum,” or “wampumpeag,” simply means stringed shells of a peculiar kind, or Indian money; and this, it seems, came early into use, as Hubbard says, “The people of New Plymouth, in the year 1627, began trade with the Dutch at Manhados,[Pg 33] and there they had the first knowledge of Wampumpeag, and their acquaintance therewith occasioned the Indians of those parts to learn to make it.” Hutchinson thinks the New England Indians, prior to this time, had not “any instrument of commerce;” and speaks of the Narragansetts as coining money, making pendants and bracelets, and also tobacco pipes. There seems, however, to have been among the Massachusetts settlers some other kinds of money in use, as, in 1635, the court ordered that brass farthings shall be discontinued, and that musket-balls shall pass for farthings.

PENNY FERRY.

Penny Ferry, across the Mystic River, where the Malden Bridge now is, was established by the town in April, 1640, when it was voted, “That Philip Drinker should keep a ferry at the Neck of Land, with a sufficient boat, and to have 2d. a single person, and a penny a piece when there go any more.” It was not a source of any profit to the town for many years.

In 1651, the Penny Ferry was granted for a year to Philip Knight, who appears to have had the income of it for taking care of it, he agreeing “to attend the ferry carefully, and not to neglect it, that there be no just complaint.”

In 1698, Judge Sewall makes the following entry in his diary: “February 19, I go over the ice and visit Mr. Morton, who keeps his bed. 21st, I rode over to Charlestown on the ice, then over to Stower’s (Chelsea), so to Mr. Wigglesworth. The snow was so deep that I had a hard journey—could go but a[Pg 34] foot pace on Mystic river, the snow was so deep. 26th, a considerable quantity of ice went away last night, so that now there is a glade of water along Governor’s island, about as far as Bird island. 28th, a guard is set upon Charles River to prevent persons from venturing over on the ice for fear of drowning; and the ferrymen are put upon cutting and clearing the ice, which they do so happily, that I think the boat passeth once a day.”

CHARLESTOWN FERRY.

The use of the ferry was confined to foot-passengers entirely at first; and afterwards, when larger boats were built, chaises were allowed, as the common riding or travelling vehicle of the time. It would seem that double tolls had been demanded on certain days; and in 1783, when the names of the ferrymen were presented to the town for approval, it was agreed, on their not taking double ferriage on those days, and their faithful promise to the same, to approbate them. It seems almost wonderful—but it is a fact—that this ferry was kept up as the sole means of communication, excepting the journey around through Roxbury and Cambridge, for more than one hundred and fifty years. It was over this ferry that the people came to Boston to assist in the fortification upon Corne Hill (Fort Hill) in May, 1632, and at other times for similar purposes. It was over this ferry also, on the 18th of April, 1689, that the troops came, in the time of the Andros Rebellion, to assist in maintaining the rights of the people at this early period in the history of the town. There were twenty companies in Boston, and it was said[Pg 35] about fifteen hundred men at Charlestown that could not get over. Andros was imprisoned, the first charter of the colony dissolved, and Thomas Danforth came in as deputy-governor. On many other occasions during the long period of its continuance, and in cases of fire in Boston, the ferry had large duties to perform; and it is wonderful how it was ever made to answer its purposes for so long a time.

1741.—Oldmixon, in his “History of the British Empire in America” (“The History of New England,” as a part of it is called), says, “Charlestown, the mother of Boston, is much more populous than Cambridge, and exceeds it much in respect of trade, being situated between two rivers, Mystic River and Charles River, and parted from Boston only by the latter, over which there is a ferry so well tended that a bridge would not be much more convenient, except in winter, when the ice will neither bear nor suffer a boat to move through it. Though the river is much broader about the town, it is not wider in the ferry passage than the Thames between London and Southwark. The profits of this ferry belong to Harvard College in Cambridge, and are considerable. The town is so large as to take up all the space between the two rivers.”

In 1763, April, the running of a stage-coach was commenced between Boston and Portsmouth, N.H., once a week,—out on Friday, and return on Tuesday. It is said, that, “owing to the trouble of ferrying the stage and horses over Charles River, they were kept at Charlestown, at the sign of the Three Cranes.” The practice with this, and very likely other stage-lines, probably continued until the bridge was built.

[Pg 36]The memorable night, April 18, 1775, when Paul Revere crossed Charles River, near the ferry, is of course well remembered. During the occupation of Boston Harbor by the British navy, the boats of the ferry were drawn up alongside the men-of-war every night at nine o’clock, and there was no passing after that hour; but it seems that Revere kept a boat of his own at the north end, and employed two men to row him across, “a little to the eastward where the ‘Somerset’ man-of-war lay.” He landed at Charlestown below the ferry, and says, “I told them what was acting, and went to get me a horse,” and then pursued his momentous ride to Lexington.

Imagine the continuance of this ferry, as the usual means of crossing the river between Boston and Charlestown, for a period of more than one hundred and fifty years! and all this time probably without the use of sails, as the stream at this point was very narrow and the currents very strong, and certainly without the power of steam, now so generally applied to ferries all over the country. There was, no doubt, in the winter season, a good deal of passing on the ice. The Winnisimmet Ferry, for many years prior to the introduction of steam, was operated by the use of large sail-boats for foot-passengers only.

It is said that the Indian name of Charles River was Quimobequin, and that on Capt. Smith’s map of 1614, it is called Massachusetts; and Hutchinson says, “Prince Charles gave the name of Charles river to what had been before called Massachusetts river.” Smith himself says he called it Charles River; still Hutchinson may be right.

[Pg 37]

III.

THE BOSTON CORNFIELDS.

It will hardly be realized at the present time that Boston, or the peninsula which originally comprised the town, was ever occupied by cornfields, or, as one may almost say, was a cornfield. If there were cornfields, as we assume there were, the curious thing about them is, that we know so little of them; for it can scarcely be said that they hold a place in history. There are, in fact, no definite statements about them; and a mystery seems to hang over them as to where they were, who owned them, who cultivated them, and what was done with the harvest. Were they private property or public property? We have not been able to find in contemporary or subsequent history any account of the Boston cornfields that will enable us with certainty to answer this question. The fair inference from statements made, however, is, that they were to some extent both public and private property. Perhaps the first allusion to them to be found in any record is that in 1632,—and there could have been no corn planted in Boston earlier than 1631, unless by Blackstone,—and this allusion is in the name of “Corne Hill.” In 1632, May 24, “it was agreed to build a fort in that part of Boston[Pg 38] called Corne Hill,” meaning what thereafter was called Fort Hill; and one historical writer, quoting the record, says a fortification was begun on “the corn hill;” and that was probably the only Corn Hill at that time. The question naturally arises, Why was it called Corn Hill? and the almost necessary answer to the question is, Because it was where corn was grown.

There can be no doubt that it became necessary, as early as possible, for the settlers to seek means for their future subsistence. The stock and supply of provisions brought over were, no doubt, for a time and under certain regulations, a common stock; and possibly some of Gov. Winthrop’s party had supplies of their own in addition thereto. But, at all events, prudence and self-preservation required immediate attention to the cultivation of the soil and the raising of corn and other grains.

In 1628 (1629), before the arrival of Gov. Winthrop and his company at Charlestown, the place had been occupied by the Spragues, from Salem, under the direction of Mr. Graves, an agent of the company; and one of the first things they did was “to model and lay out the form of the town, with streets about the hill,” which was approved by Gov. Endicott. They next “jointly agreed and concluded that each inhabitant have a two acre lot to plant upon and all to fence in common.” The same year Mr. Graves wrote to England, “The increase of corne is here farre beyond expectation,” showing that it had been grown, and most probably in the common cornfield; for it is afterwards said that Thomas[Pg 39] Walford “lived on the south end of the westermost hill of the East Field.” Another vote was passed the next year, 1630,—probably before the arrival of Gov. Winthrop,—that each person “dwelling within the neck, shall have two acres of land for a house plot, and two acres for every male that is able to plant.”

In the months of June and July, 1630, Gov. Winthrop and his party arrived at Charlestown, after a passage by some of the ships of seventeen or eighteen weeks, many of them sick of the scurvy. “The multitude set up cottages, booths and tents about the Town Hill;” and it is said “provisions were exceedingly wasted, and no supplies could now be expected by planting; besides, there was miserable damage and spoil of provisions at sea.” Many of the party died,—some two hundred before December,—and others started out for other locations; and finally in September, 1630, by the invitation of Mr. Blackstone, the larger part of Gov. Winthrop’s party crossed the river to Boston. This year there was a scarcity of corn, as will be seen by the following extract from Hutchinson’s history:—

Wood, in speaking of Boston in 1639, says, “This place hath very good land, affording rich cornfields and fruitful gardens,” which, no doubt, were in existence[Pg 40] years before he wrote his book. In 1635, it was voted, “Each able man is allowed two acres, and each able youth one acre to plant.” Provision of some sort on the subject was no doubt made before this time, and gradually reached the regulation here recorded. In 1633, great scarcity of corn is mentioned by Winthrop, as he says, “By reason of the spoil of our hogs, there being no acorns, yet the people lived well with fish and the fruit of their gardens.”

Almost as a natural consequence of what has now been said, in March, 1636, we find that provision was made “for having sufficient fences to the Cornfielde before the 14th of the next second month (April); that for every defective rod then found, five shillings penalty;” and it was further provided, “The field toward Rocksberry to be looked into by Jacob Elyott and Jonathan Negoose; the Fort Hill, by James Penn and Richard Gridley; the Mylne field, by John Button and Edward Bendall, and the New Field by John Audley and Thomas Faireweather.”

Thus it will be seen, if the rule adopted was carried out, that there were four or more large cornfields in Boston, and that the principal work of the people for a time was the raising of corn. At a later period parcels of corn were occasionally presented or sent to the governor by the Indians, who had their cornfields before the English people arrived. In fact, it is recorded in the next month after the arrival of Winthrop, that so much provision had been sold to the Indians for beaver, that food became scarce; and in October, 1630, a vessel was sent to the Narragansetts to trade, and brought home one hundred[Pg 41] bushels of corn. In May, 1631, corn in Boston was ten shillings a bushel, as probably much was required for planting at this time. In August, 1633, a great scarcity of corn was reported; and in November, the next year, a vessel arrived from Narragansett with five hundred bushels of Indian corn. It is very clear that corn was very early, and for some time, the great dependence of the settlers.

In Plymouth Colony, in 1630, the salary of the messenger of the General Court was thirty bushels of corn. In 1685, the secretary’s wages was fifteen pounds a year, payable in corn at two shillings per bushel. In 1690, “one third the Governor’s salary ordered to be paid in money, the rest in corne.”

In 1637, April 16, “all the fences and gates to be made up. Sargeant Hutchinson and Richard Gridley to look after the Fort Field; John Button, James Everett and Isaac Grosse, in the Mill Field; Wm Colburn and Jacob Elyott on the Field next Roxburie.” Again, in 1640, March 30, “To look to the fences: Richard Fairbanks and William Salter the field towards Roxbury; Benj. Gillam and Edmd. Jacklyn, the Fort Field; Wm. Hudson and Edward Bendall the New Field; Mr. Valentine Hill and John Button, the Mill Field.”

Dr. Shurtleff, in his “Topographical and Historical Description of Boston,” enumerates five fields as follows, and speaks of them as ungranted lands: “The land around Copps’ Hill, was known as the Mylne Field, or Mill Field; that around Fort Hill, the Fort Field; that at the Neck, the Neck Field, or the Field towards Roxbury; that where Beacon Hill Place[Pg 42] now is, Centry Hill Field, and that west of Lynde Street, and north of Cambridge, the New Mill Field, or the New Field.” And to show that these were not waste lands or pastures, the writer enumerates the various pastures for cattle, besides the privileges at Muddy Brook and Winnisimmet, as follows: “Besides the fields there were many pastures, so called: Christopher Stanley’s was at the North End, covering the region of North Bennet Street, between Hanover and Salem Streets; Buttolph’s was south of Cambridge Street; Tucker’s, in the neighborhood of Lyman Street; Rowe’s, east of Rowe Street; Wheeler’s, where the southerly end of Chauncy Street is; Atkinson’s, where Atkinson Street was a few years ago, and where Congress Street now is.” And besides these he names Leverett’s on Leverett Street; Middlecott’s on Bowdoin Street; another on Winter and Tremont Streets, and, as he says, “a very large number of other great lots.”

And strange to say, in all this history, contemporary or modern, in only a single instance, so far as we know, are these fields or any one of them spoken of as a “cornfielde,” and that is in the order of 1636, above quoted. There is, however, one other reference to them made, in 1657, in the body of instructions prepared for the selectmen to guide them in the discharge of their duties: “Relying on your wisdom and care in seeking the good of the town, we recommend that you cause to be executed all the orders of the town which you have on the records,” &c., “as found in the printed laws under the titles Townships, Freeman, Highways, Small Causes, Indians, [Pg 43]Cornfields,” &c., which would assuredly show that there were cornfields in the town, distinct from pastures or waste lands, undoubtedly laid out and divided among the people, as already indicated, for their special cultivation.

If, as we believe, the “fields” enumerated were cornfields, and cultivated in the manner suggested,—at first one field, and year by year, as necessity should require, a new field added,—there would naturally become, among a people situated as they were, a necessity for a granary for the storing and preservation of their crops. Consequently, in the enumeration of public buildings in Boston at a later period, we find mentioned “a public granary.” The burying-ground on Tremont Street, known as the Granary Burying-Ground, was laid out on land taken from the Common in 1660, and, of course, took its name from the granary, which was built soon after on what was afterwards Centry Street, and now Park Street. Shurtleff says the land was first taken for the purpose, and “then, when the need came, a building, eighty feet by thirty feet, for a public granary, was erected, and subsequently, in 1737, removed to the corner, its end fronting on the principal street (Tremont). It stood until 1809, when it gave place to Park Street Church.” So that, though latterly for some years used for another purpose, the granary stood in Boston for more than one hundred and forty years. It is described as a long wooden building, and was calculated to hold twelve thousand bushels of corn.

In 1733, it would seem that corn or other grain[Pg 44] continued to be grown in Boston, as in October of that year it was determined to erect a granary at the North End, “not to exceed £100” in cost. In the records of the selectmen, it is called a meal-house, and John Jeffries, Esq., and Mr. David Colson, two of the selectmen, were to contract for the work on a piece of land near the North Mill, belonging to the town.

So that at what time the cultivation of corn ceased in Boston, it is impossible to tell; but it would seem, from the necessity for a new granary in 1733, that it must have continued for considerably more than a hundred years after the settlement of the town.

[Pg 45]

IV.

PURITAN GOVERNMENT.

The early government of the Puritans in Boston was a sort of extemporary government, or, as it has been described, “temporary usurpation,”—a government of opinions and prejudices, and in small sense a government of law. It had some of the features of a family government, without system or order. If the inhabitant offended, or did any thing which was not thought proper by the Church, the assistants, or anybody else, fine or punishment was pretty sure to follow. To be sure there was the Massachusetts Colony Charter somewhere; but it is singular that the copy of it found among Hutchinson’s papers, and since printed, is certified to be a “true copy of such letters patents under the great seal of England,” by John Winthrop, Governor, dated “this 19th day of the month called March, 1613-1644.” This verbose and peculiar document gives authority to the company in the matter of government in the following elaborate form:—

The charter goes on to give authority to commanders, captains, governors, and all other officers for the time being, “to correct, punish, pardon, govern[Pg 47] and rule all such the subjects of us, our heires and successors, as shall from tyme to tyme adventure themselves in any voyage thither or from thence, or that shall at any tyme hereafter inhabit within the precincts and parts of New England aforesaid, according to the orders, lawes, ordinances, instructions and directions aforesaid, not repugnant to the laws and statutes of our realme of England as aforesaid.” And in order to make the laws of these officers known, it is provided, as printing would not be practicable, that they shall be “published in writing under theire common seale.”

But it would seem, notwithstanding, that the authority exercised by the company was at first executive rather than legislative; and Mr. Savage remarks, that the body of the people “submitted at first to the mild and equal temporary usurpation of the officers, chosen by themselves, which was also justified by indisputable necessity.” The first “Court of Assistants” was held at Charlestown, Aug. 23, 1630; and the first thing propounded was, “how the ministers shall be maintained,” and it was determined, of course, at the public charge. Gov. Winthrop, Lieut.-Gov. Dudley, and the assistants were present; and this body carried on the government—what there was of it—“in a simply patriarchal manner,” until “the first General Court or meeting of the whole company at Boston, 19 October,” 1631, and this was held “for the establishing of the government.” It was now determined that “the freemen should have the power of choosing assistants, and from themselves to choose a Governor and Lieut. Governor, who with[Pg 48] the assistants should have the power of making laws and choosing officers to execute the same.” This is the brief history of the origin of a local government in the colony of Massachusetts Bay, if it may be so called. It was autocratic for the first year and afterwards, although fully assented to by a general vote of the people.

At first, of course, there were no laws; and punishments were adjudged and inflicted, under the authority of the charter, not only for trivial matters, as they would be now considered, but for very questionable, if not ludicrous, matters,—and all this, it would seem, without respect of persons: for, as early as Nov. 30, 1630, at a court, it was ordered that one of the assistants be fined five pounds for whipping two persons without the presence of another assistant, contrary to an act of court formerly made; so that this very early exercise of authority was not under a law made after the fact. At the same court another person was sentenced to be whipped for shooting a fowl on the sabbath day; and this, probably, was ex post facto. In 1631, a man was fined five pounds for taking upon himself the cure of scurvy by a water of no value, and selling it at a dear rate; to be imprisoned until he paid the fine, or whipped. In 1632, the first thief was sentenced to lose his estate, pay double what he had stolen, be whipped, bound out for three years, and after that be dealt with as the court directs. Other offences, or what not, were punished by “taking life and limb, branding with a hot iron, clipping off ears,” &c. Indians also were proceeded against, in many cases by fines, penalties, and punishments.

[Pg 49]John Legge, a servant, was ordered “to be whipt this day [May 3, 1631] at Boston, and afterwards, so soon as convenient may be, at Salem, for striking Richard Wright.” Richard Hopkins was ordered to be severely whipped, and branded with a hot iron on one of his cheeks, for selling guns, powder, and shot to the Indians. Joyce Bradwick was ordered to pay Alexander Beck twenty dollars for promising marriage without her friends’ consent, and now refusing to perform the same. This was in 1632, and is undoubtedly the first breach-of-promise case that had occurred in the colony.

It was ordered if any one deny the Scriptures to be the word of God, to be fined fifty pounds, or whipped forty stripes; if they recant, to pay ten pounds, and whipped if they pay not that. A man, who had been punished for being drunk, was ordered to wear a red D about his neck for a year.

The case of one Knower, at Boston, 1631, is spoken of as curious, showing that the court, usurper and tyrant as it was, had no intention of being slighted, underestimated, or intimidated. “Thomas Knower was set in bilbows for threatening the Court, that if he should be punished, he would have it tried in England, whether he was lawfully punished or not.” And for this he was punished.

1631.—Philip Radcliffe, for censuring the churches and government, has his ears cut off, is whipped and banished.

1636.—If any inhabitants entertained strangers over fourteen days, without leave “from those yt are appointed to order the Town’s businesses,” they were[Pg 50] made liable to be dealt with by the “overseers” (before there were selectmen) as they thought advisable.

In 1637, “a law was made that none should be received to inhabit within the jurisdiction but such as should be allowed by some of the magistrates; and it was fully understood that differing from the religions generally received in the country, was as great a disqualification as any political opinions whatever.” On this subject Judge Minot says, “Whilst they scrupulously regulated the morals of the inhabitants within the colony, they neglected not to prevent the contagion of dissimilar habits and heretical principles from without.... No man could be qualified either to elect or be elected to office who was not a church member, and no church could be formed but by a license from a magistrate.”

In 1640, in the case of Josias Plaistow for stealing four baskets of corn from the Indians, he was ordered to return eight baskets, “to be fined £5, and to be called Josias, and not Mr. Josias Plaistow, as he formerly used to be.”

A carpenter was employed to make a pair of stocks; and, it being adjudged that he charged too much for his work, he was sentenced to be put in them for one hour. A servant, charged with slandering the Church, was whipped, then deprived of his ears and banished. This punishment was deemed severe, and excited some remarks upon the subject.

A Capt. Stone was fined one hundred pounds and prohibited from coming into Boston without the governor’s leave on pain of death, for calling Justice Ludlow a “just-ass.” Another party, for being drunk,[Pg 51] was sentenced to carry forty turfs to the fort; while another, being in the company of drunkards, was set in the stocks.

But finally the Court of Assistants began to make laws, or lay down rules of some sort. As for example: Every one shall pay a penny sterling for every time of taking tobacco in any place. In Plymouth Colony the law was less stringent: there a man was fined five shillings for taking tobacco while on a jury, before a verdict had been rendered. Absence from church subjected the delinquent to a fine of ten shillings or imprisonment. Any one entering into a private conference at a public meeting shall forfeit twelve pence for public uses. 1642, Mr. Robert Saltonstall is fined five shillings for presenting his petition on so small and bad a piece of paper; and this, it seems, was after it had been determined “that a body of laws should be framed which would be approved of by the General Court and some of the ministers as a fundamental code.” Notwithstanding this, in all cases, like the above, where there was no law, one was made, or inferred, to meet the case; so that, after the establishment of a “fundamental code,” there was about as much ex post facto law as before. Among the laws or orders of the “fundamental code” was one, “that no person, Householder or others, shall spend his time unprofitably under paine of such punishment as the court shall think meet to inflict;” and “the constables were ordered to take knowledge of offenders of this kind,” and, among others, especially tobacco-takers. Another was, “that no person either man or woman shall make or buy any slashed[Pg 52] clothes, other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back; also all cuttworks, imbroidered or needle workt caps, bands, vayles, are forbidden hereafter to be made or worn under said penalty—also all gold or silver girdles, hatbands, belts, ruffs, beaver hats, are prohibited to be bought or worn hereafter, under the aforesaid penalty,” &c. The penalty is such punishment as the Court may think meet to inflict.

In addition to these, the code went still further in regulating the dress of women: “4th of 7th month [September, as the year began with March, until 1752], 1639, Boston. No garments shall be made with short sleeves, whereby the nakedness of the arm may be discovered in the wearing thereof;” and, where garments were already made with short sleeves, the arms to be covered with linen or otherwise. No person was allowed to make a garment for women with sleeves more than half an ell wide, and “so proportionate for bigger or smaller persons.”

In the matter of currency, it was ordered, in 1634, “that musket balls of a full boar shall pass currently for farthings apiece, provided that no man be compelled to take above 12 pence at a time in them.”

It would seem that some of these decisions, or the general character of the government, had caused some remark, as it was “ordered that Henry Lyn shall be whipt and banished the Plantation before the 6th day of October next, for writing into England falsely and maliciously against the government and execution of Justice here.” “Execution of justice” is good, we should say.

[Pg 53]Ward, in his “Trip to New England,” a very coarse and abusive paper, published in London, in 1706, in a book called “London Spy,” says, in Boston “if you kiss a woman in publick, tho’ offered as a Courteous Salutation, if any information is given to the Select Members, both shall be whipt or fined.” He relates, that “a captain of a certain ship, who had been a long voyage, happen’d to meet his wife, and kist her in the street, for which he was fined Ten Shillings, and forc’d to pay the Money. Another inhabitant of the town was fin’d Ten Shillings for kissing his own wife in his Garden, and obstinately refusing to pay the Money, endur’d Twenty Lashes at the Gun, who, in Revenge for his Punishment, swore he would never kiss her again either in Publick or Private.”

John Dunton, in his famous work, “Dunton’s Life and Errors,” speaks of the government, when he was in Boston, in 1686. He says, “Let it be enough to say, The laws in force here, against immorality and prophaneness, are very severe. Witchcraft is punish’d with death, as ’tis well known; and theft with restoring fourfold, if the Criminal be sufficient.—An English woman, admitting some unlawful freedoms from an Indian, was forc’d twelve months to wear upon her Right arm an Indian cut in red cloath.”

The “Body of Liberties,” as it was strangely called, contained an hundred laws, which had been drawn up pursuant to an order of the General Court, by Nathaniel Ward, pastor of the church at Ipswich, who had been formerly a practitioner of law in [Pg 54]England; and this book was printed by Daye, the first printer, at Cambridge in 1641. (Thomas, p. 47.)

There was also published in 1649 a “Book of General Laws and Liberties, concerning the Inhabitants of Massachusetts.” By these, gaming by shuffle-board and bowling at houses of entertainment, where there was “much waste of wine and beer,” were prohibited under pain for every keeper of such house twenty shillings, and every person playing at said games, five shillings. For “damnable heresies,” as they were called, banishment was the appropriate punishment.

Oldmixon mentions a singular law. He says, “The goodness of the pavement may compare with most in London: to gallop a horse on it is 3 shillings and four pence forfeit.” This was more than a hundred years after the settlement of the town, and less than forty years before the commencement of the revolutionary war.

A letter from London, from Edward Howes to his relative, J. Winthrop, jun., dated April 3, 1632, says, “I have heard divers complaints against the severity of your government, especially Mr. Endicott’s, and that he shall be sent for over, about cutting off the lunatick man’s ears and other grievances” (Savage’s Winthrop, p. 56, vol. 1).

In respect to the levying of fines, Gov. Winthrop, who was accused of not demanding their payment in some cases, remarked, “that in his judgment, it were not fit in the infancy of a Commonwealth to be too strict in levying fines, though severe in other punishments.”

It has been well said that “religion and laws were[Pg 55] closely intertwined in the Puritan community; the government felt itself bound to expatriate every disorderly person, as much as the church was bound to excommunicate him. They were like a household. They had purchased their territory for a home; it was no El Dorado; it was their Mount of Sion. With immense toil and unspeakable denials, they had rescued it from the wild woods for the simple purpose that they might have a place for themselves and their children to worship God undisturbed. They knew nothing of toleration. Their right to shut the door against intruders seemed to them as undoubted and absolute as their right to breathe the air around them.”[2]

This is the sum and substance of the Puritan government as long as it lasted. Under the charter, or without the charter, they made such laws as they pleased, before or after the occasion. They punished every thing which they thought to be wrong, or which did not conform to their notions of propriety or their practice, and this, too, without consistency or discrimination.

In 1639, Winthrop says, “The people had long desired a body of laws, and thought their condition very unsafe, while so much power rested in the discretion of the magistrates. Divers attempts had been made at former courts, and the matter referred to some of the magistrates and some of the elders, [the church and state, in such cases, were invariably united,] but still it came to no effect, for being[Pg 56] committed to the care of so many, whatsoever was done by some, was still disliked or neglected by others.” So that it is doubtful if they ever really had a set of laws that were relied upon; that limited the discretion of the magistrates, or was ever reasonably and impartially enforced. If the law failed to be adequate, it seemed to be proper for the magistrate to make it so; and he not only supplied the deficiency, but occasionally coined or misconstrued a law for his purpose. Such a government might well be considered “unsafe.”

[Pg 57]

V.

THE NARRAGANSETT INDIANS.

VISIT TO BOSTON.

The Narragansett Indians were one of the largest, if not the very largest, tribe in New England, at the time of the arrival of the Puritans; and they were especially friendly to the settlers. They lived along the coast, from Stonington to Point Judith, on Narragansett Bay. “They consisted,” says Hutchinson, “of several lesser principalities, but all united under one general ruler, called the Chief Sachem, to whom all others owed some kind of fealty or subjection.” The Nianticks were considered as a branch of the Narragansetts, having very likely been conquered by them, and brought under their subjection.

A letter of Roger Williams, who was intimate with, and a strong friend of, the Narragansett Indians, says they were “the settlers’ fast friends, had been true in all the Pequot wars, were the means of the coming in of the Mohegans, never had shed English blood, and many settlers had had experience of the love and desire of peace which prevailed among them.”

In October, 1636, after the murder of Mr. Oldham, Gov. Vane invited their sachem, Miantonomo, to visit Boston, which he soon after did, bringing with him[Pg 58] another sachem, two sons of Canonicus, and about twenty men. The governor sent twenty musketeers to Roxbury to meet them and escort them into town. The sachems and their council dined together in the same room with the governor and his ministers. After dinner a friendly treaty was made with Miantonomo, and signed by the parties; and, although at this time the English thought the Indians did not understand it, they kept it faithfully; but the English, who were afterwards instrumental in the death of Miantonomo, did not. The Indians were subsequently escorted out of town, “and dismissed with a volley of shot;” and the famous Roger Williams was appointed to explain the treaty to the Indians.

In this treaty, Canonicus, who was the chief sachem of the tribe, and is said to have been “a just man, and a friend of the English,” was represented by Miantonomo, his nephew, whom Canonicus, on account of his age, had caused to assume the government. The deputation that Gov. Vane sent to the Narragansetts in the matter of the murder of Mr. Oldham, speak of Canonicus “as a sachem of much state, great command over his men, and much wisdom in his answers and the carriage of the whole treaty; clearing himself and his neighbors of the murder, and offering assistance for revenge of it.” Johnson represents Miantonomo “as a sterne, severe man, of great stature and a cruel nature, causing all his nobility and such as were his attendants to tremble at his speech.”

 [Pg 59]

INDIAN ART.—CURIOUS MARRIAGE.

The Narragansetts not only coined money (wampumpeag), but manufactured pendants and bracelets,—using shells, we presume, for these purposes. They also made tobacco-pipes, some blue and some white, out of stone, and furnished earthen vessels and pots for cookery and other domestic uses,—so that they had several approximations, in these respects, to civilization and art, not so distinctly manifested by other tribes. They had, in fact, commercial relations with other people and distant nations, and, it seems, were sometimes sneered at on account of their disinclination for war,—preferring other service.

There is evidence, also, that they considered themselves—in some respects, at least—superior to other Indians; and this is illustrated by a very curious piece of history, said to be “the only tradition of any sort from the ancestors of our first Indians.” It seems that the oldest Indians among the Narragansetts reported to the English, on their first arrival, “that they had in former times a sachem called Tashtassuck, who was incomparably greater than any in the whole land in power and state.” This great sachem—who, it would seem, had the power to elevate, and, in some respects, enlighten his race—had only two children, a son and daughter; and, not being able to match them according to their dignity, he joined them together in matrimony, and they had four sons, of whom Canonicus, who was chief sachem when the English arrived, was the eldest. There is no reason to doubt that the marriage was a happy[Pg 60] one, agreeable to the parties, satisfactory to the parent, and certainly famous in its progeny.

INTERMARRIAGE AMONG THE EGYPTIANS.

This probably is the only record of such a marriage in this country. The form of family marriage, however, it is a matter of history, was common among the Egyptians, and probably has been practised more or less among all the savage nations of the earth. Cleopatra, the daughter of Ptolemy Auletes, on the death of her father, was married, according to his will, to Ptolemy XII., his eldest son, and ascended the throne; both being minors, Pompey was appointed their guardian. In the wars which followed, her husband was drowned, and she then married her second brother, Ptolemy (Necteros), a child seven years old. Afterwards she became the mistress of Cæsar, and subsequently poisoned her boy-husband, when at the age of fourteen, because he claimed his share of the Egyptian crown. So that, in fact, she made war against her first husband, and poisoned her second,—a result very different from that recorded of the Narragansett intermarriage.

MURDER OF MIANTONOMO.

In a subsequent Indian war, 1643,—brought about, it is said, by Connecticut, between the Narragansetts and the Mohegans,—Miantonomo, by some strange accident, fell into the hands of Uncas, who, for fear of retaliation, instead of taking his life, sent him to Hartford. The Connecticut people, in their turn, sent him to Boston, to be judged by the Commissioners[Pg 61] of the United Colonies; and these commissioners, “although they had no jurisdiction in the case, nor any just ground of complaint against the sachem,” came to the conclusion “that Uncas would not be safe if he were suffered to live.” Drake says, “Strange as it may seem, it was with the advice of the Elders of the Churches” (Winthrop says five of the most judicious elders) that it was determined Uncas might put Miantonomo to death,—a piece of barbarism and injustice hardly matched by any conduct of the Indians. He was taken back to Uncas “with a guard of English soldiers,” and Uncas readily undertook the execution of his victim. When he arrived at a place appointed, a brother of Uncas “clave his head with a hatchet.” “Thus inhumanly and unjustly perished the greatest Indian chief of whom any account is found in New England’s annals.” Canonicus, it is said, was greatly affected by the death of his nephew, in whom he always had the utmost confidence, and regarded him with the fondness of a father. Canonicus died in 1647. After the death of Miantonomo, the Narragansetts were never on very good terms with the English, who had suspected them once or twice unjustly. Hutchinson says, “The Narragansetts are said to have kept to the treaty until the Pequods were destroyed, and then they grew insolent and treacherous.” It certainly appears that they were not well used by the English settlers, and it is not surprising that they should grow “insolent and treacherous;” for the treachery appears to have been first against them.

[Pg 62]

VI.

NAMES OF PLACES, STREETS, ETC.

As a matter of course, some of the early names of places in and around Massachusetts Bay were Indian names or corruptions, until others were applied, as Shawmut, Mishawam, Mattapan, Winnisimmet, and others. The name of Plymouth, of course, the Pilgrims brought with them, as the Puritans did the name of Salem and of Boston. But just how the name of Massachusetts originated is not so well known. It was no doubt of Indian origin; and if derived from the “greatest king of the Indians,” Massasoit, or, as Hutchinson says, Massasoiet,[3] it is well that it has been so preserved and perpetuated. Among the earliest English names, besides these mentioned, were the names applied to the islands, as Noddle’s Island, which possibly was given to it by Maverick, and Bird Island, in 1630; Lovell’s Island, in 1635, and several others. The names of Blackstone, Maverick, and Walford,[4] the original settlers[Pg 63] of Boston, Noddle’s Island, and Charlestown, have all been preserved in the names of streets, banks, &c., although two of them (Blackstone and Walford) were driven away, and the third, though living almost alone on Noddle’s Island, being an Episcopalian, was rather severely treated in the general persecutions of the time. Of the Indian names, only a few of them have been preserved, and are in common use, and among them Shawmut, Mishawam, Winnisimmet, and possibly one or two others. In the list of nearly two thousand names of streets, places, &c., only three Indian names are to be found, namely, Shawmut, Oneida, and Ontario.

But perhaps the most curious peculiarity prevailed with regard to the naming of streets, places, taverns, trades, &c., in Boston, before King Street and Queen Street had been named, and after they had passed away. King Street gave way to State Street; Queen Street, which at an earlier date had been called Prison Lane, gave way to Court Street: still some of the old English names remain. Marlborough, Newbury, and Orange, all English names, gave way to that of Washington, and this street has now been extended, under its latest name, from Haymarket Square (Mill Creek) to Brookline (Muddy Brook). Formerly it extended from the Gate at the Neck to Dock Square, and bore the name of Orange Street from the Gate to Eliot’s Corner (Essex Street); Newbury Street from Eliot’s Corner to Bethune’s Corner (West Street); Marlborough Street from thence to Haugh’s Corner (School Street); and Cornhill from thence to Dock Square.

 [Pg 64]

LANES AND ALLEYS.

The first mention of any alley is that of Paddy Alley[5] (after a resident), running from Ann to Middle Street, 1658, but whether so named before or after the streets which it connects is not known. Rawson’s Lane, afterwards Bromfield’s Lane, and now Bromfield Street, 1693; Black Horse Lane, part of what is now known as Prince Street, 1698; Beer Lane, part of Richmond Street; Blind Lane, part of Bedford Street; Elbow Alley, which was in the form of a crescent, from Ann to Cross Street; Pudding Lane, part of Devonshire Street—all mentioned in 1708, when a list of the names of the streets, lanes, &c., was prepared and published by the Selectmen. Among these were Frog Lane, Hog Alley, Sheafe Lane, Blind Lane, Cow Lane, Flounder Lane, Crab Lane, &c. Probably all these lanes and alleys were laid out or established, at a much earlier date than that mentioned. Sheep Lane was first called Hog Lane, in[Pg 65] 1789; Turn-again Alley, at an early date, was near Hamilton Place.

The first lanes and possibly alleys, it has been said, were probably cow-paths or foot-paths, but at the end of seventy-eight years, in 1708, they had undoubtedly all received names, peculiar as some of them were. Most of these lanes—not all of them—were named after residents or owners in the neighborhood. The alleys were each named after some citizen, excepting where there might be some local name or peculiarity, as Board Alley, Brick Alley, Crooked Alley; and so of some of the lanes and streets, as Bog Lane, Marsh Lane, Well Street, Bath Street, Grape Place, Granite Place, and some others.

NAMES OF CORNERS.

One of the most curious collections of names in the list of 1879, is that of “Corners,” not now recognized, and, we think, never before recorded, though occasionally used in defining the limits of streets. Over one hundred corners are named in this list, of which about eighty of them bear date of 1708 and 1732. All these are named after persons occupying the corners, and among them are the following: Antram’s Corner, Ballantine’s, Barrill’s, Bill’s, Bows’, and Bull’s Corners; Dafforne’s, Frary’s, and Frizzel’s Corners; Gee’s, Meer’s, Melynes’, Powning’s, Ruck’s, and Winsley’s Corners, and there were five Clark’s Corners in different parts of the town, in 1708-32. At the present time, as in the early time, the corners of streets may be spoken of and referred to, but are not recognized as local names of record.

 [Pg 66]

NAMES OF STREETS, ETC.

Names, of course, of some kind or other, local, personal, or traditionary, must have been very early used in the settlement, to designate places, paths, and business, as well as persons and things, and most of these have been preserved and remembered. In Drake’s collection of local names there are nearly one thousand, including the names of islands, wharves, streets, taverns, &c., and of these only about twenty are mentioned by date prior to 1700, though many of them must have been in use long before that time. In the collection of names made by the city government in 1879, there are about eighteen hundred, not including islands, wharves, or taverns. The earliest dates attached to any of the names is that of the Anchor Tavern, 1661, and of the Alms House on Sentry or Park Street, 1662.

In the naming of streets, as in the laying of them out, there appears to have been neither rule, system, or order; but in both matters the action depended upon local circumstances, or some public or personal influence. It is believed that the first movement in laying out the road over the Neck to Roxbury, what is now a portion of Washington Street, was in June, 1636, as follows:—

“It is agreed that there shall be a sufficient foot-way from William Coleburne’s field-end unto Samuel Wylebore’s field-end next Roxbury, by the surveyors of highways before the last of the next 5th month” (July, 1636).

From this it appears that there were at this early period surveyors of highways, and that highways, to[Pg 67] some extent, were foot-ways. The foot-way in this case, to be laid out in one month, extended as supposed, from the corner of Boylston Street to the northerly line of Castle Street, that being the northerly end of Boston Neck; and the road or way laid out after this time to Roxbury, was on the easterly side of the present Washington Street, all the way near or on the sea-beach, and probably started from near Beach Street.

The next order that we have in relation to the streets, is under date of 1636, 4th, 8 mo., which would be Oct. 4, 1636, and is as follows:—

“At a meeting of the overseers,” it was ordered, that “from this day there shall be no house at all be built neare unto any streetes or laynes therein, but with the consent of the overseers, for the avoyding disorderly building to the inconvenience of streetes and laynes and for the more comely and commodious ordering of them, upon the forfeiture of such sume as the overseers shall see fitting.”

Soon after this, liberty was granted to Deacon Eliot “to set out his barn six or eight feet into the street, at the direction of Colonel Colbron.”

On the 17th of the same month, October, 1636, a street and lane were laid out, but names were not given to them in the record.

In May, 1708, “at a meeting of the selectmen,” a broad highway was laid out from the old fortifications at the Neck, near the present Dover Street, to Deacon Eliot’s house (near Eliot Street), and called Orange Street, and money was appropriated for paving it, “provided the abuttors would pave each side of the street.” A hundred years after this time, the road[Pg 68] over Boston Neck to Roxbury, from Waltham Street to Roxbury line, was very wide, and paved only in the middle portion, so that the travel for years was chiefly on the sides of the street.

In naming the streets, as we have said, there were local, personal, and national considerations. As an illustration of the latter influence, King and Queen Streets, two of the most important streets of the town, are well remembered. Possibly before these the Puritan names of Endicott, Winthrop, Eliot, Leverett, and others, may have been used. The names of revolutionary patriots were subsequently applied to streets, as Hancock, Adams, Warren, Franklin; and these were followed by national names, as Union, Congress, and Federal. There was also a class of local names, as North, South, Middle, Canal, School, Exchange, Water, Tremont, Beacon, Margin, Back, Bridge, Pond, High, and Broad, applied at different times. Then there were Orange, Elm, Chestnut, Walnut, Pine, Cherry, &c., followed, it may be, by Sun and Moon, Summer, Winter, and Spring. Latterly the names of towns in the State have been applied to the streets of the city; among the earliest of these are Salem, Lynn, Cambridge, Brighton; and after these, Arlington, Berkley, Clarendon, Dartmouth, and many others.

LISTS OF STREETS, COURTS, ETC.

In 1708, a list of the names of streets, places, lanes, alleys, &c., in Boston proper, was prepared by the Selectmen; and in this list there were at that time forty-four (44) streets recorded; eighteen (18)[Pg 69] alleys; thirty-three (33) lanes; three squares, Church Square, Dock Square, and Clark Square; two ways, Old Way and Ferry Way; two hills, Snow Hill and Corn Hill; five courts, Half Square Court, Corn Court, Minot’s Court, Sun Court, and Garden Court; one row, Merchants’ Row; and two markets, Corn Market and Fish Market, making one hundred and ten (110) named places in the town, in May, 1708.

In 1732, there was published in “Vade Mecum,” a list of streets at that time, and in this list are fourteen not in that of 1708, making the number of streets sixty, lanes forty-one, alleys eighteen, making in all one hundred and nineteen (119), exclusive of squares, courts, &c.

In 1817, including lanes, alleys, squares, and streets, there were 231 in Boston proper, and among them were Berry and Blossom, Chestnut and Walnut, Poplar and Elm, Myrtle and Vine, and others. There were at this time, thirty-four wharves. There are now probably five times as many streets in Boston proper as there were in 1732, a hundred years after the settlement of the town, without reckoning courts or squares.

In 1817, Shaw enumerates 229 streets, lanes, &c., and after this time much attention was given to the subject of new streets, naming old ones not before accepted, &c., and some of the names were changed.

In 1879, a complete list of the names of streets, avenues, places, courts, squares, corners, &c., that have ever been in use, or applied, was prepared by order of the city government, and has been printed.[Pg 70] This list, of course, shows a surprising increase in the number of names over any former record, many of which, we presume, have never before been recorded, although they may have been to some extent in use. In this list nearly two thousand names (1795) are printed: of these 554 are streets, of which some are duplicates. Many of them are second or third names, all of which are recorded, so that the list does not represent the number of streets at present in the city proper, but simply the names that have heretofore been used, or are now applied to them.

NAMES OF TAVERNS.

Taverns were early mentioned by names, more or less personal and peculiar: one of the first mentioned is the State Arms, where the magistrates usually dieted and drank, in King Street, 1653; Ship Tavern, in Ann Street, 1666; Bunch of Grapes, in King Street, 1724; King’s Head Tavern, near Fleet Street, 1755; Queen’s Head, in Lynn Street, 1732; Ship in Distress, an ancient tavern, opposite Moon Street; and if the “ordinaries,” spoken of by Cotton Mather, were taverns, they were very numerous and were known as ale-houses, or, as Mather says, “hell-houses.”

BUSINESS NAMES.

There were numerous curious names in use among the tradespeople, as the Six Sugar-Loaves, probably a grocer, in Union Street, 1733; Three Sugar-Loaves and Canister, grocer, in King Street, 1733; two[Pg 71] bearing the sign of Two Sugar-Loaves, one in Cornhill and the other in King Street, 1760,—all of these indicating some active competition in the sugar trade. Noah’s Ark was the sign of a dry-goods store in Marlborough Street, 1769. There were signs of the Three Crowns, Three Doves, Three Horseshoes, Three Kings, and Three Nuns and a Comb. Another class embraced the Bible and Heart, afterwards Heart and Crown, corner of Cornhill and Water Streets, 1748; Blue Dog and Rainbow, sign of a dyer near Bowling Green, now Cambridge Street, 1729; Blue Glove, a bookstore on Union Street, 1762; Brazen Head, Cornhill, opposite Williams Court, where the great fire of 1760 commenced, in a dwelling-house occupied by Mrs. Mary Jackson and son, probably a boarding-house; Buck and Breeches in Ann Street, 1758, near the Draw Bridge, Joseph Belknap’s sign; Golden Cock, in Ann Street, 1733; Golden Eagle, Dock Square, 1758; and one of the last things named was the Whipping Post, in King Street, removed in 1750, only twenty years before the Boston Massacre.

NAMES OF PERSONS.

In regard to the names of persons, as well as places and things, it is said that there was “a prejudice in favor of the Israelitish custom, and a fondness arose, or at least was increased, for significant names for children.” “The three first that were baptized in Boston church were Joy, Recompence and Pity. The humor spread. The town of Dorchester, in particular, was remarkable for such names as Faith,[Pg 72] Hope, Charity, Deliverance, Dependance, Preserved, Content, Prudent, Patience, Thankful, Hate-evil, Holdfast,” &c. These are pretty much out of fashion: possibly the name of “Prudence” may yet be found. It is somewhat strange that this “prejudice” did not get a more public expression: perhaps Salutation Alley may be a relic of it.

The Hangman’s Gallows, strange to say, was a permanent structure on the Neck, on the east side and somewhat in the rear of the burying-ground: the pirates were hung there as late as 1815. The following peculiar historical names, although well known, may be mentioned: Liberty Pole was in Liberty Square, at the point of meeting of Water and Kilby Streets. It was not restored after the Revolutionary War. Liberty Tree, corner of Newbury (now Washington) and Essex Streets, nearly opposite Boylston Market. It was cut down by the British in August, 1775. Green Dragon was the sign of a noted tavern in Union Street, licensed in 1697, and disappeared 1854. The building which now occupies the spot in Union Street, displays the Green Dragon on its front. The “Orange Tree” spoken of in the history of Boston, was on Hanover Street. A private school is spoken of as being in Hanover Street, “three doors below the Orange Tree,” and an earlier writer speaks of it as on Queen (Court) Street. It was a tavern on or near the corner of these streets, probably on the site afterwards occupied by Concert Hall.

[Pg 73]Boston, at the present time, includes South Boston (formerly Dorchester), East Boston (formerly Noddle’s Island), Dorchester, Roxbury, West Roxbury, and Charlestown, and within this territory there are now over 2,650 streets, squares, avenues, places, courts, &c., and 225 wharves, twenty-nine of which are in Charlestown District. Public halls in Boston, 119, and the number of these is increasing. In 1735, there were twelve wards in the town; revised in 1805, and now, including the annexations above named, there are twenty-five wards.

[Pg 74]

VII.

PERSECUTION OF THE QUAKERS.

Notwithstanding the strange judgments, fines, and punishments, made under the civil law or without law in the colony of Massachusetts, there seems to have been another sort of government, or perhaps one of the same kind, in relation to spiritual or religious things, the administration of which shows such a spirit and system of persecution, and such a degree of fanaticism, as can hardly be paralleled in history. And it would seem also that the two kinds of government, both in the hands of the same parties, might occasionally be found in conflict. In 1655, Hutchinson says, “However inconsistent it may seem with the professed ecclesiastical constitution and the freedom of every church, the general court, in several instances, interposed its authority. They laid a large fine upon the church at Malden for choosing a minister without the consent and approbation of the neighboring churches and allowance of the magistrates, and there were other similar interferences, which, we suppose, were acceded to, and that the church was, in fact, under the control of the state.” And the state, it may be added, was to some extent, subordinate to the church.

[Pg 75]The Episcopalians, Anabaptists, Baptists, and Quakers, were all treated, or maltreated, with the same spirit, though not proceeded against with the same degree of persistency and malice. The Episcopalians were mulcted in heavy fines “for contemptuous and seditious language,” but finally overcame all difficulties, and became permanently established in 1686, and built a church in 1688. The Baptists were persecuted in a similar way, but finally got a meeting-house built in 1679, before the Episcopalians. The Quakers were persecuted from the first landing of some of their number in 1656 to 1667, and even later; and four of them were hanged on Boston Common.

In July, 1656, two Quakers, both women, arrived at the settlement from Barbadoes, and soon after eight more came from England. In a few days they were ordered before the Court of Assistants. Some books were found about them or in their possession, amounting to a hundred volumes; and these were burned in the market-place, and their owners sent to prison. They were condemned as Quakers, kept in confinement several weeks, and then sent away; and yet it is said there was no law at this time against Quakers. After this, stringent laws were made to keep them out of the colony. Masters of vessels were subjected to one hundred pounds fine if they brought a Quaker into the colony, and required to give security to take him away; and, if a Quaker came into the jurisdiction, he was sent to the house of correction, and whipped twenty stripes. And the next year, further laws were made against the [Pg 76]Quakers, and against all who befriended or entertained them: who were to be fined forty shillings an hour; and, “if he persisted, the offender was to have one of his ears cut off,” and, if repeated, he was to lose his other ear. If this did not answer, whipping and boring the tongue with a hot iron, were to be the consequences.

Notwithstanding these severe proceedings against the Quakers, others came into the colony, and some who had been banished returned to suffer more severe punishments. One Myra Clark, wife of a merchant tailor of London, came to Boston in 1657, to comply with what she conceived to be a spiritual command, and was whipped in a cruel manner. About the same time, two men, Christopher Holder and John Copeland, were seized in Salem, and, after being roughly handled, were “had to Boston.” Holder, it is said, when he attempted to speak, had his head hauled back by the hair, and his mouth stuffed with handkerchief and gloves. At Boston they were whipped with a knotted whip, with all the strength of the hangman. A man named Shattock was imprisoned and whipped for interfering when Holder was gagged, and was afterwards banished.

In the next year, (September, 1658), Holder, Copeland, and another young man named Rouse, had their right ears cut off in the prison. A number of women were whipped and imprisoned; and one, Katharine Scott of Providence, being in Boston, pronounced the above punishment in prison, “a work of darkness,” and was therefore shamefully treated and abused, although a mother of children, and “a[Pg 77] grave, sober, ancient woman.” She was publicly whipped, and threatened with hanging if found in Boston again.

Three persons known as Quakers, on their way from Salem to Rhode Island, to provide a place for themselves and families, were arrested by the constable at Dedham, and sent to Boston, where Gov. Endicott set them at liberty, but fined them twelve shillings, as it would seem for the stupidity of the constable. The constable, no doubt, arrested them for fear of being fined for neglect of duty.

In 1658-59, persecutions continued fearfully, and numbers were arrested, imprisoned, and punished. In the latter year, William Robinson, formerly a London merchant, Marmaduke Stevenson, and Myra (or Mary) Dyar, having returned after banishment, were sentenced to be hung; and the two men were hung, Oct. 20. Myra Dyar was upon the ladder, her arms and legs tied, and the rope about her neck, when, at the urgent solicitation of her son, she was spared and sent out of the colony; but she returned again the next year, impressed with the belief that her death was necessary to the cause she had espoused,—as fanatical as were the Puritans themselves,—and was hung in June. The bodies of the men, it is said, were shamefully stripped and abused, after they were literally cut down, and were thrown into a hole together.

In July, 1660, Margaret Brewster, from Barbadoes, and two or three other women, made an incursion into the Old South Church; she appeared “in sackcloth, with ashes on her head, barefoot and her face[Pg 78] blackened,” with some purpose of warning the people against the black pox, “if they put in practice a cruel law against swearing.”

It is said also “that Deborah Wilson went through the streets of Salem naked as she came into the world, for which she was well whipped.” Thomas Newhouse went into a meeting-house in Boston, and smashed two empty bottles together, with a threat to the people; and, no doubt, other provoking things were done.

In March, 1661, persecutions still prevailing, William Leddra, who came from Barbadoes, was arrested, together with one William Brend; and Drake says, “The cruelties perpetrated on these poor, misguided men are altogether of a character too horrid to be related.” It is said that Leddra would not accept life on any terms, and was therefore hung on the 14th of March; and Capt. Johnson, who led him forth to the gallows, was afterwards taken “with a distemper which deprived him of his reason and understanding as a man.”

These proceedings, outrageous as they certainly were, led to a movement in England by the Quakers and their friends, which resulted in an order from the King, Sept. 9, 1661, requiring that a stop should be put to all capital or corporal punishments. The following are the words of this remarkable document:—

The bearer of this mandate from the King was one of the banished Quakers, formerly of Salem; and when he appeared at Gov. Endicott’s house, on Pemberton Square, was admitted to the presence, and ordered to take his hat off; and on receiving the mandamus the Governor took his own hat off (which he probably put on to receive his callers). After reading the document, he went out and bade the two Friends to follow him, and proceeded to consult, as it appeared, with Lieut.-Gov. Willoughby (not Bellingham, as some writers have it). His answer was, “We shall obey his majesty’s command.” So far as hanging was forbidden, the command was obeyed. The formality of sending Commissioners to England to defend and justify the measures of the colony was adopted, but never amounted to any thing.

[Pg 80]The laws against the Quakers were afterwards revived to the extent of whipping, limited to “through three towns only;” and perhaps they did not choose to regard this display as “capital or corporal punishment.”

In May, 1664, Edward Wharton, of Salem, being in Boston, a Quaker meeting was held, when a warrant was issued for his arrest: but the meeting being over, he was found at a friend’s house; was arrested; the next day whipped, and sent to the constable at Lynn, to be whipped there, and then sent to Salem. In one instance, a girl, eleven years of age, allowing herself to be a Quaker, whether she knew what the word meant or not, was sent to prison, and afterwards brought before the great and dignified Court. The Court speak of “the malice of Satan and his instruments,” and determine that as “Satan is put to his shifts to make use of such a child, not being of the years of discretion, it is judged meet so far to slight her as a Quaker, as only to admonish and instruct her according to her capacity, and so discharge her.” Hutchinson says, “It would have been horrible, if there had been any further severity.”

In 1665, additional laws were made, or orders passed, levying a fine of ten shillings for attending a Quaker meeting, and five pounds for speaking at one; and, in the same year, the penalty of death was revived against all Quakers who should return to the colony after they had been banished. Some persons ventured to express their dissent with regard to some of these laws, and, probably owing to their respectability, escaped punishment; but Nicholas[Pg 81] Upsall, who had shown compassion to some Quakers while in prison, in 1656-57, was fined and banished, and endured incredible hardships. Three years later, in 1660, he returned, and was again thrown into prison, and died in 1666.

The laws against Quakers and heretics were published in Boston “with beat of drum through its streets.” We presume they were read after the town-crier fashion of later days.

In 1677, when the toleration of the Quakers was thought to be one of the sins which brought on the Indian war, as a punishment, the Court ordered, “That every person found at a Quaker’s meeting shall be apprehended ex officio, by the constable, and, by warrant from a magistrate or commissioner, shall be committed to the House of Correction, and there have the discipline of the house applied to them, and be kept to work, with bread and water, for three days, and then released, or else shall pay five pounds in money, as a fine to the country, for such offence, and all constables neglecting their duty, in not faithfully executing this order, shall incur the penalty of five pounds, upon conviction, one third thereof to the informer.”

Upon this remarkable order, Hutchinson declares, “I know of nothing which can be urged as in anywise tending to excuse the severity of this law, unless it be human infirmity,” and, he adds, the practices of other religious sects who are persuaded that the indulgence of any other “was a toleration of impiety” and brought down the judgments of heaven. This law cost the colony many friends.

[Pg 82]Soon after this a party was arrested and “whipped at the cart’s tail up and down the town with twenty lashes.” On the same day, fourteen Quakers were arrested at a meeting, and twelve of them whipped: the other two had their fines paid by their friends. At the next meeting, fourteen or fifteen more, including some strangers, were arrested and whipped. And yet the Quakers continued their meetings; and, finally, one of them was so large, that, as it is said, “fearfulness surprised the hypocrites,” and the meeting was not molested.[6]

Hutchinson says, “Notwithstanding the great variety of sectaries in England, there had been no divisions of any consequence in the Massachusetts; but from 1637 to 1656, they enjoyed, in general, great quietness in their ecclesiastical affairs, discords in particular churches being healed and made up by a submission to the arbitrament of neighboring churches, and sometimes the interposition of the civil power.” But soon after all this, commencing indeed in 1655, in New England, continues Hutchinson, “it must be confessed, that bigotry and cruel zeal prevailed, and to that degree that no opinions but their own could be tolerated. They were sincere but mistaken in their principles; and absurd as it is, it is too evident, they believed it to be for the glory of God to take away the lives of his creatures for maintaining tenets contrary to what they [Pg 83]professed themselves.” It is said, however, “that every religion which is persecuted becomes itself persecuting; for as soon as, by some accidental turn, it arises from persecution, it attacks the religion which persecuted it.” Perhaps the Puritans thought they had been persecuted!

It seems to be understood that the Quakers finally got a standing in Boston, and a meeting-house, as, in 1667, mention is made of their “ordinary place of meeting,” though their numbers were small. The Baptists, however, did not get their meeting-house until 1679; and then, as a law had been passed against the building of meeting-houses without permission of the county courts, theirs was built as a private house, and afterwards purchased by them. But Drake says, “The times had become so much changed that such a law could not be very well enforced.” By this time, also, the matter was again brought to the notice of the king, Charles II.; and he wrote, on July 24, to the authorities of Boston, “requiring them not to molest people in their worship, who were of the Protestant faith, and directing that liberty of conscience should be extended to all such.” This letter, it is said, had some effect on the rulers, although they regarded it as an interference with their chartered rights; and, after all, it was rather a development of that common sense which fanaticism and bigotry had so long obscured, possibly awakened by the order of the king, rather than controlled by it, that brought about the change in the spirit of persecution.

In 1737, a different Christian spirit was manifested[Pg 84] towards the Quakers, and they were exempted from taxes for the support of the clergy, provided they attended their own meetings. A letter from a Quaker to the King gives the following statement of the punishments and penalties received by his brethren: “Twenty-two have been banished on pain of death, three have been martyred, three have had their right ears cut, one hath been burned in the hand with the letter H, thirty-one persons have received six hundred and fifty stripes, ... one thousand and forty-four pounds worth of goods have been taken from them, and one lieth now in fetters, condemned to die.” The letter H was probably intended for “heretic,” which would certainly be giving a judgment against the religion the Quakers professed.

In 1694, the Quakers owned a lot on Brattle Street, and it is thought probable had some sort of a meeting-house upon it; but still the years passed on, we hardly know how, until 1708, when they desired to build a brick house, but could not get permission to do so. Afterwards they built a small brick meeting-house in the rear of Congress Street on one side, and in the rear of Water Street on the other. It ran back to what is now the line of Exchange Place; in fact, was nearly in the centre of the square formed by State, Congress, Water, and Devonshire Streets. This building was partly destroyed by fire in 1760, having been standing more than fifty years; was then repaired, and finally demolished in 1825, having been unoccupied for nearly twenty years, the society, in 1808, having voted to discontinue their meetings.

[Pg 85]It is probably true that the treatment of the Quakers in the Massachusetts Colony, in the years mentioned, from 1600 to 1666-67, is unparalleled in the history of the human race; and although it may be true, as has been said, that the people here exiled themselves in order that “they might maintain and perpetuate what they conceived to be the principles of true Christianity,” they manifested but little of the spirit of the Saviour of mankind or the religion he came to teach. Hutchinson concludes what he has to say of the remarkable persecution of the Quakers and its severity, with the remark, “May the time never come again, when the government shall think that by killing men for their religion they do God good service.” However other denominations of Christians were persecuted by the Puritans, only Quakers and witches were hung. “These transient persecutions,” as Bancroft calls them, with all the leniency possible, “begun in self-defence, were yet no more than a train of mists hovering of an autumn morning over the channel of a fine river, that diffused freshness and fertility wherever it wound.” Much of this condition of things, it must be admitted, resulted from natural causes; namely, the character and circumstances of the settlers, their peculiar religious belief, and absolute fanaticism.

Finally, another writer says, “The Puritans disclaimed the right to sit in judgment on the opinions of others. They denied that they persecuted for conscience sake.” These and some other statements seem to show that they did not practise as they preached, or gave an interpretation to that practice[Pg 86] not in accordance with the understanding and convictions of mankind. To be sure, they had a law to punish any one who spoke disrespectfully of the Scriptures, and at the same time fined, punished, banished, and hung those who entertained and presumed to teach principles, belief, or doctrines in relation to the Scriptures different from their own; not, as they allege, because they had the right to sit in judgment upon them, but because of the dangers of their teaching and practice: in other words, for their own protection, “self-defence,” as has been said. Nevertheless, maiming, marring, and taking the lives of God’s creatures, the equals in every respect of themselves, as Hutchinson puts it, is only to be apologized for or excused by the infirmities of humanity; indeed, we should rather say, is not to be excused on any such ground, and their own doctrine and belief teaches that it was a proceeding to be punished and repented of. This, at any rate, was always the belief of the Quakers. Drake says, “The persecuted Quakers were fully persuaded that a day of wrath would overtake New England, and they did not fail to declare their belief; and, indeed, it was not long before their predictions were fulfilled: for the terrible war with the Indians, which followed in a few years, was viewed by them as the vengeance of heaven for their cruelty to the Quakers.”

[Pg 87]

VIII.

FIRST NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA.

It is said that the first newspaper ever issued was at Venice in 1583,[7] called “The Gazette,”—and this was in manuscript,—unless (as has been reported) there was an older paper of some kind issued at Hong-Kong. The oldest printed newspaper, “The English Mercury,” was issued in England in 1588,[8] but, it is believed, was not regularly published. In the next century, from 1624 onward, newspapers multiplied; and among them were “The Parliament Kite,” and “The Secret Owl,” and some other curious names. Towards the close of this century, the first American newspaper appeared; and possibly this had been preceded by what represented a newspaper, in manuscript, as was the case afterwards in Boston in 1704, when “The News-Letter” first appeared. The first American newspaper was issued in Boston in 1690,—only fifty or sixty years after newspapers became common in England,—if the statements which we have quoted are reliable. But at this time, as might be reasonably supposed, the people who came to this country in order to improve their liberties,[Pg 88] were not prepared for a free press, or, one might almost say, for any thing that did not tally with their religious notions and vague superstitions; so that, after the first issue, Sept. 25, 1690, the paper was suppressed, as said, by the “legislative authorities.” Still it was a newspaper, intended to be such, and intended to be regularly issued once a month, or oftener, if occasion required.

It was entitled as follows:—

“Numb. 1.  Publick
OCCURRENCES,
Both Foreign and Domestic.
Boston, Thursday, Sept. 25, 1690.”

It was “printed by R. Pierce, for Benjamin Harris, at the London Coffee House, 1690.” And it would seem that most of the copies were destroyed, though probably not many were printed, as only one copy has ever been found, and that by some unknown chance got into the colonial state-paper office, in London. It is a small sheet of paper doubled, printed on three pages, two columns to each; and some years ago, after a good deal of trouble to find the copy in the London office, the contents of the whole sheet were copied by Dr. Samuel A. Green, of Boston, and have since been once or twice reprinted.

It is said that it was stopped by the “legislative authorities,” who described it as a “pamphlet,” and as containing “reflections of a very high nature;” and the order of the Court, passed in 1662 forbade “any thing in print without license first obtained from those appointed by the government to grant[Pg 89] the same:” so that it would seem that there was a law against printing any thing without a license, and that this sheet, called a pamphlet, came within its provisions. “In 1644, It is ordered that the Printers shall have leave to print the Election Sermon with Mr. Mather’s consent, and the Artillery’s with Mr. Norton’s consent.” This, of course, meant without their undergoing any inspection.

With respect to the contents of this first newspaper, the introductory paragraph is as follows:—

“It is designed that the countrey shall be furnished once a month (or if any Glut of Occurrences happen oftener,) with an Account of such considerable things as have arrived unto our Notice.”

The editor, it is said, will take pains to get a faithful relation of things, and hopes observers will communicate of such matters as fall under their notice; and then states what is proposed in an editorial way: first, that memorable occurrences may not be neglected or forgotten: second, that people may better understand public affairs; and third, “that something may be done towards the Curing, or at least the Charming of that Spirit of Lying, which prevails among us,” &c. This, probably, is one of the passages referred to by the authorities as “reflections of a very high nature.” And, in addition to what has been said, “the Publisher of these Occurrences” proposes to correct false reports, and expose the “First Raiser” of them, and thinks “none will dislike this Proposal, but such as intend to be guilty of so villainous a Crime.”

Then follows the news, or “Occurrences.” [Pg 90]Mention is made of a thanksgiving appointed by the Christian Indians of Plymouth; the husbandmen find no want of hands, “which is looked upon as a merciful Providence,” being a favorable season; the Indians have stolen two children, aged nine and eleven years, from Chelmsford; an old man of Watertown hung himself in his cow-house, having lately lost his wife, and thereupon “the devil took advantage of the melancholy which he thereupon fell into.” Epidemical fevers and agues and small-pox are next spoken of: of small-pox, three hundred and twenty had died in Boston, and “children were born full of the distemper.” A large fire is spoken of near the Mill Creek,—twenty houses burned; and on the 16th and 17th of this instant (September, 1690), a fire broke out near the South Meeting-house, which consumed five or six houses; a young man perished in the flames, and one of the best printing-presses was lost. Report of a vessel bound to Virginia, put into Penobscot, where the Indians and French butchered the master and most of the crew.

The next is a longer article in relation to the expedition to Canada under Gen. Winthrop, its failure, and a variety of Indian complications. The editor says, “’Tis possible we have not so exactly related the Circumstances of this business, but the Account is as near exactness as any that could be had, in the midst of many various reports about it.”

Then follows an account of the massacre of a body of French Indians in the “East Country.” Two English captives escaped at Passamaquoddy, and got into Portsmouth. There was terrible butchery[Pg 91] among the French, Indians, and English at this time. Following this is some news from Portsmouth by an arrival from Barbadoes; a report that the city of Cork had proclaimed King William, and turned their French landlords out of doors, &c.; more Indian troubles at Plymouth, Saco, &c., &c. Then follows the imprint at the end, as already quoted.

Such was the nature, character, and contents of the first paper ever published in America; and we doubt if the first paper printed in England, more than a hundred years before, exceeded this in manner and matter. The judgment of the present day would be that it was a very good paper for the time, both in its news and editorial matter, and we fail to see any ground of offence either against law or religion. Many of the early papers published in this country, after the failure of this attempt, are not half as good as this first copy of “Publick Occurrences.” It is creditable to Benjamin Harris, and its discontinuance not so creditable to the “legislative authorities,” who either made or perverted a law for its suppression. But the idea of establishing a newspaper “that something may be done towards the Curing, or at least the Charming of that Spirit of Lying, which prevails among us,” is very peculiar.

In all newspaper nomenclature it is hardly possible to find a more appropriate name than that selected for this first newspaper of America. We now have Heralds, Couriers, and Messengers; Records, Chronicles, and Registers; then all sorts of party names; Banner, and Standard; Crayon, Scalpel, and Broadaxe; Age, Epoch, Era, Crisis, Times; and finally[Pg 92] Sun, Star, Comet, Planet, Aurora, Galaxy, &c., but among these and thousands of other names, not one more truthful and expressive than that of “Publick Occurrences.”

THE BOSTON NEWS-LETTER.

The first Boston newspaper which gained a permanency, was published in 1704, and was continued for more than seventy years. It was equally fortunate in the selection of an appropriate and significant name, the “Boston News-Letter,” and this was possibly suggested by the fact that it was preceded by the issue of a news-letter in manuscript which was as strictly, as the newspaper which followed it, a “News-Letter.” Naturally enough too, considering the times, it was originated by the postmaster, who came in contact in his business, not only with the people of Boston, but generally with those of the whole colony, as we think, there were then but few post-offices in the colony: the need of a News-Letter for everybody would, as we have intimated, naturally suggest itself to him, and be also, as in fact it was, an important aid to his business, though it is said he did not make much out of it, and soon after lost his position as postmaster.

[Pg 93]John Campbell, a Scotchman, bookseller and postmaster, was the proprietor of the paper. It was printed on a half-sheet, pot paper, and was to be continued weekly, “Published by authority.” Among the contents was an article from the “London Flying Post,” containing news from Scotland, “concerning the present danger of the kingdom and the Protestant Religion,” “Papists swarm the nation,” &c.; also extracts from the London papers, and four paragraphs of marine news. Advertisements inserted “at a reasonable rate from twopence to five shillings.” On the same day that the paper was issued Judge Sewall notes in his diary that he went over to Cambridge, and gave Mr. Willard, president of the College, “the first News-Letter that was ever carried over the river.”

The second issue of the paper, No. 2, was on a whole sheet of pot paper, the last page blank.

In the fifth number Boone’s name was left out, and the paper was sold at the post-office. To No. 192, the paper was printed on a half-sheet, excepting the second issue.

Green printed the paper for Campbell, until Nov. 3, 1707, after which it was printed by John Allen, in Pudding Lane, near the post-office, and there to be sold; and Allen printed it four years to No. 390. On the day that number was published, Oct. 2, 1711, the post-office and printing-office were burnt; and the following week it was again printed by Green, in Newbury Street, and he continued to print it until October, 1715. In 1719, Mr. Campbell tried the experiment of printing a whole sheet, instead of a half[Pg 94] sheet, every other week, but this did not pay very well; and in addition to this difficulty, he lost the office of postmaster in December of that year. The new postmaster also printed a paper (Gazette) and this led to the first newspaper war in the country, but which did not last long, and terminated without much damage.

In 1721, Campbell got a new idea and printed some copies of the “News-Letter” on a sheet of writing paper, leaving one page blank, so that his subscribers could write their letters on that, and send the paper abroad without extra postage. In the next year, after he had published the paper eighteen years, he sold to his printer, Bartholomew Green. “Published by authority” had been omitted by Campbell for two years, and in 1725 Green restored it. In December, 1726, the title was changed to “The Weekly News-Letter,” and subsequently, in 1730, to “The Boston Weekly News-Letter,” and the numberings of the previous issues were added together, and the total reached 1,396, in October, 1730. No other alteration took place until the death of Green, when in Jan. 4, 1733, John Draper, his son-in-law, succeeded him. Draper printed the “News-Letter” for thirty years, and died November, 1762. His son, Richard Draper, continued the paper and enlarged the title to “The Boston Weekly News-Letter and New England Chronicle.” In about a year the title was again altered to “The Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter,” and was decorated with the King’s Arms. Richard took a kinsman as partner, and the paper now bore this [Pg 95]imprint: “Published by Richard Draper, Printer to the Governor and Council, and by Samuel Draper, at the printing-office, in Newbury Street.” Richard Draper continued the paper, and in May, 1768, a singular arrangement took place between the “Massachusetts Gazette” (or News-Letter) and the “Boston Post Boy and Advertiser,” and both papers were “Published by authority,” in other words as government papers. Each paper was one-half “The Massachusetts Gazette, published by authority,” and the other half bore its own proper name; and Draper called it the “Adam and Eve paper.” This plan continued until September, 1769, and then its title “The Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter,” was resumed. In May, 1774, Draper took a partner, and the next month he died, and his widow, Margaret Draper, continued the paper in the interest of the loyalists or tories, until the evacuation of Boston, and then it ceased. She went to Halifax and then to England, and there obtained a pension. The “News-Letter” was published seventy-two years. It is a curious fact that the first newspaper established in Boston should have got into the hands of the tories, and in the last year of its existence, in the trying times of the revolutionary war, should have been conducted by a woman.

“The New England Chronicle, or The Evening Gazette,” published at Cambridge, Sept. 28, 1775, speaks of “Mrs. Draper’s Paper,” in the following paragraph:—

[Pg 96]“The miserable Tools of Tyranny in Boston appear now to be somewhat conscious of their infamy in Burning Charlestown, and are, with the assistance of the Father of Liars, devising Methods for clearing up their characters. One of them, in Mrs. Draper’s paper, asserts that the Provincials, on the 17th of June, after firing out of Houses upon the King’s troops, set the Buildings on Fire. This doubtless, is as true as that the Provincials fired first upon the King’s Troops at Lexington. Both of them are equally false, and well known to be as palpable Lies as ever were uttered. The propagation of them are, however, perfectly consistent with the Perfidy, Cowardice, and Barbarity of Gage and his detestable understrappers.”

Some other paragraphs are copied from “Mrs. Draper’s last Boston Paper,” of which the following is one:—

“We hear a certain Person of Weight among the Rebels hath offered to return to his Allegiance on Condition of being pardoned and provided for: What encouragement he has received remains a secret.”

John L. DeWolf, Esq., of Boston, has complete files of “The Boston Weekly News-Letter,” for the years 1744 and 1745; and we are indebted to him for the use of them. The following are specimens of some of the advertisements of the time:—

Elizabeth Macneal advertises “a likely young negro girl;” “also some Household goods to be sold.”

Josiah Jones advertises his man servant, 19 years of age as a runaway, “having on an old ragged Coat, a good Check’d Shirt and Trowsers, a Pair of Black Callamanco Breeches, a pair of Gray Yarn Stockings, and a new Pair of Shoes.”

[Pg 98]

IX.

CURIOUS BOSTON LECTURES.

BOSTONIAN EBENEZER.

There was published in Boston, in 1698, a very small thin volume of 82 pages, 3 × 5 inches, entitled “The Bostonian Ebenezer.” “Some Historical Remarks on the State of BOSTON, the Chief Town of New England and of the English AMERICA, with some agreeable methods for Preserving and Promoting, the Good State of THAT, as well as any other Town, in the like circumstances.” “Humbly offered by a native of Boston.” Ezk. 48, 35, “The Name of the City from that day, shall be THE LORD IS THERE.” Boston: printed by B. Green and F. Allen, for Samuel Phillips, at the Brick Shop, 1698.

This singular little volume contains two lectures. Preceding the first lecture at the top of the page are these lines:—

“THE HISTORY OF BOSTON,
Related and Improved.
At Boston Lecture 7d. 2m. 1698.” [April 7, 1698.]

The remainder of the page is occupied with this preface:—

[Pg 99]“Remarkable and memorable, was the Time, when an Army of Terrible Destroyers was coming against one of the Chief Towns in the Land of Israel. God Rescued the Town from the Irresistible Fury and Approach of those Destroyers, by an Immediate Hand of Heaven upon them. Upon that miraculous Rescue of the Town, and of the whole Country whose Fate was much enwrapped in it, there follow’d that Action of the Prophet, SAMUEL, which is this Day, to be, with some Imitation Repeated, in the midst of thee, O, BOSTON, Thou helped of the Lord.”

At the head of the next page we have the text,—

Then follows the exordium, in which the preacher says the Thankful Servants of God have used sometimes to erect monuments of stone as durable tokens of their thankfulness:—

The preacher proceeds,—

The preacher’s third division is that the help Boston has already had should lead her people to Hope. “Hope in him for more help hereafter.” “The motto upon all our Ebenezer’s is Hope in God! Hope in God!” In the course of this part of his lecture, the preacher says,—

The preacher goes on in two or three further divisions with his declamation against evil and sins, and his conjurations for better things, in faith, hopes and works, intimating all the evils that exist in Boston, and warning the people of the danger of them.

The second sermon is a piece of similar declamation, about what the preacher calls Household [Pg 103]Religion, “at Boston Lecture, 26d. 7m. 1695.” A short extract will give a sample of this discourse.

“First, I suppose, we are all sensible, That for us to Loose our Houses by any Disaster whatsoever, would be a very terrible Calamity: Oh! it would be a Judgment of God, wherein the Anger of God, would be seen written with fiery characters. If by an accident, or by an enemy, our House be laid in desolation, every Roar of the Raging Flames, every crack of the Tumbling Timbers, every Downfall of the Undermined walls, and every jingle of the Bells then tolling the Funeral of those Houses, would loudly utter the voice in Deut., A Fire is Kindled in the Anger of God.”

This discourse is very severe upon all “Houses where God is not served,” and defines them as gaming-houses, drinking-houses, houses where troops and harlots assemble. “If the Worshipful Justices, and the Constables, and the Tythingmen, would Invigorate their zeal, to Rout the Villanous Haunts of those Houses, the whole Town would be vastly the Safer for it.”

All that can be said of these curious discourses is that they are a strange medley of declamation, fanaticism, and exhortation, not lacking in thought perhaps, or devoid of sense, but rather insinuating than direct and sensible. The author does not print his name, though they purport to be Boston Lectures, one delivered in 1695 and the other in 1698: it is understood, however, that they were by the Rev. Cotton Mather.

[Pg 104]

X.

REMARKABLE PROCLAMATIONS.

FAST DAY.

The first proclamation, issued on a broadside, that we have seen, is that of March, 1743, “for a public fast.” It is issued by Gov. Shirley, and begins, “It being our constant and indispensable duty by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving to make known our requests to God,” &c. He then appoints the 12th of April ensuing to be observed as a day of general fasting and prayer. After acknowledging “all our heinous and aggravated offences,” the people are required to implore the Divine mercy for “the following blessings, namely,” the life and health of “Our Sovereign Lord the King;” the prosperity of his government; that he would direct and grant success to his Majesty’s arms in the present war, and prevent a further rupture among the nations; in behalf of the Prince and Princess of Wales; and that “it would please God to cover and defend the English plantations, more especially this Province,” &c. Given at the Council Chamber, signed, &c., and ending “God save the King.”

 [Pg 105]

“WAR AGAINST THE FRENCH KING.”

The next proclamation which we have is not probably much known, and not such as were issued by the governors of the Provinces or States, but is a “Declaration of war against the French King.” It purports to be issued originally from “Our Court at St. James’s, the twenty-ninth day of March, 1744, in the 17th year of our reign.” “God save the King.” “Printed in London by Thomas Baskett and Robert Baskett, printers to the King’s most excellent Majesty, 1744.” “Boston, N. E. reprinted by John Draper, Printer to His Excellency the Governor and Council, 1774.”

The proclamation rehearses the troubles which have taken place among the European states, “with a view to overturn the balance of power in Europe, ... in direct violation of the solemn guaranty of the Pragmatick Sanction given by him [the French King] in 1738, in consideration of the cession of Lorrain.” It refers to other offensive conduct of the French King, and then replies to some assertions made in the “French King’s declaration of war.” “Being therefore indispensably obliged to take up arms,” the King calls upon all his subjects to assist in prosecuting the same by sea and land; but no special reference is made to the British colonies in America, and the governor (Shirley) does not even add his name to the proclamation. One copy of the remarkable document, at least, has been preserved, and is in possession of Mr. John L. DeWolf of Boston. It is headed by an engraving of the King’s arms, as are[Pg 106] all the proclamations issued by the governor, including those for Fast and Thanksgiving Days, &c. It is not probable, though we do not know the fact, that a declaration of war by the King of England was ever re-issued by the governor of any other colony. Previously to this, in this colony, in 1672, the proclamation of war, by the King of England against the Dutch, was publicly read in Boston.

FAST DAY.

Following this on the 8th of June, 1744, was issued the “proclamation for a public fast.” “Whereas it hath pleased God, in his holy, wise and sovereign Providence, further to involve the British dominions in war, whereby this Province will be greatly affected,” &c. Therefore the 28th day of June is appointed to be observed as a day of fasting and prayer, &c., “and all servile labor and recreations are forbidden on that day.” Signed, W. Shirley. [Troops were raised in Boston at this time, following the declaration of 29th March, and sent to Annapolis, Nova Scotia, where they arrived, as Gordon says, in season, and “were the probable means of saving the country.”]

RIOT IN BRISTOL COUNTY.

Among the lesser proclamations, issued by Gov. Shirley, was one on account of “an heinous riot in the Town of Bristol, in open defiance of His Majesty’s authority and Government within this Province.” This was a case where the six persons named and “a great number of others,” marched to the county jail,[Pg 107] and there demanded the release of John Round, jr., and by force of arms broke open said prison, “rescuing and carrying off the said John Round and Samuel Borden, another prisoner in said gaol.” The governor calls upon all officers and people to apprehend and secure the parties, and “for the encouragement of all persons whatsoever that shall discover the parties,” a reward of one hundred pounds is offered for several of them, and fifty pounds each for others. Given at the Council Chamber in Boston, 18th day of October, 1744. Signed, &c.

WAR AGAINST THE INDIANS.

Another remarkable proclamation was issued by “His Excellency, William Shirley, Esq., Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief in and over His Majesty’s Province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England.” This is a “declaration of war against the Cape Sable’s and St. John’s Indians.” It is stated that whereas some of the Cape Sable Indians, who have formally by treaty submitted to his Majesty’s government, have, “in the port of Jedoure, in a treacherous and cruel manner, murdered divers of His Majesty’s English subjects, belonging to a fishing vessel; and, whereas, the Cape Sable Indians with the St. John’s tribe, have in a hostile manner joined with the French King’s subjects in assaulting His Majesty’s fort at Annapolis-Royal, &c., therefore, said Indians are declared to be rebels, traitors, and enemies, and His Majesty’s officers and subjects are to execute all acts of hostility against the said Indians,” &c. This proclamation is dated at Boston, Oct. 19, 1744.

 [Pg 108]

THANKSGIVING.

On the next day, 20th October, 1744, there was issued the usual proclamation for thanksgiving: “Forasmuch as, amidst the many rebukes of Divine Providence with which we are righteously afflicted, more especially in the present expensive and calamitous war, it has pleased God to favor us with many great and undeserved mercies in the course of this year,” particularly in preserving the life and health of the King, the Prince and Princess of Wales, &c.; in the restraint hitherto given to the Indians near the frontiers of this Province, &c.: therefore, the twenty-second day of December is to be observed as a day of thanksgiving throughout the Province. It will be noticed that nothing is said concerning the season or the crops in any of these thanksgiving proclamations, and it would seem that that matter was not thought of any account as compared with the health of his Majesty the King and the royal princesses.

[Here are three proclamations issued on the 18th, 19th, and 20th October, 1744, the first in relation to a “heinous riot,” the second a bloody declaration of war, and the third for a public thanksgiving.]

BLOODY PROCLAMATION AGAINST THE INDIANS.

In two weeks after the thanksgiving proclamation, on the 2d of November, 1744, came forth another proclamation from Gov. Shirley, of a most bloody character, against the Indians, as follows:—

[Pg 109]

By His Excellency

WILLIAM SHIRLEY, Esq.;

Captain-General and Governour-in-Chief, in and over His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England.

A PROCLAMATION

For the Encouragement of Voluntiers to prosecute the War against the St. John’s and Cape Sable’s Indians.

Whereas the Indians of the Cape-Sable’s and St. John’s Tribes have by their Violation of their solemn Treaties with His Majesty’s Governours, and their open Hostilities committed against His Majesty’s Subjects of this Province and the Province of Nova-Scotia, obliged me, with the unanimous Advice of His Majesty’s Council, to declare war against them; In Consequence of which the General Assembly of this Province have “Voted, That there be granted, to be paid out of the publick Treasury, to any Company, Party, or Person singly, of His Majesty’s Subjects, belonging to and residing within this Province, who shall voluntarily, and at their own proper Cost and Charge, go out and kill a male Indian of the Age of Twelve Years or upwards, of the Tribe of St. Johns or Cape-Sables, after the Twenty-sixth Day of October last past, and before the last Day of June Anno Domini, One Thousand seven Hundred and forty-five (or for such Part of that Term as the War shall continue), in any place to the Eastward of a Line, to be fixed by the Governour and His Majesty’s Council of this Province, somewhere to the Eastward of Penobscot, and produce his Scalp in Evidence of his Death, the Sum of one [Pg 110]Hundred Pounds in Bills of Credit of this Province of the new Tenor, and the Sum of one Hundred & Five Pounds in said Bills for any Male of the like Age who shall be taken Captive, and delivered to the Order of the Captain-General, to be at the Disposal and for the Use of the Government; and the Sum of Fifty Pounds, in said Bills, for women; and the like Sum for Children under the Age of Twelve Years killed in Fight; and Fifty-five Pounds for such of them as shall be taken Prisoners, together with the Plunder: Provided no Payment be made as aforesaid for killing or taking Captive any of the said Indians, until Proof thereof be made to the Acceptance of the Governour and Council;”

AND whereas, since the passing of the said Vote of the General Assembly, I have with the Advice of His Majesty’s Council determined, That the Line above mentioned, to the Eastward of which the said Indians may be slain and taken Prisoners, shall begin on the Sea-Shore at Three Leagues Distance from Eastermost Part of the Mouth of Passamaquoddy River, and from thence to run North into the Country thro’ the Province of Nova-Scotia, to the River of St. Lawrence;

I have therefore thought fit, with the Advice of His Majesty’s Council, to issue this Proclamation for giving public notice of the Encouragement granted by the General Court of all Persons who may be disposed to serve their King and Country in the Prosecution of the War against the said Cape-Sable’s and St. John’s Tribes, in the manner above-mentioned, upon their own charge; as also to give Notice to the several Tribes of the Eastern Indians, who are still in Amity with us, of the Boundary-Line aforesaid; assuring them that this Government have determined to treat as Enemies all such Indians as live beyond the said Line.

Given at the Council Chamber in Boston, on Friday the Second Day of November, 1744. In the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord GEORGE the Second, by the Grace of GOD of Great-Britain, France and Ireland, KING, Defender of the Faith, &c.

W. SHIRLEY.

By order of the Governour, with
the Advice of the Council,
J. Willard, Secr.
GOD save the KING.

[Pg 111]No mention is made of either of these remarkable proclamations in any history of Boston, or other work that we have seen; and it can scarcely be generally known that Massachusetts indorsed the proclamation of the King of England, declaring war against “the French King,” or that the colony, without regard to the King and his government, declared war, including the most desperate and bloody conditions, against the St. John’s and Cape Sable’s Indians, a hundred years after the settlement of the colony, and something more than one hundred and fifty years ago. It will be noticed that the sum of five pounds additional is offered in each case for man, woman, or child, if brought in alive; but considering the expense, danger, and trouble of doing so, it could hardly have been expected that any thing beyond the scalps of the victims, even of children, would be brought in; and it would seem, if any considerable number were killed or brought in, that the debt incurred would be likely to become somewhat burdensome upon the colony. The terms of the proclamation were based upon the votes and orders of the General Court, authorizing the payment of the rewards offered, passed on the 26th day of October. The records of Boston show that in 1756, January, £50 were paid for an Indian scalp, and it is to be hoped this was the only payment ever made for such a purchase.

FAST DAY.

This threatening proclamation was followed by another, on the 18th February, for a general fast, as at[Pg 112] this time the expedition to Louisbourg, which soon followed, was in preparation:—

“Whereas it has pleased Almighty God, in his holy and sovereign Providence, to involve His Majesty’s Dominions in War, which, notwithstanding the many instances of success, which, through Divine favor, have attended the arms of His Majesty and his allies, ought to be regarded as an effect of the anger of God against us; and, whereas, this government have, upon mature consideration, determined by the Divine permission, to prosecute an expedition against His Majesty’s enemies, upon the success of which, the prosperity of His Majesty’s subjects in North America, and more especially in this Province, does under God, much depend,” &c., &c., therefore the 28th day of February instant, is appointed for a general fast, to be observed with fervent prayers and supplications, and all labor and recreation are strictly forbidden. “Given at the Province House, in Boston, the 18th day of February, 1744.”

[The expedition sailed soon after, and arrived at Canso, under Col. Pepperell, on the 4th of April, having 3,250 Massachusetts troops. The fort and city of Louisbourg were surrendered and given up on the 17th of June; and two East India ships and one South Sea ship, worth £600,000, were captured at the mouth of the harbor.]

ANOTHER FAST.

On the 25th of March, 1745, Gov. Shirley issues another proclamation for a general fast, on Thursday, 4th day of April. The expedition for Cape Breton[Pg 113] had just embarked and “taken their departure from this place,” and this was deemed, in addition to the usual custom, occasion for a fast. The favor of Divine Providence was implored for the success of the expedition which the government had, at “great expense and labor, raised and fitted out with a large body of troops and a considerable naval force, for an expedition against the French at Cape Breton,” &c.

THANKSGIVING REJOICING.

News of the success of the expedition was received in Boston, on the 2d of July, 1745, and there were great rejoicings and illuminations in the town in consequence; and on the 8th, Gov. Shirley issued his proclamation for a general thanksgiving, it having pleased God, as he elaborately expressed it, “by a wonderful series of successes to bring this great affair to a happy issue in the reduction of the city and fortress of Louisbourg.” There was added, “All servile labor is forbidden on said day,” and the bar against recreations is omitted; but all persons are called upon to preserve order.

GOV. PHIPS’S PROCLAMATIONS.

In September, 1745, while Gov. Shirley and his lady were absent on a visit to Louisbourg, the scene of the late success of his expedition, Spencer Phips, acting governor, issued three proclamations in the following three months: on the 6th of September, for a public fast, partly on account of the war with the Indians, and among other things “that His Excellency the Governor may be directed and [Pg 114]succeeded in the important affairs he is transacting at Louisbourg and returned in safety.” Signed S. Phips. By order of the honorable the Lieut.-Governor, with the advice of the Council. J. Willard, Secretary.

The second was issued on the twenty-second day of November, 1745, on account of some disorders in Boston, committed by divers officers and seamen, belonging to His Majesty’s ship “Wager,” and other seamen belonging to the sloop “Resolution,” late in His Majesty’s service, by which two persons lost their lives. The constables and authorities of Boston and Charlestown are called upon to search for them in any justly suspected houses, &c. By order of the Honorable the Lieut.-Governor, with the advice of the Council.

The third proclamation of acting Governor Phips was issued on the 25th of November, 1745, for a general thanksgiving, in “consideration of the manifold and remarkable instances of the Divine favor towards our nation and land in the course of the past year, which (though mixed with various rebukes of Providence manifesting the righteous discipline of God toward us for our sins) demand our publick and thankful acknowledgments.” Signed, S. Phips. By His Honor’s command, with the advice of the Council.

Besides the above there were two or three other proclamations, calling for troops and other objects. The first Fast Day held in the Plymouth Colony, so far as we know, was in the month of July, 1623, and the first in the Massachusetts Colony, July 30, 1630, soon after Winthrop’s arrival.

[Pg 115]

XI.

POPULAR PURITAN LITERATURE.

AN EARTHQUAKE IN BOSTON.

On the Lord’s day, June 3, 1744, between ten and eleven o’clock, there was experienced at Boston, a violent earthquake, “which was felt for above an hundred of miles.” The matter, naturally somewhat startling and impressive, called forth from some unknown author, an elaborate poem, the purpose and spirit of which will be readily understood by a few extracts. It is printed on a sheet, about 12 by 20 inches, in three columns, and was “sold by Benjamin Gray, in Milk Street, 1744.” The first portion and some other parts of the poem are missing from the copy we have. Somewhere near the middle of the first column our quotations commence:—

“Again the Lord did shake the Earth,
While Christ was in the Tomb,
When from the glorious Heavenly World
A glorious Angel came.
Behold there was at that same Time
An Earthquake strong and great,
Which made the Watchmen at the Tomb
To tremble, shake and quake.
[Pg 116]Again when Paul and Silas was
Once into Prison cast,
And cruelly the Keeper had
In stocks made their feet fast,
Like the dear Children of the Lord,
They to their Father sing,
They praises sing unto the Lord
Till all the Prison did ring.
When lo! immediately there was
A terrible Earthquake,
Which made the whole foundation of
The Prison-House to shake.
The Doors fly open by its Power
And now wide open stand,
’Till these dear Prisoners of the Lord
Are loosed from their Bands.
And thus we see in very Truth,
This wondrous Work is done,
By none but the eternal God,
And Israel’s holy One.
And that they’re tokens of his Wrath,
O, let not one gain-say,
For sure the Lord is much provok’d,
When he speaks in this way.
Be then excited, O, dear Friends
With vigorous accord,
And all the might and strength you have,
To turn unto the Lord.
For lo! on the last Sabbath day,
The Lord did plainly shew,
What in a single moment’s time
He might have done with you.
A solemn warning let it be,
To all with one accord
[Pg 117]For their Souls precious Life to haste
Their turning unto God.
······
“Perhaps you’ll think the Danger’s past
That all is safe and sure
Because the mighty God hath said
He’ll drown the world no more.
But, oh! consider dearest Friends,
How vast his judgments are,
And if you are resolv’d to Sin
To meet your God prepare.
Who hath his Magazines of Fire,
In Heaven and Earth and Seas,
Which always wait on his Command,
And run where’er he please.
If God the awful word but speak,
And bid the Fire run,
The Magazines together meet,
And like a furnace burn.
Above our Head, below our Feet,
God Treasures hath in Store;
And when he gives out his Command,
The Volcano’s will roar.
Amazingly the Earth will quake,
The World a flaming be
When God, the great, the mighty God
Gives forth his just Decree.
······
“That man can’t be prevail’d upon
Tho’ with our strong desire,
To get prepar’d against the Day
When all the World on Fire
Shall burn and blaze about their Heads,
And they no Shelter have;
[Pg 118]No Rock to hide their guilty Heads,
No, nor no watery Grave.
For Rocks will melt like Wax away
Before the dreadful Heat,
And Earth and Sea and all will flame
In one consuming Heap.
The Earth beneath abounds with Stores
Of Oils and Sulphurs too,
And Turfs and Coals, which all will Flame,
When God commands the blow.
The flaming Lightning which we see
Around the Heavens run,
Do livelily now represent
The Conflagration.
Those flaming magazines of God
Have fire enough in store,
And only wait their Lord’s commands
To let us feel their power.
When once receiv’d they then will run,
They’ll run from Pole to Pole,
And all the strength of Earth and Hell
Cannot their power controle.
Justly may we now stand amaz’d,
At God’s abundant Grace,
To think so base and vile a World
Is not all in a Blaze;
When far the greatest part thereof
Are poor vile Infidels,
Among the Christian part thereof
Are sins as black as Hell.”

In conclusion, these “precious souls” are entreated to join with one accord

“In praising of the Holy Name,
Of the Eternal God.”

[Pg 119]Earthquakes were at one time rather common in New England, but nothing to be compared to their frequency in England. It is said that in what is called the “mobile district,” of Comrie, in Perthshire, during the winter of 1839 and 1840, they had one hundred and forty earthquakes, being at the rate of about one shock a day on an average; and it is added, “They seldom do much harm.”

The following is a memorandum, probably nearly correct and complete, of earthquakes experienced in Boston, between the years 1636 and 1817; and it may be considered fortunate that they were not all commemorated by Puritan poets.

 [Pg 120]

DEBORAH: A BEE.

Another broadside sheet, some seven by twelve, is entitled as above, and divided into paragraphs, numbered from one to twenty, in prose. It is a sort of sermon in which the Christian is compared to the Bee, or perhaps placed in competition with the industrious and self-supporting insect. Its positions, omitting most of the applications, are these: The bee is a laborious, diligent creature; so is the Christian. The bee is a provident creature; so is the Christian. The bee feeds on the sweetest and choicest foods; so does the Christian. The bee puts all into the common stock; so is the Christian of a generous, communicative temper. The bee is always armed; so is the Christian with respect to his spiritual armor. Bees are a sort of commonwealth; so Christians are likened to a city that is compacted together. The bee, as it always has a bag of honey, has also a bag of rank poison; so has the Christian, with the grace of God, a body of sin and corruption, &c. Lastly, the bee lies dormant all winter; so the Christian sometimes slumbers, &c. “Yet the hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall awake and come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; but alas, they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation!” Sold by Kneeland & Green, in Queen Street. Illustrated with a small fanciful engraving of a bee-hive, surrounded with horns of plenty and decorative carving.

 [Pg 121]

PROPOSED POPISH INVASION.

Every thing which occurred in England, or elsewhere, in fact, having any reference to Popery, however remote, was sure to interest the Puritans, and demand their attention; and, it would seem, was sometimes provocative of poetry. So when the “happy discovery of a cursed plot against the church of God, Great Britain and her King,” was announced by the King, on the 15th of February, 1743 (i.e., 1744), a large hand-bill was issued from the Boston press, to which the printer did not put his name, headed, “Good news from London, to the rejoicing of every christian heart.” This was the discovery of the plot “for bringing in a young Popish pretender.” The news was received by an arrival at Portsmouth, N.H., in twenty-six days from England, and included the message of the King to Parliament. The hand-bill contained the message in which the King declares that “having received undoubted intelligence that the eldest son of the pretender to his crown is arrived in France, and that preparations are making there to invade this kingdom, in concert with disaffected persons here,” &c., his Majesty acquaints the House of the matter in order that measures may be taken, &c.

This is followed by a long anonymous poem, beginning,—

“Behold the French and Spaniards rage,
And people with accord
Combine, to take away the life
Of George, our sovereign lord.
[Pg 122]······
“When George the first came to the throne,
Their rage began to burn,
And now they fain would execute
The same upon his son.

“Their hellish breast being set on fire,
Even with the fire of Hell,
Nor Love, nor charms, nor clemency,
Can their base malice quell.”
······

And so on through three columns, and then comes the

CONCLUSION.

“Let all that openly profess,
The ways of Christ our Lord,
Not spare to tell how much such things
Are by their souls abhor’d.

“Let every child of God now cry,
To the eternal one,
That George our sovereign lord and king
May ne’er be overcome.

“That all his Foes may lick the Dust,
And melt like Wax away,
That joy and peace and righteousness
May flourish in his day.”

The proposed expedition, it is well known, never landed in England. The combined fleet escaped an engagement, and the transports were wrecked and scattered by a storm in the English Channel.

 [Pg 123]

THE SCOTTISH REBELLION.

“A short history of the Grand Rebellion in Scotland, or a brief account of the rise and progress of Charles Stuart, the young pretender, and his associates; and his seasonable defeat by His Majesty’s Forces under the command of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland.”

This remarkable production is printed on one side of a single sheet of paper, seven by twelve, in verse, three columns. It begins,—

“From Rome the proud Pretender’s come
Flush’d with conceits of Britain’s Crown,
Imagining, poor silly Lad,
Those glorious Kingdoms to have had,
And all the churches of the Lord,
They’ve roll’d in seas of Purple Blood;
His grand commission from the Pope
Was Fire, Faggot, Sword, and Rope,
Or Boots, or Scourges, Cord and Whips,
For all poor vile Hereticks.”

The poet proceeds with the landing in Scotland, where the Popish priest demised to him the land; the joining of the disaffected, the robbing of the people:—

“They range about and seek for prey
Nor spare aught comes in their way;
They murder, steal, rob and destroy,
And many a goodly Town annoy.”

Flushed with victory, they move toward England, “and now to London drive along.”

[Pg 124] “Which brave Prince William quickly hears
And without any Dread or Fears,
Pursues the Rebels in full chase,
And lo, they fly before his Grace,
Who still pursues and overtakes,
And many a Highland captive makes.
······
The rest now fly, won’t stand to Fight,
But back to Scotland make their flight.
And there like Beasts who’ve furious grown
They range about from Town to Town.
······
But Heaven beheld these bloody men,
No longer now would bear with them,
Inspires the Duke of Cumberland
To take the work into his hand,
To scourge this cursed barbarous Brood
For all their Rapine, Stealth, and Blood.
Away he goes, post haste he flies,
To face the raging Enemies,
To Scotland, where the wretches fled,
When chas’d from Carlisle, full of dread,
Where being come, his troops combine,
And all in lovely Consort join,
And strong Desires do now express,
To slay these Sons of Wickedness.
Great Joy and Gladness now was shown,
When to the Folk it was made known
That Cumberland, the brave, was come
To save them from expected Ruin.”

The people joining the Duke, the enemy was pursued, when—

“A church in which their stores did lay,
They blow’d up ere they ran away,”

[Pg 125]after they had bid the people enter in, and many “precious souls at one sad Blast, into eternity are cast.”

“But hard beset by British force
They dare not stay, or they’d do worse;
Some fly to mountains, some to dales,
When all their hellish Courage fails.
······
Flying I leave them, ’till we hear
The end of this most bloody war.
······
For which the thankful folk proclaim
Thanksgivings to the Almighty name,
And may we all now join with them,
And to their Thanks join our Amen.”

Sold by B. Gray, near the market. Without date; printed in 1744.

[Pg 126]

XII.

REVOLUTIONARY PROCLAMATIONS.

Gen. Gage’s administration of less than a year and a half in the “Province of Massachusetts Bay,” for he never had any government over the province other than military, was prolific in proclamations, some of which are rather curious. On the 1st of June, 1774, by order of Parliament and the King, Boston Harbor was closed and possessed by ships of the British navy. Nothing could enter or leave the port: wood as fuel could not be brought from the islands, or merchandise or lumber removed from wharf to wharf by water; nothing whatever could be water borne within a circle of sixty miles, either to arrive or depart. At the same time British troops held the town; and the government, such as it was, was removed to Salem, where the General Court reassembled on the 7th of June. At this session, on the 17th, as the result of arrangements made by Samuel Adams and his fellow-patriots, five delegates were chosen to represent the colony in the proposed Continental Congress, at Philadelphia. As soon as these proceedings, while yet in progress, reached Gen. Gage’s ears by a tricky tory, who got out of the hall[Pg 127] by feigning a call of nature, he issued his first proclamation, which Mr. Secretary Flucker, as he found the door locked and could not get into the chamber, had to read on the stairs, as follows:—

Gen. Gage’s next proclamation was against the existence of the famous “Committee of Correspondence,” which Samuel Adams had originated, and the “solemn league and covenant” “to suspend all commercial intercourse with the island of Great Britain,” &c. And “in tenderness to the inhabitants of this province,” he issued this proclamation of warning.

Then, as if to cap the climax of pretension and folly, not to say hypocrisy, on the 25th of July, while he relied upon the counsels and efforts of the tory party, issued what may be called a very curious proclamation, such as possibly, under some circumstances, might have been issued by Gov. Endicott, in the[Pg 128] early days of New England Puritanism; but the Puritans had long before this time passed out of power. The following is the proclamation:—

The gist of the proclamation, which was specially intended for the people of Boston, for whose benefit the words “sedition and hypocrisy” were used, was in the phrase, “submission to the laws of God and man.” This proclamation was not like the previous one, directed to the sheriffs; nor was it ordered to be posted in the several towns of the province; nor was it ordered to be read from the pulpits of the churches; but the justices of the courts and grand juries were to see to its observance. It was, in fact, a mere piece of gasconade on the part of the governor, in imitation of his Majesty very likely; but, like the others, nobody either observed it or troubled themselves about it; and it has very rarely been spoken of since, if at all, by any historian. However it may be characterized, it simply had the effect to exasperate the minds of the people, owing to the insertion of hypocrisy among the immoralities.[10] The proclamation itself, as they thought, was the boldest piece of political hypocrisy the government had yet perpetrated. It was much like every thing else[Pg 130] which the king, ministry, or governor had done from the time of the stamp-act, and had a tendency to make matters worse instead of better.

Gen. Gage’s proclamation of the 12th of June, 1775, offering pardon to all who shall lay down their arms, &c., is well known. It begins,—

“Whereas the infatuated multitude who have suffered themselves to be conducted by certain well-known incendiaries and traitors in a fatal progression of crimes against the constitutional authority of the state, have at length proceeded to avowed rebellion,” &c. ... “A number of armed persons to the amount of many thousands assembled on the 19th of April,” &c. “In this exigency I avail myself of the last effort,” and thereupon offers “a full pardon to all who shall lay down their arms, excepting Samuel Adams and John Hancock, whose offences are of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration than that of condign punishment,” &c.

The proclamation was probably written by Gen. Burgoyne, and so little attention was paid to it that the army continued intact at Cambridge, and in exactly one week from its date occurred the battle of Bunker Hill, which proved so “fatal” to more than a thousand British soldiers. In less than four months after this time Gen. Gage “laid down his arms” and returned to England; and a few months later, in March, 1776, the army and the navy followed his example and left the country, taking the “Port Act” with them, but leaving for the use of the colony, arms, ammunition, provisions, and even medical stores.

[Pg 131]

XIII.

CURIOSITIES OF THE MARKET.

After arriving at Mishawam, and voting the church and that the minister should be supported at the common charge, it became necessary to think of providing in some way for the sustenance of the party. Although Gov. Winthrop, when he arrived off the harbor, went up to Salem in a boat, and was handsomely entertained by Gov. Endicott, whom he came to displace, with a rich venison paté, such fare was not afterwards found to be very plenty; and the strawberries, which those he left on board the ships found on Cape Ann, were not always to be had, nor a very substantial food for the settlers. Of course, the party had a supply of provisions,—a market of their own which they brought with them; and, as nobody could become a freeman or have a vote in public affairs unless he was a member of the church, it is to be inferred that nobody would be allowed any thing to eat only on the same condition; and this, if Peter Pindar was right, was a facile method of conversion and making disciples of the most obdurate. Hunting and fishing were no doubt readily resorted[Pg 132] to as rather promising pursuits, and possibly some thought may have been given to cornfields, though there was no great anxiety for work. At all events, however successful the hunting parties were, so much of their supply of provisions was bartered with the Indians for furs that a scarcity of food was soon experienced, and then they had to buy corn of them. Matters soon became serious: for whatever might have been the primary object of the Puritans in coming to this country, eating was not beyond a secondary consideration, to say the least of it; and a market of supplies for the material man became an important consideration then, and has been so ever since. Dr. Johnson, who loved a good dinner and rarely found it at home, thought “a tavern was the throne of human felicity;” but, of course, such a notion as that never entered the minds of the Puritans.

The first thanksgiving was for the safe arrival of the party, and the next was for the arrival of the “Lion,” or some other ship, with a supply of food; and this, it is supposed, was not bartered off for furs. Indian corn, which was a new thing to the settlers, was for a long time the principal diet, occasionally modified with fish; but the truth is, how the settlers managed to live through all this time, in such a climate, up to the times that we know something about, is a complete mystery.

Capt. Roger Clapp, who arrived at Hull on the 30th of May, 1630, about a fortnight before Gov. Winthrop arrived at Salem, and who died in 1690-91, described the state of things “in those days,” in the following words:—

[Pg 133]“It was not accounted a strange thing in those Days to drink Water, and to eat Samp or Hominie without Butter or Milk. Indeed, it would have been a strange thing to see a piece of Roast Beef, Mutton or Veal; though it was not long before there was Roast Goat. After the first Winter, we were very Healthy; though some of us had no great Store of Corn. The Indians did sometimes bring Corn, and Truck with us for Cloathing and Knives; and once I had a Peck of Corn or thereabouts, for a little Puppy-Dog. Frost-fish, Muscles and Clams were a Relief to many.”

ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND FISHES.

Wood, in his famous “New England’s Prospect,” gives some particulars about game and hunting among the early settlers in 1639:—

 [Pg 134]

WHAT BEFELL A HUNTER.

“Two men going a fowling, appointed at evening to meet at a certain pond side, to share equally, and to return home; one of these gunners having killed a Seal or Sea-calf, brought it to the pond where he was to meet his comrade, afterwards returning to the sea-side for more game, and having loaded himself with more Geese and Ducks he repaired to the pond, where he saw a great Bear feeding on his seal, which caused him to throw down his load, and give the Bear a salute; which though it was but with goose-shot, yet tumbled him over and over; whereupon the man supposing him to be in a manner dead, ran and beat him with the handle of his gun. The Bear perceiving him to be such a coward to strike him when he was down, scrambled up, standing at defiance with him, scratching his legs, tearing his cloaths and face, who stood it out till his six foot gun was broken in the middle; then being deprived of his weapon, he ran up to the shoulders into the pond, where he remained till the Bear was gone, and his mate come in, who accompanied him home.”

The author gives a peculiar description of the animals named. Of the lion, he says he had never seen one; but others “lost in the woods have heard such terrible roarings as have made them much agast: which must be either Devils or Lions;” so lions have it. The moose “is as big as an ox, slow of foot, headed like a Buck, with a broad beam, some being two yards wide in the head; their flesh is as good as beef, their hides good for cloathing.” He describes deer, rabbits, squirrels, &c. The small squirrel troubles the planters so, that they have “to carry their Cats into the corn-fields till their corn be three weeks old.” “The beasts of offence be Squncks, Ferrets, Foxes, whose impudence sometimes diverts them to the good Wives Hen-roost, to fill their[Pg 135] paunch.” He gives a fearful account of the wolves, which set on swine, goats, calves, &c., and care nothing for a dog.

Equally curious with these are his descriptions of the “beasts living in the water,” as the otter, musquash, &c., and of “the birds and fowls, both of land and water.”

“The princely Eagle, and the soaring Hawk,
Whom in their unknown ways there’s none can chalk;
The Humbird for some Queen’s rich cage more fit,
Than in the vacant wilderness to sit;
The swift-winged Swallow sweeping to and fro,
As swift as arrows from Tartarian bow;
When as Aurora’s infant day new springs,
There th’ morning mounting Lark her sweet lays sings;
The harmonious Thrush, swift Pigeon, Turtle Dove,
Who to her mate does ever constant prove;
The Turkey-pheasant, Heathcock, Partridge rare,
The carrion-tearing Crow, and hurtful Stare.”

The raven, screech-owl, heron, cormorant, and so on to geese, gulls, mallards, teal, ducks, snipes, and many others. The fish also are rehearsed in verse:—

“The king of waters, the sea-shouldering Whale,
The snuffing Grampus, with the oily Seal;
The storm-presaging Porpus, Herring-Hog,
Line shearing Shark, the Catfish, and Sea Dog;
The scale-fenc’d Sturgeon, wry-mouth’d Hollibut,
The flouncing Salmon, Codfish, Greedigut;
Cole, Haddick, Hake, the Thornback, and the Scate,
Whose Slimy outside makes him seld’ in date;
The stately Bass, old Neptune’s fleeting post,
That tides it out and in from sea to coast;
[Pg 136]Consorting Herrings, and the bony Shad,
Big-bellied Alewives, Mackrels richly clad
With rainbow colour, the Frostfish and the Smelt,
As good as ever Lady Gustus felt;
The spotted Lamprons, Eels, the Lamperies,
That seek fresh-water brooks with Argus eyes;
These watery villagers, with thousands more,
Do pass and repass near the verdant shore.”

KINDS OF SHELL-FISH.

“The luscious Lobster, with the Crabfish raw,
The brinish Oyster, Muscle, Perriwig,
And Tortoise fought by the Indian’s Squaw,
Which to the flats dance many a winter’s jig,
To dive for Cockles, and to dig for Clams,
Whereby her lazy husband’s guts she crams.”

It was recommended to those who came over after Winthrop, to bring with them a hogshead and a half of meal, “to keep him until he may receive the fruit of his own labors, which will be a year and a half after his arrival, if he land in May or June.” Also, “malt, beef, butter, cheese, pease, good wines, vinegar, and strong waters;” and in addition, a variety of clothing, boots, shoes, implements, iron wares, stew-pans, warming-pans, fish-hooks, and every conceivable thing for use or labor, being assured that whatever they did not want, could be disposed of at a profit.

MARKET SUPPLIES.

One of the earliest accounts of the market supplies in Boston is that written by a French refugee in 1687,—almost two hundred years ago. He says,—

[Pg 137]“An ox costs from twelve to fifteen crowns; a Cow, eight to ten; Horses, from ten to fifty Crowns, and in Plenty. There are even wild ones in the Woods, which are yours if you can catch them. Foals are sometimes caught. Beef costs Two pence the Pound; Mutton, Two pence; Pork, from two to three pence, according to the Season; Flour, Fourteen shillings the one hundred and twelve Pound, all bolted; Fish is very cheap, and Vegetables also; Cabbage, Turnips, Onions, and Carrots abound here. Moreover, there are quantities of Nuts, Chestnuts, and Hazelnuts wild. These nuts are small, but of wonderful flavor. I have been told that there are other Sorts, which we shall see in the Season. I am assured that the Woods are full of Strawberries in the Season. I have seen Quantities of wild Grapevine, and eaten Grapes of very good Flavor, kept by one of my friends. There is no Doubt that the Vine will do well; there is some little planted in the country which has grown. The Rivers are full of Fish, and we have so great a Quantity of Sea and River Fish that no Account is made of them.”

It is pretty certain that these things have been so ever since.

FAMILY BILL OF FARE.

A later account than this, however, and one with which some who are now living may be more or less familiar, or have heard of, is given as follows:—

“The ordinary food of the early settlers here, for both breakfast and supper, was bean porridge, with bread and butter. On Sunday morning there was coffee in addition. Brown bread, made of rye and Indian, was the staff of life, white bread being used only when guests were present. Raked pumpkins (in their season) and milk composed a dish said to be luxurious. [This dish is in common use among the country people at the present time.] For dinner, twice every week, Sundays and Thursdays, baked beans and baked Indian pudding, the latter being served first. [This last custom has gone wholly out of practice; but the Sunday dinner prevails to-day over the[Pg 138] whole of New England, to a very large extent.] Saturdays, salt fish; one day in every week, salt pork and corned beef, and one day, also, when practicable, roasted meat was the rule.”

It is surprising how continuously some of these customs have been kept up and prevail.

SEARCHING FOR PROVISIONS.

It is not to be denied that provisions have been scarce in Boston, at times, since the days of the Puritans, hardly now to be realized. Long before the Revolutionary period, in 1711, during one of the wars between France and England, Admiral Sir Hovender Walker, with a fleet of fifteen men-of-war, and forty transports with upwards of five thousand men, arrived in the harbor on his way to the St. Lawrence River, for the protection of Canada. He wanted to victual his ships, and applied to Capt. Belcher (father of Gov. Jonathan Belcher), a rich and leading man, as being the only person who could undertake the service, and he declined it. Next to Mr. Andrew Faneuil, and he undertook it. Provisions were scarce and the price put up, so that a supply could not be had, and the governor was compelled to issue an “order for searching for provisions.” The men, during the stay of the fleet, were in camp at Noddle’s Island, and it is said that a formidable number of them deserted.

CONCLUSION.

We have thus travelled over some of the old avenues, ways, customs, and things, peaceful and warlike, more or less in connection with the early[Pg 139] settlement, the mature town, and the gorgeous city, from 1630 to 1880; from the period of scarcity and deprivation to that of prosperity and abundance. The task has been delightful, and whatever may be thought of the ways and doings, and we may almost say the undoings, of the Puritans, the town which they planted and the principles they promulgated, rather than the intolerance they practised, have become permanent and sure. Now, indeed, there is neither intolerance nor scarcity; and however much our predecessors may have suffered we are now able to supply bread and beef to millions of people less favorably circumstanced. Perhaps nothing more distinctly or emphatically marks the character and quality of a people than their “ways and means” of living. It has been said that Americans are disposed to revel in big dinners; and, in fact, undertake to accomplish every thing with a big dinner, or at least celebrate the accomplishment of it in that way. One writer has said, if we welcome a guest it is done with a dinner; if we inaugurate a stock company or start a charity, it is pretty sure to have its relations with the market and the stomach. This may be partly so. A good dinner, social and liberal, is the reconciler, the inspiration, the motive power of good works generally; and what it cannot do, or at least help to do, is pretty sure not to be accomplished. Of course, all this is understood, and almost sure to be practised, so that, when any thing comes up, instead of going to bed to sleep on it, we hurry off to Parker’s or Young’s, or it may be, if the matter is very staid and respectable, to the old [Pg 140]Tremont, and eat on it. The custom is in us—in the blood; it is Saxon, and comes naturally enough from the mother country. In England, the great diner-out, Douglas Jerrold, who knows all about it, says, “If an earthquake were to engulf all England to-morrow, Englishmen would manage to meet, and dine somewhere among the rubbish,” as if the occasion needed to be celebrated in that way.

There have been times, now fortunately more than a hundred years ago, when our market could not be made to furnish a big dinner; when there was no market; when the enemy were seizing all the sheep and cattle; when the people were starving on salt provisions, and, in one instance at least, a party of gentlemen were invited to dine off a roasted rat in Boston; and again when a special request was made to the people, in consequence of the necessities of the times, “not to have more than two dishes of meat on their tables.” But not long after this, on the 24th of January, 1793, there was a grand festival in honor of French Liberty and Equality, when an ox of more than a thousand weight was roasted entire, and drawn on a car by fifteen horses, followed by other carriages with hogsheads of punch, loaves of bread, &c., and a large procession of civil, military, municipal officers, and citizens, through the principal streets to State Street, where the table was spread and the dinner was served up in high style. At the present time, it would be an easy matter to roast an ox every day, and big dinners are regarded as of small account on the score of rarity. Some philosopher has said, “Eating dinner is a task which, above all others, [Pg 141]requires the conscience pure, the mind easy, a reason undisturbed, the senses critical, and the body and spirit perfectly at rest.” It may be said that the philosophers of the present day do not deem eating a good dinner “a task;” and it is pretty certain the mass of the people do not. It is to be hoped our market will never again be unprepared to furnish a big dinner, on all reasonable occasions, supply a British fleet, or meet the requirements of the people at home, or the necessities of the race abroad.

[Pg 142]

[Pg 143]

Footnotes:

[1] The Second Volume of the Writings of the Author of the London Spy. London: 1706.

[2] The New England Tragedies in Prose, by Rowland H. Allen.

[3] In the first interview between Governor Carver of Plymouth and the Indian Chief Massasoit, “after salutations, the Governor kissing his hand and the king kissing him, the Governor entertains him with some refreshments, and then they agree on a league of friendship.” March 22, 1621.

[4] Walford Street, in Charlestown, we believe, has been cut off by the Eastern Railroad freight tracks and likely to be lost.

[5] William Paddy died in 1658, and the alley (now North Centre Street) bore his name for more than a hundred years. When some changes were made in the Old State House, in 1830, to accommodate the Boston Post Office, a stone was dug up which proved to be his grave-stone, though it is a little difficult to tell how it came there. On one side of it was the inscription, “Here lyeth the body of Mr. William Paddy, aged 58 years. Departed this life August—, 1658.” And on the other side,—

“Here sleaps that
Blessed one whose lief
God help vs all to live
That so when time shall be
That we this world must lief
We ever may be happy
With blessed William Paddy.”

It may be concluded, we judge, that Paddy’s Alley was well named.

[6] In 1693, an eminent Quaker visited Boston, and afterwards wrote an account of his visit. He says, being a stranger and traveller, he could not but observe the barbarous and unchristian welcome he had into Boston. “Oh, what a pity it was,” said one, “that all your society were not hanged with the other four!”

[7] Faust invented printing, 1450.

[8] Printing introduced into England, 1571.

[9] The “Lion Tavern,” or possibly the “Green Dragon.”

[10] Gordon’s History, Vol. I., p. 253.