by the maturing of a measure which materially changed, and fixed for a long period, the relations of the colonies of New England to one another, and to the world abroad. A Division of setts into counties. 1643. May 10. One of the improvements now made was a distribution of the towns of Massachusetts, thirty in number, into four counties, which took their names, Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, and Middlesex, from Massachuthe English shires from which probably the greater number of immigrants had come.1 framework for this organization already exist ed in the institution of Quarterly Courts held at four principal places, and in the organization of the mili tary force into regiments according to a local division.3 The armed levy of each county was presently after placed under the command of a "Lieutenant," an officer corresponding to the Lord-Lieutenant of an English shire, and inferior only to the Governor and the Sergeant-Major-General of the colony. In each county there was to be a sergeant-major, second in command to the Lieutenant.4 Sept. 7. The same year witnessed the adoption of that great security of constitutional governments, which, late in the following century, was to be maintained by John Adams 5 against the argument of Turgot and the judgment of Franklin, and which now makes a part of the organic law of each one of the United States of America, as well as of the federal government that unites them. A division 6 The 1 Mass. Col. Rec., II. 38. counties were constituted as follows: Suffolk, of Boston, Roxbury, Dorchester, Dedham, Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, and Nantasket; Essex, of Salem, Lynn, Enon (Wenham), Ipswich, Rowley, Newbury, Gloucester, Cochickawick (Andover); Middlesex, of Charlestown, Cambridge, Watertown, Sudbury, Concord, Woburn, Medford, and Reading; and Norfolk, of Salisbury, Hampton, Haverhill, 5 See Adams's Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, and Works of John Adams, Vols. IV., V., and VI., passim. 6 See "Queries and Remarks," in Sparks's edition of Franklin, V. 165. of the legislature into two co-ordinate branches termiDivision of nated a controversy between the magistrates and deputies which had been running on for several years. the legisla tive depart ment. 1 "There fell out a great business," writes Winthrop, "upon a very small occasion," which he proceeds to relate. "There was a stray sow in Boston, 1636. which was brought to Captain Keayne," a man of property and consequence, but unpopular for alleged hardness in his dealings. He gave public notice of it by the town-crier and otherwise; but no claimant appeared "for near a year," nor till after he had killed a pig of his own, which had been kept along with the stray. Then a woman named Sherman came to see it, and, not being able to identify it with one which she had lost, alleged that the slaughtered pig was hers. The matter was examined into by the elders of the church of Boston, who, after hearing the parties and their witnesses, exonerated Captain Keayne. Mrs. Sherman was dissatisfied, and brought her case to trial before a jury, who took the same view of it, and gave the defendant "three pounds for his cost." Thus fortified, Keayne turned on the other party with a suit for defamation in charging him with theft, and recovered forty pounds' damages. Mrs. Sherman was not satisfied yet, and appealed to the General Court. Of that body, in which as yet magistrates and Deputies sat and voted in the same chamber, the prejudices against Keayne had weight with the popular portion; and, after a re-hearing of the case, which occupied "the best part of seven days," two magistrates and fifteen Deputies voted for a reversal of the previous decision, against the judgment of seven magistrates and eight Deputies, who approved it, while "the other seven Deputies stood doubtful." Thus a large majority of the superior officials was 1642. June. 1 See above, p. 448. for one party, while on a joint vote the majority of the Court would be for the other. The division standing thus, the case "was not determined"; but, in circumstances which enlisted a popular feeling, it had brought up distinctly the fundamental question of the relation of the two classes of representatives to each other. "Much contention and earnestness there was." The losing party was pertinacious, and labored to create an impression that injustice had been done out of respect to wealth and social standing. The affair "gave occasion to many to speak unreverently of the Court, especially of the magistrates; and the report went, that their nega tive voice had hindered the course of justice, and that these magistrates must be put out, that the power of the negative voice might be taken away. Thereupon it was thought fit by the Governor and other of the magistrates to publish a declaration of the true state of the cause, that truth might not be condemned unknown."1 The elders, on "a view of all the evidence on both parties," approved the sentence of the Court; but the bilious Mr. Bellingham took actively the part of the unsuccessful suitor, and "would have the magistrates lay down their negative voice." The complainant, "too much countenanced by some of the Court, preferred a petition at the Court of Elections for a new hearing," and obtained the report of a committee in favor of re-opening the question. To the disap 1643. May. 1 Winthrop, II. 69–71.— Accord- Robert Keayne, defen. aboute the title ingly "one of the magistrates published a declaration.” (Ibid., 72.) The paper thus circulated probably in several copies — is in the Library of the American Antiquarian Society at Worcester. It bears the title, "A Breaviate of the Case betwene Richard Sheareman [Mrs. Sherman's husband, who had been abroad at the beginning of the dispute] pl. by petition, and Capt. to a straye sowe supposed to be brought from Deare Island about 9ber, 1636." It covers six compactly written pages, of small size, and is in Winthrop's handwriting, with his signature at the end. It contains full minutes of the evidence and arguments, stated with lawyer-like precision. It is dated “at Boston, this 5 [July], 15, 1642.". Comp. Mass. Col. Rec., II. 12. proving Governor "two things appeared to carry men on in this course, as it were in captivity. One was, the Deputies stood only upon this, that their towns were. not satisfied in the cause (which, by the way, shows plainly the democratical spirit which acts over Deputies, &c.). The other was, the desire of the name of victory." A more generous, but not more defensible sentiment, prompted by a consideration of the respective circumstances of the defendant and the claimant, had, he thought, a more extensive influence. "He being accounted a rich man, and she a poor woman, this so wrought with the people, as, being blinded with unreasonable compassion, they could not see or not allow justice her reasonable course. To satisfy this feeling, Keayne was advised to return a part, of what had been adjudged him; and the question was once more dismissed. " 1 The Governor, however, was informed that his exposition of it had occasioned displeasure, "which he being willing to remove," so as to "begin his year in a reconciled state with all," he made a speech upon the subject "so soon as he came into the General Court." As to "the matter," he said he was sustained by "the concurrence of his brethren, both magistrates and Deputies," and "had examined it over and again by such light as God had afforded him from the rules of religion, reason, and common practice, and truly could find no ground to retract anything in that, and therefore he desired he might enjoy his liberty therein. . . . . . For the manner, whatever he might allege for his justification before men, he now passed it over," and "set himself before another judgmentseat." He confessed he "was too prodigal of his brethren's reputation," and "did arrogate too much to himself, and ascribe too little to others." He "acknowledged his failings, and humbly entreated those who had been displeased 1 It is surprising that Winthrop did not quote Exodus xxiii. 3, as pertinent to the case. to pardon and pass them by"; and he hoped he "should be more wise and watchful thereafter." So magnanimous a course could not but dispose of the personal complaint; but the question which had arisen, "about the magistrates' negative vote in the General Court," was not to be so easily determined. "One of the magistrates wrote a small treatise, . ... showing thereby how it was fundamental to the government, which, if it were taken away, would be a mere democracy. He showed also the necessity and usefulness of it by many arguments from Scripture, reason, and common practice, &c. Yet this would not satisfy, but the Deputies and common people would have it taken away. An answer also was written (by one of the magistrates, as was conceived) to the said treatise." The Deputies "pressed earnestly" for an immediate decision; "but the magistrates told them the matter was of great concernment, even to the very frame of the government." At length, it was agreed that there should be further opportunity for consideration, and "that the elders should be desired to give their advice before the next meeting of the Court. It was the magistrates' only care to gain time, that so the people's heat might be abated, for then they knew they would hear reason."1 The magistrates' confidence in the people was not misplaced. The people did hear reason; and, when the next action was had upon the subject, the negative vote was not "taken away," but duplicated. Without opposition, so far as is known, the following preamble and vote were passed by the General Court. 2 1644. March 7. 1 Winthrop, II. 115-119; comp. lingham. A copy of Winthrop's tract Mass. Col. Rec., II. 51. 2 Winthrop had, in the mean time, written and circulated "A Reply to the Answer" mentioned above, which answer there can be no doubt that he understood to be from the pen of Bel is in the Hutchinson collection of manuscripts in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society (pp. 59-66). It bears the date, 4 [June], 4, 1643, and is signed "Jo. Winthrop, Gov." |
