In the View of Harvard College published after 1739 the advertisement differs slightly from that of the newspapers, reading:

Pictures painted in Oyl in carved or gilt Frames, all sorts & sizes of ye newest fashioned Looking Glasses, Prospect & Burning Glasses, Spectacles, Fine China Ware, English and Dutch Toys for children with large allowance to Shop Keepers & Country Chapman that buy to Sell again, who may be as well furnished by sending their letters as coming themselves at reasonable rates.

In 1743 the business included "Also Flutes, Hautboys, & Violins, Strings, Musical Books, Songs, Spectacles, & Prospect Glasses etc.," and as such continued till 1769. In the fire in Williams. Court in 1760, a wooden building two stories high in the rear of Price's house was pulled down to prevent the fire spreading, but the fire was put out before the building was reached. He claimed damages, but was unsuccessful. On April 10, 1765, he was chosen one of the trustees of the Boston Episcopal Charitable Society, founded April 6, 1724. On Friday May 17, 1771, "departed this life after a long Confinement Mr. William Price, in the 87th. Year of his Age. His remains were carried into Trinity Church, and a Funeral Sermon preached by Rev. Dr. Caner. After which the Corps were deposited in a Tomb under the said Church," May 21. His will, signed November 30, 1770, with a codicil April 20, 1771, bequeaths his mansion house in Cornhill to his wife and nieces for life, to King's Chapel on their death, the income to be used for lenten lectures, time and subjects specified, a collection to be taken at them for the poor, surplus of revenue from estate to go to the general fund, and if not accepted by King's Chapel to revert to Trinity Church. He directed that his body was to be decently interred in his tomb under Trinity built by him, for himself, wife, two nieces and no other, be carried into Trinity and burial services according to the Church of England be performed by the Rev. Dr. Henry Caner, or if not, by the Rev. Mr. Walter. His pew number 60 in Trinity was devised to his wife and nieces and lacking heirs to the Wardens, executrix to surrender his pew in King's Chapel on payment of sixteen pounds for the same. In the Direct Tax of 1798 appears: "Margarett & S. Creese, owners and occupiers, brick dwelling; East on Cornhill; North, Church Square; South on Bethunes Heirs. Land, 5236 square feet; house, 1340 square feet; 3 stories, 27 windows; Value, $6000," and in the inventory of Sarah

Creese's estate March 20, 1809, is given "brick house, 59 Cornhill, $10,000." She devised the estate to her nephew William Pelham1 (who sold maps as late as 1806), on the grounds that theological and other changes at King's Chapel had made the will null and void, apparently forgetting the reversion to Trinity. After the Revolution, when King's Chapel had been reorganized, it had accepted the legacy, and to make it more secure the acceptance was reaffirmed April 26, 1809. Pelham was in occupancy and would not vacate, so the Wardens entered suit, which was eventually decided in their favor. Pursuant to the will, lenten lectures were arranged for, commencing in 1814, to be given by the clergymen of King's Chapel, Christ Church, and Trinity Church in turn, but this was naturally not a successful arrangement. On September

17, 1824, Trinity Church entered suit on somewhat similar grounds to those of Miss Creese, and as a result of the litigation was given possession of the property to discharge all trusts under the will, pay all necessary expenses, and to divide the remainder of the income with King's Chapel; 2 and this is practically in force to-day, though there has been more or less litigation. The total value of the estate in 1906 was $436,000; buildings $62,000, land $375,000, the Thompson's Spa portion being assessed for $110 per foot and the Young's Hotel portion at $46 per foot.3

Dr. JAMES B. AYER commented at length upon Mr. Edmonds's paper, illustrating his remarks by photographic enlargements of several of the meeting-houses seen in the Burgis-Price View.

Mr. THOMAS MINNS remarked on the great increase in value of William Price's estate in Washington Street which he bequeathed to King's Chapel, and the income from which is now shared by King's Chapel and Trinity Church.

1 Concerning William Pelham, see New England Historical and Genealogical Register, xxvi. 400, 401; Heraldic Journal, iv. 178–182.

2 See Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, ii. 431-434. Cf. Allen's Reports, ix. 422-447; Massachusetts Reports, ix. 500-507.

The principal authorities relied upon are Foote's Annals of King's Chapel; Boston Record Commissioners' Reports; Suffolk Deeds; Suffolk Probate Files; Deblois's The William Price Fund, Trinity Church, Boston; the works of William Loring Andrews. Thanks are due Mr. Robert H. Kelby of the New York Historical Society, Mr. Irwin C. Cromack of Boston, and Mr. Frederick L. Gay of Brookline, for their kind assistance.

Mr. ALBERT MATTHEWS exhibited photographic copies of The Constitutional Courant of 21 September, 1765, and of several of the snake devices used in American newspapers at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, and read a communication in regard to them.1

The Rev. HENRY A. PARKER read the following paper on

THE FEOFFEES OF IMPROPRIATIONS.

Cotton Mather in his Magnalia wrote that about 1626" several eminent Persons," among them "our Mr. Davenport," "engaged in a Design to procure a Purchase of Impropriations, and with the Profits thereof to maintain a constant, able, and painful Ministry in those parts of the Kingdom where there was most want of such a Ministry;" and that "such an incredible Progress was made in it, that it is judged, all the Impropriations in England would have been honestly and easily recovered unto the immediate Service of the Reformed Religion. But, Bishop Laud looking with a jealous Eye on this Undertaking, least it might in time give a Secret Growth to Non-Conformity, he obtained a Bill to be exhibited in the Exchequer Chamber, by the King's Attorney-General, against the Feoffees, that had the management of it."2 Mather's estimate of the importance of this attempt of the Puritan party to carry on a propaganda by means of the impropriations was no greater than Laud's. Mather thought the scheme good, Laud thought it evil, but both agreed that it was well adapted for carrying out swiftly and surely the end proposed.

The scheme failed, but it may be questioned whether it failed of producing desired results as completely as both parties at the time supposed for the breaking up of the feoffment was represented as a tyrannical interference with a disinterested scheme of missionary work and deeply resented. However, eight years later, soon after Laud's trial, when his part in breaking up the

1 See the December meeting, below, pp. 409-452.

2 Magnalia (1702), book iii. part i. chap. iv, § 4. Mather seems largely to have followed Fuller.

As Mather, following Fuller, says: "The design was generally approved, and multitudes of discreet and devout Men extreamly resented the Ruine of it." And this resentment undoubtedly helped the Puritan interest and injured their opponents.

feoffment had been one of the many accusations brought against him, the matter became of no other than historical importance; for the object in view was otherwise obtained through the complete political triumph of the Puritans. No one in that busy time took the trouble to write any complete account of this clever movement, and though often alluded to, I cannot find that any full account of it has ever been written. The best and fullest is that given by Rushworth in his Historical Collections and followed by White Kennett, Bishop of Peterborough, in his volume (1704) on the History of Impropriations. Nor can I find that the accessible printed authorities by any means furnish materials for a complete account or a thorough understanding of what was done. Still some account, though imperfect, may be of use, if no otherwise than in inciting some one with better sources of information to write a better account.

The matter concerns us not only as all the religious movements in England at that time concern those interested in colonial history, but because two of the feoffees, John Davenport and John White, played very important parts in our colonial affairs.

The story of the origin of the impropriations, or if we please, appropriations, in England goes rather far back, but it may be worth while as briefly as possible to recount it.

When the little "Saxon" kingdoms one after another were converted to Christianity, each kingdom became a bishopric. As Stubbs puts it:

...

...

The development of the local machinery of the church was in reverse order to that of the state; the bishoprics being first formed, then the parishes; In all cases, for a short time, the diocese coincided with the kingdom, the court was the chief mission-station, and sent out monks and priests to convert the outlying settlements. . . When archbishop Theodore undertook to organise the church, he found . . . dioceses identical with kingdoms; no settled clergy, and no definite territorial subdivisions. . . . the monastery continued to be the typical church settlement, . . . Still . . . the country churches were also multiplied, and local provision of some sort was made for the village clergy. What measures Theodore, who is the traditional creator of the parochial system, took in this direction can only be conjectured: it is unnecessary to suppose that he founded it, for it needed no foundation. As the king

...

'Historical Collections (1680), ii. 7 ff.

dom and shire were the natural sphere of the bishop, so was the township of the single priest; and the parish was but the township or cluster of townships to which that priest ministered. The parish, then, is the ancient vicus or tun-scipe regarded ecclesiastically.1 . . . The maintenance of the clergy thus settled was provided chiefly by the offerings of the people: for the obligation of tithe in its modern sense was not yet recognised. . . . The bestowal of a little estate on the church of the township was probably the most usual way of eking out what the voluntary gifts supplied. The recognition of the legal obligation of tithe dates from the eighth century, . . . In 787 it was made imperative by the legatine councils held in England, which being attended and confirmed by the kings and the ealdormen had the authority of witenage-⚫ mots. . . . The legal determination of the church to which the tithe was to be paid was not yet settled. . . . The actual determination was really left very much to the owner of the land . . . in the free townships it must have become the rule to give it to the parish priests.2

...

But whatever his means of support, the local parish priest came in very early times to hold his benefice for life. The right of appointing to these positions was usually vested in the lord of the manor, or the person who had built or endowed the church, or in the bishop. These rights of patronage or advowson descended by inheritance or otherwise and were often given by the lord of the manor to one or other religious community—i. e. monastery. The right to appoint to the benefices thus acquired was wrongfully changed by the monasteries into the possession of the benefices themselves taking them in proprios usus or ad proprios usus, the monks themselves performing the religious services, one or another as appointed — sometimes as a penance. Thus arose impropriations or appropriations in England. This system was satisfactory to no one. So the monasteries, which, in the times of the Norman conquest, were presented with great numbers of advowsons by the more or less religious Normans, took to hiring secular priests as vicars, at a third of the income of the benefice, instead of presenting to the benefice, in which case the rector would have been entitled to all the revenue. And further, by a rigid application of the law of supply and demand, the monks were at times able to procure vicars for the barest pittance to perform the duties of parish clergy. Such wholesale misapproJust as it was here in New England.

* Constitutional History of England (1874), i. 224–229.