1788, that caused to be engrafted upon the United States Constitution its guaranty of religious liberty. And further, that it was under the leadership of Patrick Henry that religious liberty has been established as a part of the fundamental law of our land.

Abstract of Dr. Channing's Paper.

Dr. Edward Channing, after some preliminary remarks illustrating the fact that society in the English North American colonies was based to a considerable extent upon aristocratic foundations, said that, in his opinion, our historical writers had laid too much stress upon the taxation difficulties as being the main, if not the only, cause of the American Revolution. He did not believe that the problem was so simple as that. Successful revolutions are not usually based on such slight foundations. Then, too, the tax was not of a kind to have been heavily felt by the people at large. And as for the principle of no taxation without representation, outside of a small coterie of leading men, it does not appear that the colonists cared much about the matter. Besides, have our writers written what was strictly true when they have taken it for granted that Chatham and Camden were right in their arguments as to the constitutionality of taxing the colonists in a parliament in which the colonists had no men to represent them who had actually been elected by their votes? There was no doubt in the speaker's mind but that Mansfield was perfectly correct in asserting that the colonists were as truly represented as the people of many parts of England itself. No! The causes of the Revolution are to be sought much deeper. So far as Massachusetts is concerned, they can be traced to the famous agreement which was signed at Cambridge, in England, before the great Puritan migration began. Prominent among the causes of the rebellion which led to our separation from the parent state was the dread, ever present to the eyes of Methodists, Baptists, and Episcopalians alike, that the Anglican hierarchy would be introduced into this country. It was natural enough that the descendants of the Massachusetts Puritans should feel so. But it was natural,

too, that the Episcopalians of Virginia should feel the same thing. They, as well as the New Englanders, preferred to manage their own affairs to suit their own wants and purses. Another most important factor in that movement was the opposition which the colonies, especially Massachusetts and Virginia, had received and were constantly receiving at the hands of the English authorities in their commercial transactions. This interference menaced the humblest artisan as well as the proudest merchant, and undoubtedly contributed materially to inducing them to oppose the home government when the time came. But in a wider sense, it seems to me that the Revolution was no mere struggle against the theory that the colonies were really colonies, and should be treated as such, and not as integral parts of the empire. It was in no inconsiderable degree a movement against the exclusive privileges enjoyed by certain classes in the colonies themselves. In other words, then, it was in great part a social movement. The cry of "no taxation without representation" was merely the issue upon which the astute politicians of that time united the colonies, and fought the battle of freedom from social, economic, and religious restraints.

Abstract of Paper by T. Jefferson Coolidge, Jr.

A valuable paper on "The Development of Municipal Government in Massachusetts" was then read by T. Jefferson Coolidge, Jr., a graduate student of Harvard University, who bore the very lineaments of the Virginia advocate of town government. The following is a résumé:

There seems to have been a very gradual change from the form of town government to that of city government in Massachusetts. The origin of our New England town government has been the subject of much controversy. We are told by one that this system is indigenous to the soil, of natural growth; by another that it is moulded on the lines of the Congregational Church; while a learned judge claims that it is the creation of the General Court. There are some who would make it of Germanic origin, and others who trace its development directly from the English parish system of 1620.

There is nothing incompatible in these various views. The English parish system, from which it seems probable our town government is derived, may be of Germanic origin. Transplanted to our soil, such a system would be greatly affected by the form of the Congregational Church government and by the condition of the early settlements of New England; while the General Court certainly defined the powers exercised by the towns.

Whatever may be the truth regarding its origin, this system took firm root, and while at first all the business of the town was transacted in open town meeting, it soon became customary to delegate certain powers to officers chosen annually. All local authority was vested in the town, and was exercised by the inhabitants assembled in the meeting-house at a regularly called town meeting, all those rated at £20 estate being entitled to a vote. An annual meeting was held in March, according to law, at which town officers were elected for the term of one year; taxes were voted and appropriations made for schools, for the support of the minister, the care of the highways and for other town expenses. Other town meetings were called by the selectmen when any important business had to be transacted, or at the request of

ten voters.

The selectmen were the principal executive officers and exercised a general oversight of the prudential affairs of the town, subject to the orders for their guidance which might have been passed at town meeting, and most of the duties which were not specially delegated to other officers were performed by them. They lacked, however, any real executive authority. The overseers of the poor, board of health, surveyors of highways, town treasurer and other officers executed their respective duties, but their fields of action were never clearly defined, and as the towns grew larger and the number of officers increased, this system became complicated, though admirably adapted to small, practical, and vigorous communities.

This form of government worked well until the population of a town became so great that all of the voters could not

deliberate in open town meeting. When the population had increased to this extent, but few of the inhabitants attended the meetings, except from interested motives, and the danger of a corrupt and inefficient government became very great. As early as 1650 there had been some conflict of authority between the town of Boston and the county officers, and the dissatisfaction caused by the dislike of the county officers, when united with the desire for a stronger executive, caused plans of incorporation for the town of Boston to be brought forward in 1708, 1762, 1784, 1785, and 1791-92. None of these plans were accepted. In 1784 one of the plans proposed provided in effect for a representative government of thirty-eight men, who should possess all the powers of the town in the administration of affairs and elect an executive officer to be called the mayor. It also increased the duties of the selectmen, to be called aldermen, while leaving to the citizens, in town meeting assembled, substantial power. The other plans show that the desire for municipal reform and for a more efficient government was steadily gaining ground.

Turning now to the special statutes which gradually effected a change in the government of Boston, we find that an act of 1799 provided for the election of a board of health in Boston, one member to be chosen by each ward. This is a most important link in the development of municipal government, as it is the first instance of the actual election of any officers by ward meetings in Massachusetts. The ward system was extended by the passage of a statute in 1802, which provided for the election by wards of twenty-four assistant assessors, who were in their turn to elect the three town assessors. This is the advanced stage of representative government. When, in 1813, the finances of the town became much confused, a committee of finance, to consist of the selectmen, overseers of the poor and board of health, was further created by special statute, and given the power of electing one person to act both as town treasurer and collector, and of superintending the finances. In 1814, when the population of Boston was not far from twenty-eight

thousand, and again in 1815, schemes for reform of the municipal government were again brought forward. There had been grave doubts in the minds of many whether the General Court possessed the authority to grant city charters, but in 1820 an amendment to the constitution of the State dispelled all these.

The

By 1821 the town form of government, though strengthened by the election of some officers in wards and of others by the representatives of the people on the several boards of officers, had become utterly inadequate for the properly carrying on of the business of a town of forty-three thousand inhabitants. Finally, on the 31st of December of that year, a plan for incorporation was recommended, which was amended and later accepted, by which the town was in future to be known as the "City of Boston." The entire administration of affairs was placed in the hands of one principal officer, the mayor; one select body of eight persons, the aldermen; and one more numerous body, the common-councilmen. The whole, in their aggregate capacity, were to be denominated the city council. common-councilmen, four from each ward, and some of the other city officers, were to be elected by wards, while the mayor, aldermen, and all State and United States officers, were to be elected at large, but to be voted for in wards. The administration of the police and the powers invested by law in the selectmen were to be exercised in future by the mayor and aldermen, while the remaining powers held by the town meeting were to be vested in the city council, which was to consist of the two boards, one the mayor and aldermen, the other the board of common-councilmen, each board sitting separately and having a negative on the other. All sittings of the common-council and the sitting of the board of aldermen for administrative business were to be public. The first charter of the "City of Boston," which was granted by the Legislature and accepted by the citizens in 1822, was modelled after this plan.

I have attempted to demonstrate that this city government was gradually developed through a series of plans