Kitabı oku: «Curiosities of History: Boston, September Seventeenth, 1630-1880», sayfa 4

VI.
NAMES OF PLACES, STREETS, ETC

As a matter of course, some of the early names of places in and around Massachusetts Bay were Indian names or corruptions, until others were applied, as Shawmut, Mishawam, Mattapan, Winnisimmet, and others. The name of Plymouth, of course, the Pilgrims brought with them, as the Puritans did the name of Salem and of Boston. But just how the name of Massachusetts originated is not so well known. It was no doubt of Indian origin; and if derived from the “greatest king of the Indians,” Massasoit, or, as Hutchinson says, Massasoiet,³ it is well that it has been so preserved and perpetuated. Among the earliest English names, besides these mentioned, were the names applied to the islands, as Noddle’s Island, which possibly was given to it by Maverick, and Bird Island, in 1630; Lovell’s Island, in 1635, and several others. The names of Blackstone, Maverick, and Walford,⁴ the original settlers of Boston, Noddle’s Island, and Charlestown, have all been preserved in the names of streets, banks, &c., although two of them (Blackstone and Walford) were driven away, and the third, though living almost alone on Noddle’s Island, being an Episcopalian, was rather severely treated in the general persecutions of the time. Of the Indian names, only a few of them have been preserved, and are in common use, and among them Shawmut, Mishawam, Winnisimmet, and possibly one or two others. In the list of nearly two thousand names of streets, places, &c., only three Indian names are to be found, namely, Shawmut, Oneida, and Ontario.

But perhaps the most curious peculiarity prevailed with regard to the naming of streets, places, taverns, trades, &c., in Boston, before King Street and Queen Street had been named, and after they had passed away. King Street gave way to State Street; Queen Street, which at an earlier date had been called Prison Lane, gave way to Court Street: still some of the old English names remain. Marlborough, Newbury, and Orange, all English names, gave way to that of Washington, and this street has now been extended, under its latest name, from Haymarket Square (Mill Creek) to Brookline (Muddy Brook). Formerly it extended from the Gate at the Neck to Dock Square, and bore the name of Orange Street from the Gate to Eliot’s Corner (Essex Street); Newbury Street from Eliot’s Corner to Bethune’s Corner (West Street); Marlborough Street from thence to Haugh’s Corner (School Street); and Cornhill from thence to Dock Square.

LANES AND ALLEYS

The first mention of any alley is that of Paddy Alley⁵ (after a resident), running from Ann to Middle Street, 1658, but whether so named before or after the streets which it connects is not known. Rawson’s Lane, afterwards Bromfield’s Lane, and now Bromfield Street, 1693; Black Horse Lane, part of what is now known as Prince Street, 1698; Beer Lane, part of Richmond Street; Blind Lane, part of Bedford Street; Elbow Alley, which was in the form of a crescent, from Ann to Cross Street; Pudding Lane, part of Devonshire Street—all mentioned in 1708, when a list of the names of the streets, lanes, &c., was prepared and published by the Selectmen. Among these were Frog Lane, Hog Alley, Sheafe Lane, Blind Lane, Cow Lane, Flounder Lane, Crab Lane, &c. Probably all these lanes and alleys were laid out or established, at a much earlier date than that mentioned. Sheep Lane was first called Hog Lane, in 1789; Turn-again Alley, at an early date, was near Hamilton Place.

The first lanes and possibly alleys, it has been said, were probably cow-paths or foot-paths, but at the end of seventy-eight years, in 1708, they had undoubtedly all received names, peculiar as some of them were. Most of these lanes—not all of them—were named after residents or owners in the neighborhood. The alleys were each named after some citizen, excepting where there might be some local name or peculiarity, as Board Alley, Brick Alley, Crooked Alley; and so of some of the lanes and streets, as Bog Lane, Marsh Lane, Well Street, Bath Street, Grape Place, Granite Place, and some others.

NAMES OF CORNERS

One of the most curious collections of names in the list of 1879, is that of “Corners,” not now recognized, and, we think, never before recorded, though occasionally used in defining the limits of streets. Over one hundred corners are named in this list, of which about eighty of them bear date of 1708 and 1732. All these are named after persons occupying the corners, and among them are the following: Antram’s Corner, Ballantine’s, Barrill’s, Bill’s, Bows’, and Bull’s Corners; Dafforne’s, Frary’s, and Frizzel’s Corners; Gee’s, Meer’s, Melynes’, Powning’s, Ruck’s, and Winsley’s Corners, and there were five Clark’s Corners in different parts of the town, in 1708-32. At the present time, as in the early time, the corners of streets may be spoken of and referred to, but are not recognized as local names of record.

NAMES OF STREETS, ETC

Names, of course, of some kind or other, local, personal, or traditionary, must have been very early used in the settlement, to designate places, paths, and business, as well as persons and things, and most of these have been preserved and remembered. In Drake’s collection of local names there are nearly one thousand, including the names of islands, wharves, streets, taverns, &c., and of these only about twenty are mentioned by date prior to 1700, though many of them must have been in use long before that time. In the collection of names made by the city government in 1879, there are about eighteen hundred, not including islands, wharves, or taverns. The earliest dates attached to any of the names is that of the Anchor Tavern, 1661, and of the Alms House on Sentry or Park Street, 1662.

In the naming of streets, as in the laying of them out, there appears to have been neither rule, system, or order; but in both matters the action depended upon local circumstances, or some public or personal influence. It is believed that the first movement in laying out the road over the Neck to Roxbury, what is now a portion of Washington Street, was in June, 1636, as follows:—

“It is agreed that there shall be a sufficient foot-way from William Coleburne’s field-end unto Samuel Wylebore’s field-end next Roxbury, by the surveyors of highways before the last of the next 5th month” (July, 1636).

From this it appears that there were at this early period surveyors of highways, and that highways, to some extent, were foot-ways. The foot-way in this case, to be laid out in one month, extended as supposed, from the corner of Boylston Street to the northerly line of Castle Street, that being the northerly end of Boston Neck; and the road or way laid out after this time to Roxbury, was on the easterly side of the present Washington Street, all the way near or on the sea-beach, and probably started from near Beach Street.

The next order that we have in relation to the streets, is under date of 1636, 4th, 8 mo., which would be Oct. 4, 1636, and is as follows:—

“At a meeting of the overseers,” it was ordered, that “from this day there shall be no house at all be built neare unto any streetes or laynes therein, but with the consent of the overseers, for the avoyding disorderly building to the inconvenience of streetes and laynes and for the more comely and commodious ordering of them, upon the forfeiture of such sume as the overseers shall see fitting.”

Soon after this, liberty was granted to Deacon Eliot “to set out his barn six or eight feet into the street, at the direction of Colonel Colbron.”

On the 17th of the same month, October, 1636, a street and lane were laid out, but names were not given to them in the record.

In May, 1708, “at a meeting of the selectmen,” a broad highway was laid out from the old fortifications at the Neck, near the present Dover Street, to Deacon Eliot’s house (near Eliot Street), and called Orange Street, and money was appropriated for paving it, “provided the abuttors would pave each side of the street.” A hundred years after this time, the road over Boston Neck to Roxbury, from Waltham Street to Roxbury line, was very wide, and paved only in the middle portion, so that the travel for years was chiefly on the sides of the street.

In naming the streets, as we have said, there were local, personal, and national considerations. As an illustration of the latter influence, King and Queen Streets, two of the most important streets of the town, are well remembered. Possibly before these the Puritan names of Endicott, Winthrop, Eliot, Leverett, and others, may have been used. The names of revolutionary patriots were subsequently applied to streets, as Hancock, Adams, Warren, Franklin; and these were followed by national names, as Union, Congress, and Federal. There was also a class of local names, as North, South, Middle, Canal, School, Exchange, Water, Tremont, Beacon, Margin, Back, Bridge, Pond, High, and Broad, applied at different times. Then there were Orange, Elm, Chestnut, Walnut, Pine, Cherry, &c., followed, it may be, by Sun and Moon, Summer, Winter, and Spring. Latterly the names of towns in the State have been applied to the streets of the city; among the earliest of these are Salem, Lynn, Cambridge, Brighton; and after these, Arlington, Berkley, Clarendon, Dartmouth, and many others.

LISTS OF STREETS, COURTS, ETC

In 1708, a list of the names of streets, places, lanes, alleys, &c., in Boston proper, was prepared by the Selectmen; and in this list there were at that time forty-four (44) streets recorded; eighteen (18) alleys; thirty-three (33) lanes; three squares, Church Square, Dock Square, and Clark Square; two ways, Old Way and Ferry Way; two hills, Snow Hill and Corn Hill; five courts, Half Square Court, Corn Court, Minot’s Court, Sun Court, and Garden Court; one row, Merchants’ Row; and two markets, Corn Market and Fish Market, making one hundred and ten (110) named places in the town, in May, 1708.

In 1732, there was published in “Vade Mecum,” a list of streets at that time, and in this list are fourteen not in that of 1708, making the number of streets sixty, lanes forty-one, alleys eighteen, making in all one hundred and nineteen (119), exclusive of squares, courts, &c.

In 1817, including lanes, alleys, squares, and streets, there were 231 in Boston proper, and among them were Berry and Blossom, Chestnut and Walnut, Poplar and Elm, Myrtle and Vine, and others. There were at this time, thirty-four wharves. There are now probably five times as many streets in Boston proper as there were in 1732, a hundred years after the settlement of the town, without reckoning courts or squares.

In 1817, Shaw enumerates 229 streets, lanes, &c., and after this time much attention was given to the subject of new streets, naming old ones not before accepted, &c., and some of the names were changed.

In 1879, a complete list of the names of streets, avenues, places, courts, squares, corners, &c., that have ever been in use, or applied, was prepared by order of the city government, and has been printed. This list, of course, shows a surprising increase in the number of names over any former record, many of which, we presume, have never before been recorded, although they may have been to some extent in use. In this list nearly two thousand names (1795) are printed: of these 554 are streets, of which some are duplicates. Many of them are second or third names, all of which are recorded, so that the list does not represent the number of streets at present in the city proper, but simply the names that have heretofore been used, or are now applied to them.

NAMES OF TAVERNS

Taverns were early mentioned by names, more or less personal and peculiar: one of the first mentioned is the State Arms, where the magistrates usually dieted and drank, in King Street, 1653; Ship Tavern, in Ann Street, 1666; Bunch of Grapes, in King Street, 1724; King’s Head Tavern, near Fleet Street, 1755; Queen’s Head, in Lynn Street, 1732; Ship in Distress, an ancient tavern, opposite Moon Street; and if the “ordinaries,” spoken of by Cotton Mather, were taverns, they were very numerous and were known as ale-houses, or, as Mather says, “hell-houses.”

BUSINESS NAMES

There were numerous curious names in use among the tradespeople, as the Six Sugar-Loaves, probably a grocer, in Union Street, 1733; Three Sugar-Loaves and Canister, grocer, in King Street, 1733; two bearing the sign of Two Sugar-Loaves, one in Cornhill and the other in King Street, 1760,—all of these indicating some active competition in the sugar trade. Noah’s Ark was the sign of a dry-goods store in Marlborough Street, 1769. There were signs of the Three Crowns, Three Doves, Three Horseshoes, Three Kings, and Three Nuns and a Comb. Another class embraced the Bible and Heart, afterwards Heart and Crown, corner of Cornhill and Water Streets, 1748; Blue Dog and Rainbow, sign of a dyer near Bowling Green, now Cambridge Street, 1729; Blue Glove, a bookstore on Union Street, 1762; Brazen Head, Cornhill, opposite Williams Court, where the great fire of 1760 commenced, in a dwelling-house occupied by Mrs. Mary Jackson and son, probably a boarding-house; Buck and Breeches in Ann Street, 1758, near the Draw Bridge, Joseph Belknap’s sign; Golden Cock, in Ann Street, 1733; Golden Eagle, Dock Square, 1758; and one of the last things named was the Whipping Post, in King Street, removed in 1750, only twenty years before the Boston Massacre.

NAMES OF PERSONS

In regard to the names of persons, as well as places and things, it is said that there was “a prejudice in favor of the Israelitish custom, and a fondness arose, or at least was increased, for significant names for children.” “The three first that were baptized in Boston church were Joy, Recompence and Pity. The humor spread. The town of Dorchester, in particular, was remarkable for such names as Faith, Hope, Charity, Deliverance, Dependance, Preserved, Content, Prudent, Patience, Thankful, Hate-evil, Holdfast,” &c. These are pretty much out of fashion: possibly the name of “Prudence” may yet be found. It is somewhat strange that this “prejudice” did not get a more public expression: perhaps Salutation Alley may be a relic of it.

The Hangman’s Gallows, strange to say, was a permanent structure on the Neck, on the east side and somewhat in the rear of the burying-ground: the pirates were hung there as late as 1815. The following peculiar historical names, although well known, may be mentioned: Liberty Pole was in Liberty Square, at the point of meeting of Water and Kilby Streets. It was not restored after the Revolutionary War. Liberty Tree, corner of Newbury (now Washington) and Essex Streets, nearly opposite Boylston Market. It was cut down by the British in August, 1775. Green Dragon was the sign of a noted tavern in Union Street, licensed in 1697, and disappeared 1854. The building which now occupies the spot in Union Street, displays the Green Dragon on its front. The “Orange Tree” spoken of in the history of Boston, was on Hanover Street. A private school is spoken of as being in Hanover Street, “three doors below the Orange Tree,” and an earlier writer speaks of it as on Queen (Court) Street. It was a tavern on or near the corner of these streets, probably on the site afterwards occupied by Concert Hall.

Boston, at the present time, includes South Boston (formerly Dorchester), East Boston (formerly Noddle’s Island), Dorchester, Roxbury, West Roxbury, and Charlestown, and within this territory there are now over 2,650 streets, squares, avenues, places, courts, &c., and 225 wharves, twenty-nine of which are in Charlestown District. Public halls in Boston, 119, and the number of these is increasing. In 1735, there were twelve wards in the town; revised in 1805, and now, including the annexations above named, there are twenty-five wards.

VII.
PERSECUTION OF THE QUAKERS

Notwithstanding the strange judgments, fines, and punishments, made under the civil law or without law in the colony of Massachusetts, there seems to have been another sort of government, or perhaps one of the same kind, in relation to spiritual or religious things, the administration of which shows such a spirit and system of persecution, and such a degree of fanaticism, as can hardly be paralleled in history. And it would seem also that the two kinds of government, both in the hands of the same parties, might occasionally be found in conflict. In 1655, Hutchinson says, “However inconsistent it may seem with the professed ecclesiastical constitution and the freedom of every church, the general court, in several instances, interposed its authority. They laid a large fine upon the church at Malden for choosing a minister without the consent and approbation of the neighboring churches and allowance of the magistrates, and there were other similar interferences, which, we suppose, were acceded to, and that the church was, in fact, under the control of the state.” And the state, it may be added, was to some extent, subordinate to the church.

The Episcopalians, Anabaptists, Baptists, and Quakers, were all treated, or maltreated, with the same spirit, though not proceeded against with the same degree of persistency and malice. The Episcopalians were mulcted in heavy fines “for contemptuous and seditious language,” but finally overcame all difficulties, and became permanently established in 1686, and built a church in 1688. The Baptists were persecuted in a similar way, but finally got a meeting-house built in 1679, before the Episcopalians. The Quakers were persecuted from the first landing of some of their number in 1656 to 1667, and even later; and four of them were hanged on Boston Common.

In July, 1656, two Quakers, both women, arrived at the settlement from Barbadoes, and soon after eight more came from England. In a few days they were ordered before the Court of Assistants. Some books were found about them or in their possession, amounting to a hundred volumes; and these were burned in the market-place, and their owners sent to prison. They were condemned as Quakers, kept in confinement several weeks, and then sent away; and yet it is said there was no law at this time against Quakers. After this, stringent laws were made to keep them out of the colony. Masters of vessels were subjected to one hundred pounds fine if they brought a Quaker into the colony, and required to give security to take him away; and, if a Quaker came into the jurisdiction, he was sent to the house of correction, and whipped twenty stripes. And the next year, further laws were made against the Quakers, and against all who befriended or entertained them: who were to be fined forty shillings an hour; and, “if he persisted, the offender was to have one of his ears cut off,” and, if repeated, he was to lose his other ear. If this did not answer, whipping and boring the tongue with a hot iron, were to be the consequences.

Notwithstanding these severe proceedings against the Quakers, others came into the colony, and some who had been banished returned to suffer more severe punishments. One Myra Clark, wife of a merchant tailor of London, came to Boston in 1657, to comply with what she conceived to be a spiritual command, and was whipped in a cruel manner. About the same time, two men, Christopher Holder and John Copeland, were seized in Salem, and, after being roughly handled, were “had to Boston.” Holder, it is said, when he attempted to speak, had his head hauled back by the hair, and his mouth stuffed with handkerchief and gloves. At Boston they were whipped with a knotted whip, with all the strength of the hangman. A man named Shattock was imprisoned and whipped for interfering when Holder was gagged, and was afterwards banished.

In the next year, (September, 1658), Holder, Copeland, and another young man named Rouse, had their right ears cut off in the prison. A number of women were whipped and imprisoned; and one, Katharine Scott of Providence, being in Boston, pronounced the above punishment in prison, “a work of darkness,” and was therefore shamefully treated and abused, although a mother of children, and “a grave, sober, ancient woman.” She was publicly whipped, and threatened with hanging if found in Boston again.

Three persons known as Quakers, on their way from Salem to Rhode Island, to provide a place for themselves and families, were arrested by the constable at Dedham, and sent to Boston, where Gov. Endicott set them at liberty, but fined them twelve shillings, as it would seem for the stupidity of the constable. The constable, no doubt, arrested them for fear of being fined for neglect of duty.

In 1658-59, persecutions continued fearfully, and numbers were arrested, imprisoned, and punished. In the latter year, William Robinson, formerly a London merchant, Marmaduke Stevenson, and Myra (or Mary) Dyar, having returned after banishment, were sentenced to be hung; and the two men were hung, Oct. 20. Myra Dyar was upon the ladder, her arms and legs tied, and the rope about her neck, when, at the urgent solicitation of her son, she was spared and sent out of the colony; but she returned again the next year, impressed with the belief that her death was necessary to the cause she had espoused,—as fanatical as were the Puritans themselves,—and was hung in June. The bodies of the men, it is said, were shamefully stripped and abused, after they were literally cut down, and were thrown into a hole together.

In July, 1660, Margaret Brewster, from Barbadoes, and two or three other women, made an incursion into the Old South Church; she appeared “in sackcloth, with ashes on her head, barefoot and her face blackened,” with some purpose of warning the people against the black pox, “if they put in practice a cruel law against swearing.”

It is said also “that Deborah Wilson went through the streets of Salem naked as she came into the world, for which she was well whipped.” Thomas Newhouse went into a meeting-house in Boston, and smashed two empty bottles together, with a threat to the people; and, no doubt, other provoking things were done.

In March, 1661, persecutions still prevailing, William Leddra, who came from Barbadoes, was arrested, together with one William Brend; and Drake says, “The cruelties perpetrated on these poor, misguided men are altogether of a character too horrid to be related.” It is said that Leddra would not accept life on any terms, and was therefore hung on the 14th of March; and Capt. Johnson, who led him forth to the gallows, was afterwards taken “with a distemper which deprived him of his reason and understanding as a man.”

These proceedings, outrageous as they certainly were, led to a movement in England by the Quakers and their friends, which resulted in an order from the King, Sept. 9, 1661, requiring that a stop should be put to all capital or corporal punishments. The following are the words of this remarkable document:—

“Charles R.

“Trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. Having been informed that several of our subjects amongst you, called Quakers, have been and are imprisoned by you, whereof some have been executed, and others (as hath been represented unto us) are in danger to undergo the like: We have thought fit to signify our pleasure in that behalf for the future, and do hereby require, that if there be any of those people now amongst you, now already condemned to suffer death or other corporal punishment, or that are imprisoned, and obnoxious to the like condemnation, you are to forbear to proceed any further therein, but that you forthwith send the said persons, whether condemned or imprisoned, over into this Our Kingdom of England, together with the respective crimes or offenses laid to their charge, to the end such course may be taken with them here as shall be agreeable to our laws and their demerits; and for so doing these our letters shall be your sufficient warrant and discharge.

“Given at Our Court at Whitehall the ninth day of Sept., 1661, in the thirteenth year of Our Reign.

“To Our trusty and well-beloved John Endicott, Esquire, &c.

“By his Majesty’s Command,

“William Morris.”

The bearer of this mandate from the King was one of the banished Quakers, formerly of Salem; and when he appeared at Gov. Endicott’s house, on Pemberton Square, was admitted to the presence, and ordered to take his hat off; and on receiving the mandamus the Governor took his own hat off (which he probably put on to receive his callers). After reading the document, he went out and bade the two Friends to follow him, and proceeded to consult, as it appeared, with Lieut.-Gov. Willoughby (not Bellingham, as some writers have it). His answer was, “We shall obey his majesty’s command.” So far as hanging was forbidden, the command was obeyed. The formality of sending Commissioners to England to defend and justify the measures of the colony was adopted, but never amounted to any thing.

The laws against the Quakers were afterwards revived to the extent of whipping, limited to “through three towns only;” and perhaps they did not choose to regard this display as “capital or corporal punishment.”

In May, 1664, Edward Wharton, of Salem, being in Boston, a Quaker meeting was held, when a warrant was issued for his arrest: but the meeting being over, he was found at a friend’s house; was arrested; the next day whipped, and sent to the constable at Lynn, to be whipped there, and then sent to Salem. In one instance, a girl, eleven years of age, allowing herself to be a Quaker, whether she knew what the word meant or not, was sent to prison, and afterwards brought before the great and dignified Court. The Court speak of “the malice of Satan and his instruments,” and determine that as “Satan is put to his shifts to make use of such a child, not being of the years of discretion, it is judged meet so far to slight her as a Quaker, as only to admonish and instruct her according to her capacity, and so discharge her.” Hutchinson says, “It would have been horrible, if there had been any further severity.”

In 1665, additional laws were made, or orders passed, levying a fine of ten shillings for attending a Quaker meeting, and five pounds for speaking at one; and, in the same year, the penalty of death was revived against all Quakers who should return to the colony after they had been banished. Some persons ventured to express their dissent with regard to some of these laws, and, probably owing to their respectability, escaped punishment; but Nicholas Upsall, who had shown compassion to some Quakers while in prison, in 1656-57, was fined and banished, and endured incredible hardships. Three years later, in 1660, he returned, and was again thrown into prison, and died in 1666.

The laws against Quakers and heretics were published in Boston “with beat of drum through its streets.” We presume they were read after the town-crier fashion of later days.

In 1677, when the toleration of the Quakers was thought to be one of the sins which brought on the Indian war, as a punishment, the Court ordered, “That every person found at a Quaker’s meeting shall be apprehended ex officio, by the constable, and, by warrant from a magistrate or commissioner, shall be committed to the House of Correction, and there have the discipline of the house applied to them, and be kept to work, with bread and water, for three days, and then released, or else shall pay five pounds in money, as a fine to the country, for such offence, and all constables neglecting their duty, in not faithfully executing this order, shall incur the penalty of five pounds, upon conviction, one third thereof to the informer.”

Upon this remarkable order, Hutchinson declares, “I know of nothing which can be urged as in anywise tending to excuse the severity of this law, unless it be human infirmity,” and, he adds, the practices of other religious sects who are persuaded that the indulgence of any other “was a toleration of impiety” and brought down the judgments of heaven. This law cost the colony many friends.

Soon after this a party was arrested and “whipped at the cart’s tail up and down the town with twenty lashes.” On the same day, fourteen Quakers were arrested at a meeting, and twelve of them whipped: the other two had their fines paid by their friends. At the next meeting, fourteen or fifteen more, including some strangers, were arrested and whipped. And yet the Quakers continued their meetings; and, finally, one of them was so large, that, as it is said, “fearfulness surprised the hypocrites,” and the meeting was not molested.⁶

Hutchinson says, “Notwithstanding the great variety of sectaries in England, there had been no divisions of any consequence in the Massachusetts; but from 1637 to 1656, they enjoyed, in general, great quietness in their ecclesiastical affairs, discords in particular churches being healed and made up by a submission to the arbitrament of neighboring churches, and sometimes the interposition of the civil power.” But soon after all this, commencing indeed in 1655, in New England, continues Hutchinson, “it must be confessed, that bigotry and cruel zeal prevailed, and to that degree that no opinions but their own could be tolerated. They were sincere but mistaken in their principles; and absurd as it is, it is too evident, they believed it to be for the glory of God to take away the lives of his creatures for maintaining tenets contrary to what they professed themselves.” It is said, however, “that every religion which is persecuted becomes itself persecuting; for as soon as, by some accidental turn, it arises from persecution, it attacks the religion which persecuted it.” Perhaps the Puritans thought they had been persecuted!

It seems to be understood that the Quakers finally got a standing in Boston, and a meeting-house, as, in 1667, mention is made of their “ordinary place of meeting,” though their numbers were small. The Baptists, however, did not get their meeting-house until 1679; and then, as a law had been passed against the building of meeting-houses without permission of the county courts, theirs was built as a private house, and afterwards purchased by them. But Drake says, “The times had become so much changed that such a law could not be very well enforced.” By this time, also, the matter was again brought to the notice of the king, Charles II.; and he wrote, on July 24, to the authorities of Boston, “requiring them not to molest people in their worship, who were of the Protestant faith, and directing that liberty of conscience should be extended to all such.” This letter, it is said, had some effect on the rulers, although they regarded it as an interference with their chartered rights; and, after all, it was rather a development of that common sense which fanaticism and bigotry had so long obscured, possibly awakened by the order of the king, rather than controlled by it, that brought about the change in the spirit of persecution.