Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

I have cited this case at considerable length for the reason that it shows that the divorces then granted, even in aggravated cases, were from bed and board, and that the right of the wife to a certain portion of the property of her husband was recognized and enforced. The other cases show that cruel and abusive treatment and absence unexplained for the term of three years were then as now considered good grounds on which to seek separation.

The first legislation in our state bearing directly on our subject appears to have been in 1692, when it it was provided that all controversies concerning marriage and divorce should be heard and determined by the Governor and Council, thus changing simply the tribunal without affecting the existing laws. Curiously enough, although the tribunal which should determine the controversies was thus fixed, there was no provision made for enforcing its decrees, and it was thus left practically powerless for sixty-two years, or until 1754, when this defect in the law was remedied by a provision that refusal or neglect to obey the decrees of the Governor and Council might be punished like contempt of courts of law and equity by imprisonment.

In 1693 were passed the first statutes regulating the subject of marriage in the colony, the preamble to which was as follows: "Although this court doth not take in hand to determine what is the whole bredth of the divine commandment respecting marriage, yet, for preventing the abominable dishonesty and confusion which might otherwise happen," certain marriages are declared to be unlawful and the issue thereof illegitimate, and severe and degrading punishments are provided for all offenders, even although innocent of any wrong intent.

As the population of the colony increased and spread over the country at a distance from Boston, the fact that the only court having jurisdiction of matters of divorce and marriage was held only in that town was the cause of ever-increasing inconvenience, and accordingly it was enacted in 1786 that "whereas, it is a great expense to the people of this state to be obliged to attend at Boston upon all questions of divorce, when the same might be done within the counties where the parties live, and where the truth might be better discovered by having the parties in court," jurisdiction in all matters of divorce should be vested in the Supreme Judicial Court, where it has ever since remained in spite of efforts made at various times to give to other courts concurrent or even exclusive jurisdiction. As the Supreme Judicial Court is now overworked, and as it is not deemed advisable, for various reasons, to increase its numbers, it is more than probable, in view of the increase in the number of libels annually filed, that some modification of our laws will soon be made which shall give the entire jurisdiction of this matter either to the Superior Court or to the Judges of Probate in the several counties. Governor Robinson called the attention of the Legislature to the importance of some change in this direction in his last message, and urged speedy action.

The act of 1786, above alluded to, fixed the causes of divorce at two--adultery or impotency of either of the parties, but allowed a divorce from bed and board for extreme cruelty. To this was added in 1810 the further cause of desertion, or refusal to furnish proper support to the wife. To the two causes above named the Legislature of 1836 added a third, namely, the imprisonment of either party for the term of seven years or more at hard labor.

In 1698 it had been provided that in case of three years' absence at sea, when the voyage set out upon was not usually of more than three months' duration, the man or woman whose relation was in this way parted from him might be considered single and unmarried. In 1838 wilful desertion for five years was added to the then existing causes for absolute divorce, in favor of the innocent party, and in 1850 yet another cause was added by providing that if either party separated from the other and for three years remained united with any religious sect or society believing or professing to believe that the relation of husband and wife is void and unlawful, a full divorce might be granted to the other.

The law remained thus for ten years, or until the adoption of the General Statutes in 1860, when desertion for five years was made ground for granting a divorce to the deserting party also, provided it could be shown that such desertion was due to the cruelty of the other, or in case of the wife, to the failure of the husband to properly provide for her. Divorce from bed and board was also authorized for extreme cruelty, complete desertion, gross and confirmed habits of intoxication, if contracted after the marriage, and neglect of the husband to provide for his wife. Such limited divorces might be made absolute after five years' separation, on petition of the party to whom the divorce was granted, and after ten years on that of the guilty party. There was no change in these laws until 1870, when limited divorce, a relic of churchly superstition, was done away with entirely in this State, the grounds upon which it had been granted being at the same time made cause for absolute divorce, with the condition, however, that all such divorces should be in the first instance _nisi_, that is, conditional, to be made absolute after three years in the discretion of the court, and after five years as of right. Prior to this time, in 1867, it had been enacted that all decrees of divorce should be first entered _nisi_, to be made absolute in six months in the discretion of the court, and this act of 1870 therefore left nine causes for absolute divorce; but in all cases for cruelty, desertion, intoxication, or neglect or refusal to support, the decree must remain conditional for at least three years. Since that date there have been many changes in the statutes, but all in the direction of regulating the entry of the decree, without affecting the causes therefor, except that in 1873, habits of intoxication, even if contracted before marriage, were made good grounds for a decree.

The law of 1841, which remained in force until 1853, forbad the marriage of the party for whose fault divorce was granted during the lifetime of the innocent partner; but in the latter year the court was authorized to allow the guilty party, except in cases of adultery, to remarry; and in 1864 it was provided that even in such cases the guilty one might marry after three years, unless actually tried and convicted of the crime. In 1873 even this restriction of three years was removed, and the law remained so until 1881, when it was enacted that the guilty party in all cases might marry after two years without the formality of applying to the court for leave so to do.

From this brief review of the history of our law there is but one conclusion to be drawn, that slowly but surely the doors to divorce have been opened until it has become a comparatively easy matter to obtain that relief which for so many years was absolutely refused. A few statistics will illustrate this: In the year 1863 there were in the state 10,873 marriages and 207 divorces; in 1882 there were 17,684 marriages and 515 divorces, or an increase in the former of 62.6 per cent., and of the latter of 147.6 per cent., while the population of the state increased in the same time 53.4 per cent. Since the legislation of 1870, which, as we have seen above, made divorce obtainable on nine grounds, the increase in the number of decrees granted has been 36 per cent., while in the same period marriages have increased but 20 per cent.

During this twenty years 79 per cent. of all divorces granted were for adultery and desertion, and of those granted for the first-mentioned cause only a trifle over one-half were for the fault of the man; while, contrary to a widely-prevalent belief, the record shows that of the decrees entered for that cause the proportion is greater in the country districts than in our cities. In the same period the highest ratio of divorce to marriage has been one to twenty-three, and the lowest one to thirty-three, the average for the whole time being one to thirty-one; but in Suffolk County, comprising the cities of Boston and Chelsea and the towns of Winthrop and Revere, the average has been only one to forty-one and nine-tenths. These statistics are indeed startling, and may be easily used as a foundation for an argument that our laws governing the matter are far too lenient, since the number of divorces is so apparently excessive.

But on the other hand is it not as fair an inference from all the facts, that beyond and deeper than any provisions of the law there is something wrong in society itself; that we must look for the real root of the trouble in the influences which are operating upon our social life as a people? Our Judges who administer the law are learned, of great experience in the matter of weighing evidence, careful and conscientious. The laws are carefully framed to prevent collusion between the parties, and especially to render it difficult to obtain a divorce for the groundless desertion of the party seeking the separation; in fact they are far in advance of the laws of many of our sister states, and it has been truly said that the divorce laws of this Commonwealth have kept pace with the improved understanding of the condition of the people, and have been wisely framed to meet the many causes which exist in modern life to break up the domestic relations.

There is not one of our statutory causes for divorce which could be stricken out without a certainty of inflicting legal cruelty in the future. Of all our divorces nearly seventy per cent, are upon petition of the wife; and it can be safely said that nearly all will agree that to compel a woman to submit to the cruelty and brutalities of a drunken or profligate husband, is not only inflicting upon her legal cruelty, but has an influence which extends beyond the individual and is powerful for evil upon those who are to come after us.

Strangely enough as our educational advantages have increased, as more avenues of self support have been opened to women, so has the ratio of divorce to marriage also grown larger, thus apparently furnishing conclusive proof that it is not legislative reform that is now needed. It is not necessary to argue that no legislation can operate in any way to strengthen those family ties which have their foundation in the social and domestic affections. On the other hand, any thing in the direction of education of the young tending to strengthen love of home and domestic life, and to do away with the prevalent tendency to what has been termed individualism, will be a step in the right path and will aid in lessening the evils which so many wrongly ascribe to faulty legislation. If any further proof of this fact is needed it is found in the knowledge that by far the larger part of the seekers for relief come from our native population, while none but those who have some practical experience in the realities of the divorce court room can know how intolerable are the burdens from which this relief is sought.

* * * * *

SHEM DROWNE AND HIS HANDIWORK.

By Elbridge H. Goss.

The weird imaginings and romantic theories of our great story-teller, Hawthorne, must not be taken as veritable and indisputable history. Some of the Boston newspapers have recently run riot in this respect. Hawthorne, in his "Drowne's Wooden Image," in "Mosses from an Old Manse," says the figure of "Admiral Vernon," which has stood on the corner of State and Broad streets, Boston, for over a century, was the handiwork of one Shem Browne, "a cunning carver of wood." Upon this statement of the romancer, for there is no authentic history to warrant it, one paper, in an article entitled "A Funny Old Man," says: "Deacon Shem Drowne, the Carver. Concerning the origin of the carved figure of Admiral Vernon there can be no doubt. History, ancient records, and fiction all record the presence in Boston of one Deacon Shem Drowne, whose business it was to supply the tradesmen and tavern-keepers of the day with similar carved images to indicate their calling, or by which to identify their places of business."[1]

Another, discoursing of this same image, as "Our Oldest Inhabitant," after attributing it to the same man's workmanship, states: "Deacon Shem Drowne, whose name suggests pious and patriarchal, if not nautical associations, carved the grasshopper which still holds its place over Faneuil Hall, and also the gilded Indian,[2] who, with his bow bent and arrow on the string, so long kept watch and ward over the Province House, the stately residence of the royal Governors of Massachusetts."[3] This writer repeatedly spells the name wrong. His name was Drowne, not Droune.[4] In "Drowne's Wooden Image," Hawthorne makes his Shem Drowne a wood-carver, plain and simple: "He became noted for carving ornamental pump heads, and wooden urns for gate posts, and decorations, more grotesque than fanciful, for mantle pieces." "He followed his business industriously for many years, acquired a competence, and in the latter part of his life attained to a dignified station in the church, being remembered in records and traditions as Deacon Drowne, the carver," and he connects him with the real Shem Drowne of history, only by speaking of him this once as "Deacon Drowne," and saying: "One of his productions, an Indian Chief, gilded all over, stood during the better part of a century on the cupola of the Province House, bedazzling the eyes of those who looked upward, like an angel of the sun;" plainly indicating that he thought the Indian was carved from wood, instead of being made, as it was, of hammered copper.

The real Shem Drowne was not a wood-carver; no authority for such a statement can be found. His trade is given as that of a "tin plate worker,"[5] and a "cunning artificer" in metal;[6] nowhere as a wood-carver. He was born in Kittery, Maine, in 1683. His father was Leonard Drowne, who came from the west of England to Kittery, where he carried on the ship building business until 1692, when, on account of the French and Indian wars, he removed his family to Boston, where he died, a few years after, and his grave is in the old Copp's Hill Burying Ground.[7] At Boston Shem Browne established himself in his trade. He was elected a deacon of the First Baptist Church, in 1721. He was "often employed in Town affairs, especially in the management of Fortifications."[8]

He married Catherine Clark, one of the heirs of Nicholas Bavison, of Charlestown, who was a purchaser in the "Pemaquid Patent," or grant of the Plymouth Company, of some twelve thousand acres, to Messrs. Aldsworth and Elbridge of Bristol, England, made in 1631. Becoming interested in the claim of his wife, as one of the heirs, in 1735, he was appointed agent and attorney of the "Pemaquid Proprietors," in which capacity he acted for many years. It was sometimes called the "Drowne Claim." In 1747 he had the whole tract of land surveyed, and was instrumental in causing forty or more families to settle in that region. That he became blind, or nearly so, as early as 1762, is attested by a deed of land at Broad Cove (Bristol, Maine), made in that year to Thomas Johnston; a note in the margin of which states that it was "distinctly read to him on account of his sight;"[9] but the signature is written in a large, plain hand. He died January 13, 1774, aged ninety-one years. He had a daughter, Sarah, who, in 1757, was married to Rev. Jeremiah Condy, who, from 1739 to 1764, was pastor of the First Baptist Church, of which church Mr. Drowne was a deacon. As a metal worker he made the grasshopper, Indian, and other vanes; but that he ever carved a pump head, urn, gate-post, "Admiral Vernon," or any other wooden image, there is not a scintilla of evidence; nothing but the figment of a romancer's brain.

The following letter to his nephew, Honorable Solomon Drowne of Providence, Rhode Island, is here printed by the kindness of Henry T. Drowne, Esq., of New York, who has many of the old papers of the Drowne families. It was written soon after his nephew's marriage, and is an interesting document; full of a sympathetic and kindly spirit; showing that the customs of his church, the Baptist, of that day, were very similar to those of the Evangelical churches of to-day; and gives an instance of "Catholic Christian Spirit" worthy of note. The use of the colon instead of the period is also noticeable:

BOSTON [Massachusetts],

August y'e 18, 1732.

LOVING KINSMAN:

Yours I received and have considered the Contents, and pray that your
spouse may be directed and assisted by the grace and holy spirit of
God to live in all good conscience before Him and this being the
indispensable Duty of everyone when come to the use of Reason, with
all seriousness to search the Scriptures, from thence to learn our
Duty; and, then with Humility to devote ourselves to God, which is our
reasonable Service; and, this being the awfulest solemnity that poor
mortal man ever transacts in, whilst in this world: being to enter into
Covenant with the Most High God. In the Concernment of a precious soul
for a vast Eternity, ought to be entered upon with earnest prayer to
God for his grace, that it may be sufficient for us, and that His
strength might be made perfect in weakness: As for the order in which
our Church admits Members into Communion: the Person who desires to
joyn to the Church stands propounded a fortnight, in which time inquiry
is made concerning their Life and Conversation: then they appear before
the Church, make _Confession_, with their mouth, of their Repentance
toward God, and their faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ: and, if
nothing appears by information contrary to their _Confession_, then
they are approved of by a vote of the Church, with all readiness; and
so partake of the Holy ordinances--Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Our breaking-bread day is always on the first Sabbath in every month,
and, always on the Friday before it, we have a Church Meeting, which is
carried on by prayer, in order to prepare for our approach to the Lord's
table: at which Meetings _those_ are sometimes heard and sometimes
on the Sabbath, as circumstances best serve--so that any Person at a
Distance may send to our minister to propound them to the Church timely,
and order their coming, so as to partake of both ordinances on the same
day: The Reverend Mr. Cotton of Newton, on occasion of a man of his
Parish desiring to join in Communion with our Church, gave him a Letter
of Recommendation, not as a member with him, but as of one in Judgment
of Charity qualified by the grace of God to be received amongst us:
which the Church received as a mark of his Catholic Christian Spirit.

That you and your spouse may be directed to do what may be most for
the glory of God: and for your own Peace and Comfort, both for time
and Eternity: that you may both walk in all the commands and ordinances
of the Lord blameless is the Prayer and Desire of your loving uncle.

SHEM DROWNE.

Two of the three best known weather vanes made by Drowne, are still on duty; and one, the Indian chief, which for so many years decked the Province House, is now the property of the Massachusetts Historical Society, in one of the rooms of which it is to be seen, still swinging on its original pivot. From the sole of his foot to the top of his plume, it is four feet, six inches; and from his elbow to tip of arrow, four feet; weight forty-eight pounds.

The old grasshopper on Fanueil Hall[10] was made in 1742, and has veered with the winds and been beaten by the storms of one hundred and forty odd years. It was last repaired in 1852, when there was found within it a much-defaced paper, only a part of which could be read:

SHEM DROWNE MADE ITT

May 25, 1742

To my Brethren and Fellow Grasshoppers

Fell in y'e year 1755 Nov 15th day from y'e Market by a great Earthquake
... sing ... sett a ... by my old Master above.

Again Like to have Met with my Utter Ruin by Fire, but hopping Timely
from my Publick Situation came of with Broken bones, and much Bruised,
Cured and again fixed....

Old Master's Son Thomas Drowne June 28th, 1763. And Although I now
promise to Play ... Discharge my Office, yet I shall vary as ye
wind.[11]

The other one still in use is the old "Cockerel" of Hanover Street Church fame. This was made for the New Brick Church in 1721, and is the oldest of the three. It held its position on this church and its successors, one of which was long known as the "Cockerel Church," for one hundred and forty-eight years, when it was raised on the Shepard Memorial Church of Cambridge, where it now is. "It measures five feet four inches from bill to tip of tail, and stands five feet five inches from the foot of the socket to the top of comb, and weighs one hundred and seventy-two pounds."[12]

Possibly some other specimens of the handiwork of this good Deacon Shem Drowne are still in existence. Who knows?

[Footnote 1: Boston Globe, October 18, 1884.]

[Footnote 2: Neither of these were carved; they were both of metal.]

[Footnote 3: Boston Evening Record, January 10, 1885.]

[Footnote 4: Fac-similes of his signature are given in "Memorial History of Boston," vol. II, p. 110, written in 1733, and in John Johnston's "History of Bristol, Bremen and the Pemaquid Plantation," p. 466, written in 1762.]

[Footnote 5: Johnston's "Bristol and Bremen."]

[Footnote 6: Samuel Adams Drake's "Old Landmarks of Boston," p. 135.]

[Footnote 7: Mss. letter of Henry T. Drowne, Esq., of New York.]

[Footnote 8: Samuel G. Drake's "History of Boston."]

[Footnote 9: History of "Bristol and Bremen."]

[Footnote 10: Drake in "Old Landmarks," says: "the grasshopper was long thought to be the crest of the Faneuils."]

[Footnote 11: Boston Daily Advertiser, December 3, 1852.]

[Footnote 12: Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. XXVII, p. 422.]

* * * * *

THE WEDDING IN YE DAYS LANG SYNE.

By Rev. Anson Titus.

The story of courtship and marriage is ever fascinating. It is new and fresh to the hearts of the youthful and aged. A few words upon the marriage day in the early New England will not be without interest. September 9, 1639, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law ordering intentions of marriage to be published fourteen days at the public lecture, or in towns where there was no lecture the "intention" was to be posted "vpon some poast standinge in publique viewe." On this same day it was ordered that the clerks of the several towns record all marriages, births and deaths. This was a wise provision. It at once taught the people of the beginning and of the designed stability of the new-founded government.

The course of true love did not run smooth in these early days any more than to-day. Parents were desirous of having sons and daughters intermarry with families of like social standing and respectability. But the youth and maid often desired to exercise their own freedom and choice. On May 7, 1651, the General Court ordered a fine and punishment against those who "seeke to draw away y'e affections of yong maydens." In the time of Louis XV, of France, the following decree was made: "Whoever by means of red or white paint, perfumes, essences, artificial teeth, false hair, cotton, wool, iron corsets, hoops, shoes, with high heels, or false tips, shall seek to entice into the bonds of marriage any male subject of his majesty, shall be prosecuted for witchcraft, and declared incapable of matrimony." The fathers of New England may have made foolish laws, but this one in France at a later time goes beyond them. The seductive charms of the sexes they deemed could not be trusted. Wonderment often comes to us of the thoughts and manners of the sage law-makers when their youthful hearts were reaching out after another's love.

The marriage day was celebrated with decorum. The entire community were conversant of the proposed marriage, for the same had been read in meeting and posted in "publique viewe." The earliest lawmakers of the Colony were pillars in the church, and though they did not regard marriage an ordinance over which the church had chief to say, yet they desired an attending solemnity. In 1651 it was ordered that "there shall be no dancinge vpon such occasions," meaning the festivities, which usually followed the marriage, at the "ordinary" or village inn.

The marriage of widows made special laws needful. Property was held in the name of the husband. The wife owned nothing, though it came from the meagre dowry of her own father. When the husband died the widow had certain rights as long as she "remained his widow." These rights were small at best, though the estate may have been accumulated through years of their mutual toil and hardships. We have notes of a number of cases, but give only a few. We omit the names of the contracting parties. "T---- C---- of A---- and H---- B---- of S----, widow were married together, September y'e 28th, 1748, before O---- B---- J.P. And at ye same time y'e s'd H---- solemnly declared as in y'e presence of Almighty God & before many witnesses, that she was in no way in possession of her former husband's estate of whatever kind soever neither possession or reversion." An excellent Deacon married an elderly matron, Dorothea ----, and before the Justice of Peace "Y'e s'd Dorothea declared she was free from using any of her former husband's estate, and so y'e s'd Nathaniel [the Deacon] received her." The following declarations are not without interest. "Y'e s'd John B---- declared before marriage that he took y'e s'd Hannah naked and had clothed her & that he took her then in his own clothes separate from any interest of her former husbands." Again a groom declares: "And he takes her as naked and destitute, not having nor in no ways holding any part of her former husband's estate whatever." We have also the declaration of a widower on marrying a widow in 1702, who had property in her own name, probably gained by will, "that he did renounce meddling with her estate." These declarations evidence that the widow relinquished, and that the groom received her without the least design upon the estate. It has been intimated that in a few instances these declarations became a "sign," but we can hardly credit it. The "rich" widow was taken out of the matrimonial problem.

The following affidavit is spread on the town records of Amesbury:

"Whereas Thomas Challis of Amesbury in y'e County of Essex in y'e
Province of y'e Massachsetts Bay in New England, and Sarah Weed,
daughter of George Weed in y'e same Town, County and Province, have
declared their intention of taking each other in marriage before
several public meetings of y'e people called Quakers in Hampton and
Amesbury, and according to y't good order used amongst them whose
proceeding therein after a deliberate consideration thereof with
regard to y'e righteous law of God and example of his people recorded
in y'e holy Scriptures of truth in that case, and by enquiry they
appeared clear of all others relating to marriage and having consent
of parties and relations concerned were approved by said meeting.

Now these certify whom it may concern y't for y'e full accomplishment
of their intention, this twenty-second day of September being y'e year
according to our account 1727, then they the s'd Thom's Challis and
Sarah Weed appeared in a public assembly of y'e afores'd people and
others met together for that purpose at their public meeting-house
in Amesbury afores'd and then and there he y'e s'd Thom's Challis
standing up in y'e s'd assembly taking y'e s'd Sarah Weed by y'e hand
did solemnly declare as followeth:

Friends in y'e fear of God and in y'e presence of this assembly whom I
declare to bear witness, that I take this my Friend Sarah Weed to be my
wife promising by y'e Lord's assistance to be unto her a kind and loving
husband till death, or to this effect; and then and there in y'e s'd
assembly she y'e said Sarah Weed did in like manner declare as follweth:
Friends in y'e fear of God and presence of this assembly whom I declare
to bear witness that I take this my Friend Thom's Challis to be my
husband promising to be unto him a faithful and loving wife till death
separate us, or words of y'e same effect. And y'e s'd Thom's Challis
and Sarah Weed, as a further confirmation thereof did then and there to
these presents set their hands, she assuming y'e name of her husband. And
we whose names are hereto subscribed being present amongst others at
their solemnizing Subscription in manner afores'd have hereto set our
names as witness."

Then follow the names of groom and bride, relatives on either side, and then the names of members in the assembly, first the "menfolks," then the "womenfolks." The names all told are forty-one. Among them is that of Joseph Whittier, which name with those of Challis and Weed have long been honored names in Amesbury.

The marriage gift to the husband on the part of his parents was usually a farm, a part of the homestead; the dowry to the young bride from her parents was a cow, a year's supply of wool, or something needful in setting up house-keeping. If the homestead farm was not large the young couple were brave enough to encounter the labors and toils of frontier life, and begin for themselves on virgin soil and amid new scenes. It required bravery on the part of the young bride. But there were noble maidens in those days. The cares and duties of motherhood soon followed, but the house-cares and the maternal obligations were performed to the admiration of later generations. The fathers and mothers of New England were strong and hardy. Their praises come down to us. Witnesses new and ancient testify of their worth and royalty of character.

* * * * *

A REMINISCENCE OF COL. FLETCHER WEBSTER.

In a private conversation with the writer not long since General Marston, of New Hampshire, related the following story:

"On the morning of the thirtieth of August, 1862, before sunrise, I was lying under a fence rolled up in a blanket on the Bull Run battle-field. It was the second day of the Bull Run battle. My own regiment, the Second New Hampshire Volunteers, had been in the fight the day before and had lost one-third of the entire regiment in killed and wounded.

"While so lying by the fence some one shook me and said, 'Get up here.' In answer I said, without throwing the blanket from over my head, 'Who in thunder are you?' The answer was made, 'Get up here and see the Colonel of the Massachusetts Twelfth.'

"The speaker then partly pulled the blanket off my head and I saw that it was Colonel Fletcher Webster; whereupon I arose, and we sat down together and I sent my orderly for coffee.

"We sat there drinking the coffee and talking about his father, Daniel Webster, and he told me about his father going up to Franklin every year and always using the same expression about going. He would say 'Fletcher, my son, let us go up to Franklin to-morrow; let us have a good time and leave the old lady at home. Let us have a good old New Hampshire dinner--fried apples and onions and pork.' At about that time the Adjutant of Colonel Webster's regiment came along and told him that the General commanding his brigade wanted to see him. Colonel Webster replied that he would be there shortly.

"As he sat there on the blanket with me he took hold of his left leg just below the knee with both hands and said: 'There, I will agree to have my leg taken off right there for my share of the casualties of this day.' I replied: 'I would as soon be killed as lose a leg; and the chances are a hundred to one that you won't be hit at all.' 'Well,' said he as he gave me his hand, 'I hope to see you again; goodbye.' I never saw him again. He was killed that day. His extreme sadness, his depression, was perhaps indicative of a conviction or presentiment of some impending misfortune."

* * * * *

OLD DORCHESTER.

By Charles M. Barrows.

The quaint old Puritan annalist, James Blake, wrote as a preface to his book of records:

"When many most Godly and Religious People that Dissented from y'e way
of worship then Established by Law in y'e Realm of England, in y'e Reign
of King Charles y'e first, being denied y'e free exercise of Religion
after y'e manner they professed according to y'e light of God's Word and
their own consciences, did under y'e Incouragment of a Charter Granted
by y'e S'd King, Charles, in y'e Fourth Year of his Reign, A.D. 1628,
Remoue themselues & their Families into y'e Colony of y'e Massachusetts
Bay in New England, that they might Worship God according to y'e light
of their own Consciences, without any burthensome Impositions, which was
y'e very motive & cause of their coming; Then it was, that the First
Inhabitants of Dorchester came ouer, and were y'e first Company or
Church Society that arriued here, next y'e Town of Salem who was one
year before them."

Nonconformity, then, was the "very motive and cause" which settled Dorchester, the oldest town but one in Puritan New England, and planted there a sturdy yeomanry to whom freedom of conscience was more than home and dearer than life. Nor was this "vast extent of wilderness" to which they succeeded by right of purchase from the heirs of Chickatabat any such narrow area as that of the same name, recently annexed to the city of Boston. It extended from what is now the northern limit of South Boston to within a hundred and sixty rods of the Rhode Island line, thus giving the township a length of about thirty-five miles "as y'e road goethe." The late Ellis Ames, of Canton, a competent authority, says the town "was formerly bounded by Boston, Roxbury, Dedham, Wrentham, Taunton, Bridgewater and Braintree," so that its history is the history of a large part of the towns in Norfolk county and a portion of Bristol. The manner in which the original territory has been gradually reduced is thus told by Mr. Ames: "Milton was set off in 1662; part of Wrentham, in 1724: Stoughton, in 1726; Sharon, in 1765; Foxborough, in 1778; Canton, in 1797; strips were also set off to Dedham, probably, in 1739; and before the whole was annexed, portions of the northern part of the town were set off to Boston, at two several times: in 1804 and in 1855." Since that date another portion has been severed to make the northern quarter of Hyde Park. Honorable John Daggett, the historian of Attleborough, which was then a part of the Rehoboth North Purchase, says there was a dispute concerning the boundary between Dorchester and that town, which was finally settled by a conference of delegates, held at the house of one of his ancestors.

Why those "most Godly and Religious People" chose to settle where they did rather than on the Charles river, as at first intended, Mr. Blake proceeds to tell us in his annals. He says they made the voyage from England to New England in a vessel of four hundred tons, commanded by Captain Squeb, and that they had "preaching or expounding of the Scriptures every day of their passage, performed by Ministers." Contrary to their desires, the ship discharged them and their goods at Nantasket, but they procured a boat in which part of the company rowed into Boston harbor and up the Charles river, "until it became narrow and shallow," when they went ashore at a point in the present village of Watertown. But after exploring the open lands about Boston, they finally made choice of a neck of land "joyning to a place called by y'e Indians Mattapan," because it formed a natural inclosure for the cattle they had brought with them, and which, if turned into the open land, would be liable to stray and be lost. This little circumstance fixed the original settlement on the marsh now known as Dorchester Neck.

The honor of the name Dorchester appears to belong to Rev. John White, minister of a town of the same name in the mother country, who planned and encouraged the exodus to America. But the hardy little band of exiles who received the title from old Cutshumaquin, the successor of Chickatabat, little knew what their wild territory was destined to become in the course of a hundred years. They were loyal subjects of the English throne, building their log cabins and rude meeting-house on Allen's Plain under protection of a charter from King Charles; there they hoped to found a permanent town, where the worship of God should be maintained in accordance with the dictates of the Puritan conscience, without interference of churchman, Roman Catholic, Baptist, or Quaker. There was room in the unexplored forests to the south for pasturage and for the overflow, whenever, as Cotton Mather said when the whole state contained less than six thousand white inhabitants, "Massachusetts should be like a hive overstocked with bees."

The first meeting-house in Dorchester, a very unpretentious structure of logs and thatch, was completed in 1631, and no free-holder was allowed to plant his domicile farther than the distance of half a mile from it, without special permission of the fathers of the town. It stood near the intersection of the present Pleasant and Cottage streets, and that portion of the former highway between Cottage and Stoughton streets is supposed to have been the first road laid out in the early settlement. Shortly after, this road was extended to Five Corners in one direction, and to the marsh, then called the Calf Pasture, in the other. The present names of these extensions are Pond street and Crescent avenue. From Five Corners a road was subsequently laid out running, north-east to a point a little below the Captain William Clapp place, where there was a gate which closed the entrance to Dorchester Neck, where the cattle were pastured. It was on this street that Rev. Richard Mather, the first minister of the town, Roger Williams, of Rhode Island fame, and other distinguished citizens resided. The next undertaking in the way of public improvements was the building of two important roads, one leading to Penny Ferry, thus opening a highway of communication with the sister Colony at Plymouth; the other leading to Roxbury, Brookline and Cambridge.

In Josselyn's description of the town soon after its settlement may be read:

"Six myles from Braintree lyeth Dorchester, a frontire Town, pleasantly
situated and of large extent into the maine land, well watered with two
small rivers, her body and wings filled somewhat thick with houses, ...
accounted the greatest town heretofore in New England, but now giving
way to Boston."

Through what hardships and privations this infant freehold was maintained can be understood by those only, who have read the records of the colonial struggle against a sterile soil, a rigorous climate, grim famine, hostile Indians, and a total lack of all the appliances and comforts of civilization. The years 1631 and 1632 were a period of great distress to the Dorchester farmers, on account of the failure of their crops and supplies of provision, and Captain Clapp wrote concerning it: "Oh! y'e Hunger that many suffered and saw no hope in an Eye of Reason to be Supplied, only by Clams & Muscles, and Fish; and _Bread_ was very Scarce, that sometimes y'e very Crusts of my Fathers Table would have been very sweete vnto me; And when I could have _Meal & Water & Salt_, boyled together, it was so good, who could wish better. And it was not accounted a strange thing in those Days to Drink Water, and to eat _Samp_ or _Homine_ without Butter or Milk. Indeed it would have been a very strange thing to see a piece of Roast Beef, Mutton, or Veal, tho' it was not long before there was Roast _Goat_."

In 1740, the same year that Whitefield visited New England, on his evangelistic mission, the crops were again cut off by untimely frosts, and Mr. Blake wrote in his annual entry-book: "There was this year an early frost that much Damnified y'e Indian Corn in y'e Field, and after it was Gathered a long Series of wett weather & a very hard frost vpon it, that damnified a great deal more."

It is not unfair to suppose that the habits of rigid economy learned in this school of adversity influenced the passage of the celebrated law against wearing superfluities, quite as much as their austere prejudice against display. Be that as it may, the attention of the court was called to the dangerous increase of lace and other ornaments in female attire, and, after mature deliberation, it seemed wise to them to pass the following wholesome law:

"Whereas there is much complaint of the wearing of lace and other
superflueties tending to little use, or benefit, but to the nourishing
of pride, and exhausting men's estates, and also of evil example to
others; it is therefore ordered that henceforth no person whatsoever
shall prsume to buy or sell within this jurisdiction any manner of lace
to bee worne ore used within o'r limits.

"And no taylor or any other person, whatsoever shall hereafter set any
lace or points vpon any garments, either linnen, woolen, or any other
wearing cloathes whatsoever, and that no p'son hereafter shall be
imployed in making any manner of lace, but such as they shall sell to
such persons but such as shall and will transport the same out of this
jurisdiction, who in such a case shall have liberty to buy and sell; and
that hereafter no garment shall be made w'th short sleeves, whereby the
nakedness of the arm may be discovered in the bareing thereof, and such
as have garments already made w'th short sleeves shall not hereafter
wear the same, unless they cover their armes with linnen or otherwise;
and that hereafter no person whatsoever shall make any garment for
women, or any of their sex, w'th sleeves more than halfe an elle wide in
y'e widest place thereof, and so proportionable for bigger or smaller
persons; and for the p'r sent alleviation of immoderate great sleeves
and some other superfluities, w'ch may easily bee redressed w'th out
much pr udice, or y'e spoile of garments, as immoderate great briches,
knots of ribban, broad shoulder bands and rayles, silk lases, double
ruffes and caffes, &c."

But the court did not confine itself to prescribing the size of a lady's sleeves, or the trimming she might wear on her dress: it passed other timely laws to restrain the idle and vicious and preserve good order throughout the community. It was ordered in 1632 "that y'e remainder of Mr. (John) Allen's strong water, being estimated about two gallandes, shall be deliuered into y'e hands of y'e Deacons of Dorchester for the benefit of y'e poore there, for his selling of it dyvers tymes to such as were drunke by it, knowing thereof."

In 1638 the court passed a curious law regulating the use of tobacco, which runs as follows:

"The Court finding since y'e repealing of y'e former laws against
tobacco y'e law is more abused than before, it hath therefore ordered
that no man shall take any tobacco in y'e field except in his iourney,
or meale times, vpon pain of 12'd for every offence, nor shall take any
tobacco in (or near) any dwelling house, barne, Corn or Haye, as may be
likely to endanger y'e fireing thereof, vpon paine of 2's for every
offence, nor shall take any tobacco in any Inne or common victualling
house; except in a private room there; so as neither the master of the
same house nor any other gueste there shall take offence thereat; w'ch
if they doo, then such p son is forth w'th to forebeare, vpon paine of
2's 6'd for every offence."

One office created by the court of that early period it might not be a bad idea for the authorities of the present day to revive. Wardens were appointed annually to "take care of and manage y'e affairs of y'e School; they shall see that both y'e Master & Schollar, perform, their duty, and Judge of and End any difference that may arrise between Master & Schollar, or their Parents, according to Sundry Rules & Directions," set down for their guidance.

In all matters coming within the province and jurisdiction of the colonial church the law was even more exacting than in merely civil affairs; and singularly enough, the town authorities took it upon themselves to seat all persons who attended divine service in the meeting-house where it seemed to them most proper. With the full approbation of the selectmen, responsible persons were sometimes allowed to construct pews or seats for themselves and their families in the meeting-house; but it appears on one occasion that three citizens undertook to "make a seat in y'e meeting-house," without first getting the full permission and consent of the town fathers, an act deemed exceedingly sinful, and for which they were arraigned before the town at a special meeting and publicly censured. After duly considering the case it was decided to allow the seat to remain, provided it should not be disposed of to any person but such as the town should approve of, and that the offending parties acknowledge their "too much forwardness," in writing, which they did in the following manner:

"We whose names are underwritten, do acknowledge that it was our
weakness that we were so inconsiderate as to make a small seat in the
meeting-house without more clear and full approbation of the town and
selectmen thereof, though we thought upon the conference we had with
some of the selectmen apart, and elders, we had satisfying ground for
our proceeding therein; w'ch we now see was not sufficent; therefore we
do desire that our failing therein may be passed by; and if the town
will grant our seat that we have been at so much cost in setting up, we
thankfully acknowledge your love unto us therein, and we do hereupon
further engage ourselves that we will not give up nor sell any of our
places in that seat to any person or persons but whom the elders shall
approve of, or such as shall have power to place men in seats in the
assembly.

[Signed]. INCREASE ATHERTON,
SAMUEL PROCTOR,
THOMAS BIRD.

At another time one Joseph Leeds, a member of the church, was accused of maltreating his wife; the charge was sustained, and after the case had been considered at several special meetings, it was settled by his confessing and promising "to carry it more lovingly to her for time to come." But Jonathan Blackman, another erring brother, was charged with misdemeanors that could not be so easily overlooked; he was accused of lying and also of stealing. He had been whipped for these offences, but refused to come before the church for wholesome discipline, and ran away out of the jurisdiction. Accordingly he was "disowned from his church relation and excommunicated, though not deliuered up to Satan, as those in full communion, but yet to be looked at as a Heathen and a Publican unto his relations natural and civil, that he might be ashamed."

Another class of statutes--laws that have a queer sound in nineteenth-century Massachusetts--were designed for the encouragement of special public service. Here are examples of some of them:

"1638. For the better encouragement of any that shall destroy wolves,
it is ordered that for every wolf any man shall take in Dorchester
plantation, he shall have 20's by the town, for the first wolf, 15's
for the second, and for every wolf afterwards, 10's besides the
Country's pay."

"1736. Voted, that whosoever shall kill brown rats, so much grown as
to have their hair on them, within y'e town of Dochester, y'e year
ensuing, until our meeting in May next, and bring in their scalps
with y'e ears on unto y'e town treasurer, shall be paid by y'e town
treasurer Fourpence for every rat's scalp."

The same year the town offered a bounty for the destroying of striped squirrels.

Now that the recent death of Wendell Phillips brings freshly to mind the bitter opposition with which the early champions of abolution were treated in Boston and vicinity, it is pleasant to find in the musty records of the Dochester Plantation emphatic evidence that they not only recognized slavery as an evil, and the slave-trade as a heinous crime, but that they set their faces like a flint against it. The traffic in slaves began among the colonists in the winter of 1645-6, and in the following November the court placed on record this outspoken denunciation of the practice:

"The Gen'all Co'te conceiving themselves bound by y'e first opertunity
to bear Witness against y'e haynos & crying sin of man stealing, as also
to prscribe such timely redresse for what is past, and such a law for
y'e future as may sufficiently deter all others belonging to us to have
to do in such vile and odious courses, iustly abhored of all good and
iust men, do order y't y'e negro interpreter w'th others unlawfully
taken, be y'e first opertunity (at y'e charge of y'e country for psent),
sent to his native country in Ginny, & a letter w'th him of y'e
indignation of y'e Corte thereabout, and iustice hereof, desiring o'r
hono'red Gov'rnr would please put this order in execution."

How men so clear in their convictions of the rights of Africans could be guilty of the most heartless injustice to Quakers and their friends, it is not easy to explain; and yet they mercilessly persecuted one of their own fellow-citizens, Nicholas Upsall, and made him an exile from his home, for no greater crime than that of countenancing and befriending members of the Society of Friends. He kept the Dorchester hostelry, and was wont to entertain Quakers as he did any other decent people; but for this he was apprehended and tried by the court, and sentenced to pay a fine of £20 and be thrown into prison. Finally, finding it impossible to entirely prevent his friends from holding intercourse with him, he was banished from the settlement for the remainder of his life. That curious book, "Persecutors Maul'd with their own Weapons," contains the following account of the case:

"Nicholas Upsall, an old man full of years, seeing their (the
authorities) cruelty to the harmless Quakers that they had condemned
some of them to die, both he and elder Wisewell, or otherwise Deacon
Wisewell, members of the church in Boston, bore their testimonies in
public against their brethren's horrid cruelty to the said Quakers. And
the said Upsall declared that he did look at it as a sad forerunner of
some heavy judgment to follow upon the country; which they took so ill
at his hands, that they fined him twenty pounds and three pounds more at
another meeting of the court, for not coming to their meeting, and would
not abate him one grote, but imprisoned him and then banished him on
pain of death, which was done in a time of such extreme bitter weather
for frost, snow and cold, that had not the heathen Indians in the
wilderness woods taken compassion on his misery, for the winter season,
he in all likelihood had perished, though he had then a good estate in
houses and lands, goods and money, also a wife and children."

One of the officials who for a time had charge of poor Upsall during the period of his imprisonment was John Capen, of whom the old chroniclers have left a pleasanter record, namely, a transcript of several of his youthful love-letters. The following will serve as sample:

"SWEETE-HARTE,