In the "Boston News Letter," November 30, 1764, is a reference to a custom then recently introduced, but unwisely abandoned afterwards. "On Monday the 19th instant died at Cambridge, in the 78th year of her age Mrs. Hannah Burrill, relict of the late Hon. Theophilus Burrill Esq., and sister to the Rev. Mr. President Holyoke, at whose house she had for some time past resided. She was a gentlewoman of a virtuous disposition, and possessed of many amiable qualities. Her remains were interred the Thursday following, without the expense of mourning apparel, agreeable to the laudable method now practised in Boston. As this is the first example of the kind in that town, and introduced by a gentleman of so worthy and respectable a character, we doubt not it will acquire imitation.” 1 1 Rev. John Cotton of Newton, in a letter dated Nov. 7, 1717, and preserved in the library of the Mass. Hist. Soc., says that at the funeral of Hon. Andrew Belcher, "All the ministers there had scarves and gloves. They say 50 suits of cloaths were made. All first cousins, Remington, Blowers, &c., put into mourning. John Colman, Caswell, &c., all that had been apprentices to him, were also. 90 dozen of gloves were bought, and none of any figure but what had gloves sent 'em." A bill of expenses at the funeral of Col. Edmund Goffe, in October, 1740, remains on file in the Probate Office; it was rendered by Edmund Trowbridge, Esq., grand nephew of the deceased. Among the charges are these: £1 17 6 "To 5 pair of gloves at 7s. 6d., and a mourning weed, To a pair of shoe buckles, 6s., knee buckles, 4s. 6d., black studs, 1s. 3d., 0 11 9 To two gallons of wine, 30s., a dozen of pipes, and 2 papers of tobacco, 5s. 1 15 0 This bill was allowed by the judge, though the estate was soon afterwards rendered insolvent. The Belcher estate was large, and might easily afford the 1 10 0 0 10 0" outlay. It is to be regretted that the ef forts made by President Holyoke and others to abolish such extravagant and useless customs were ineffectual. CHAPTER XI. CIVIL HISTORY. In this history of a single town, it is not proposed to enumerate all the causes of the American Revolution, or the various events which occurred during its accomplishment; but some of those causes and events will be mentioned, with which the town of Cambridge had more or less intimate connection. One very prominent question at issue, in the commencement of the Revolutionary struggle, was whether or not the British Parliament had a legal right to impose taxes on the American provinces (which were not represented therein), without their consent. In the exercise of this pretended right of supremacy, among other methods for raising a revenue from the provinces, Parliament enacted a law, styled the Stamp Act, with a provision that it should take effect Nov. 1, 1765. With special reference to this Act, the American doctrine was affirmed, Oct. 29, 1765, by the Massachusetts House of Representatives, in fourteen resolutions, three of which were these: "III. Resolved, That no man can justly take the property of another without his consent; and that upon this original principle the right of representation in the same body which exercises the power of making laws for levying taxes, which is one of the main pillars of the British constitution, is evidently founded." "XII. Resolved, as a just conclusion from some of the foregoing resolves, That all acts made by any power whatever, other than the General Assembly of this Province, imposing taxes on the inhabitants, are infringements of our inherent and unalienable rights, as men and British subjects, and render void the most valuable declarations of our Charter. XIII. Resolved, that the extension of the powers of the Court of Admiralty within this Province is a most violent infraction of the right of trials by juries, a right which this House, upon the principles of their British ancestors, hold most dear and sacred, it being the only security of the lives, liberties, and properties of his Majesty's subjects here." 1 1 Hutchinson's Hist. Mass., iii. 477, 478. A distinct opinion had been expressed by Cambridge, a fortnight earlier, at a town meeting held on the 14th day of October, 1765, when it was "Voted, That (with all humility) it is the opinion of the town, that the inhabitants of this Province have a legal claim to all the natural, inherent, constitutional rights of Englishmen, notwithstanding their distance from Great Britain; that the Stamp Act is an infraction upon these rights. One instance out of many, in our opinion, is this: -the Distributor of Stamps will have a sovereignty over every thing but the lives of the people, since it is in his power to summon every one he pleases to Quebec, Montreal, or Newfoundland, to answer for pretended or real breaches of this Act; and when the faithful subject arrives there, by whom is he to be tried? Not by his peers (the birth-right of every Englishman); no, but by the Judge of Admiralty, without a jury, and it is possible without law. Under these circumstances, the Stamp-Master may unrighteously get more than his Majesty will upon a balance by the stamps; for who would not rather pay the fine than be thus harassed, thus tried? Why are not his Majesty's subjects in Great Britain treated in this manner? Why must we in America, who have in every instance discovered as much loyalty for his Majesty, and obedience to his laws, as any of his British subjects (and whose exertions in some of the provinces during the last war have been greater), be thus discriminated? At this time especially, whilst we are under an almost insupportable load of debt, the consequence of this exertion. We believe it may be truly said that no one in Great Britain pays so great a tax as some in this province, in proportion to their estates. Let this Act but take place, liberty will be no more: trade will languish and die; our medium will be sent into his Majesty's exchequer, and poverty come on us as an armed man. The town, therefore, hereby advise their Representatives by no means whatsoever to do any one thing that may aid said Act in its operation; but that, in conjunction with the friends of liberty, they use their utmost endeavors that the same might be repealed: — That this vote be recorded in the Town Book, that the children yet unborn may see the desire their ancestors had for their freedom and happiness : and that an attested copy of it be given to said Representatives." While the inhabitants of Cambridge thus protested against the arbitrary exercise of power by Parliament, and against the enforcement of the Stamp Act in particular, they were not ready to encourage any violent outbreak of popular fury. During the preceding August, by hanging him in effigy, breaking into his house, and destroying part of his furniture, some of the inhabitants of Boston had induced Mr. Secretary Oliver to promise that he would not act as Distributor of Stamps; and on the evening of the 26th of the same month, they attacked the house of Lieutenant-governor Hutchinson, who had rendered himself obnoxious by his subserviency to the British ministry, and "destroyed, carried away, or cast into the street, everything that was in the house; demolished every part of it, except the walls, as far as lay in their power; and had begun to break away the brick-work. The damage was estimated at about twenty-five hundred pounds sterling, without any regard to a great collection of public as well as private papers in the possession and custody of the Lieutenantgovernor." At a town meeting in Cambridge three days later (Aug. 29), it was "Voted, that the inhabitants of this town do detest and abhor the riotous proceedings in the town of Boston, in robbing and destroying the dwelling-houses of the Lieutenantgovernor and others; and they will, on all occasions, use their utmost endeavors to secure their own inhabitants and their dwelling-houses and property against such ravages." But when the Governor, in his address to the General Court, recommended that compensation should be made to the sufferers, and intimated that, if they did not make it voluntarily, they might soon be required to do so," 2 the town voted, Oct. 14, 1765, that their "Representatives be and are hereby instructed by no means to vote for any moneys being drawn out of the Province treasury to make good the demands of the late sufferers, as mentioned in his Excellency's speech, have sustained." In their reply to the Governor's address, Oct. 25, 1765, the House of Representatives said, "We highly disapprove of the late acts of violence which have been committed; yet till we are convinced that to comply with what your Excellency recommends will not tend to encourage such outrages in time to come, and till some good reason can be assigned why the losses those gentlemen have sustained should be made good rather than any damage which other persons on any different occasions might happen to suffer, we are persuaded we shall not see our way clear to order such a compensation to be made. We are greatly at a loss to know who has any right to require this of us, if we should differ with your Excellency in point of its being an act of justice which concerns the credit of the government." A year later, however, when the odious 3 1 Hutchinson's Hist. Mass., iii. 124. 2 Ibid., iii. 129. 3 Ibid., iii. 475, 476. Stamp Act had been repealed, and this subject was again considered, at a town meeting, October 27, 1766, "The inhabitants having taken into consideration the affair now pending in the Great and General Court, relative to the losses sustained by divers persons, by means of the outrage and violence of the mob in Boston, in the month of August, A. D. 1765, - Voted, That it be an instruction to the Representative of this town to use his best endeavors in the General Court that a compensation be made to the Lieutenant-governor and other sufferers (upon proper application by them made for that purpose), by advancing such sum or sums of money out of the public treasury as may be judged adequate to their losses; and that he likewise use his endeavors that such measures may be gone into for replacing such money in the Province treasury as shall appear just and equitable." The General Court, after much discussion, enacted a law, granting compensation to the sufferers, and at the same time a free pardon to all "who had been guilty of any crimes or offences against law, occasioned by the late troubles." The Governor was induced to give his approval, because, "if the act should not be approved in England, all the effect would be the suspending, for three or four months, of prosecutions which, experience had shown, could not be carried on:" "but as to the compensation, the act would have an immediate effect and could not be recalled. The act was disapproved, upon its being laid before the king, merely from the nature of it, and the danger of establishing a precedent; but the money was paid before the news arrived, and nothing further passed upon the subject." 1 "On the 16th of May, [1766] a copy of the Act of Parliament for the repeal of the Stamp Act was brought to Boston. No rejoicings, since the revolution, had been equal to those on this occasion." But the people were not quite ready to forgive those members of the provincial government who had made themselves obnoxious by their advocacy of those arbitrary measures which threatened the extinction of popular liberty. At the organization of the government, later in the same month, "the Lieutenant-governor, the secretary, one of the judges of the Superior Court, and the attorney-general, were struck off from the council. Another of the judges, apprehensive of this slight, chose to re 160. 1 Hutchinson's Hist. Mass., iii. 158- they have expressed their joy on account of the repeal of the Stamp Act, by illuminations, fireworks, &c., &c." Boston Evening Post, May 26, 1766. 2 Ibid., iii. 147.-"We hear from Cambridge and other neighboring towns, that |