Massachusetts,
One of the original thirteen States of the
Union; founded by
English Puritans who fled from persecution (see
Puritans). Its shores were probably visited by Northmen at the beginning of the eleventh century (Northmen), and possibly
Sebastian Cabot saw them (1498), and also Verrazano (1524). The shores were explored by
Bartholomew Gosnold (1602),
Samuel Champlain (1604), and
John Smith (1614); but the first permanent
European settlement was made on the shores of
Cape Cod Bay by some English Non-conformists, who, calling themselves “Pilgrims,” had fled from
England to
Holland, sojourned there a few years, formed a church at
Leyden, and in 1620 came to America, where they might worship God with perfect freedom.
Having made arrangements with the Plymouth Company for planting a settlement, and for funds with some
London merchants, they went from Delftshaven to
England, and sailed for
America from
Plymouth in the
Mayflower, of 180 tons' burden, on Sept. 17 (
N. S.), and, after a stormy passage, arrived at
Cape Cod in November.
Seeking a good landing-place, the company, 101 in number—men, women, and children—did not leave the vessel until Dec. 22 (
N. S.), when they landed on a rock on the shores of
Cape Cod Bay, built some log-huts in the snow, and called the rude village New Plymouth.
In the cabin of the
Mayflower the men had drawn up
[
129]
and signed a form of government—a solemn compact—by which they were to be ruled (see
Pilgrim fathers), and chose
John Carver (q. v.) governor for one year.
Cold, exposure, and poor food caused a sickness that swept away nearly one-half their number in four months.
Carver was among the victims, and
William Bradford (q. v.) Was his successor.
Their spiritual leader was Elder
William Brewster (q. v.). They made a treaty of friendship with
Massasoit (q. v.), sachem of the surrounding
Indians, and it was long maintained inviolate.
In petty hostilities with other chiefs,
Capt. Miles Standish (
q. v.), a valiant soldier, was very useful.
Other Puritans joined the Pilgrims, and other settlements were soon attempted; but the little colony at New Plymouth suffered much at times until 1623, when they were blessed with a bountiful harvest.
The community system of labor was abandoned, and in 1627 the colonists dissolved their partnership with the
London merchants, and became sole proprietors of the soil.
As the Pilgrims could not obtain a patent, they quietly lived under their own simple form of government and prospered.
An Engglish company obtained a grant of territory on
Massachusetts Bay and sent over
John Endicott (q. v.), with 100 settlers, who seated themselves at
Naumkeag, now
Salem.
In March, 1629, King Charles I. gave a charter to a number of wealthy and influential Englishmen, confirming a former grant to others, to a domain in
America, with whom they became associated, and superadded the power of government.
It was similar to the
Virginia charter (see
colony of Virginia), and erected the patentees and their associates into a corporation by the
[
130]
name of the
Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, in
New England.
The affairs of the company and the colony were to be managed by a governor, deputy-gov-
 |
|
Cutting the cross out of the English flag. |
ernor, and eighteen assistants, or magistrates, the latter to hold monthly courts.
The more important laws of the colony were to be enacted by a General Court of Assembly of all the freemen and stockholders, to be held quarterly.
The rights of Englishmen were secured to the colonists, but the management of the local government was entirely in the hands of the corporation in
England.
No royal negative was reserved in the enactments of the company.
Nothing was said about
[
131]
religion.
The company was organized under the charter by the appointment of
Matthew Cradock governor, and
Timothy Goffe deputy-governor—two wealthy
London merchants.
The executive administration of the colony was intrusted to
John Endicott, assisted by twelve councillors— seven to be named by the company, two to be selected by the old planters, and these nine to select three more.
The settlement was called “
London's plantation.”
Every stockholder who should emigrate to
America at his own cost was to receive fifty acres of land for each member of his family, and the same for each indentured servant he carried with him. The charter and the government were soon transferred from
England to
Massachusetts, and a large emigration ensued in 1629-30.
Late in 1634, while
Dudley was governor,
John Endicott, incited by
Roger Williams, caused the red cross of
St. George to be cut out of the military standard of
England used at
Salem, because he regarded it as a “relic of Anti-
Christ,” it having been given by the pope to a former king of
England as an ensign of victory.
He had so worked upon the minds of many citizens of
Salem that they refused to follow the standard with the cross upon it. At about that time the
British government, jealous of the independent spirit manifested in
Massachusetts, watched its development with great vigilance, and the enemies of the colony pointed to this mutilation of the standard as evidence of disloyalty to the crown.
It was simply loyalty to bigotry.
The whole aspect of the act was theological, not political; but the royalists chose to interpret it otherwise, and it was one of the reasons for tyrannical action towards the colony when orders were issued to the authorities of
Massachusetts to produce their charter before the privy council in
England.
At a Court of Assistants at
Boston complaint was made of the mutilation of the standard, for trouble with the home government was anticipated.
The ensign-bearer was summoned before the court.
Afterwards the assistants met at the governor's house to advise about the defacing, and it was agreed to write to
England about the matter.
Endicott was, after three months longer deliberation, called to answer for the act. The court could not agree whether all the ensigns should be laid aside, as many would not follow them with the cross visible.
The commissioners of military affairs ordered all the ensigns to be put away.
Nothing more was done in the matter then.
Two years later there was more trouble about the colors.
Henry Vane was elected governor (1636), and fifteen ships in the harbor having arrived with passengers, the seamen commemorated his election by a volley of great guns.
But, the ensigns being “laid away,” the fort in
Boston could not acknowledge the compliment by displaying colors.
The English sailors accused the colonists of treason, and the ship-masters requested the governor to spread the
King's colors at the fort, because the question of their loyalty might be raised in
England.
The magistrates were all persuaded that the cross in the colors was idolatrous, and the governor dissimulated by pretending that he had no colors.
The ship-masters offered to lend him theirs, and this was accepted as a compromise with the consciences of the authorities, they arguing that, as the fort was the
King's, the colors might be displayed there at his peril.
At the request of the General Court, the
Rev. John cotton (q. v.) drew up the first code of laws of
Massachusetts.
They were taken entirely from the Old Testament.
It was found that they were not adapted to a state of society so different from that of the Hebrews in the time of
Moses, and
Rev. Nathaniel Ward, who was familiar with the
Roman as well as the Jewish laws, drew up a code which was substituted for
Cotton's in 1641.
The first article of this code provided that the rights of person and property vested in the citizen should be inviolate, except by express law, or, in default of that, by the “Word of God.”
Governor Winthrop did not approve of
Mr. Ward's adaptation of
Greek and Roman laws.
He thought it better that the laws should be taken from the Scriptures rather than “on the authority of the wisdom and justice of those heathen commonwealths.”
The “Body of liberties” compiled by
Mr. Ward was really the first constitution of
Massachusetts Bay.
In 1651
Roger Williams and
John Clarke were appointed agents to seek in
[
132]
England a confirmation of the
Rhode Island charter.
Before their departure,
Mr. Clarke, with
Mr. Crandall and
Obadiah Holmes, delegates from the Baptist Church in
Newport, visited an aged
Baptist brother in
Lynn, Mass., who was too feeble to attend public worship.
On a Sunday morning they ventured to give
 |
|
The province House, residence of the Royal governors of Massachusetts. |
a public exhortation at the house of the brother.
For this they were arrested, and carried by force in the afternoon to hear the regular Congregational preacher (
Thomas Cobbett, author of “a large, nervous, and golden discourse” against the Baptists). The next day they were sent to
Boston, where
Clarke was sentenced to pay a fine of $100, or be whipped.
One charge against him was that he neglected to take off his hat when he was forced into the
Congregational meeting-house at
Lynn.
In a sermon just before
Clarke's trial, John Cotton declared that to deny the efficacy of infant baptism was “to overthrow all,” and was “soul murder” —a capital offence.
So
Endicott held in passing sentence upon the prisoner.
He charged
Clarke with preaching to the weak and ignorant, and bade him “try and dispute with our ministers.”
Clarke accepted the challenge, and sent word to the
Massachusetts ministers that he would prove to them that the ordinance of baptism—that is, dipping in water —was to be administered only to those who gave evidence of repentance and faith; and that only such visible believers constituted the Church of Christ on the earth.
The ministers evaded the trial.
Some of
Clarke's friends paid his fine, and he was released.
Crandall, fined $25, was released at the same time; but
Holmes, a recent convert to Anabaptism, and lately excommunicated, who was fined $150, had more of the martyr spirit.
As he left the bar the pastor (
John Wilson) struck him and cursed him because he said, “I bless God I am counted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus.”
Some friends offered to pay
Holmes's fine, but he declined it, and was taken to the public whipping-post, where he was scourged with a three-corded whip, with which a stout man gave him thirty stripes most vigorously, “the man spitting on his hands three times.”
When led away,
Holmes said to the magistrates, “You have struck me with roses,” and prayed the punishment might not be laid to their charge.
Two sympathizing friends came up to the bleeding victim of bigotry and intolerance, and, shaking hands with him, said, “Blessed be God.”
They were arrested for “contempt of authority,” fined 40s. each, and imprisoned.
Holmes returned to
Newport, and lived to old age.
Not long afterwards
Sir Richard Saltonstall, one of the founders of the
Massachusetts colony, wrote from
England to Cotton and
Wilson, ministers in
Boston, saying: “It doth not a little grieve my spirit to hear what sad things are reported daily of your tyranny and persecution in
New England, as that you fine, whip, and imprison men for their consciences.
First you compel such to come into your assemblies as you know will not join you in your worship, and when they show their dislike thereof, or witness against it, then you stir up your magistrates to punish them for such as you conceive their public offences.
Truly, friends, this your practice of compelling any, in matters of worship, to do that whereof they are not fully persuaded is to make them sin, for so the apostle (Rom.
XIV., 23) tells us; and many are made hypocrites thereby, conforming
[
133]
in their outward man for fear of punishment. . . . These rigid ways have laid you very low in the hearts of the saints.”
King Charles I. now began to interfere with the political independence of the colony.
He demanded the surrender of the charter to the crown; the order was evaded, and, by erecting fortifications and drilling troops, the colonists prepared to resist it. During the civil war the colony was quiet, but on the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660 (see
Charles II.) the government of
England claimed supreme jurisdiction in
Massachusetts.
A commissioner was sent to
England in 1662, and obtained a confirmation of the charter and a conditional promise of amnesty for offenders during the late troubles between royalty and the people.
Charles II.
dehanded the repeal of all laws contrary to his authority, the taking of an oath of allegiance, the administration of justice in the
King's name, the complete toleration of the
Church of
England in
Massachusetts, and a concession of the elective franchise to every man having a competent estate.
There was a diversity of sentiment in the colony respecting these demands, some acquiescing, some opposing; and in 1664 commissioners arrived in
Boston to investigate the affairs of the colony.
The colonial authorities published an order prohibiting any complaints to be made to the commissioners, and addressed a remonstrance to the
King.
The commissioners, unable to do anything, finally withdrew.
The
King reproved
Massachusetts, and ordered the governor and others to appear before him. They refused to go, and much trouble was expected.
A more serious trouble awaited them.
The colony was severely scourged by
King Philip's War (q. v.) in 1675-76.
The
Indians destroyed a dozen towns, 6,000 houses, and 600 of the inhabitants, in their homes or in the little army.
Of the men, one in twenty had fallen, and of the families, one in twenty was homeless; and the cost of the
[
134]
war was over $500,000—enormous at that time.
The royal pretensions to rule the colony were renewed after the war, though
England had not furnished a man or a farthing to carry it on, but these were spurned.
In 1680 a committee of the privy council, at the suit of the heirs of
Gorges, denied the right of
Massachusetts to
New Hampshire and
Maine.
Massachusetts purchased the title to the latter (see
Maine), and the former became an independent province (
New Hampshire). In 1684 the high court of chancery in
England gave judgment in favor of the crown against the
Governor and Company of Massachusetts, and the charter was declared forfeited.
Joseph Dudley was appointed royal governor, the General Assembly, or Court, was dissolved, and a
[
135]
new commission superseded the charter government.
Edmund Andros succeeded
Dudley, Dec. 20, 1686, when that tyrannical ruler and his pliant council proceeded to make laws and levy taxes without the consent of the people.
The people submitted with impatience.
They were relieved by the expulsion (1688) of the last
Stuart king from the throne of
England, (see
James II.), and early in 1689 the men of
Boston imprisoned
Andros, reinstated the old government, and sent the ex-royal governor to
England (
Andros, Sir Edmund). In the intercolonial war between
France and
England in 1690
Massachusetts participated, and to pay the expenses the colony first issued paper money.
In 1692 a new charter was given to
Massachusetts, by which New Plymouth was united with it. By its terms the colony of
Plymouth, the provinces of
Maine and
Nova Scotia, as far north as the
St. Lawrence River, and all the country between them, were added to the old province of
Massachusetts; also the
Elizabeth Islands and the islands of
Nantucket and
Martha's Vineyard.
The governor,
lieutenant-governor, and colonial secretary were appointed by the crown.
The charter gave the governor the power to convene and dissolve the General Court, and a veto of all its acts.
The councillors first appointed by the crown were afterwards to be annually elected by the House of Representatives and the existing council; but of the twenty-eight thus chosen the governor might reject thirteen.
The advice and consent of the council were necessary to all appointments and official acts.
Under this charter the theocracy which had ruled
Massachusetts with rigor lost nearly all its power.
Toleration was expressly secured to all religious sects, excepting the
Roman Catholic.
The right of suffrage, limited by the old government to church members and a few persons admitted as freemen on a minister's certificate, was now bestowed on all inhabitants possessing a freehold of the annual value of $6.66, or personal property to the amount of $133.33.
In 1692, after the receipt of the new charter, the General Court passed an act which was a declaration of the rights of the colony.
Among the general privileges which it asserted, it declared that “No aid, tax, tollage, assessment, custom, loan, benevolence, or imposition whatsoever, shall be laid, assessed, imposed, or levied on any of their Majesties' subjects, or their estates, on any pretence whatsoever, but by the act and consent of the governor council, and representatives of the people assembled in General Court.”
About this time the
Salem witchcraft delusion fearfully disturbed the colony for six months. The province was smitten by French and Indian invaders in 1703-4, and war was waged with the Indians in 1722 and 1725.
The controversies carried on through pamphlets in discussions of the subjects of paper money, the small-pox, and the quarrels between the governor (
Shute) and the representatives, had exhibited so much freedom that
James Franklin was encouraged to set up a newspaper at
Boston, called the
New England Courant.
The first number was dated Aug. 6, 1721.
It was designed as a medium of public discussion, to take the place of pamphlets, and was the first newspaper in
America that aspired to this eminence.
Its freedom of speech made the authorities uneasy; and one of its articles, in relation to the fitting-out of a vessel to cruise against pirates, was construed as contempt of the General Court, for which
Franklin was imprisoned.
His brother Benjamin, then a youth of sixteen, published in it some mild essays on religious hypocrisy, which gave greater offence.
It was charged that the paper had a “tendency to mock religion” ; that it profanely abused the
Holy Scriptures; injuriously reflected upon the ministers of the Gospel and “on his Majesty's government,” and disturbed the peace and good order of the province.
James Franklin was forbidden to publish a newspaper, pamphlet, or anything else unless it should be approved and licensed by the colonial secretary.
This order was evaded by the
Courant being published in the name of his brother Benjamin, but the caution necessary to be used made contributors shy. They gradually ceased to write, and the paper, losing interest, finally perished for lack of support.
Such was the fate of the first nominally free press in
America.
The colony was involved in war with its French neighbors in 1744, in consequence
[
136]
of a war between
France and
England.
In that war
Massachusetts contributed largely in men and means to the capture of
Louisburg (1745), and in attempts to conquer
Canada.
She also bore her part in the
French and Indian War; and in the opposition to the Stamp Act and other schemes of the British Parliament for taxing the
English-American colonists,
Massachusetts took a leading part.
Recent acts of Parliament for taxing the
Americans caused the
Massachusetts Assembly, in January, 1768, to send to the
King a petition which combined, temperately, the spirit of liberty and of loyalty.
In it was set forth a brief history of the colony of
Massachusetts; the franchise guaranteed by their charter; expressed the happiness of the colonists while in the enjoyment of these chartered privileges; spoke of the obedience to acts of Parliament not inconsistent with these chartered rights, and said: “It is with the deepest concern that your humble suppliants would represent to your Majesty that your Parliament, the rectitude of whose intentions is never to be questioned, has thought proper to pass divers acts imposing taxes on your subjects in
America, with the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue.”
“If your Majesty's subjects here shall be deprived of the honor and privilege of voluntarily contributing their aid to your Majesty,” they continued, “in supporting your government and authority in the province, and defending and securing your rights and territories in
America, which they have always hitherto done with the greatest cheerfulness, their liberties would be in danger.”
They declared that if Parliament intended to lay taxes upon them without their consent, the people “must regret their unhappy fate in having only the name left of free subjects.”
“With all humility,” they continued, “we conceive that a representation of this province in Parliament, considering these local circumstances, is utterly impracticable.
Your Majesty has heretofore been
[
137]
graciously pleased to order your requisitions to be laid before the representatives of the people in the General Assembly, who never failed to afford the necessary aid to the extent of their ability, and sometimes beyond it; and it would be ever grievous to your Majesty's faithful subjects to be called upon in a way that should appear to them to imply a distrust of their most ready and willing compliance.”
They closed by humbly asking the
King to consider their situation and to afford them relief from the oppression of the Parliament.
With this petition went to
England letters of leading statesmen, urging the rights of the province.
The General Court which met Dec. 30, 1767, having appointed a large committee to consider the state of the province, adopted (Feb. 11. 1768) a circular letter, which was addressed to the speakers of the various colonial assemblies, inviting co-operation and mutual consultation concerning the defence of colonial rights.
This letter embodied the sentiments of the petition to the
King above mentioned.
It gave great offence to the ministry.
When it reached them, Lord Hillsborough, secretary of the state for the colonies, sent instructions to the governor (
Bernard) to call upon the Assembly to rescind the letter, and, in the event of non-compliance, to dissolve that body.
It was then the most numerous legislature in
America, consisting of 109 members.
Instead of complying with the governor's demand, they made the instructions of Hillsborough a fresh cause of complaint against the ministry.
“When Lord Hillsborough knows,” said
Otis in the Assembly, “that we will not rescind
our acts, he should apply to Parliament to rescind theirs.
Let Britons rescind these measures, or they are lost forever.”
The
House refused to rescind by a vote of 92 to 17.
In a letter to the governor notifying him of their non-compliance, the Assembly said, “If the votes of this
House are to be controlled by the directions of a minister, we have left us but a vain semblance of liberty.”
The governor proceeded to dissolve the Assembly; but before that was accomplished they had prepared a series of accusations against him and a petition to the
King to remove him. The answers to the circular letter from other assemblies glowed with sympathy and assurances of co-operation.
When it was known that British troops had been ordered to
Boston, a town-meeting was held and a request sent to
Governor Bernard to convene the Provincial Assembly.
He refused, and a convention of delegates from all the towns in the province was provided for. Delegates from more than 100 towns met, Sept. 22, at
Boston, ostensibly “in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war with
France.”
This was a mere pretext.
They ordered all persons not already in possession of fire-arms to procure them at once; and they appointed a day of fasting and prayer to be observed by all Congregational societies.
The convention petitioned the governor to summon a general court.
He refused to receive the petition, and denounced the convention as treasonable.
They proceeded cautiously.
All pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed.
They prepared and adopted a petition to the
King, and a letter to
De Berdt, agent for the provinces in
England, charging him to defend the colony against accusations of sedition or a rebellious spirit.
Such was the beginning of the system of conventions which, in a few years, assumed the whole political authority of the colonies.
The convention adjourned after a four days session, and the day after the adjournment troops from
Halifax arrived.
On March 5, 1774, John Hancock and
Samuel Adams spoke to a great meeting of citizens in Faneuil Hall.
The former said: “Permit me to suggest a general congress of deputies from the several Houses of Assembly on the continent as the most effectual method of establishing a union for the security of our rights and liberties.”
Samuel Adams said: “It will be in vain for any to expect that the people of this country will now be contented with a partial and temporary relief, or that they will be amused by Court promises while they see not the least relaxation of grievances.
By means of a brisk correspondence among the several towns in this province they have wonderfully animated and enlightened each other.
They are united in sentiments, and their opposition to unconstitutional measures of government is become systematical.
Colony begins to communicate freely with colony.
[
138]
There is a common affection among them; and shortly the whole continent will be as united in sentiment and in their measures of opposition to tyranny as the inhabitants of this province.
Their old good — will and affection for the parent country are not totally lost; if she returns to her former moderation and goodhumor, their affection will revive.
They wish for nothing more than a permanent union with her upon the condition of equal liberty.
This is all they have been contending for; and nothing short of this will, or ought to, satisfy them.”
This was the ultimatum of
Massachusetts.
An act for remodelling the government of
Massachusetts was put in force on Aug. 1, 1774, and under it
Governor Gage appointed a council by writ of mandamus.
Most of those appointed accepted the office and were sworn in. They became at once objects of bitter public odium.
The new government was denounced vehemently, and in some parts of the province with violence.
The “mandamus councillors” were treated as enemies of their country by the patriots.
In Boston, juries refused to serve, lest by consenting to act they should recognize the authority of the new government.
It was not long before most of the “mandamus councillors” were compelled to take shelter under a resignation to escape popular resentment.
At the close of 1774, political power in
Massachusetts was widely distributed, so that it was felt in every nerve of the body politic.
There was a Provincial Congress having the general and supreme direction of public affairs.
The efforts of this body were zealously seconded in every town by a committee of safety, vested with general executive powers, a committee of correspondence, and a committee of inspection.
The duty of the latter was to look after and enforce the observance of the requirements of the
American Association (q. v.).
The Provincial Congress of
Massachusetts wrote to the Continental Congress, May 16, 1775, setting forth the difficulties they experienced for the want of a regular government, since the act of Parliament that was intended to subvert their charter, and asking for explicit advice in the matter.
The Congress resolved (June 9) that no obedience was due from the inhabitants of
Massachusetts to the obnoxious act of Parliament, nor to any of the crown officers acting under it; that, as there was .no council, and as
Governor Gage was actually carrying on war against the people, they recommended an election of representatives to an assembly that should appoint councillors, and that this body or the councillors should exercise the powers of government until a governor should be appointed who would consent to govern the colony according to the charter.
This was done.
James Warren, president of the Provincial Congress, was authorized to issue writs for an election.
The summons was readily obeyed.
A full house convened on July 20, and
Warren was chosen speaker.
A council was elected, and the two branches proceeded to legislation, under the charter.
On May 1, 1776, the General Court of
Massachusetts passed “an act for establishing the Stile of Commissions which shall hereafter be Issued and for Altering the Stile of writs, Processes, and all Law proceedings within this colony, and for directing
Pene Recognizances to the Use of this Government shall for the future be taken and prosecuted.”
The act went on to say that, “Whereas, the Petitions of the United Colonies to the
King had been rejected and treated with scorn and contempt, and the evident design of the government was to reduce the colonies to a state of servile subjection,” it was therefore decreed that, “on and after the first day of June next ensuing, all Civil Commissions, Writs, and Precepts for convening the General Court or Assembly” should thereafter be made out “in the name and Stile of the
Government and People of the
Massachusetts Bay in
New England.”
Also, all the officers of the colony, civil and military, should receive their authority from the same source.
This placed the supreme authority of
Massachusetts,
De facto and
De jure, in the chosen representatives of the people.
It was an absolute
declaration of independence.
The doctrine of State supremacy had a strong hold upon the political opinions of
New England, and particularly of
Massachusetts, and it was restless under the assumption of supreme power by the
[
139]
national government in the
War of 1812-15.
In his message to the legislature, May 20, 1813,
Governor Strong defended the right of free discussion of the great question of the day—peace or war with
Great Britain.
The peace party powerfully influenced public opinion in
Massachusetts, and, following the message of the governor, the legislature agreed to a remonstrance, in which they denounced the perseverance in war, and declared that, for aught that appeared, the questions at issue might be adjusted by peaceful negotiations.
The politicians of the
State were chiefly instrumental in getting up the
Hartford convention (q. v.), and
George Cabot, of
Massachusetts, was its president.
In 1820 the District of Maine was separated from
Massachusetts, and admitted into the
Union as a State.
During the
Civil War Massachusetts furnished to the
National army and navy 159,165 men, and the losses were 3,749 killed in battle, 9,086 who died from wounds or disease, 15,645 discharged for disability contracted in the service, and 5,866 not accounted for. The State expended on account of the war $30,162,200. In 1890 the population was 2,238,943; in 1900, 2,805,346.
See
Adams, Samuel (
Protest against Taxation);
United States,
Massachusetts, in vol.
IX.
governors of the
Massachusetts colonies.
governors of the
Massachusetts colonies— Continued.
governors of
Massachusetts appointed by the
King under the second charter.
[
140]
governors under the
State Constitution— Continued.
