of the hated class of office-holders through governmental appointment, with whom in the days of political excitement in the province the townspeople of Boston had little to do and for whom in the management of their daily affairs they had no use whatever. It is not unlikely that the holder of a commission of notary public was the object of more than ordinary suspicion. Mr. Goodell points out in a note in the first volume of the Province Laws,1 that in 1720 the assembly as a whole asserted its rights under the charter to elect these officers, a function which up to that time had been exercised by the governor and council. He also quotes a resolution of the assembly in December, 1720, forbidding one Joseph Marion from performing the duties of a notary, the right to do which was claimed by him under a commission issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It will be seen that through this quarrel over the right of appointment, the office had become a political sport and holders of a gubernatorial commission were probably especially unpopular.

Valentine's services as notary have left traces of his career on our records. The most prominent of these was his exofficio service as register of the court in the trial of Captain Quelch and his company for piracy in 1704. So also the

principal events of his domestic career, his marriage with Mary Lynde, the daughter of Samuel Lynde, by the Reverend Benjamin Wadsworth, April 16, 1702,5 and the births of his five children are recorded and will be found in the book of marriages and the book of births.

6

Judge Washburn found traces of his work as an attorney in the records of our courts, and left upon the pages of his Judicial History of Massachusetts the following appreciation of his legal capacity: "he manifested great familiarity with legal principles as well as ability as an advocate. He is said also to have been 'an agreeable and expressive speaker.'" Mr. Goodell has collated a number of Valentine's pleas and briefs, doubtless the same as those which gave rise to Judge Washburn's favorable opinion, and they are to be found in the 1 Mass. Prov. Laws, I. 731; 2 1. 732; x. 64.

3 New Eng. Hist. and Gen. Reg., xix. 142.

4 Mass. Prov. Laws, VIII. 391.

5 Boston Rec. Com. Rep., 28. 6; 6 24. 17, 24, 88, 110, 125, the births of Samuel, Elizabeth, Thomas, Mary and Eumund.

7 Sketches, 186.

eighth volume of the Province Laws. His name occurs also in the House Journal, and is to be found in the volumes in the Province Laws devoted to resolves. He was a petitioner to the General Court, December 1, 1719,1 for an allowance for travelling expenses and to the representatives November 11, 1720,2 for an allowance for his official services as attorney general for the last two years. He is described in this last petition as "late Attorney General." He was one of the Boston citizens who received a vote of thanks from the General Court for their patriotism in taking the loan of £40,000 in aid of the Hill and Walker Expedition in 1711.4

He showed good judgment in the selection of real estate investments, for his name is associated with property on what was then known as Marlborough, but which we now call Washington Street. His will was probated in 1724 and is to be found under number 4850 Suffolk files.

A sketch of his life is to be found in "The Valentines in America," in which it is stated that the family came from Lancashire, England. This fact enables us to identify him, at least conjecturally, with the person who is represented in contemporary pamphlet entitled "Reflections upon reflections," as having interfered with the proceedings of a Boston town meeting held June 10, 1720, for the election of repre sentatives. This being the Pretender's birthday, the intruder proposed that the oaths of allegiance and abjuration should be administered to all the inhabitants of the town. The writer says, "This extremely exasperated the Town, to be challenged by such a d-D, when perhaps there are not 400 more true and loyal subjects (with humble submission to Lancashire Jack) in the King's dominions." In an advertisement appended to "A letter to an eminent clergy-man," the Postscript is alluded to as the "Lancashire Postscript." These facts, that is to say, his family coming from Lancashire and his Postscript being called the Lancashire Postscript, taken in connection with the additional fact that his name was John, seem to furnish sufficient warrant for connecting him with

6 p. 110; New Eng. Hist. and Gen. Reg., xx. 221.

7 p 10; Reprinted in Colonial Currency Reprints, Prince Soc., 11. 110 et seq.

8 p. 241 of Reprint in Colonial Currency Reprints, Prince Soc., 11. 227 et seq.

"Lancashire Jack" and with the intrusion at the town meeting. The published record of the meeting contains no reference to the disturbance.

Sewall in his Diary furnishes us with a few interesting notes. November 27, 1718, the judge speaks of him as our "new Attorney General," and records the fact that Valentine entertained the governor, the lieutenant governor and the judges at supper. If Valentine was a new attorney general in November, 1718, and if in November, 1720, as "late attorney general" he petitioned for "an allowance for services during the last two years," we have a close approximation to his term of service in that office.

Judge Sewall gives us a hint as to his convivial habits in noting his presence, January 29, 1719, at Captain Douse's, where the party drank several bowls of punch. The author of "Reflections upon reflections," the tract from which we have already quoted, speaks of him as sitting down "to blot with his detestable Scurrility, a Paper call'd the Deadham Postscript; in which posture were it not just to paint him (something as I've seen King J) with the Father of Lyes at his right hand to instigate and dictate, and an huge Bowl of exhillerating PUNCH at his left to intoxicate." Even this bitter attack is not enough for the writer. Continuing his abuse for about a page of the pamphlet, he makes in the course of it one more hint as to Valentine's habits which if it may not necessarily be accepted as true is nevertheless an infallible sign of the extent to which the man was hated. "But," says the writer after a reference to a verse in the New Testament, "what has this man to do with the Gospel? Has he ever read Psal. 50. 16, and onward? Or doth Paul give a toleration for men to be drunk, and in their Merry Cups to thresh their wives contrary to Light and Law of Nature as well as the Gospel?" If we turn to the fiftieth Psalm, the nineteenth verse being fairly representative of the sixteenth and onward will sufficiently indicate why one writing in the mood of this author should have referred Valentine to it. "Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit." It would be a relief in recording the death of Valentine, February 1, 1723-24, if we could close this melancholy story

1 5 Coll. vII. 204; 2 211.

8 p. 8, Colonial Currency Reprints, II. 114.

of rancor, hatred, and abuse with some signs of relenting on the part of his enemies, but with characteristic complacence Sewall winds up his reference to the whole matter with a contemptible and malicious thrust at the widow which was almost inhuman in its malevolence. It appears that Valentine, February 1, 1723-24, committed suicide by hanging himself in the attic of his own house. A coroner's jury returned a verdict of Non Compos. Arrangements were made for holding the funeral on Tuesday, February 4, and Sewall narrates what then took place as follows:

Persons and Bearers were invited, and the Bells Tôld as customarily at Funerals. Judge Davenport, and Col. Fitch were invited to be Bearers, and came. But when they saw Mr. Myles refused to read the Office of Burial, they ask'd excuse, and went away. Bearers were, Mr. Secretary Willard, (a titular brother) Mr. Jno. Nelson; Mr. Attorney Genl Read, Mr. Robt Auchmuty; Mr. Overing and Mr. Robinson. Four Justices were there; Mr. Secr. Willard, Mr. Daniel Oliver (a Relation of the Widow) Capt. Timo Clark, and Mr. John Ruck. Five Ministers; Mr. Benjamin Wadsworth, Mr. Thomas Foxcroft, Mr. Samuel Myles, Mr. Henry Harris, and Mr. Mosman of Marblehead, and much people. This Funeral seem'd to me as if the Widow would brave it out against the Terrible Providence of God: which caused me to insert in the News-Letter of Feb. 6.

Boston, Feb. 1, 1723.

Quid valet innumeras scire, atque evolvere causas?
Si facienda fugis, si fugienda facis.1

On the tenth of February Sewall 2 records that against the advice of Mr. Auchmuty "a fair character" of Valentine had been inserted by the widow in the "Boston Gazette," and in the "New-England Courant," and that the "Boston NewsLetter" had been paid to publish it in the number of that paper forthcoming on the thirteenth.

This made me publish Dr. Increase Mather's Sermon, which was preach'd about ten days after Merchant [William] Taylor hang'd himself with a new Snaffle Bridle. Advertisement of the sermon printed is inserted in the News-Letter March 19.

Sure enough in the News-Letter of that date we find advertised as for sale,

1 5 Coll. vII. 330; 2 331.

8 July 12, 1682,-5 Coll. v. 49.

A Call to the Tempted. A Sermon on the horrid Crime of Self Murder, Preached on a Remarkable Occasion, by the Memorable Dr. Increase Mather. And now Published from his Notes, for a Charitable Stop to suicides. Sold by Samuel Gerrish, at his Shop near the Brick Meeting-House in Corn-hill, Boston.1

Not content with seeking to deprive the poor widow of what comfort she could get from the fact that many friends stood by her in spite of the calumnious attacks in "Reflections upon reflections," and in disregard of the refusal of the Reverend Mr. Myles to read the office of burial and of the declination of the two bearers to serve at the funeral, he had inserted the ill-tempered lines in the News-Letter of the sixth, and now to offset what satisfaction she could get from the publication of the eulogistic notice in the newspapers, he had caused the Mather sermon to be published. Did he send the widow a copy? Doubtless he did.

It is but fair to the memory of Valentine that his friends should have the last inning. The notice published in the News-Letter, February 13th, 1724, read as follows:

On Tuesday the 4th instant, The Corps of John Vallentine Esq; His Majesty's Advocate General for the Provinces of the MassachusettsBay, New-Hampshire and Colony of Rhode Island, was here decently Interred: He was a Gentleman for his Knowledge & Integrity most Eminent in his Profession, Clear in his Conceptions, and Distinguishable happy in his Expressions. It pleased GOD, some short time before his Death to deprive him of these Excellent Endowments by afflicting him with a deep Melancholly which brought on the Loss of his Reason, and was the Cause of his much Lamented Death.

Hugh Vans, the author of "Some observations on the scheme projected for emitting 60,000 1." and of "An Inquiry into the nature and uses of money," was a Boston merchant of good standing, who was obviously quite facile with his pen, but who did not, like Dr. Douglass, his adversary in this controversy, gain renown from his contributions thereto. The side that he took would today prejudice the public against him and would militate against the reception by his writings of the praise to which they are entitled, for he placed himself on the side of the paper-money men. It must be said in fairness to him that the quality of his work as a controversialist 1 On Valentine, see Foote, Annals of King's Chapel.