USA > Massachusetts > The history of Massachusetts, the provincial period. 1692-1775 v. II > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
1 N. Y. Colon. Doc'ts, v. 628 ; Chal- mers, Revolt, ii. 42, 43.
2 Cooke's Vindication, 2d ed. pp. 5, 6; Hutchinson, ii. 201. By the char- ter, all trees suitable for masts were reserved to the crown; and as early as 1668, the government of Massachu- setts had reserved for public use all pine trees twenty-four inches in di- ameter at three feet from the ground. Mass. Rec's. In the reign of King William, a "surveyor of the woods " was appointed by the crown ; and Lord Bellamont, the governor of Massachu-
setts, was ordered to cause acts to be passed for the preservation of the trees in his jurisdiction. In the next reign, - that of Queen Anne, - trees fit for the navy were to be marked with the broad arrow, and a register of the same was to be kept. This whole matter was more fruitful in disputes than in benefits, however; and, by mismanagement, it tended to exasper- ate rather than to conciliate. See Province Laws, 12, ed. 1726 ; Bel- knap's N. H. ii. 26-29, 32; William- son's Me.
-
110
RESTRICTION OF MANUFACTURES.
CHAP. and the Board of Trade, in their reply, censured the conduct V. of the House, and justified the governor ; but the House re- 1719. fused to submit to this censure, alleging that it was occasioned by " sending home the papers on one side only, whereby their lordships were informed ex parte." At the next election, the conduct of the governor was publicly disapproved by the choice of new representatives for Boston, and by a change in other towns adverse to his interests.1
-
1719.
For some time, the English government had resolved upon the policy of restricting manufactures in the plantations, on the plea that they "tended to lessen their dependence on Great Britain." Nearly every branch of industry was subjected to these restrictions, and every form of competition was discour- aged or forbidden. Through the intervention of the hatters of London, Parliament forbade the transportation of hats from one plantation to another.2 At the instance of the proprietors of iron works, it was decreed that "none in the plantations should manufacture iron wares of any kind whatsoever ; " and every " forge going by water, for making bar or rod iron," was proposed to be prohibited by the Peers.3 Massachusetts, ever vigilant to protect her own interests, had anticipated this 1718. action of the mother country, by passing an impost bill, approved by the governor, levying a duty, not only upon West India goods, wines, &c., but of one per cent. upon English manufactures and English ships. This ordinance was promptly denounced as "a great hardship on British owners," and was negatived by the king ; but before the receipt of his instruc- tions to "give all encouragement to the manufactures of Great Britain," and the warning of the Board of Trade that the "passage of such acts might endanger their charter," the House passed a second bill of the same tenor, and sent it to
1 On this controversy, see Mass. Rec's ; Cooke's Vindication, 2d ed. p. 5 et seq. ; Hutchinson, vol. ii .; Chal- mers, Revolt, ii. 15-17.
2 Act 5 G. I. c. 22.
3 Anderson, Hist. Commerce, iii. 88, 89; Bancroft's U. S. iii. 384. This act was defeated by the vigilance of the colonies.
.
111
EMBARRASSMENT OF THE FINANCES.
the Council for concurrence. The Council proposed as an CHAP. amendment to leave out the duty on English vessels and goods ; V. but the House adhered to the original bill. A conference 1719. ensued ; but the House insisted on their former vote. The discussion lasted several weeks, both parties refusing to yield ; until the governor, in a "mild and healing speech," suggested that the House, by their too great pertinacity, might " rather destroy than preserve those privileges so justly prized ; " when the controverted clause was dropped, and, after some further debate, the matter was so adjusted as to allay the excitement which had prevailed, and restore harmony to the action of the government.1
The embarrassment of the finances of the province was a 1720. fruitful source of dissension and debate. Trade, if not in a languishing condition, was suffering from the derangement in the currency, which had continued to increase notwithstanding an additional issue of one hundred thousand pounds in bills of credit. Indeed, not only at this juncture, but for a period of at least thirty years, serious evils resulted from the depreciation in the value of the bills in circulation ; and all who depended on their income for support - clergymen, salaried officers, and widows and orphans of limited means - were reduced to a state of suffering and want. Public institutions, supported by funds, and with which the interests of literature and religion were blended, tended to decay ; the settlement of estates was delayed by administrators ; trade was, in a great measure, reduced to a state of barter ; the rich were becoming richer ; the poor were becoming poorer ; and the province, to many, seemed on the verge of bankruptcy and ruin.2
1716.
The conduct of the governor in this emergency was not
1 On this affair, see Mass. Rec's, and Hutchinson, ii. 204-209.
2 On the finances, see the tracts published from 1716 to 1720, and comp. Hutchinson, ii. 210 et seq. ; Minot, i. c. v; Felt's Currency of N.
Eng. ; Bancroft's U. S. iii. 387-390. Similar embarrassments prevailed in the other colonies, originating from the same source -an over issue of bills of credit.
112
CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNOR.
CHAP. eminently calculated to conciliate the people ; and, by his V. attempts to censure the press,1 and other impolitic steps, a for- 1720. midable opposition was organized against him. His rejection May. of Cooke as speaker of the House exasperated that body ; and May 30. on their refusing to proceed to a second election, the court was hastily dissolved.2 Writs for a new assembly were imme- July 13. diately issued, which was to meet in July ; but when convened, though for the despatch of business a new speaker was chosen,3 a protest was entered against the conduct of the governor in dissolving the former body for "asserting and maintaining their just and ancient privilege of choosing their speaker," and the House refused to acknowledge " his excellency's power to negative " such choice. Nor did their resentment cease here. The new House assumed the choice of notaries public ; nega- tived the negotiations of the governor with the Penobscot tribe ; reduced his semiannual salary from six hundred to five hundred pounds ; and, " considering the low circumstances of the province," they ordered that "no draft should be made upon the treasury for expenses at times of public rejoicing for the future." Dissatisfied with these proceedings, the governor July 23. again interposed, and in less than two weeks put an end to the session.4
1720-21. Mar. 15.
In the following year the controversy was renewed. The governor, in his speech at the opening of the court, recom- mended a series of measures to which, in his estimation, the exigencies of the public demanded attention. These were, that steps should be taken to prevent the depreciation of the currency ; to suppress unlawful trade with the French at Cape Breton ; to punish the authors of factious and seditious pa- pers ; to provide a present for the Five Nations in New York ;
1 On this affair, see the Mass. Rec's, Hutchinson, Grahame, &c.
2 Boston News Letter, No. 846; Cooke's Vindication, 2d ed. passim ; Hutchinson, vol. ii.
3 Timothy Lendall, Esq. The elec-
tion in Boston was held on Friday, June 10. Boston News Letter, Nos. 848, 853; Hutchinson, ii.
4 Mass. Rec's ; Boston News Let- ter, Nos. 854, 855 ; Hutchinson, ii.
113
CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNOR.
and to enlarge his salary, which they had seen fit to retrench ; CHAP. but the House refused to consent to either proposal.1 v.
Nor was any disposition evinced in other respects to con- 1721. May. form to his requirements ; for at the next session of the court a new speaker was chosen, and, to prevent his being negatived, a message was sent to the Governor and Council acquainting them that "John Clarke, Esq., is chosen speaker of the House, and is now sitting in the chair." At this message his excel- lency was exceedingly exasperated, and was on the point of dissolving the court, when he was reminded by his friends that no choice of councillors had been made, and that, if the court was adjourned without such choice, the government would be suspended for a year. This brought him to his senses ; and, in consequence of the prevalence of the small pox in Boston, after a little business had been transacted, the court was ad- May 31. journed to Cambridge.2
Here a new system of tactics was adopted. The governor, June 6. in his despatches to the ministers in England, saw fit to inform them " that the assembly, composed of men more fit for the affairs of farming than for the duty of legislators, showed no regard to the royal prerogative or instructions, but endeavored to transgress the limits of the charter, though he was, indeed, supported by the Council, who themselves wanted assistance." 3 Such representations could but widen the breach between the parties ; and the House neglected to make provisions for the support of his excellency and other officers, until they saw what action he would take upon the votes they had passed. But the governor had his revenge; for when the House asked leave to adjourn, he negatived the request. The House then adjourned from Wednesday to the following Tuesday ; but this, July 18. July 12.
1 Mass. Rec's; Collection of Pro- ceedings of General Court, 30, 31; Hutchinson, ii. The controversy upon the establishment of a fixed salary for the governor, begun under Mr. Dud- ley's administration, was continued VOL. II. 8
through this. Collection of Proceed- ings of Gen. Court, ed. 1729, p. 26 et seq.
2 Mass. Rec's; Boston News Let- ter, No. 903.
3 Chalmers's Revolt.
114
THE SMALL POX IN BOSTON.
CHAP. so far from mending matters, only made them worse. The V. course of the House was censured as "irregular," and was 1721. afterwards made the ground of a serious charge against that body.1 In vain did Mr. Dummer, the agent of the province, venture to remonstrate. In vaich did he assure the House that their conduct was displeasing to the ministers of the king, who, "when they found a governor, fitted to make any people happy, was made uneasy in New England, concluded that the people would have no governor at all from England, but wanted to be independent of the crown."2 Such remonstrances were unwelcome ; and the agent was dismissed. His able " Defence of the Charters of New England " was published about this time ; but the value of his services to the cause of his country, which would perhaps have been appreciated under more favor- able circumstances, was lessened in the public estimation by reason of his interference in the difficulties with Mr. Shute.3
The prevalence of the small pox, which, after an interval of April. about twenty years,4 broke out again in Massachusetts, was attended with the usual horrors of that loathsome disease ; for, out of five thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine persons who were attacked in Boston, eight hundred and forty-four died.5 The practice of inoculation had been recently intro- duced into Europe ; and Cotton Mather, one of the ministers of Boston, having read, in the Transactions of the Royal
1 Mass. Rec's ; Jour. Ho. of Rep .; Proceedings of the Mass. Bay, &c.
2 His Letters to the Province, and Hutchinson, vol. ii.
3 The first edition of this able work was published in 1721. There had been several attempts before this date to annul the charter of Massachusetts, as in 1701, &c. ; but, by the interven- tion of friends, they were happily frus- trated; and the liberties of the peo- ple, in that respect at least, remained unmolested. Hutchinson, ii. 120, 121. 4 Douglas, in 4 M. H. Coll. ii. 168. The small pox had prevailed in Mas- sachusetts four times, at least, before
the year 1700; and in 1702-3, it broke out again. Drake's Boston, 526. 5 I here follow the Boston News Letter, No. 943, Douglas, in 4 M. H. Coll. ii. 168, and Hutchinson, ii. 247. But in 1 M. H. Coll. v. 207, is an ex- tract from an "old almanac," which states that 5813 persons were attacked, and 771 died. The same extract es- timates the population of Boston at this date at. 10,567, of whom 6018 lived to the south of the " mill creek," and 4549 to the north. Of the for- mer, 3217 had the small pox, and 490 died; and of the latter, 2596 were at- tacked, and 281 died.
115
THE SMALL POX IN BOSTON.
Society of England, of which he was a member, letters from CHAP. Constantinople and Smyrna, giving an account of this practice V. and its success, interested himself to introduce it into Amer- 1721. June. ica ; 1 but his application to the physicians of the town was at first unsuccessful. At length Dr. Boylston consented to try the experiment upon his own children and servants. His suc- cess was encouraging. But the practice was opposed, not only by the medical faculty generally, - among whom Douglas, a Scotchman, and Dolhonde,2 a Frenchman, were conspicuous for their zeal, -- but also by many "pious people," as well as the " vulgar," who insinuated that, if his patients died, he "should be treated as a murderer."3 The magistrates of Boston were equally deluded ; and, upon consultation with the phy- sicians, a manifesto was put forth showing the dangers of the practice.4 Even the House of Representatives did not display their usual wisdom, and brought in a bill prohibiting inocula- tion ; but the Council hesitated, and the bill stopped.5 It must not be supposed, however, that there were none in the province possessed of sufficient intelligence to comprehend so simple a subject. Several of the ministers, as Increase Mather and Dr. Colman, espoused the cause of inoculation, and wrote in its favor.6 But Cotton Mather, the patron of the movement,
1 One of these letters was repub- lished in the Boston News Letter, No. 945, and both were issued in a pam- phlet form by Dr. Boylston. Doug- las, in 4 M. H. Coll. ii. 169, asserts that he lent to Dr. Mather the num- bers of the Philosophical Transactions containing this account.
2 Hutchinson, ii. 248, says Dal- honde ; but his autograph, in my pos- session, gives the spelling of the text. Douglas says he opposed the practice as "not being sufficiently assured of its safety and consequences ; " and he reckoned it "a sin against society to propagate infection by this means," &c.
3 The pamphlet of Douglas was en- titled " Inoculation of the Small Pox as practised in Boston, considered in
a Letter to A- S-, M. D. and F. R. S., in London," and was " printed by J. Franklin, at his Printing House in Queen St., over against Mr. Sheaf's School, 1722." A reply to Douglas was published, entitled " A Friendly Debate," &c., by Academicus.
4 Hutchinson, &c.
5 Mass. Rec's.
6 The title of I. Mather's pamphlet I am unable to give ; but that of Dr. Colman was entitled " Some Observa- tions on the New Method of receiv- ing the Small Pox by Inoculating or Grafting." I have seen also an anon- ymous pamphlet, attributed to Wal- ter Grainger, entitled "The Proposi- tion of Inoculation as a Duty reli- giously considered."
116
CONTEST WITH THE GOVERNOR.
CHAP. did not escape without experiencing the evil effects of popular V. prejudice. Not only was he personally assailed in vituperative 1721. pamphlets, but mobs paraded the streets, with halters in their hands, uttering violent and inflammatory language; and a hand grenade was thrown in at his window, for the destruction of his nephew, Mr. Walter, the minister of Roxbury, who had been privately inoculated in his house.1 Yet the practice was continued, in spite of opposition ; and in the end its defenders effectually triumphed.2
It was during the height of this controversy that the court, Aug.23. which had been dissolved in July, assembled upon a new sum- mons at the George Tavern, at the extreme part of the town. Mr. Clarke was chosen speaker; and a message was sent to the governor informing him of this choice, which he saw fit to approve.3 Apprehensive of danger, however, from the prox- imity of the contagion, the House passed a vote for removing the court to Cambridge ; but the Council non-concurred. The governor immediately informed the House that he would will- ingly consent to their removal, "if he was applied to in such a manner as should consist with the sole right in him of adjourning, proroguing, and dissolving the court;" but the House would not concede this right, and a quorum chose to risk their lives in Boston rather than acknowledge the power of the governor to control their motions at pleasure.4
Nor did the House hesitate to join issue with the statesmen of England, who sanctioned the course of the governor ; for, notwithstanding the opinion of the attorney general was for- warded, that "he had good right to negative the speaker,"
1 In the Boston News Letter, No. 929, are full particulars of this affair. Douglas, in 4 M. H. Coll. ii. 169, says, by November 18 one hundred persons had been inoculated. One of the pamphlets issued against the practice of inoculation was by John Williams, and was entitled "Several Arguments proving that Inoculating the Small Pox is not contained in the
Law of Physick, either Natural or Di- vine, and therefore unlawful."
2 Boylston's Account, Lond. ed. 1726; Trans. Royal Soc. vol. xxx .; Hutchinson, ii .; Pemberton, in 1 M. H. Coll. 4.
3 Mass. Rec's ; Hutchinson, ii. 241.
4 Mass. Rec's ; Hutchinson, ii. 241, 242.
117
DIFFICULTIES WITH THE INDIANS.
and the lords of trade approved his proceedings, the House CHAP. drew up a remonstrance, justifying their own conduct, and
v. declaring, temperately yet firmly, that, "with all deference to 1721. the opinion of the attorney general, they must still claim the right of solely electing and constituting their speaker ; and they humbly presumed that their so doing could not be ac- counted a slight of, or a disaffection to, his majesty's instruc- tions, or as bearing upon the royal prerogative." 1
Pending the progress of these disputes, serious difficulties had arisen with the eastern Indians, who, highly incensed at the conceived encroachments of the New England colonies, were instigated by the French to invade the territories of the English. Sebastian Rasles, a Jesuit missionary, and an accom- plished scholar, was the spiritual guide of the tribes ; and, as he was in close correspondence with the governor of Canada, it was with his consent, if not with his approval, that these ravages were committed.2 The people of Massachusetts re- sented his conduct; and Governor Shute was not a little displeased at the treatment he had personally experienced during his visit to the eastward, with several of the Council 1717. of New Hampshire, to negotiate with the Indians at Arrowsick Island.3 In 1720, the House resolved that one hundred and fifty men should be sent to Norridgewock to "compel the Indians to make full satisfaction for the damages they had done ;" and a warrant was issued to Captain Leighton, the high sheriff of York, for the apprehension of Rasles. The governor, however, esteemed this resolve as a declaration of war, and an invasion of the prerogative; and the Council rejected it.4
In the following year, two hundred Indians, under French Aug.17.
1 Mass. Rec's ; Hutchinson, ii. 242.
2 Part of this correspondence may be seen in the M. H. Coll's. Comp. also Hutchinson, ii. ; Belknap's N. H. i. 49; Franklin's Works, iv. 7, note.
3 Shute's Letter to Rallé, in 1 M. ii. 51.
H. Coll. v. 112-119; Belknap's N. H. ii. 47; Williamson's Me. ii. ; N. H. Hist. Col. ii. 242-257.
4 Mass. Rec's ; Boston Gazette, No. 47; News Letter, No. 869; Belknap,
Aug. 9 to 12. 1720. Nov. 2.
1721.
e
4
DE
1
118
DIFFICULTIES WITH THE INDIANS.
CHAP. colors, came to Georgetown, upon the Arrowsick Island, ac- V. companied by two Jesuits, and left a threatening message for 1721. the governor.1 The House took notice of this affair ; and towards the close of the session the governor was prevailed upon to consent that three hundred men should be sent to the head quarters of the Indians with a proclamation, commanding them to "deliver up the Jesuits, and the other heads and fomenters of this rebellion, and to make satisfaction for dam- ages." The prosecution of this enterprise was delayed from Nov. 3. time to time, when the House took the matter in hand, and a party was sent to Norridgewock, under Colonel Thomas West- abrooke, who returned with the papers of Rasles, but not his person, " his faithful disciples having taken care to secure his person, and to fly with him into the woods."2 The seizure of Castine, a natural son of the Baron Castine, who was brought to Boston and put in close confinement, tended further to exas- 1722. perate the French ; and in the ensuing year, sixty Indians, in twenty canoes, went to Merry Meeting Bay, and took nine families prisoners, while other parties made an attempt upon a fishing vessel from Ipswich, lying in one of the eastern harbors, and burned a sloop at St. George's River. These hostile acts were followed by the burning of Brunswick ; and in the fol- Aug. lowing August a declaration of war was issued ; but the House presuming to determine the service in which the troops were to be employed, the governor informed them that "the king, his master, and the royal charter, had given him the sole com- mand and direction of the militia, and all the forces which might be raised on any emergency ; and that he should not suffer himself to be under any direction but his own, and those officers he should think fit to appoint."3 The controversy which ensued upon this point, as well as upon the attempt of the House to assume the management of the war, and to call
Jun. 13.
1 Boston News Letter, No. 917; Belknap, ii. 51.
2 Boston News Letter, No. 946; Belknap, ii. 51, 52.
3 Belknap, ii. 52.
119
1
DEPARTURE OF GOVERNOR SHUTE.
to their bar Colonel Walton, to "render his reasons why the CHAP. orders relating to the expedition to Penobscot had not been v. executed," was continued for some time, when the governor, 1722-23. who had secretly obtained leave to return to England, left the Jan. 1. province, unknown to nearly every one, to lay his grievances before the king.1
At the departure of Colonel Shute, the functions of the chief magistracy devolved upon William Dummer, the lieutenant gov- ernor, who remained at the head of affairs for the next six years. In his first speech to the court, reluctant to renew the Jan. 2. controversy which had imbittered the administration of his predecessor, he expressed his willingness to " concur with them in any measure for his majesty's service, and the good of the province." Samuel Sewall, the sole surviving assistant under the charter of Charles I., and the uncompromising advocate of the liberties of the people, replied to this speech ; and his reply was characteristic of the man and of the past. " Although the unerring providence of God" - such were his words- " has brought your honor to the chair of government in a cloudy and tempestuous season, yet you have this for your encouragement, that the people you have to do with are part of the Israel of God, and you may expect to have of the pru- dence and patience of Moses communicated to you for your conduct. It is evident, that our almighty Saviour counselled the first planters to remove hither and settle here ; and they dutifully followed his advice, and therefore he will never leave nor forsake them nor theirs ; so that your honor must needs be happy in sincerely seeking their happiness and welfare, which your birth and education will incline you to do. Diffi- cilia que pulchra. I promise myself, that they who sit at this board will yield their faithful advice to your honor, according to the duty of their place." 2
As the object of Governor Shute's return to England was to
1 Boston News Letter, Nos. 987, 988, 989 ; Hutchinson, ii. 260, 261.
2 Boston News Letter, No. 989 ; Hutchinson, ii. 264.
120
COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE PROVINCE.
CHAP. complain of the conduct of the legislature, measures for defence V. were promptly taken. Mr. Anthony Sanderson was recom- 1723. mended by Mr. Popple, of the plantation office, as qualified for agent of the province ; and the House sent their papers to him May. to be used as they should order.1 At the next annual court, no advices had been received from England. Accordingly, the House chose their speaker, and placed him in the chair with- out presenting him to the governor for confirmation ; and in Oct. 23. other matters saw fit to assert their own rights.2 By the fall, the heads of complaint against the province were received.3 Oct. 26. The House immediately voted that these were groundless, and ordered one hundred pounds sterling to be remitted to Mr. Sanderson, to employ counsel to justify their proceed- ings ; but the Council non-concurred. The House then pre- pared an answer to the complaint, and an address to the king ; but these, too, the Council refused to approve. Upon this the speaker was ordered to sign the papers, and they were forwarded to England. The Council prepared a separate address, which was forwarded to Colonel Shute. At the same time, with the consent of the Council, agents were sent to England on behalf of the province to appear in its defence ; and Jeremiah Dummer and Elisha Cooke were chosen for that purpose. 4
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.