The Legislator: Legislators of the Massachusetts General Court, 1691-1780

New England men were primarily known for their piety, devotion to family, and hard work. In the Massachusetts legislature, they were also known for their tenacity and singlemindedness, and often for being hardheaded and stubborn. The 3,117 legislators under examination cannot be easily characterized, except to say that time has obscured most of them. Only a few emerge as human beings whose lives and actions can be easily studied and evaluated. For many, nonetheless, known membership in the local church, headship of a large family, and the accumulation of much property stand out just the same as personal characteristics. These New Englanders may also be recognized for their literacy, formal education, and business acumen. Most did not buy books and read extensively, but some owned an armful, more read of newspapers and sermons, and most could write, figure, and dispute sufficiently well to argue before a justice of the peace or in the county’s inferior court of common pleas, or to be justices themselves.

When the first legislature met under the second Charter on June 8, 1692, the 28-member Council was selected initially by the English government, but the House of Representatives was chosen by the property owners of 79 townships. Approximately 157 representatives took the oath of allegiance because most towns sent their full quota of representation and almost all towns were represented. In 1693, some towns cut the number of their representatives from two to one, and the new Council, chosen then by the old Council and the new House of Representatives, was purged of 11 members. In 1693, the government applied a rule of residency to House members.1 The regulation would affect a few members, but its purpose was to force colonial leaders to establish local residence if they wished to serve in Boston. From 1693 onward, each town had to find local candidates for representative in May, elect them, and pay their Boston per diem expenses and transportation or face the possibility of a stiff fine.

After1693, the House of Representatives gradually enlarged as people moved out to the frontiers of Massachusetts and Maine and founded towns. Not all new towns sent representatives immediately, and many older towns became careless in honoring their obligations. The number of representatives thus tended to adjust itself and remained about 90 to 125 until the towns were aroused by the crises of trade and taxation that would bring forth the American Revolution. By 1776, more than 240 towns had qualified for representation and more than 90 percent returned at least one delegate. Until the revolutionary crisis, the number attending the House remained fairly constant. The annual elections always brought in many new representatives, but the Council remained stable both in numbers and members, except for an occasional death or when a governor vetoed members for opposing his policies. Only several times after 1693 did the House of Representatives purge the Council of many members. The most severe was in 1766 when most pro-British officials lost their places because of the popular reaction to the Stamp Act.

The legislators traveling annually to and from Boston gave government operations a certain sense of rhythm. To be sure, the rhythm could be mildly disturbed if financial arguments deadlocked House business, sharp exchanges over policy ccurred, budgets were delayed in passage, or the governor’s salary became a point of contention. Bitter exchanges between the legislature and governor might end the session early or force a new election. Of all the governors, only Samuel Shute and Francis Bernard left Boston for London when opposition seemed unbearable.2 Despite arguments and sometimes crises, life went on just the same. Governors served relatively long tenures in office compared with the representatives; the Council and courts were equally stable. Governors Dudley, Belcher, Shirley, and Bernard held their posts for about ten years apiece. Chief justices of the Superior Court Wait Still Winthrop, Edmund Quincy, Benjamin Lynde, Paul Dudley, and Stephen Sewall served even longer terms than the governors. Enjoying the confidence of the people, councilors were reelected yearly over several decades. Wait Still Winthrop became a councilor in 1692 and served nearly continuously until 1717. Samuel Sewall did even better by holding office from 1692 to 1725. William Pepperrell did the best; he was first elected in 1727 and reelected yearly until 1759 when death became his opponent.3

Contrasting the House of Representatives to the Council and courts serves to highlight the volatility of the House, which prided itself as a watchdog of liberty and charter rights. The House membership and leadership were amazingly fluid and representatives spoke out repeatedly on constitutional principles, even risking the ire of the British government, which threatened from time to time to restore obedience by changing the Charter. Only in 1726 did the British ministry actually modify the Charter, making the presiding officers of the House subject to the approval of the governor.4 But scarcely a year passed without some outburst of opposition to the British governor or ministry. Most were vaporous, but like emissions of hot lava from an active volcano, they could be threatening to politicians as far away as London. Because most representatives served less than five years, the tradition of opposition passed to new members as part of their indoctrination. New members presumably heard tales of heroic confrontations and were ready temperamentally to battle for what was regarded as tradition and rights. New members joined with county people, their area’s members of the Council, courts, and militia, and over ale or rum learned enough to participate effectively in legislative business.

The opposition before 1768 did not at all represent a tradition of revolution. Most representatives were concerned about the right to govern themselves and were sensitive about any encroachments - power-grabbing governors, pompous admiralty agents, and ruthless British military officers. But they were loyal subjects of the king even in expressing opposition, and they loved the empire, the Protestant (Congregational) religion, and English tradition. The representatives came to Boston primarily to look after local issues: processing petitions, meeting problems of defense, ensuring law and order, and helping to distribute the loaves and fishes of politics - the grants of the abundant frontier land.

Men like James Otis, Sr., Joseph Hawley, Elisha Cooke, Jr., and Samuel Adams undoubtedly passed on their knowledge of politics to the newcomers. The tavern, inn, boarding house, and church were centers of information and places of relaxation and association. Clergymen like Charles Chauncy, Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel Cooper, and, of course, Cotton and Increase Mather were powerful men of opinion and policy.5 The representative, moreover, had to thread his way carefully through vested and enlightened interests and stay focused on what his town had instructed him to do in Boston. Most likely
he had a petition or two to present, a request for public funds to make, and a complaint about taxes or the courts to press. To carry out his instructions, he needed the help of someone who knew legislative routines. His own past experience with the government process would be also essential in assuring success.

Almost every future representative served from his youngest adult years on the committees of his town. Many of the tasks required time, labor, and humor, especially when serving as a constable, assessor, or hogreeve. At age 30, townsmen could be chosen selectmen, and a term or two seemed to qualify them for consideration as representative. Talented persons often moderated the town meetings, and others picked up the laborious tasks of town clerk and treasurer. Career patterns differed widely, but fewer than 10 percent of the representatives had no local service before their departure for Boston. The
two Samuel Watts, father and son, merchants of Chelsea, are examples. The father (1697-1770) served in the House of Representatives (1739-1742), in the Council (1742-1762), and in the Suffolk Inferior Court of Common Pleas (1748-1770). He was selectman for 11 terms and town treasurer for two terms. Though the son (1717-1791) never served in the House, he sat in the special revolutionary Congresses of 1774 and 1775 and served as selectman and town clerk during the stormy 1760s and 1770s. He was probably too valuable a public servant in town affairs to be used as a delegate to the House of Representatives.6

Other career examples are the Whites of Haverhill and Lancaster. William White of Haverhill (1694-1737) was a farmer, grist mill owner, and clothier whose health was always precarious. He served two terms in the House, but did not volunteer otherwise as selectman, clerk, treasurer, or moderator. The local church, however, benefited for ten years from his advice as deacon, and farmers may have learned of his experiments growing potatoes.7 A contemporary and distant relative, Josiah White (1682-1772), enjoyed a long life of good health and was Lancaster’s selectman for 16 terms and church deacon from 1729 until his death. A few years as assessor, treasurer, and moderator filled out an active public career. He fathered 15 children and farmed a large homestead, which he probably needed. He was elected four times as representative.8

Although the four men cited did not depend on a military career to win recognition, most men had some military connections, and many had a rank of lieutenant or captain to give them political bases. Rank allowed the person to use the title for the rest of his life. Commissions of major and colonel, moreover, carried with them the distinction of esquire. Many towns chose selectmen from those holding such commissions or serving as deacons and sitting on the bench. Thus representatives probably would be military men, deacons, and justices who would want to leave Boston for their bases of power as soon as they could.Experience for public service was gained in all sorts of ways. Because the Massachusetts people were a litigious people, it would be logical to expect representatives to have experience practicing before the courts. Most lawyers, however, had not gained professional standing. Men were admitted to the bench, served as judges, and performed legal services, but they were only familiar with a few law books and had brushed only lightly with legal procedures before sitting on the court benches. A person usually gained knowledge of the law by studying in a law office and observing in the courts. But law was not the usual path to a legislative career. Massachusetts did have a few British-trained lawyers like William Shirley, Robert Auchmuty, and Paul Dudley, but only Dudley was elected to the House of Representatives.9 Both John Read and John Adams, who were locally educated, had good practices, but neither man served more than a year in the House.10 Adams’s teacher was Jeremiah Gridley (1702-1767) who was reputed to have had the greatest legal mind of his day. “Gridley’s grandeur consists,” Adams said, “in his great learning, his great parts, and his majestic manner.” Gridley also taught James Otis (Junior), Oxenbridge Thacher, Benjamin Prat, and William Cushing (later an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court). Gridley served four terms as a representative and was well known in Boston society. A Grand Master of the Masons, a leading member of the Marine Society, and a counsel for King’s Chapel, the Anglican church, he was “a very social soul, a nighthawk, and a member of the Wednesday Night Club and similar organizations.”11

As the Revolution approached, many more lawyers became members of the House of Representatives. Among the most prominent were William Brattle, Daniel Leonard, John Lowell, Timothy Ruggles, and John Worthington. Of all these gentlemen, the Tory Ruggles was perhaps the most prominent. He served almost 20 years as a member of the House, presiding as speaker, had a military career that won him the rank of brigadier general, and was a delegate to the 1765 Stamp Act Congress in New York City.12

On the edge of the new law profession were most members of the bench. Men like Thomas Hutchinson were known for their learning, hard work, and civic devotion, but Hutchinson’s 1760 appointment raised a serious question of his preparation. When the governor chose him over seasoned associate justices on the bench, Otis Junior protested, wanting his non judicially trained father to sit on the bench instead. The appointment was unusual because Hutchinson had also had no prior court experience except on the inferior court and probate benches. He had moved from the House of Representatives (1740s) to the Council (1750s) and to the highest court (1760).13 Otis Senior had not only been a member of the House, but its leader for a decade of valued service and a well-known supporter of the British administration.14 Otis was not a lawyer, but a Barnstable merchant who became a legislator.

Hutchinson was a Bostonian, a merchant, landholder, and public official. His high position in politics came naturally - members of his family were always living in the capital, serving on all levels of government, but mostly at the top. They were a bright group who had the advantages of education, experience, and travel. They knew every one in the capital, and almost every one knew them.They were closely related to the Olivers, Andrew and Peter, who were almost as prominent as they were. Andrew’s father-in-law was the wealthy Thomas Fitch (1669-1736) who owned land in Lunenburg, Dunstable, and Townsend and a flourishing business in Boston.15 Fitch served four years in the House and about 16 on the Council. Other Olivers were representatives from Salem and Hardwick in the 1760s.

The clustering of families in the colony was important in the business of the legislature, and an avenue to success as a lawmaker. Family connections of country and capital often convinced men to stand for election in their towns. When they arrived in the city, they had a place to stay and family business to transact. Probably no family grouping was as powerful as the Hutchinson-Oliver, but the Otises, the Dwights, Chandlers, Cushings, and Pepperrells were nearly as important. A meeting of the legislature could be a renewal of family ties, an opportunity for evaluation of family businesses, and a plotting of family strategy. There was considerable isolation for outsiders, but sometimes the insiders left crumbs from the high table. The crumbs may have been a military commission, land grant, or an opportunity to join a legislative mission. Memberships in the Baptist Warren Association, the alumni of Harvard or Yale colleges, and fellowships of the Masonic Order may have partially compensated for the lack of an influential family in working out a series of alliances.

Much of this bargaining for favor centered in Boston as part of legislative business. Boston had four seats in the House of Representatives, and its members were usually available for all sorts of legislative tasks. They were not always the most active in committee service, but they were influential, knowledgeable, and available to the whole House as members at large. To be more specific, they had interests to manage which involved the city in the politics of nearly every part of the colony. They had information, control of land grants, and knowledge of trade - in short, they were interested parties in a wide range of commercial activities. For years they supervised the printing of the legislative journal; they served on committees that met during legislative holidays. Representatives like the senior Elisha Cooke, in addition to being merchants, had much personal power. Cooke was a landowner of Maine with interests in timber, shipping, and immigration, besides being a seasoned opponent of governors in the daily business of the legislature.16 Men of the caliber of James Otis, Sr., Samuel Adams, James Allen, and James Bowdoin are also known for their personalities, often as debaters, and for their pugnacity.

For years, Thomas Hutchinson of Boston corresponded with leaders throughout the colony. Israel Williams and John Worthington exchanged information with him; the Moultons of Maine and legislators home during sessions would send him local news. Hutchinson may be exceptional in gathering political news because he had an equally extensive English correspondence. The purpose of Hutchinson’s letters was to rally the support of friends and collect political information. His power in the legislature may have arisen as much from his knowledge of politics as from his wealth and position. Unlike Allen and Cooke who were known for their outrageous behavior, Hutchinson was generally a quiet man of great dignity who moved skillfully in politics. But they all solicited information and used it to maintain power in the capital.17

Although Boston itself was an important center of government, gathered around the city were smaller towns that had similar interests and were often residences of the city merchants. Charlestown, Dorchester, Roxbury, and Chelsea were important units of the metropolitan area, along with perhaps Cambridge, Watertown, Newton, and Malden. These towns may not have always stood together, but they rallied their representatives in times of crises on questions of commerce and taxation. Their delegates were usually experienced in government and could easily handle their duties as representatives while managing private businesses. The influential Russell family maintained their residence in Charlestown from 1640 until the Revolution and thus took advantage of the opportunity of serving in the Middlesex County courts as well as being active as Boston merchants. The four Charlestown Russells were councilors for long periods and held posts in town government, but only Chambers (1713-1766) served long in the House of Representatives. He was elected to six terms, usually interrupted by service on the Council or during tenures either on the Middlesex Inferior Court of Common Pleas or the colony’s Superior Court of Judicature. He owned land in Lincoln, Concord, Charlestown, and Boston, and his family had trading interests that included wharves and warehouses in Charlestown and Boston. Chambers was also the British judge of the regional Admiralty Court.18

One influential family of Roxbury, where William Shirley had his residential seat, was the Williamses.19 They were substantial farmers, but with trading interests in Boston. Eleazer (1695-1768) served two years in the House of Representatives, while Joseph (1708-1798) served 14. Both were long-time selectmen and frequent moderators of town meetings. Other families could be cited as connecting neighboring communities with Boston, but the Williamses illustrate that seaboard towns sent experienced, devoted, and talented lawmakers to the legislature.

So too were the northern representatives from Lynn, Salem, Beverly, Gloucester, and Newburyport. In particular, Salem’s wealthy merchants had close connections with Boston, and the town regularly sent its full quota of two delegates to the house. One of them often came from the powerful Browne family, which had long been influential in town life.20 Neither of the Ropes were as powerful as the Brownes, but Nathaniel served seven years on the Council and was justice even longer. Jonathan was recruited as a legislator during the critical years 1774 and 1775 when he served in the final legislature under the king and two revolutionary congresses. Benjamin Lynde, Jr., probably better represented the wealth and power of Salem’s townsmen than either Ropes. His mother was Mary Browne of Salem and his wife was Mary Bowles of Roxbury. They had three daughters, one of whom married Andrew Oliver, Jr., of Boston. Lynde served three years in the House and nearly three decades on the Council. A merchant and owner of vessels and wharves, he operated several mills and possibly a jewelry business.21 His son-in-law, Andrew Oliver, Jr., had much wealth, land in Brattleboro and Boston, a seat on the inferior court bench for Essex County, and served some years in the House of Representatives.

Salem was an important center of trade, but it did not have as many neighboring towns as Boston to enlarge its commercial base. Certainly Ipswich and Beverly were two such towns, and they usually sent strong men to Boston. The Appletons of Ipswich, for example, had not the wealth of the Lyndes nor their prestige, but they owned farms, iron works, and shops. Samuel (1654- 1725) lived part of his life in Lynn where he developed the iron foundry, but most of his life was spent in Ipswich where he was elected five times to the House of Representatives and elected moderator of ten annual town meetings. His impressive career as councilor extended from 1703 to 1714. Daniel (1692- 1762) was chosen for five terms in the House and was justice of the peace and quorum most of his adult life.22

The seaboard communities along the southern coast and on the Cape, in general, had representatives with similar records of service and experience. The south shore was probably not so wealthy as the north; most were farming communities or concerned with local trade. But such families as the Quincys, Cushings, Warrens, Adamses, and Otises were regular members of the legislature. The Otises, for example, came late to the colony, settling in Scituate and then moving to Barnstable. They gained importance in county affairs, probably developed business and legal connections with Boston in the first quarter of the 1700s, and the family divided early its interests between service as officials in the capital and as merchants in Barnstable. Both James Otises, father and son, were formidable leaders in the capital, but the senior Otis retreated for a time to Barnstable in the late 1750s when he failed in his bid to be a Superior Court judge. Two of his children, however, married well into influential Boston families. He served nearly 20 years in the House of Representatives and Council where he was accused by critics of exercising unnatural influence over country representatives.23

The legislature could be divided, therefore, into members from towns at a great distance from Boston and towns along the Atlantic seaboard. Interest in its proceedings would reflect, of course, annual issues of importance to the towns, but the seaboard would be continually aroused by problems of trade and taxation. The frontier towns and towns distant from the sea would be concerned with issues of defense or with primarily local issues such as a probated will, a dispute over the selection of the minister, and the tax burden. Division of frontier lands, of course, would interest almost everyone.

All towns regarded representation as a right. Their use of it, however, would depend on the issues that needed to be settled. Although seaboard communities regularly elected representatives, not all interior communities felt that responsibility, which isolated them from the capital and denied them experience with the legislative process. A large percentage of towns in any legislature did not use their right to be represented, and even a large percentage of the towns that sent delegates did not expect their men to stay for entire sessions.

From 1760 to 1780, when the Massachusetts electorate accepted its republican constitution, a few families from most settled areas of the colony moved out to the frontier in search of new land. In a short time, they established many new towns and erected three new counties.24 The disturbances of the Revolution also encouraged people to migrate from exposed Atlantic seaboard communities. Their fear of British invasion convinced some landless people who had little to lose to resettle on western lands and become partners in new towns. They were almost always married, young enough for their wives to bear additional children. The new town records show very little about these frontier people except what they were doing in the years after they arrived in the new community. Some were Baptists, Congregationalists, or followers of Robert Sandeman.

The great event for westerners was the 1779 state convention in Cambridge when elected delegates drew up a new constitution. The usual restrictions of land and religion were relaxed so that a new type of representative could qualify for service. The hard times of the Revolution made it also easier for new people in a community to gain the town vote and serve. Although the highest floor vote was only 251, there were 311 registered delegates. Ministers, strangers,youngpeople,andtheusualtriedandtruetowncitizensweremembers of the constitutional delegations, but some western delegates seem to have been strikingly different from the traditional representatives. They seem to have been new people, recent arrivals in the towns, and relatively obscure then and later in the towns’ histories.

Isaac Backus, the famous Baptist leader from Middleborough, did what he could to encourage fellow Baptists and like-minded people in the towns to respond to issues of religious freedom. Noah Alden of Bellingham, who had no legislative service, was elected a delegate to the constitutional convention and urged by Backus to think about “how the Bill of Rights ought to be drawn.”25 At least a dozen Baptists or men convinced of their principles attended the Convention, and most of them were urged by Backus to work for religious freedom. Because most of these people were obscure, it is difficult to ascertain whether they volunteered for the service because of Backus’s letters and conversations with them or for other patriotic reasons. Two of this group of relatively obscure people - Joseph Packard (1727-1800) and William Ewing (1727-c1790) - defied identification for this researcher. Packard arrived in Pelham about the time of the Revolution, operated an inn, and held various town offices. After participating in the Shays Rebellion, he slipped into obscurity.26 Ewing was a Baptist preacher and traveled widely in Massachusetts. Apparently he had been a British soldier and discovered his religious calling while in New Jersey. He moved to Sturbridge, Massachusetts, in 1768, serving as a minister before going to preach regularly in Shutesbury. Years later the town sent him to the constitutional convention for a few months. His return to preaching kept him busy in Shutesbury and neighboring towns for some years, but he went to Weston in the 1790s and possibly later to Vermont where he disappeared from current research.27

The settlers of Maine may not have been inspired by religious freedom, but some families year after year accepted election by their towns and traveled down to Boston. In the 1760s, Maine grew rapidly because the Seven Years War had ended and settlement was safer. Several land companies developed large areas in the district, and the inexpensive land drew thousands of settlers who traveled eastward during the 1760s. Many were from Boston, which was full of prospective settlers bargaining for land and transport. They undoubtedly consulted the Kennebeck Proprietors, managers of an important Maine company, which included among its directors a large part of the Council and influential representatives.28 Such powerful men in the 1760s as James Bowdoin, James Pitts, Silvester Gardiner, and John Hancock were proprietors. Their relatives or friends were drawn to the area and accepted the new positions that opened up as towns and counties developed. Jonathan Bowman, Hancock’s nephew, became justice of the peace, probate judge, and register of probate, but not a representative.29 Equally favored with Bowman were the Cushing brothers, Charles and William. Both were members of that powerful Scituate family, and both held important Pownallboro town and Lincoln County offices, including the additional responsibility of representative.30

The Pepperrells, who were in York County by the 1670s and married into local families, became powerful merchants and landholders of Kittery, Berwick, and York in the second quarter of the 1700s. At one point in the 1730s, the Pepperrells had more than 100 vessels, and their trading lines stretched to the West Indies, Newfoundland, and Europe. Young William Pepperrell (1696- 1759) formed an association with Charles Apthorp of Boston and strengthened these profitable ties with Boston by becoming a representative and councilor. His ship captains Richard Cutt and John Frost and local merchants like the Shapleighs, Dennetts, Emerys, and Leightons monopolized town offices and held seats in the House of Representatives. Their interests were often land, defense, offices, and trade, which presence in Boston could improve. William Pepperrell, the younger, won the honor of baronet for the successful attack on Louisbourg in 1745 and a colonelcy of a British regiment in 1755. His years on the Council (1727-1759) could be measured against the land grants, the trade contracts, and local offices that he and his friends had accumulated over the decades. Like the Connecticut River deacons of western Massachusetts, the land barons of Maine - William Pepperrell, Samuel Waldo, Jeremiah Moulton, and Simon Frost - were merchants and proprietors of many enterprises as well as landowners, and they exercised great power when they came to Boston to legislate.31

The generations of legislators serving from 1691 to 1780 were almost all native-born New Englanders, mostly born in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine. A few eighteenth-century legislators had migrated from England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. These men settled during most of their long lives in Massachusetts Bay and died near their homesteads. A very small percentage of legislators left for New York and Vermont to die on those distant frontiers. With the Revolution shaking up the political order after 1775, a small group became loyalists and bitterly sought refuge in Halifax, London, Bermuda, or Nova Scotia. Daniel Leonard of Taunton (1740-1829), an attorney and barrister, served in the House of Representatives from 1769 to 1774. Admitted to Inner Temple in 1779, he became chief justice of Bermuda (1781-1806) and a leading barrister in England for many years.32 In contrast, Daniel Oliver (1743- 1828), the son of Andrew and the long-time province secretary, was a lawyer and barrister too, but served only one term as representative for Hardwick. A justice of the peace in 1768, he became involved with his Uncle Peter in revolutionary politics and escaped as a loyalist to Nova Scotia and England. Unable to adjust, he spent the rest of his long life in a small English town with other family members.33

A few additional representatives harbored loyalist sympathies, but were spared the trauma of exile. Often fast foot work, help of relatives, and fortunate circumstances contributed to their decision to remain in America. John Worthington (1719-1800) of Springfield was a leading lawyer and barrister of the Hampshire County bar. He served in the House of Representatives - from 1747 to 1767 and from 1770 to 1774. The service was broken in 1767 and 1768 by two terms on the Council. His loyalism in 1775 cost him high public office after the Revolution, but he had an impressive law practice that he managed profitably and that allowed him to live well on his extensive estates.34 Israel Williams (1709-1788), another loyalist sympathizer and westerner, gave the colony devout years of service as selectman (32) and representative (17). He gave even more years as a soldier and judge. He got in trouble first with the revolutionaries over breaking the trade embargo of the late 1760s and then by his open friendship with Thomas Hutchinson, a symbol of aggressive British rule. In time, he was threatened by mobs and jailed. Though his family was sufficiently powerful to secure his release, he never regained offices and prestige. Like other loyalists in the 1770s, he made the wrong political decision and suffered accordingly.35

A typical representative was a 49-year-old man, usually born in his town, married several times when wives died prematurely, a father of seven or eight children, and experienced in town government. In western towns he was a farmer, but he might also own a tavern or inn, work as a blacksmith or teacher, or offer his services as carpenter or cooper. Along the coast, he could be a merchant, captain of a vessel, and owner of mills, a foundry, and other kinds of businesses. He could be a medical doctor or a lawyer. Probably no representative was illiterate, and many were college graduates. Probably most representatives got their education as apprentices or in the local schools. Almost everyone was a church-goer, maybe not always a church member, but he was Protestant, usually Calvinist, and generally moral in his conduct, though some were known for sharp dealing with the Indians and for breaking their trade oaths as smugglers. A few had children with mistresses. Councilors differed little from their House colleagues, except that they were more substantial subjects of the king. They were prominent, wealthy, and visible by long service in office. Some had African house servants and coachmen. They were older as a group, and numbered among them were colonels, judges, and British officials.

Missing from this discussion is an explanation for the fire and excitement of members when they were on the floor of the legislature. What made them such stout defenders of charter rights? What made them challenge the governor as local British leader on issues of taxation, the governor’s salary, impressment of their seamen, and quartering? What changed a rural farmer, a Boston or Salem shopkeeper, or a village blacksmith into a patriot? What gave them courage and stiffened their backbones?

NOTES

   1. This rule of residency was generally enforced by the House when it reviewed
the qualifications of members. In 1725, for example, members from Chelmsford and Leicester were not qualified for this reason. See Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts (Boston, 1919-1990), 6: 218-219.

   2. Samuel Shute’s journey to London was a retreat from the bitter politics existing in the legislature and resulted in Parliament’s action to modify the Charter of 1691. Shute did not return to Boston after his victory and the colony remained in the hands of the lieutenant governor until the king appointed William Burnett.

   3. Byron Fairchild, Messrs. William Pepperrell (Ithaca, N.Y., 1954), 166-168, 182- 183, 194.

   4. After 1726 only a few times did the nomination of speaker bring the governor’s disapproval. In 1741, for example, Belcher rejected both Samuel Watts and John Choate as speakers in the two elections that year. The rejections probably resulted from their connections with the Land Bank that Belcher was opposing. See Journals
of the House of Representatives 19: 5, 15.

   5. In his anger over the politics of Mayhew, Cooper, and Charles Chauncy, he called them the leaders of sedition and riots in describing their power in causing
the Revolution. See Peter Oliver’s Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion , ed. by Douglass Adair and John A. Schutz (San Marino, Calif., 1961), 42-45.

   6. Both men thus figure prominently in the town of Chelsea. See Mellen Chamberlain, Documentary History of Chelsea, 2 vols. (Boston, 1908), 1: 338-362. Clifford Shipton has a short notice on the younger Watts in Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 10 (1958): 336-337.

  7. Daniel Appleton White, The Descendants of William White (Boston, 1889), 15-16.

  8. Almira Larkin White, Genealogy of the Descendants of John White , 2 vols. (Haverhill, Mass., 1900), 1: 32-33.

  9. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 4 (1933): 42-53.

10. Thomas Hutchinson praised Reed as “an eminent lawyer” who possessed the virtue of integrity. See Thomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay , 3 vols., ed. by Lawrence Shaw Mayo (Cambridge, Mass., 1936),
2: 285. Reed served in the House in 1738 and the Council in 1741 and 1742.

11. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 7 (1945): 518-530.

12. Henry Stoddard Ruggles, Ruggles Genealogy (Boston, 1892), 78-79; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, 9 (1956): 199-223.

13. John J. Waters and John A. Schutz, “Patterns of Massachusetts Colonial Politics: The Writs of Assistance and the Rivalry Between the Otis and Hutchinson Families,” William and Mary Quarterly, 24 (1967): 243-267; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 8 (1951): 149-217.

14. John J. Waters, The Otis Family in Provincial and Revolutionary Massachusetts (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1968).

15. Roscoe Conkling Fitch, History of the Fitch Family , 2 vols. (Haverhill, Mass., 1937), 1: 228-229.

16. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 4 (1933): 349-356; Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts Bay, 2: 255, 263.

17. Thomas Hutchinson maintained known correspondences with John Worthington and Israel Williams. Many of these letters are in the manuscript collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

18. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 9 (1956): 81-87.

19. Emma Howell Ross, Descendants of Edward Howell . . . (Winchester, Mass., 1948), 27.

20. The careers of William Browne (1639-1716) and Samuel Browne (1670-1731) can be partially followed in The Diary of Samuel Sewall, 2 vols., ed. by M. Halsey Thomas (New York, 1973). Others were Harvard College graduates like Benjamin Browne (1706-1750), Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 7 (1945): 462-463.

21. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, 6 (1942): 250-257; The Diaries of Benjamin Lynde and Benjamin Lynde, Jr . . . . (Boston, 1880), xvi; Essex County Probate, 355: 79.

22. A Genealogy of Samuel Appleton, Publications of the Ipswich Historical Society,30.

23. Peter Oliver’s Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion , 27, 49.

24. Lincoln and Cumberland counties in Maine and Berkshire county in Massachusetts were established in 1760 and 1761.

25. Diary of Isaac Backus , 3 vols., ed. by William G. McLoughlin (Providence, R.I., 1979), 1: 418, 2: 599, 1026.

26. Nathaniel B. Sylvester, History of the Connecticut Valley in Massachusetts (Philadelphia, 1879), 562.

27. George Colesworthy, Historical Sketches of the Baptist Church in Shutesbury, Massachusetts (New York, 1882), 4-6.

28. Gordon E. Kershaw, The Kennebeck Proprietors, 1749-1775 (Portland, Me., 1975), particularly Ch. 5.

29. Charles E. Allen, History of Dresden, Maine (Augusta, Me., 1931), 232-234.

30. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 13 (1965): 26-39, 563-569.

31. Fairchild, Messrs. William Pepperrell, Chs. 6 and 7; Waldo Lincoln, Genealogy of the Waldo Family , 2 vols. (Worcester, Mass., 1902), 1: 96-105.

32. William Reed Deane, “Genealogical Memoir of the Leonard Family,” New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 5 (Oct. 1851): 409; Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 14 (1968): 640-648.

33. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 15 (1970): 278-281.

34. George Worthington, The Genealogy of the Worthington Family (n.p., 1804), 113-115.

35. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 8 (1951): 301-333.