Running the House of Representatives: Legislators of Massachusetts General Court, 1691-1780

Managing the House of Representatives was a tedious and busy job for a small group of legislators each year. Passing bills was the important task, but hearing hundreds of petitions took time and energy, and sometimes seemed to be the principal business of the House when it was not working on the annual tax and budget issues. No matter the subject, the legislative halls saw much activity.

The workload can be described in terms of committee assignments. The 1725 House created 121 committees, with 341 seat assignments at the rate of 21.31 per week. A few other years had lighter loads, but in general the committee load grew yearly until 1776 when there were 1,629 committees and 5,225 seat assignments at the rate of 159.03 per week. Sometimes the House met for only a few weeks in three or four short sessions; then again, it might meet as it did in 1746 for 32 weeks.

Committees obviously did not have the same workload—some were outrageously ceremonial, a few solely legislative, and others frequently deliberative. One or two were standing committees, and a few were investigative committees, in which representatives traveled outside the capital with the governor. Every committee involved time in deliberations and a report to the speaker, but some did not necessarily require much work. A few petitions were carried over from previous legislatures and the old committees reconstituted. In the 1770 legislature, the two houses and governor approved 121 bills. The work
of 315 House committees was absorbed in a few of these successful bills, especially the appropriation measures, but many committees did not approve their petitions, or the full House did not approve their reports, and no legislative action, of course, resulted. The following statistics illustrate the work load of selected legislatures:1

Because qualified towns did not always exercise their right of representation, the membership of the legislature remained fairly stable until the turbulent years of the Revolution, when there was an explosion of delegates. The largest number was 298 in 1776. Between 1725 and 1773, representatives numbered annually about 110, with a low of 93 and high of 134.

In a legislative year like 1725, about 24 of the 101 qualified men, or approximately 23.76 percent, did most of the work. Percentages increased or decreased each year, but the percentage of active people increased in the 1750s and 1760s, probably because the issues touched more of the members. The average for the 51 years from 1725 to 1776 was 26 percent of the membership. An example of yearly fluctuations follows.2

The corps of legislators changed yearly, both in membership and in workload. There were new, active people almost every year, some entering the legislature for the first time and others serving their second or third terms. Of the 19 most active legislators in 1725, two had just completed their first year in the House, seven were serving their second year, and three were in their fourth and fifth years. In 1740, the House reflected the turbulence of politics over the land and silver banks by putting committees into the hands of mostly new members. Eight of the most active 23 members were serving their first terms, and seven other representatives had served less than five years. As the Revolution set in, the workload was still handled by an active group, but more members volunteered or were recruited for committee work. The break-off point between very active, active, and moderately active seems artificial in the 1775 legislature. Very active people had upwards of 50 committee assignments; active ones, upwards of 25; and less active members, ten and more committees. Only 40 members performed little or no work at all.

Over the years, members of the active groups changed in each session, but there were always people who served actively for many years. Ezekiel Lewis (1674-1755) of Boston was a legislator who enjoyed the work of lawmaking. A graduate of Harvard College in 1695, he was a teacher in his youth and may have compiled the famous Latin grammar while still a teacher in Boston.3 Later he became a successful shopkeeper and operated a business for many years near the dock. He was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1723 and served ten successive terms. In 1731, he was first chosen a councilor and elected to 14 terms, which were interrupted from time to time by the swings of politics.4 Lewis was apparently an effective legislator because he was consistently placed on many committees during his service in the House. In 1725, he had 27 assignments; in 1727, 24; and in 1728, 32. His years on the Council were also prestigious, but interrupted by four absences when he was not reelected.

Another active legislator, Samuel Welles (1689-1770), had his beginnings in Connecticut where he was a minister until 1722. A Yale College graduate in 1707, he married eventually a Boston heiress who provided him with a small business and considerable wealth.5 By 1727, he was sufficiently well known in the city to be elected to the House of Representatives. That first year he served on 37 committees, by far the largest number of assignments in the active group that held from nine to 33 committees. From 1727 to 1733, he led yearly in the number of legislative assignments. In 1733 and 1734, alas, he ranked second, but served on more committees than he had held in any previous session. After an absence of nearly a decade, he returned to House membership in 1745 and 1746 and joined again the most active group. In 1747, he was elected councilor and served two terms. Then a long break occurred in his public life until 1753 when he was again elected representative. In 1753 and 1754, he was extraordinarily active in sessions loaded with defense business. In 1760, his last term, he was noticeably prominent, but in a legislature that had spread its work among many people. During his later years (1755-1770), Welles used his energy for service on the bench of the Suffolk County Inferior Court of Common Pleas and on committees in the Boston government.6

Equally well known as colleagues of Lewis and Welles were Timothy Lindall of Salem, Thomas Cushing I of Scituate, William Brattle of Cambridge, John Choate of Ipswich, and John Chandler II of Worcester. Chandler II (1693- 1762), a strong member of that influential western family, was the son of a councilor and father of a Tory.7 Chandler II joined the most active group during his first term in 1726 and was repeatedly successful in holding committee seats. In 1734, he was the most active legislator and retained that distinction until 1740 when the young Boston merchant, Thomas Hutchinson II, bettered his fine record. But he was back again in 1742 as the most active member. Council service from 1743 to 1762 completed his governmental career, except that he also served as a common pleas judge in Worcester County, justice of the peace, and sheriff.

In the late 1730s, Thomas Hutchinson II of Boston began his legislative career. The son, nephew, and grandson of judges and councilors, he was well received as the youngest member of a distinguished family, which was solid, useful, and wealthy. A graduate of Harvard College (1727), son of an influential merchant, and husband of an attractive wife, he ranked fourth in committee assignments in 1737.8 In 1738, he gained wide respect; in 1740, he led the active group for a few months. His prominence was so great that he always ranked high until 1746 when the number of his committee assignments dropped because he became Speaker of the House.9 When he lost his Boston seat in the 1749 legislature, during a courageous fight for hard currency, friends elected him to the Council. His 16 years of service there were so well respected that he was a political force in the House of Representatives even when he was a councilor. His personality, energy, and determination made him a powerful force in the colony’s politics.

One of Hutchinson’s rivals was Thomas Clap of Scituate (1705-1774). A graduate also of Harvard College in 1725, he preached in Taunton, where he met his first wife Mary Leonard.10 Later he was a farmer in Scituate and represented the town. Mary’s death in 1741 changed the course of his life. Soon after, he married Esther Chandler, who immediately brought him a dowry and eventually five additional children and election to the House of Representatives. There he joined the most active legislators, rising by 1750 to be the leader of the House; then in 1755 and 1760-1762 he repeated this feat. He
divided his time over the years with duties as judge of the Plymouth County Inferior Court of Common Pleas. Unfortunately he suffered from poor health in the later 1760s and fell into legal problems bringing charges of corrupt practices, probably springing from his deteriorating mental health. Not all of his contemporaries can be described physically, but Clap was well known for body weight, which he did not carry well because of his small stature. He was sociable, fond of company, hospitable, and witty.11 A belly laugh would often echo through the courthouse halls.

Other active leaders in the 1740s and 1750s include Robert Hale of Beverly, William Brattle of Cambridge, James Otis, Sr., of Barnstable, John Tyng of Boston and Dunstable, and Thomas Fluckner of Boston. In the 1760s and 1770s, James Otis, Jr., Thomas Cushing III, Edward Sheafe, John Hancock, Azor Orne, and Joseph Palmer were equally prominent. In the special legislatures of 1774 and 1775, known as Congresses, only a few committees did the work, while floor duties and debates probably were more important.12 In the October 1774 session,ThomasGardiner sat on 14 committees along with William Heath and Samuel Adams. Others in the most active group included Thomas Cushing III and Joseph Palmer. More than two-thirds of the members sat on no committees. In the February 1775 session, a new group of active people emerged, including John Taylor, James Warren III, and Elbridge Gerry. But there were more committees, and 23 representatives shared legislative control. Nonetheless, an overwhelming number of men had only one or two committees or none at all, probably more than 60 percent. The May 1775 Congress had many committees, with the work better spread. Few men had no committees. John Taylor was easily the most active representative. He was joined by Josiah Stone, Abraham Fuller, and George Partridge. About 70 people had important assignments.

In short, many of the active leaders in the 50 legislatures studied by computer analysis were recruited from those who had not served previously, were in their second or third years, and had not served more than ten years. By contrast, some men entered without experience, were recruited into the active group, and remained active throughout their entire careers. Most legislators in each session did little or no committee work, and they may be the ones who served briefly and returned quickly to their towns. Representatives from Boston frequently were the busiest men in the legislatures. The example of the 1760 legislature supports this summary.

The sessions of the 1760 legislature were held in a year of extraordinary transition when a new governor, Francis Bernard, took office and a new king, George III, ascended the throne. In May, 117 representatives were elected and in the coming 49 weeks, they handled 839 committees and were assigned 2,051 seats on them. The mean age of all members was 51.00, but that of the most active legislators was 53.96 and that of those not serving on committees was 35.50. Of the 170 towns qualified to send representatives, only 112 answered the call with their 116 delegates who took the oaths of office.

The legislative record of the most active men in 1760 can be examined with their service in 1759 and 1761, and their committee memberships:

Most of the committee assignments in 1760 were handled by 43 members. But nearly every legislator had at least one assignment, with only five having no assignments. Many representatives had little or nothing to do if they were on less important committees. By serving on a single committee, however, they may have accomplished their purpose for coming to Boston. In contrast with the most active men, the following legislators had none or few assignments.

Most towns did not ordinarily count committee memberships to measure the worth of their delegates. They had sent them to Boston to look after any town business, give input on taxes, and report back on politics in the capital. Certainly Boston and other seaboard communities valued an influential and energetic representative because much more legislation affected these towns and cities than the western farming communities.

The committee work of the House of Representatives reveals the general concerns of the House. Over the years, the nature of the colony’s problems and the workloads of the most active people changed. The committee work, for analysis, was divided into 27 areas of concern: legislative affairs, taxation, defense, local government, Indian affairs, religion, etc. Not all these areas presented problems in each legislature, but a dozen or more made up most of the workload. Legislative affairs would have headed the list during most years, especially when the governor and House toiled over a continuing salary or the budget. The turmoil from 1728 to 1731, for example, highlighted changes of policy caused by the rapid succession of governors, from William Dummer to Jonathan Belcher and concerned problems of budgets, taxes, philosophy of ruling a colony, and relations with Great Britain. Thus the business of these years put legislative affairs at the top of all questions of government. The following statistics on committee workload clearly show the relative importance of these matters in terms of total committee load:

In the 1740s, wars with Spain and France affected committee business. Planning the attack on Louisbourg in 1745 and the mobilizations of 1746- 1748 were time consuming, and some committees handled more than one petition or problem. Thus the statistics may not accurately reflect the workload of the men engaged with these issues. In 1746, defense problems of supply, manpower, and policy occupied over half the committee work. Again, in the 1750s at the outbreak of the Seven Years War, defense problems pushed most legislative business aside and dominated the House agenda. The continued pressure of war crises persisted into 1763 when 45 percent of all committee work related to defense. In 1764, the year after the war ended, defense matters dropped moderately and legislative affairs again gained prominence when issues of land division, local government, and judicial questions pressed for solutions.

From 1765 to the Revolution, legislative affairs registered growing antagonism toward Great Britain. Once the dispute became truly serious, the defense committees dominated business.15 In 1775, nearly 60 percent of all transactions related to defense. The same intensity is apparent in 1776 and presumably into the other years of the war.

The only issues from 1725 to 1777 that did not get sufficiently registered were the 1740 and 1741 controversies over the land and silver banks. Because Parliament had forbidden legislative remedies to clear up the mess caused by the suppression of the banks, little is shown, except in a negative sense, of the banking controversy. In the July 1741 session, for example, only 1.34 percent of the committees handled such business.

Religious issues also may not have been adequately reflected in this analysis. In 1725, religion occupied .83 percent of committee work. In 1727 and 1728, 1 percent of committee business was religious, but in 1730 committee work increased to 3.79 percent. During the Great Awakening, few religious concerns reached committee. The siege of Louisbourg probably had more effect than the Great Awakening—in 1745 only 3.23 percent of committee assignments involved religion. Religious interest in 1747 and 1749 reached 4.37 and 3.03 percent, respectively. In the tense years of 1767, 1769, and 1773, about 4 percent of the committees discussed religious issues.

There is value in knowing what business passed before each House of Representatives and the intensity of the business. Common sense, however, reveals pretty much what occurred without the use of computer analysis. The work of individuals is reflected in their committee duties in the House. In 1725, Timothy Lindall, John Stoddard, and Ezekiel Lewis were the most active members. Lindall (1677-1760) was serving his sixth term in the House; he was a representative from Salem, a shopkeeper, bookseller, merchant, and land speculator. He would serve eventually in the Council (1727-1730) and on the Essex County Court of Common Pleas (1729-1754).16 Lindall chaired 17 committees, was the second member on five, and third and fourth on eight others. Most of his service involved legislative business, but tax and defense issues also attracted him. He served on two committees that dealt with land questions.17 Both Stoddard and Lewis also held significant numbers of chairmanships. Stoddard chaired 15 committees, sat as second member on 11, and was third on one. As the representative from Northampton and a leader of western militia forces, he served on defense-related committees and those discussing land and Indian problems.18 Lewis chaired 16 committees, was second on ten, and third on nine. Most of his committees discussed legislative and tax issues. Although in 1725 there were 121 committees, 47 were chaired by three individuals. A less active member, at least in the total number of committee seats, was William Dudley, the Speaker of the House, who chaired 15 important committees.19 These four men often sat on the same committees, and together they had a commanding presence in the House—at least on the work of its committees.

The two most active men in the 1726 House of Representatives were Jonathan Remington and John Ballantine. Both were born in 1677 and enjoyed wealth and prestige. Remington of Cambridge, in his ninth term, had a good record in 1726—he chaired ten committees but was a member of many. Unlike Remington, Ballantine was inexperienced and was in his first and only year in the House. He was a tradesman of Boston, a cooper, and landholder in Worcester and Suffolk counties. Married to Mary Winthrop after receiving his degree at Harvard College, he held the military rank of lieutenant colonel and was a justice of the peace.20 He chaired seven committees and was visible on many others. The 1726 legislature appointed fewer committees than in 1725. Remington continued as an important member of the 1726 and 1727 legislatures, but was out of office in 1729. In 1730, he began a ten-year career on the Council and, in 1733, also joined the Superior Court as an associate judge. Remington was a lawyer and tavern owner, but he was closely related to Governor Belcher and to the Bradstreets through his wife Lucy. These connections may account for his appointment to the Superior Court.21 Ballantine held no other offices in the legislature and returned to his businesses. He died in 1735 “beloved and esteemed” by friends at age 58.

The business of the legislature was transacted in the late 1720s by Ballantine and others like Samuel Welles of Boston who began his career in 1727 by becoming immediately the most active member. His career stretched over the next two decades in both the House and Council. He shared honors with William Brattle of Cambridge, a neighbor of Jonathan Remington, who was also among the active members in his first year. Brattle entered the House in 1729 and in five years chaired the most committees. He left office for a year in 1734, but returned to be among the top three legislators for the next two years.22 Like their colleague John Chandler II, they were a durable group. From 1726 to 1740, Chandler was always among the first six most active committeemen. In 1734, in his tenth year, he was first and remained there for the next five sessions, until he was replaced in 1740 by the young merchant, Thomas Hutchinson II, who was entering his third year. Chandler left the legislature in 1741, but returned in 1742 to be again the most active member, sitting on 75 committees, compared to Hutchinson’s 59. Chandler then moved to the Council where he remained influential until 1762.

In 1740, the year Hutchinson replaced him as most active member, Chandler served as chairman of 13 committees, was second on 14, and third on six. His energy was divided among many types of committees, but he specialized in legislative and tax matters. Hutchinson chaired 11 committees, was second on seven, and third on four. Tax matters certainly were his abiding concern, but like Chandler he had many interests. Unlike Chandler, he left for England on the tenth week of the session, while Chandler stayed until the nineteenth. Politics were agitated in early 1741 over the land and silver banks, and Chandler sought peace in distant Worcester. Neither he nor Hutchinson were members of the two 1741 legislatures. The similarity of their committee service in 1739-1741 may reveal their politics because serving as second members may mean they were representing a negative interest. If this is so, both men were negative forces as committeemen. Both had conservative views on banks and currency, and both supported Governor Belcher in his determined opposition to inflation through a land bank.

When the men returned to the House in 1742, they faced the fact that John Choate of Ipswich and Robert Hale of Beverly, both land bankers, had been the most active lawmakers in the second legislature of 1741 when the financial crises of banking, taxes, and the governor’s salary were the principal business. Both men not only were visible each week of the 1742 legislature, but served as chairmen on 16 committees apiece. Chandler divided his energies among many committee types, but legislative, tax, and economic matters caught his attention. Hutchinson had in many ways the same kind of active career. He chaired more committees than Chandler, but Chandler served on more committees and was more visible. Hutchinson was a member of committees that studied taxation, economic relations, and government operations. Like Chandler, he worked hard, took his job seriously, and enjoyed the rivalry. Who can say which man was more influential? Both, however, were more visible as chairmen than Choate and Hale, the leaders of the 1741 legislature. Hale chaired only one committee, Choate only seven, but Hale and Choate remained among the active committee men of the House with many places as second, third, or fourth members of committees.23

Hutchinson, like his rivals, was at the beginning of a long, distinguished career. In 1743 and 1745, he ranked first and his brother-in-law, Andrew Oliver, second in committee work. In 1744, they were in second and third places below Robert Hale. In 1746, Hutchinson dropped to tenth place and in 1747 to fifteenth. His lower ranking may reflect a personal decision as speaker not to serve on any committee unless he was the chairman. In 1747, he chaired 26 committees, many more than any of his colleagues. Those committees show no strong pattern of preference, except that defense was a major subject of about half of the committees. In 1748, his last year in the House of Representatives, Hutchinson divided the number of committee chairs at 15 apiece with James Otis, Sr., and Thomas Hubbard, but his rivals served as committee men as well as chairmen. Hutchinson agreed to serve as a member on only one committee. Governor Shirley referred once to Hutchinson as his prime minister; the reference may be to Hutchinson’s chairing of committees. But Hutchinson was also Speaker of the House in 1746-1748 and that position alone undoubtedly gave him a great opportunity to pick and choose committees and place his friends strategically.24

In 1749, the governor’s critic James Allen and supporter James Otis, Sr., were equal leaders in committee service at 73 appointments apiece. James Allen (1697-1755) was a wealthy Bostonian, a Harvard College graduate, merchant, landholder, warehouse and wharf owner, and moderator repeatedly of Boston town meetings.25 From Barnstable, Otis was a trader, lawyer, and merchant with great influence in the House. Both men were experienced lawmakers. Differences in their records of legislative service might be expected. Otis chaired at least 28 committees, Allen only 15. Both men also served on many committees as second and third members. Otis was particularly important on tax and currency issues, whereas Allen emphasized defense and legislative matters. Because the primary political problem was the conversion of paper money to hard currency, Otis seemed to be involved in the more important business. The House appeared to be closely divided on most issues, but both men seemed to stand together in opposition to many issues being debated.

Allen appears to have been a popular and lively Boston leader who dared to express his personal opinions. Receiving strong votes for election as representative, he was backed by the local electorate in 1748 even when his temper got him into trouble and the House of Representatives had ousted him. Reelected enthusiastically by the voters, he was nonetheless denied his seat by the House. For more than a half term, he remained outside the legislature because he refused to apologize for his intemperate remarks against the governor and House. When he had returned to office in 1749, more contrite or more careful, he was an active critic of military policy. Presumably his second, fifth, and sixth positions on committees reflect the continuing displeasure of the House leadership. Thomas Hutchinson was the speaker in 1748 and Joseph Dwight in 1749—both reflected in their actions towards Allen the governor’s hostility. In 1750, when Thomas Hubbard of Boston began the first of nine terms as speaker, Allen was still irrepressible. Hubbard took for himself 34 committee chairs and balanced Allen and Otis off with 21 and 22 chairs. By 1753, Hubbard appointed Allen to only eight chairs, giving himself and Samuel Welles many more. In fact, Allen’s general influence in the House shrank. He had only 49 assignments, while Otis had 86, Welles 100, and Samuel White 108.26 Allen’s weakening influence may also be related to his deteriorating health and approaching death.

The power of House speakers, however, is difficult to discover and estimate with any certainty. In 1760 when James Otis, Sr., succeeded Samuel White, the flow of business continued almost the same as in 1759 and the active committeemen were nearly the same people. Allowing for the usual shift of leaders, Otis’s speakership made few immediate changes of personnel in 1760. Speakers changed in 1762 when Timothy Ruggles succeeded Otis and in 1764 when Samuel White succeeded Ruggles.27 Oliver Partridge was the most active legislator in 1759, chairing 27 committees. His presence gradually diminished in1760-1762 while Thomas Clap and Royall Tyler were becoming more prominent. Clap ranked among the most active leaders until ill health forced his retirement in 1766. Tyler remained influential, but traded his seat in 1764 for one on the Council where his presence on joint committees was more visible.

James Otis, Jr., entered the House in 1761 when his father was still speaker. That year Otis ranked second in service under Clap and ahead of Royall Tyler. In 1762 when Timothy Ruggles was speaker, Clap, Tyler, and Otis were again the most prominent men. The order was slightly changed in 1763, but when Tyler joined the Council in 1764, Otis and Clap welcomed Thomas Cushing III, who would be even more active than either man in 1765.28

The year that both Otises served in the House, they chaired a total of 39 committees, but Thomas Clap also chaired 36. Assuming that the three men were friends, a majority of the committee chairs in 1761 was in their hands. Royall Tyler also held 16 and Thomas Cushing III an additional seven. Undoubtedly the speaker favored his friends and gave them the direction, if not the control, of the House. But were these men able to control their fellow representatives? The impression is that they concentrated their friends on certain committees, but did not exert great control over the committees that handled the majority of petitions.

When James Otis, Sr., entered the Council in 1762, Timothy Ruggles succeeded him as speaker. Clap benefited from the change and accumulated the most chairmanships (40). Royall Tyler had 25 and Otis, Jr., 16. Ruggles gave himself only six. From the distribution of chairs, Ruggles seems to have spread the power to many others, but permitted Clap, Otis, Jr., and Tyler much visibility. Thomas Cushing III and Jeruthamel Bowers had also important committees. Ruggles was then in his thirteenth term; only two other representatives had served longer. He had risen in the Seven Years War to the rank of brigadier general and was profoundly loyal to England. His imposing height of six feet and distinguished carriage undoubtedly had something to do with his election. He probably recognized the Otis family maneuvers against Thomas Hutchinson and the governor as aggressive politics that could also hurt his position. In 1763, he appointed an even wider number of representatives to important committees. Clap’s committees were decidedly reduced, though James Otis, Jr., and Royall Tyler were still prominent. Joining them now were the vice admiralty judge, Chambers Russell, and the attorney general, Edmund Trowbridge, two supporters of the governor.29 Ruggles in 1764 was replaced by Samuel White as speaker and a new policy appears. The following partial listing of committee chairs shows the changes:

A few committees were appointed by direct vote of the houses. These were usually joint committees of the legislature and reflected the majority wishes of the houses. Their membership, in the examples studied, was not any different from the other committees of the House of Representatives. In 1743, the House chose Roland Cotton, JohnChoate, RobertHale, William Lawrence, and Joseph Gerrish to draw up a bill regulating the conduct of sheriffs and coroners. These representatives, except for Gerrish, were its most active members, and even Gerrish had served on 14 committees that year.31 In 1766, a joint committee of the houses had the three most active representatives as its members.32

Did the speakers consider geographic distribution of representatives on committees when making appointments? Plainly, they did. In settling petitions, collecting taxes, investigating the needs of defense, and examining coastal problems, some members were drawn from appropriate regions. Towns like Boston, Cambridge, and Salem had their representatives on committees more often than distant towns. The four Boston representatives were nearly always among the most active members. Location, interest, and experience were favorable, and possibly they could benefit immediately from any service. Most speakers, moreover, knew them, and their availability put them on committees.

Certain men and families from western towns were also prominent. The Stoddards, Dwights, Ashleys, and Williamses were preferred over stronger or one-term representatives. In almost each decade, they had one family member in the House, and a speaker looking for a western committeeman would likely appoint one of them. The same might be said of the representatives from Maine—like the Hills, Moultons, Moodys, and Frosts.

Speakers of the House of Representatives generally came from the coastal areas. Boston was home for a few, but Taunton, Barnstable, Lynn, Braintree, and Brookfield were the homes of the others. The speakers had their favorites among the members, and probably excluded troublemakers from committees, but they were generally evenhanded. They may have chaired committees themselves rather than give them to rivals. Prominent people, nonetheless, seemed to have been preferred each year. In 1729, for example, Speaker John Quincy of Braintree made this geographic distribution of the eight most active (holding 178 seat assignments) representatives: Lynn (2), Boston (3), Worcester (1), Cambridge (1), and Salem (1). A less active group of five (holding 46 seats) came from Charlestown, Framingham, Salem, Weston, and Northampton. Then, 40 members held the remaining 123 seats, and 38 members were not on any committees. The four representatives from Maine held 14 seats.

In 1735 John Quincy was still speaker. The most active group that year (holding 352 seats)consisted of nine people distributed as follows: Worcester(1), Ipswich (2), Cambridge (2), Boston (2), Beverly (1), and Dartmouth (1). A less active group of 12 (178seats)came from Boston (2), Northampton (2), Maine, Salem, Pembroke, Groton, Rowley, Plymouth, Haverhill, and Milton. All the rest (51) held 165 seats and 35 representatives held no seat at all. Representatives from the frontier regions of Maine and Massachusetts sat on a few committees, but the coastal Massachusetts people held the overwhelming number of seats.

The 1763 appointments of Timothy Ruggles reflected almost the same pattern, except that nearly everyone served on at least one committee. Only Timothy Metcalf of Wrentham and Samuel Rogers of Ipswich gave no service. The concentration of committees into the hands of Boston area members was heavier than usual, but members outside the area were assigned to many committees and were undoubtedly chosen according to their knowledge and inclinations. Thomas Clap of Taunton was still a leading committeeman, and John Worthington of Springfield, Francis Waldo of Falmouth, Maine, and Jeremiah Powell of North Yarmouth, Maine, were active. Because interest in frontier lands and development was great, representatives from these regions were important in the House. But they were also clients or relatives of Boston merchants who had interests in those regions. The power of the Boston area representatives may indicate only that the larger interests of the colony had the direct attention of these men.

One officer of the House who worked with the speaker was the clerk. Like the speaker, he was elected each year and usually served many years. Some clerks were not members of the House and were, therefore, only rarely placed on committees. There was no prohibition against it; frequently nonmembers from Boston and elsewhere were placed on committees because of their special knowledge or talent. Roland Cotton was a clerk for many years—sometimes as a member, sometimes as an employee of the House. From 1766, Samuel Adams was both a member and clerk of the House. His first year as clerk brought him an equal number of committee assignments as when he was just a member, but in 1767, 1768, and 1769, the assignments diminished. He may have had other ways to express his leadership, but it was not as a committee chairman. He chaired only three in 1766, none in 1767, and one in 1769. Even in a critical year such as 1773, Adams chaired only seven committees, but he enjoyed 39 committee appointments, somewhat less than John Hancock at 59 and William Phillips at 49.

The success of running the legislature can be measured by the number of passed petitions from the people and the number of passed bills. It was a center of power that often provided relief from rigid laws and unfair regulations. It was likewise the assembled voice of the people and gave expression to the needs and aspirations of society. Although the men of the legislature were frequently criticized in the newspapers and by leaders like Thomas Hutchinson, in their number were devout men who labored faithfully in managing the tasks of government.33

NOTES

 1. The data cited has been taken from the appropriate journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts. Every committee, its membership and purpose for appointment, has been studied from 1725 to 1777. Funds for this laborious task were supplied by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The results were computerized and analyzed.

 2. See The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay . . . , 18 (Boston, 1912): 467-523.

   3. Clifford K. Shipton, Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard University, 17 vols. (Boston, 1933-1975): Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, 4 (1933): 242-245; Michael L. Cook, Pioneer Lewis Families , 2 vols. (Evansville, Ind., 1978), 1: 743.

   4. Lewis had a curious record on the Council. First elected in 1731, he served to 1736, then 1738-1741, then in 1742, then 1747-1752.

   5. Franklin B. Dexter, Biographical Sketches of the Graduates of Yale College, 6 vols. (New York, 1885-1912), 1 (1885): 71-73; Lawrence Shaw Mayo, ed., The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts-Bay By Thomas Hutchinson, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), 2: 263 note.

   6. Hutchinson claims that Welles wrote the political speeches that Elisha Cooke, Jr., made to the governor and that the opposition was managed by the House committees. See Mayo, Hutchinson’s History , 2: 263.

   7. Clarence Winthrop Bowen, The History of Woodstock, Connecticut: Genealogies of Woodstock Families, 6 vols. (Norwood, Mass., 1926), 3: 309-312; George Chandler, The Chandler Family: Descendants of William and Annis Chandler (Worcester, Mass., 1883), 309-312.

   8. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, 8 (1951): 149-217. In his history, Hutchinson did not take note of his own entry into the House, other than to indicate that he was among three of four Boston representatives loyal to Governor Belcher. See Mayo, Hutchinson’s History , 2: 298.

   9. Hutchinson served three terms (1746-1748) as speaker and traces his own involvement in the plan to bring a hard currency to the colony. The opposition undoubtedly brought about his defeat in the Boston elections of 1749. See Mayo, Hutchinson’s History , 2: 333-337.

10. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 7 (1945): 494-498.

11. Chandler, The Chandler Family , 226-227.

12. For example, the 1774 October legislature had 72 committees, only 50 of the 303 members served on three or more of them, and 210 served on no committees.

13. Hubbell (c1715-1760) held a commission as a major in the militia and was town moderator several times, but remains obscure in wealth and education.

14. Upham (1717-1760) was a physician who was captain of his militia company and selectman of Brookfield from 1754 to his death. He had four black slaves, a good-sized farm, and some cattle.

15. “Legislative Affairs” dominated all business from 1764 to 1775 May, with percentages of 23.62 to 32.39 of the workload. Allowing for the uneven workload of committees, one sees the growing emphasis on the debates with the governor and other problems of government. In 1764, 111 committees handled legislative problems, 81 defense issues, 35 land affairs, and 32 local government. In 1775, 596 committees handled defense problems of supply and manpower, another 185 committees defense policy, and 166 governmental operations. Even so, 142 were concerned with legislative affairs, but only 8.94 percent of the total.

16. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, 4 (1933): 245-248; John A. Vinton, “Memoirs of the Lindall Family,” New England Historical and Genealogical Register , 7 (Jan. 1853): 19.

17. In 1725, there were 121 committees, most concerned with defense problems and legislative affairs. Lindall served as chairman on mostly legislative and land
committees.

18. John Stoddard (1682-1748) served in both houses of the General Court and had long service as a militia officer and jurist. See Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, 5 (1937): 96-119; Charles and Elijah Stoddard, Anthony Stoddard of Boston, Massachusetts (New York, 1865), 19.

19. Dudley (1686-1743) of Roxbury was speaker from 1724 to 1728. He had lands in Leicester and Rutland and enjoyed the prestige of being former Governor Dudley’s son. His committee chairs were expectedly on land and defense policy committees.

20. Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 4 (1933): 198-201. Ballantine had good wealth and was well connected in Massachusetts; Suffolk County Wills, 24: 25.

21. Remington was praised as “a truly worthy person, . . . a true lover of the Religious and Civil Liberties and Interest of his Country.” See Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 4 (1933): 302.

22. William Brattle (1706-1776) served long and well in both houses. He accumulated an enormous amount of land in many areas of the colony, was a lawyer, medical doctor, and militia officer. See Sibley’s Harvard Graduates , 7 (1945): 10-23.

23. Dr. Robert Hale (1703-1767) served many years in the House and was known as a supporter of Governor Shirley. Praised as “the most distinguished citizen of Beverly,” he was an active townsmen of Beverly. John Choate divided his legislative career between the houses and was a respected townsman of Ipswich. Both men had some wealth, owned slaves, and were controversial figures.

24. For example, Hutchinson in 1747 chose mainly defense-related committees. His choice of chairs for his colleagues seemed widely spread among the membership. He chaired 25 committees, while Choate had 14 and Otis and Allen had 11 apiece.

25. Allen was a wealthy Boston merchant. He married Martha Fitch in 1725 and enjoyed great popularity because of his reputation as an honest man. Unfortunately his wit and satire irritated his colleagues and threatened his position as a leader. See Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, 6 (1942): 159-164; and Ezra S. Stearns, Fitch Genealogy: . . . Descendants of Deacon Zachary Fitch of Reading, Massachusetts (Boston, 1902), 6.

26. Allen’s position declined still more in 1754. His overall assignments were 43, while William Brattle had 119, Choate 86, and Otis 63.

27. Timothy Ruggles (1711-1795) served two terms as speaker. It is possible that his legislative connections with Sandwich and Barnstable, appealed to the Otises. But his more conservative leanings undoubtedly cooled their feelings. Ruggles remained a powerful man in the House, although not its speaker in 1765 when he was sent to the Stamp Act Congress. See Henry Stoddard Ruggles, Ruggles Genealogy (Boston, 1892), 78-79.

28. Thomas Cushing III (1725-1788) was a durable politician who was able to please the Boston radicals as well as the governor. He talked violently, but acted moderately. For years in the Revolution and during the peace, he was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.

29. Chambers Russell (1713-1766) was vice admiralty judge from 1746 until his death, a Superior Court judge, and legislator. Edmund Trowbridge (1709-1793) was the attorney general from 1749 to 1767 and known as a friend of Thomas Hutchinson II. Both men enjoyed much wealth and owned lands in various parts of the colony.

30. Cushing won his election in 1766 by a single vote. His tenure was long, but not unusual as a speaker. John Burrill (1711-1719), John Quincy (1729-1740), and Thomas Hubbard (1750-1758) were repeatedly reelected by the House.

31. Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts (Boston, 1919-1990), 20: 248.

32. Ibid., 42: 256.

33. Ibid., 44: vii. Thomas Hutchinson was bitter toward the legislature in 1767 because he was not reelected to the Council. His evaluation of a legislator was quoted in the introduction of the Journals. In part, he wrote: “Every man in the Government being a Legislator in his town thinks it hard to be obliged to submit to Laws which he does not like and which were made by a House of Representatives consisting of 100 such men for one or two only of which he could give his vote and it is harder that a Council who are still in a more distant relation to him should have a share in these laws and harder still that a Gov[ernor] in whose appointment he has no voice should controul or restrain both Council and House.”