xmmmt 
 
 sag 
 
 
 
 Ssa3££ 
 
 
 S8| 
 
LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION 
 
 CONNECTED WITH THE 
 
 LAND BANK OF 1740. 
 
 BY 
 
 Andrew McFarland dayis. 
 
LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION 
 
 CONNECTED WITH THE 
 
 LAND BANK OF 1740 
 
 BY 
 
 andkew McFarland dayis. 
 
 FROM PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN 
 SOCIETY, APRIL, 1896. 
 
 WORCESTER, MASS., U. S. A. 
 PRESS OF CHARLES HAMILTON, 
 311 Main Street, 
 
 1896. 
 
^ <,^VG>Vv\ 
 
 \ c D c .U?/\ 
 
LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION CONNECTED WITH 
 THE LAND BANK OF 1740. 
 
 The Act of Parliament for restraining and preventing 
 several unwarrantable schemes and undertakings in his 
 Majesty’s Colonies and Plantations in America reached 
 Boston in July, 1741. Although the subscribers to the 
 Land Bank might have taken exception to some of the 
 statements made in the preamble to this Act, yet there 
 was no room for doubt that it was specially directed against 
 that Company and that the phrase “sundry other schemes, 
 societies, partnerships, or companies” was introduced to 
 cover the case of the Silver Bank. There is no reason to 
 suppose that Parliament could have had notice that there 
 was under discussion at that very time a plan to establish a 
 local Land Bank in Ipswich, nor that there were other 
 similar propositions in the air. It was on the 27th of March 
 that Wilks wrote: — 1 “A bill has just passed the House 
 of Commons to extend the Act commonly called the Bubble 
 Act, passed in 1720, to the plantations in America,” but 
 it was not until April 3, that Edward Eveleth and others, 
 representing the proposed Ipswich Bank, presented a 
 petition to the General Court 2 setting forth that they had 
 projected a medium of trade by bills of credit which they 
 proposed to emit, and praying for the approbation of the 
 Court. s 
 
 The subscribers to the Land Bank reluctantly accepted 
 the situation, and took such steps as relieved the Company 
 
 1 Archives, 53, 77. 
 
 2 Court Records, NXIL, 536. 
 
 2 
 
4 
 
 from possible charge of actively resisting the enforcement 
 of the Act of Parliament. There were many among them 
 who were prepared to continue operations in defiance of the 
 authorities, but the counsel prevailed of those who advised 
 winding up the Company, and measures were taken for the 
 voluntary liquidation of its affairs. The Act which had 
 compelled this proceeding, had, by its terms, rendered null 
 and void every contract made by the Company. Among 
 these, the bills which had been emitted, should, by strict 
 interpretation, have been included, yet every subscriber 
 was made liable for them in the hands of any possessor. It 
 was apparently impossible to enforce any legal process in 
 behalf of the Company, Avhile its obligations were recog¬ 
 nized as continuously existing, liability for the same hav¬ 
 ing devolved upon the individual partners. 
 
 The notes of the Company, although issued on the basis 
 of six shillings and eight pence an ounce for silver, the 
 then recognized par value of lawful money in the Province, 
 were, by their terms, not redeemable for twenty years, 
 and could then have been satisfied by the Company in 
 produce. It is obvious that these features must have 
 caused them to circulate at a discount from their nominal 
 face value, but just Avhat that discount was can not be 
 determined. Hutchinson is authority for the statement 
 that many of them were obtained by possessors at one-half 
 their expressed value. Their compulsory and immediate 
 redemption at their face value was a hardship upon the 
 subscribers, and it is upon the whole creditable that in the 
 chaotic condition of their affairs caused by the annulment 
 of all their contracts by Act of Parliament, the subscribers 
 themselves were ultimately enabled to draw in a little over 
 ninety-five per cent, of the circulation of the Land Bank. 
 It was evident, however, in the spring of 1742, that they 
 had accomplished about all that they could without aid from 
 the General Court, and that in the adjustment of the vari¬ 
 ous conflicting interests with which they were surrounded, 
 
5 
 
 legislation of some sort was absolutely necessary. When 
 this conclusion was reached, application was made to the 
 General Court for relief. 1 
 
 In August, 1741, just after the arrival in the Province 
 of the Act of Parliament, the General Court had taken the 
 matter under consideration, and had carried through to the 
 point of engrossment, “An Act to subject the bonds and 
 Mortgages given by the undertakers and their sureties in 
 the Silver and Manufactory Schemes to the payment of 
 possessors of bills.” 2 
 
 Apparently this bill was abandoned at the intercession 
 of the Land Bank Company, for in the petition for relief 
 referred to above, which was presented in March, 1742, 
 the subscribers express their gratitude that at the request 
 of the same memorialists the General Court had refrained 
 from enacting a bill which was under consideration in Sep¬ 
 tember, 1741, which bill was framed in such a manner as 
 tended to distress said Company. 
 
 The motives which led to this prolonged attempt to 
 wind up the Company without legislative interference are 
 apparent, as are also the difaculties which compelled the 
 subscribers to solicit the aid of the law-making power. 
 On the one hand, it was almost impossible to legislate with 
 reference to the Company without recognizing contracts 
 which the Act of Parliament declared invalid. On the other 
 hand, it was not easy to procure from the solvent sub¬ 
 scribers even their own proportionate contributions towards 
 closing up affairs, not to mention the fact that enough 
 must also be raised to cover delinquencies and losses 
 in trade. The Directors, from the outset, realized that if 
 subscribers would escape persecution, those who were able 
 must pay more than what seemed to be their proportionate 
 share towards the adjustment of affairs, but a committee of 
 
 1 Archives, 59, 326. 
 
 2 Court Records, 96, 99. 
 
 3 
 
6 
 
 the partners appointed at the last meeting of the Company 
 to adjust and settle the accounts of the partners, published 
 in October, 1741, in the News-Letter , a report to the effect 
 that the Directors had made an excessive assessment and 
 gave their advice to partners as to how much ought to be 
 paid. This committee was composed of three members, 
 and in the March following, two out of three concluded 
 that it was their duty to petition for the legislation neces¬ 
 sary to clear up the confusion, for which it is evident that 
 they were in part responsible. Their motives were un¬ 
 doubtedly good in thus advising partners. They believed 
 that the losses in trade were improperly distributed, but it 
 would have been better for all to have hurried through an 
 adjustment of affairs on any terms. 
 
 The result of this application in March, was the passage 
 of a resolve April 3 by the General Court for the appoint¬ 
 ment of a Joint Committee 1 with full power to wind up 
 the affairs of the Company, to pay off its indebtedness, 
 destroy the bills and distribute the proceeds. In this 
 resolve, the outstanding contracts of the Company were 
 practically recognized, and for that reason the Governor 
 withheld his consent. A second resolve, authorizing the 
 appointment of a Committee to examine and report as to the 
 amount of bills outstanding and from whom they were 
 due, so that effectual care might be taken to cause the out¬ 
 standing notes to be brought in, was passed April 23, 2 and 
 to the measure in this form the Governor consented. 
 These resolves must be those which are referred to by 
 Shirley under the phrases Order No. 1 and Order No. 2 in 
 his letter to Lord Wilmington, April 30, 1742, 3 wherein 
 he says: 
 
 ... the Assembly and Council upon the petition of 
 the worthier part of each of the late Companies pass’d 
 
 1 Archives, 59,326 et seq. 
 
 2 Archives, 102, 225. 
 
 8 Hist. MSS. Com. Report 11, Appendix, Part IV., 292. 
 
7 
 
 one of the enclosed orders No. 1, and the most earnest 
 solicitations have been made to me by the sufferers to give 
 my consent to it; but as the remedy proposed by it is at 
 the bottom founded upon the supposed subsistence of the 
 mutual agreements and contracts made at first between the 
 directors and partners of each of the Companies, which are 
 deem’d and declared by the Act of Parliament to be illegal 
 and void cib initio , I could not possibly come into it. But 
 to retrieve the sufferers and preserve the public peace and 
 quiet, so far as was in my power, I form’d and promoted 
 the inclosed order of the General Court, No. 2, which is 
 consistent with the Act, and I understand has considerably 
 alarm’d the deficient partners, and will, I hope, help to 
 make the Act of Parliament have its full effect, and draw 
 in all the outstanding Bills properly. 
 
 Two things are to be noted in connection with this first 
 effort at legislation with regard to the Land Bank : first, 
 the attempt to avoid submission to the Privy Council for 
 approval as shown through the adoption of the form of a 
 resolve in preference to an act; and second, the temper of 
 people which made it necessary that Shirley should let 
 something go through in order to preserve the public peace 
 and quiet. 
 
 May 27, a petition by Joseph Parmenter and a number 
 of others 1 was presented to the General Court, setting 
 forth that notwithstanding their speedy compliance with the 
 Act of Parliament, their estates were exposed to the 
 demands of possessors of bills, through the wilful neglect 
 of some of the partners to pay in their quotas, that 
 demands had been made upon some of the petitioners for 
 the exchange of large sums of the bills, that proceedings 
 were actually pending against some of them, and that they 
 were exposed to more and greater demands, wherefore 
 they prayed for relief. 
 
 From this, it would appear that up to this point popular 
 sympathy for those whom Shirley termed “ the sufferers,” 
 was powerful enough to protect them against the attacks of 
 i Archives, 102, 243. 
 
speculators. The time had now arrived when this was no 
 longer to be possible. The attitude of the possessors of 
 bills had already been brought to the attention of the 
 General Court, March 17, 1 in a petition in which Nathaniel 
 Martyn and several others asserted that they were pos¬ 
 sessors of considerable sums of the notes, which had been 
 discredited even before the Act of Parliament and which the 
 partners now refused to redeem. Unless assisted by the 
 General Court the petitioners alleged that they would “ be 
 obliged, though with reluctance, to proceed with and aug¬ 
 ment prosecutions against the said Partners on the said Act 
 in order to acquire their just rights.” The petition then 
 goes on to say, that “ if they are necessitated to do the 
 same, the conditions and circumstances of the Partners are 
 such as will render it absolutely necessary, and the tenor of 
 the said bills and of the said Act make it very convenient, 
 to prosecute a great number of them, and that without 
 regard to them who have satisfied their directors.” The 
 minatory character of this petition foreshadowed what was 
 to take place, and although the possessors would appear to 
 have abstained temporarily from prosecuting (heir claims, 
 in order that the General Court might signify its intentions 
 in the premises, yet towards the end of May and in the 
 early part of June a number of suits were inaugurated, 
 the name of Nathaniel Martyn, the leader of the petition, 
 figuring conspicuously as plaintiff in the suits. 
 
 It is perhaps a measure of the number of these suits that 
 were expected to be brought, that a special blank form of 
 writ was issued, which contained a declaration in a plea of 
 debt based upon the steps taken in the organization of the 
 Land Bank and the issue of the bills. 2 A number of these 
 bills, the printed declaration alleged, had been received by 
 the plaintiff at the value expressed therein, and neither the 
 defendant nor anybody else would take them from the 
 plaintiff at that value, but they rested in his hands useless, 
 i Archives, 102,210. ~~ ~ Suffolk Files, 55,507. 
 
9 
 
 whereof the defendant had notice, and so by the statute in 
 that case provided became chargeable to the plaintiff for 
 the amount named in lawful money with interest from the 
 date of said bills. The writ opened with the ordinary 
 instruction to the sheriff to attach the estate of the defend¬ 
 ant, or for want thereof to take his body. At a later date, 
 another form came into use which was a mere summons to 
 the defendant to appear. 1 There were some changes of 
 phraseology, but they were slight. 
 
 The petition of Parmenter and others was referred to a 
 Joint Committee and June 30 reports on the condition 
 of the two companies were submitted by John Jeffries. 2 
 It appears by the report on the Land Bank there were 
 then outstanding between sixteen and seventeen thousand 
 pounds of Land Bank bills, but that the returns were daily 
 coming in. The consideration of this report was postponed 
 to the next session. 3 
 
 On the 13th of September, 1742, 4 the directors peti¬ 
 tioned the Council for relief, asserting that they had done 
 their utmost to bring in and destroy the bills, but many of 
 the partners obstinately neglected and refused to aid them. 
 They therefore prayed the Board to take such steps as 
 would force the delinquents to comply with the law. The 
 Council thereupon ordered the Attorney-General to prose¬ 
 cute all such delinquent partners as should incur the pains 
 and penalties of premunire under the Act of Parliament. 5 
 In pursuance of these instructions, John Overing, Attorney- 
 General, proceeded to lodge information against some of 
 the more conspicuous of the delinquents, 6 and to prose¬ 
 cute them in the Superior Court of Judicature. As a 
 result of these proceedings, he was enabled to bring some 
 of the recalcitrants to terms. Others were able to evade 
 
 1 Suffolk Files, 59,692. a Archives, 102, 2G0, 262. 
 
 8 Court Records, —450. 
 
 3 
 
 4 Council Records, 10, 657. 8 Archives, 102, 264. 
 
 6 Suffolk Files, 56,660, 56,663, 57,190, 57,526. 
 
10 
 
 service and escape. As a whole, but little was accom¬ 
 plished by the prosecutions. 
 
 On the fifteenth of January, 1743, the General Court 
 passed to be enacted a bill entitled an Act for the more 
 speedy finishing the Land Bank or Manufactory Scheme. 1 
 The Governor in his speech on the same day alluded to this 
 act, 2 saying that while he would be glad to promote the 
 ends aimed at by the bill, it interfered with the Act of 
 Parliament and was of an extraordinary nature. Further¬ 
 more, he was obliged to submit all bills for approval before 
 signing, and by its terms this Act might have its entire 
 effect before it could be submitted. 
 
 June 18, a second bill, of the same title as the former, 
 passed both houses to be enacted. 3 June 25, the Gov¬ 
 ernor stated in his speech, that this bill must lie for 
 consideration till the next meeting, 4 as he expected to hear 
 from the Lords Commissioners of Trade. September 9, 
 he had heard nothing concerning its fate, 6 and it is evi¬ 
 dent that the bill was not approved, for on November 10 
 another bill bearing the same title passed both houses 6 to 
 be enacted, and November 12 it was ordered to be pub¬ 
 lished in the Boston Gazette. 
 
 This act was originally introduced in the house on the 
 5th of November. 7 On the 7th, Shirley transmitted a 
 copy to the Lords of Trade. 8 From the letter which 
 
 1 Court Records, NYU, oil, 617. 
 
 3 
 
 2 Court Records, NYU 621. 
 
 3 
 
 3 Court Records, NYU 74 83, 91. 
 
 4 
 
 4 Court Records, - A 11 , 118. 
 
 4 
 
 6 Court Records, NYU 128 . 
 
 4 
 
 6 Province Laws, TIL, 118, Ch. 17, 1743-44. 
 
 7 Court Records, NYU 195 . 
 
 4 
 
 8 Province Laws, HI., 138, 
 
11 
 
 accompanied this copy we can ascertain the objections to 
 the bill of June 18th. It is needless to go into detail in 
 this matter. In a general way it may be said that the 
 objections were that the powers given to the Commissioners 
 to wind up the bank were too arbitrary. The Governor 
 pointed out that though the methods employed were the 
 same, the powers conferred by the new bill upon the Com¬ 
 missioners were curtailed, and the rights of partners were 
 protected by giving them the right of appeal. Possessors 
 of bills still retained all rights conferred by the Act of 
 Parliament. 
 
 The bill was divided into eleven sections. In the first, 
 John Jeffries, Samuel Danforth and John Chandler were 
 named as Commissioners, and power was conferred upon 
 them, or any two of them, to order and adjust all the 
 affairs and business necessary for the just and equal finish¬ 
 ing of the Land Bank or Manufactory Scheme. In the 
 second section, power was given these Commissioners to 
 examine persons under oath, in order to discover concern¬ 
 ing the affairs and trade of the Company ; to get possession 
 of books, papers and writings relating to its officers; to dis¬ 
 cover its debts and credits, the quantity of bills emitted, 
 and the proportion due from directors and partners for 
 the redemption of outstanding bills. Power to assess part¬ 
 ners for their proportion of the bills of the Company was 
 conferred in the third section, and after such assessment 
 had been approved and allowed by the Great and General 
 Court, suit could be brought for the same, or the Commis¬ 
 sioners could raise the money by mortgaging in their own 
 names the estate that the partner had originally mortgaged - 
 to the Land Bank. To prevent alienations or conveyances 
 of these estates of partners, such estates were declared to 
 be bound and held for the assessments from the day of the 
 publication of the Act to the same extent as if they had 
 been attached in an ordinary suit at law. Power was given 
 the Commissioners in the fourth section to sue debtors of 
 
12 
 
 the Land Bank for money, goods, or effects, due from them 
 to the Company. The fifth section conferred upon the 
 Commissioners power to assess the losses incurred by the 
 Company in trade, and after the assessment had been 
 approved to sue for the same. 
 
 The sixth section was an allegation that none of these 
 proceedings should be held to interfere in any way with the 
 rights of possessors of bills to sue partners. By the sev¬ 
 enth section, the Commissioners were required to report at 
 the session beginning May, 1744, and any partner who felt 
 aggrieved could appeal to the courts, but to perfect his 
 right to do so was required to file his notice of appeal 
 before that session began. If any question of fact arose 
 between such partner and the Commissioners, provision 
 was made for its trial. All mortgages of lands of partners 
 made by the Commissioners were by the eighth section 
 declared to be good. All suits under this Act were to be 
 brought in the County of Suffolk. As possessors had 
 power to bring suits elsewhere, it was provided in the 
 ninth section that bills lodged in court in such suits 
 should be delivered to the Commissioners. The tenth 
 and eleventh sections relate to allowances to the Com¬ 
 missioners and to the method of filling vacancies in the 
 Commission. 
 
 A bill entitled]an Act in further addition to and expla¬ 
 nation of an Act for the more speedy finishing of the 
 Land Bank or Manufactory Scheme, was passed in Febru¬ 
 ary, 1744, 1 defining more particularly the circumstances 
 under which it was the duty of courts, laid down in the 
 ninth section of the original Act, to forward bills to the 
 Commissioners. This was not to be done unless the 
 judgments of the possessors had received full satisfaction. 
 
 On the twelfth of November, after the publication of the 
 Act for finishing the Land Bank, the General Court awarded 
 
 *Prov, lyaws, III., 133, ch, 38, 1743-44, 
 
13 
 
 the Commissioners the “ use of the room at the west end 
 of the Court House, in Boston, where the Assessors used to 
 sit.” 1 
 
 The Commissioners entered upon their duties in Novem¬ 
 ber, 1743. It was supposed that they could easily master 
 the affairs of the Company, make their assessments, and 
 report at the May session. The only right of appeal 
 vested by this Act for finishing the Land Bank in the 
 assessed partner, was dependent upon his filing a notice of 
 his intention to contest the decision of the Commissioners 
 prior to the beginning of the May session. It was not 
 until August sixteenth that the Commissioners were able 
 to report that they had made their first assessment, and this 
 was only laid upon thirty-seven of the partners who were 
 totally delinquent. If there was any object in allow¬ 
 ing the light of appeal in the original Act, it w'as essential 
 that the time should be extended, and as it was evident 
 that the time when the Commissioners could make future 
 assessments upon other classes of partners or upon the 
 subscribers as a whole, was indeterminate, it was clear 
 that some change would be required in the act to cover 
 this point for future assessments. 
 
 For the foregoing reasons the General Court passed, 
 August 18, 2 an Act in further addition to and explanation 
 of an Act for the more speedy finishing of the Land Bank 
 or Manufactory Scheme. For the assessment of August 
 sixteenth the time for appeals was extended to September 
 7, and the Commissioners were ordered to publish the 
 list in the four weekly prints called the Boston Weekly 
 Postboy, the Boston Evening Post, the Boston Gazette or 
 Weekly Journal, and the Boston Weekly Newsletter. 
 Future assessments were to be published in the same news¬ 
 papers, and fourteen days after notice by publication were 
 allowed for appeals. 
 
 The same day that this Act was published, the General 
 
 1 Archives, 50, 346. 2 Prov. Law.,, III., 172. 
 
14 
 
 Court by resolve authorized the Commissioners to receive 
 a large amount of bills then in the hands of the late direc¬ 
 tors of the Land Bank 1 and to destroy them, and they 
 were further authorized to burn such bills as they should 
 from time to time thereafter receive. 
 
 November 8 the Commissioners made a second assess¬ 
 ment, this time directed against partial delinquents, of 
 whom the names of forty-six appear in the published 
 list. On the fourth of December, Jeffries made a report 
 of his doings to the General Court. 2 
 
 The Commissioners now settled down to work. Their 
 first efforts were directed against the delinquents. A 
 special blank form of writ was printed containing a decla¬ 
 ration adapted to the case of the total delinquents who 
 were assessed on the sixteenth of August. 3 The setting 
 up of the Bank by the defendant and many others, the 
 issue of the bills, the abandonment of the scheme, the 
 redemption of their proportionate shares by many of the 
 subscribers and the neglect of others, were alleged in due 
 form. The passage of the Act for finishing the scheme, 
 and the power given the Commissioners under the Act to 
 sue for assessments; the fact that an assessment was laid 
 in August, of which the defendant had paid no part; the 
 further fact that this assessment had been approved by the 
 General Court; the notice by publication in accordance 
 with the Act; the failure of the defendant to give notice of 
 intention to appeal: and finally his failure to pay the assess¬ 
 ment when demand upon him was made,—were also formally 
 asserted. Xhe instructions to the sheriff were to summon 
 the defendant to appear. 
 
 Another writ was printed containing a declaration 
 
 1 Court Records, 494 . 
 
 4 
 
 8 Court Records, ~II, 562. 
 ‘Suffolk Files, 59,480. 
 
15 
 
 adapted to the case of those assessed November eighth. 1 
 The sheriff’ was instructed to attach the property of the 
 defendant or arrest his person in a suit at the hands of 0 
 the Commissioners/ appointed pursuant to an Act of the J 
 General Court to finish the Land Bank or Manufactory 
 scheme. Then followed an allegation of the responsibility 
 of subscribers to possessors under the Act of Parliament, 
 whereby in equity and according to their mutual covenants, 
 they were severally obliged to pay their ratable parts for 
 the redemption of outstanding bills. The ratable parts 
 of the several subscribers, the Commissioners, under the 
 authority conferred upon them by the General Court, had 
 assessed upon the partners, whereof the defendant was 
 one, on the eighth of November, and in that assessment 
 the defendant was assessed. Notice had been given by 
 publication, report had been made to the General Court, 
 and the proceedings had been approved, and the defendant 
 thereby became chargeable for the assessed sum and had 
 not paid the same. 
 
 The number of total delinquents assessed in August was 
 thirty-si*, and the number included in the assessment of S 
 November was forty-seven. It is evident, from the use of 
 the summons to the defendant in the form for suits under 
 the August assessment, that the Commissioners feared that 
 the bodies of the defendants would be all that the sheriffs 
 could produce in response to instructions to attach and 
 arrest, and that the custody of these would not in their 
 opinion advance the redemption of Land Bank notes. 
 
 They, perhaps, hoped for some results from, suits against 
 those assessed in November, and waited a little over a year 
 before taking any other steps towards levying assessments. 
 
 On the 27th of December, 1745, however, they levied a ten 
 per cent, assessment upon all subscribers, including therein 
 those against whom assessments had already been made, 
 
 Suffolk Files, 59,757. 
 
16 
 
 and in due course of time thereafter sought to enforce 
 collection of this assessment through the courts. 
 
 The first special blank form of writ that appears uppn 
 the files in connection with this assessment is addressed 
 directly to the defendant, 1 summoning him to appear, and 
 in the final clause is a statement that his goods have been 
 attached. He is summoned to answer the Commissioners 
 in a plea of debt, the claim being based upon an assessment 
 laid under authority of the General Court, December 27, 
 1745, against subscribers for their ratable parts for the 
 redemption of outstanding bills. Notice by publication is 
 alleged, and the approval, February 7th, of the assessment 
 by the General Court. Payment of the same, it is stated, 
 has not been made by the defendant. 
 
 Another special blank was used which was addressed to 
 the sheriff in the ordinary way, and contained the usual 
 order to attach or arrest. 3 It contained allegations similar 
 in substance to those of the next preceding form. 
 
 During the year 1746, the Commissioners were busy 
 seeking to enforce the collection of their assessment of 
 December, 1745. The tedious nature of the proceedings, 
 and the general resistance which they met with, made The 
 results costly and unproductive. At a later date one of 
 the Commissioners reported that their work at this time 
 tended rather to increase than diminish the debt of the 
 Company. 3 To add to their embarrassment, and to in¬ 
 crease the confusion of their affairs, their books and papers 
 were burned when the town-house was destroyed by fire in 
 1747. 
 
 It is not strange that we find that the General Court was 
 made uneasy by this condition of affairs. All the original 
 evidence, by means of which subscribers could be held, 
 was gone. An order was introduced in the General Court 
 in September, 1747, for .a Joint Committee to consider and 
 
 1 Suffolk Files, 61, 078. 
 
 2 Suffolk Files, 61.678. 
 
 8 Danfortli’s Report, Archives, 104, 324. 
 
17 
 
 report what was necessary to be done for the further relief 
 of those persons who were concerned in the Land Bank 
 scheme, 1 but it does not appear that this Committee ever 
 acted. In April, 1748, the Commissioners were called 
 upon to make a report at the May session. 2 This they 
 did on the 22d of June, 3 stating that they were careful to 
 keep an exact and minute account, not only of the several 
 sums paid in by the partners and of the species in which 
 payments were made, but also of the disbursements for 
 purchasing and drawing in the Company’s bills, and of the 
 charges occasioned by the law suits, and otherwise. But 
 as the books and papers containing all their entries and 
 accounts were unhappily consumed with the court-house by 
 fire, and the knowledge of many things transacted, thereby 
 put beyond all possibility of being recovered, and there 
 being no way that they knew of except by sight of the 
 receipts given by the Commissioners to the partners, to 
 ascertain what had been paid, they had given notice to 
 partners to produce their receipts. Not more than one in 
 a hundred had been brought in up to that time. They 
 were therefore incapable of making the report which they 
 were called upon to furnish. A Committee was thereupon 
 appointed to consider the affair. 
 
 November 11, 1748, a bill was introduced the purpose 
 of which was to overcome the difficulties in the way of 
 settling the Land Bank, occasioned by the loss of the 
 books and papers of the Commissioners, and January 3 the 
 Governor gave his consent to the bill. 4 The preamble 
 recites the great difficulties experienced by the Commis¬ 
 sioners, more especially those occasioned by the destruction 
 of the books of the Company and of the Commissioners in 
 the late burning of the court-house in Boston. 
 
 The first section of the act provides that the Commis¬ 
 sioners shall as soon as may be make an assessment on 
 
 i Court Records, XVIII., 223. 
 * Court Records, XVIII., 341. 
 
 8 Archives, 102, 382. 
 
 * Prov. Laws, III. 442, Ch. 16, 1T4S-9. 
 
18 
 
 those persons mentioned in a list printed in the supplement 
 of the Boston Gazette , 1745, which list is declared to con¬ 
 tain a true and exact account of the partners in said Land 
 Bank scheme. The assessment was to be adequate to re¬ 
 deem outstanding bills, to make good deficiencies, and to 
 cover expenses. Receipts for payment on the previous 
 assessment should be received as money by the Commis¬ 
 sioners pro tanlo. The assessment was to be printed in the 
 weekly newspapers sixty days before its presentation to the 
 General Court, after which publication the approval of the 
 Court was required. The Commissioners could issue their 
 warrants of distress against partners who failed to pay 
 such assessment within sixty days after approval by the 
 General Court. The form of the warrant of distress was 
 then given. 
 
 Sheriffs, coroners and constables were required in sec¬ 
 tion two to execute the warrants, and in section three 
 instruction was given them as to the liability of the estates 
 of deceased persons, who if living and in the prov¬ 
 ince would have been compelled to respond. By section 
 four, the Commissioners were to divide any surplus that 
 they might Collect among the partners. Section five pro¬ 
 vided for meetings of the Commissioners, and section six 
 conferred upon them power to demand and receive papers. 
 
 The warrant of distress, which the Commissioners were 
 by this act authorized to issue against delinquents, opened 
 with a recital of the names of the Commissioners and their 
 title. It was addressed to the sheriff, and proceeded to 
 rehearse in detail the authority under which it was issued 
 and the several facts that constituted a technical compliance 
 with the Act, so that the responsibility of the defendant 
 became thereby fixed. It then proceeded to require the 
 officer to levy by distress upon the property of the defend¬ 
 ant, giving detailed instructions as to surpluses and re¬ 
 demptions. It was evident that the Commissioners expected 
 through the agency of these warrants to overcome the 
 
19 
 
 obstacles which had hitherto prevented them from closing 
 up the Company. They proceeded therefore in a hopeful 
 mood to make an assessment, and at some time in the year 
 1749, submitted it to the General Court. The fact that 
 such an assessment was made, appears from a report of one 
 of the Commissioners, 1 who says, that some of the partners 
 not being satisfied with it, prevailed on one branch of the 
 General Assembly to withhold its approval, and the whole 
 assessment thereby became invalid. Apparently no effort 
 was made to substitute any other assessment for the one 
 which failed of approval, and as this approval lay at the 
 basis of all proceedings under the Act, the legislation of 
 1749 fell to the ground. 
 
 During this interval John Colman brought suit against 
 the directors for a large sum, which he alleged to be due 
 him from the Company. He was defeated in the Inferior 
 Court, appealed, and the judgment was affirmed. 2 
 
 In 1750, a petition of some of the partners was pre¬ 
 sented to the General Court for consideration. It was 
 doubtless the outcome of this assessment. It was headed 
 by John Brown, and was devoted to an arraignment of the 
 directors of the Land Bank. We first hear of it April 
 4, 3 when the House came up to the Council Chamber, 
 and the hearing was opened in the presence of the whole 
 Court. On the tenth and eleventh of the same month the 
 hearing was concluded in the same manner. 4 A Committee 
 was then appointed 5 to consider and report, and on the 
 11th of October 6 John Quincy gave in the report of that 
 Committee, which was in effect an order that the Commis¬ 
 sioners submit some sort of a report, indicating as best 
 they could the condition of the affairs of the Bank. 
 This report was accepted, and in response to the order 
 
 1 Danfortk’s Report, Archives, 104, 324. 
 
 2 Suffolk Files, 66,842. 
 
 8 Court Records, XIX., 152,153. 
 
 4 Ibid., XIX., 163,164. 
 6 Ibid., XIX., 168, 202. 
 8 Ibid., XIX., 244. 
 
20 
 
 the Commissioners on the 15th of January, 1751, 1 filed 
 an account of the state of affairs of the Company accord¬ 
 ing to their best light. This report was referred to 
 the Committee appointed to consider the petition of John 
 Brown and others. On the 27th, 2 the House, where 
 evidently was lodged the strength of the petitioners, 
 showed signs of impatience, and voted that this com¬ 
 mittee be directed to sit forthwith and report as soon 
 as may be. Again, on Februuary 21, 3 the House voted 
 that the accounts of the Commissioners, the accounts of 
 the directors as a collective body, and the accounts of 
 delinquent partners, should be referred to a Committee, 
 which should adjust and settle them and report thereon the 
 first day of the next session of the Court. The Council 
 non-concurred, and voted that a conference should be had 
 between the two houses, and that John Quincy should 
 represent the board at the conference. This conference 
 was held the same afternoon, after which the Council 
 adhered to their original vote with amendments and sent it 
 down to the House. Finally, both houses agreed on the 
 22d 4 upon a form defining the powers of a Committee to 
 examine the question of the liability of the directors. This 
 Committee was to examine and make strict inquiries into 
 any moneys or other effects that might have been received 
 by the directors of the Land Bank Company jointly and 
 distinct from any money or effects with which they stood 
 charged in their particular accounts. The accounts of the 
 Commissioners were also referred to them, and they were 
 to sit during the recess of the Court. On the 17th of 
 April, 1751, John Wheelwright, in behalf of this Commit¬ 
 tee, reported, 5 giving in detail the amounts which were 
 found to be due to the Company from the several directors, 
 which amounts it was said the directors and the heirs of 
 
 1 Court Records, XIX., 257. « Ibid., XIX273. « Ibid., XIX., 301, 302. 
 
 4 Ibid., XIX., 304. Archives, 102, 565. 
 
 6 Archives, 102, 590. Court Records, XIX., 330. 
 
21 
 
 deceased directors ought forthwith to pay to the Company. 
 The Committee were further of the opinion that the pro¬ 
 portionate share of a director for the finishing of the affairs 
 of the Land Bank, was in addition to the foregoing 
 amounts, forty pounds. They recommended the enforce¬ 
 ment of assessments already laid, and the levying of 
 another, if necessary. To accomplish this they recom¬ 
 mended the passage of a new Act. The report was read, 
 accepted and a Committee appointed, April 19, 1 to bring 
 in a bill to accomplish these purposes. On the 24th such 
 a bill, having been duly enacted, met with the approval of 
 the Lieutenant-Governor. 
 
 The preamble to this Act recites the assessments of 
 August 21, 1744, November 8, 1744, and December 27, 
 1745, and their publication. 2 It states the impossibility 
 of ascertaining the exact sums paid by individual partners, 
 in consequence of the burning of the court-house, in any 
 other way than from evidence to be furnished by the part¬ 
 ners themselves; and then goes on in the first section to 
 declare that the partners are held to be liable for the pay¬ 
 ment of the sums mentioned in the publications of said 
 assessments, unless they can furnish evidence of payment. 
 Six per cent, interest was to be collected on all the assess¬ 
 ments, and in order to meet charges caused by the non¬ 
 payment of assessments, ten per cent, was added to the 
 assessments of August and November, 1744, and five per 
 cent, to that of December, 1745. In section two the 
 directors were declared to be liable for the sums found 
 to be due from them in Wheelwright’s report, and the 
 surviving directors and the estates of deceased directors 
 were each assessed forty pounds Land Bank money. By 
 section three these sums were to be paid before August 
 1, 1751, and if not then paid, the Commissioners were 
 required forthwith to issue their warrants of distress, and 
 
 i Archives, 102, 600. 
 
 2 Prov. Laws, III., 551, Ch. 23,1750-1. 
 
22 
 
 this notwithstanding there might be outstanding unsatisfied 
 judgments of the courts theretofore obtained. The form of 
 the warrant was given. Section four is devoted to the 
 setting forth of the officers who were empowered and 
 required to execute the warrants, and to instructions in 
 case the assessed partners were deceased or out of the 
 province. Three months were allowed for the redemption 
 of real estate. 
 
 Under section five the Commissioners were authorized 
 to make further assessments if it should become necessary. 
 Such assessments were to be published, according to section 
 six, in the Boston Gazette or Weekly Journal. Sixty days 
 were allowed after publication for voluntary payment, and 
 then the Commissioners were required, unless the assess¬ 
 ment had in the meantime been set aside by the General 
 Court, to issue forthwith their warrants of distress. 
 
 It is then alleged that in a previous Act the estates of 
 partners were, after the publication of the assessment, held 
 in the same manner as if they had been attached at the 
 suit of a creditor. By the seventh section all lands which 
 were bound by this clause, no matter in whose possession 
 they might then be, were declared to be still subject to the 
 payment of the assessment, and liable to be taken by dis¬ 
 tress. As soon as the Commissioners should have collected 
 enough to redeem the outstanding bills, they were to give 
 public notice of a time and place at which they would 
 attend to redeem bills. Such public notice was declared 
 to be a legal tender to possessors of bills. 
 
 The warrant of distress provided for in this Act was 
 to be issued over the hands and seals of the Commission¬ 
 ers. The form was addressed to the sheriff. It recited the 
 authority conferred in the act itself, and required the 
 sheriff to levy by distress and sale of the estate of the 
 defendant a certain sum, and bring the same to the Com¬ 
 missioners. If no estate could bo found, the sheriff was to 
 arrest the defendant and commit him to gaol until the 
 
23 
 
 same should be paid. If real estate was attached three 
 months were allowed for redemption. The return was to 
 be made to the registry of deeds for record. 
 
 The Governor had refused consent to the first attempt at 
 legislation directed towards closing the Land Bank, because 
 the Company was too plainly recognized. He had refused 
 consent to the first Act prepared for finishing the Land 
 Bank, because it was too arbitrary. Ten years had elapsed 
 since the arrival of the Act of Parliament, and beyond 
 what had been accomplished by the Company itself, little 
 progress had been made towards closing the affairs of the 
 Company. With the law which was passed in 1751, the 
 Commissioners could easily have wound up the Bank in 
 1743. It remained to be seen what could be done with 
 such a law now. The Commissioners had a warrant of 
 distress printed, 1 following the phraseology prescribed by 
 the Act, and at once proceeded to test this question. 
 
 The delinquents had, however, in many instances taken 
 steps to protect their property as best they could, and 
 they had learned that this hasty legislation was full of flaws. 
 In the country it was difficult to procure service of the 
 warrants, and many of them were returned years after 
 their issue without service. 2 “ He is out of the Province ” ; 
 “Cannot find estate”; “Dead, insolvent”; “ Is dead, sold 
 his estate in season, and was insolvent”; “Never lived in 
 Worcester, but in Woodstock, and no estate can be come 
 at” ; “Sold in season, gone to Albany” ; “Sold in season, 
 died and left no estate”; and so on, with an occasional 
 “ paid formerly” by way of variation, such are the returns 
 made to these warrants of distress. 3 
 
 In 1752, Sheriff Pollard, of Suffolk County, in a memo¬ 
 rial, 1 addressed to the General Court, stated that as far as 
 lay in his power he had levied the warrants of distress and 
 had exposed the estates for sale, but by reason of a sup- 
 
 1 Suffolk Files, 6S,419. s Suffolk Files, G8,419, et seq. 
 
 2 Jieport of Danforth, Archives, 104, 324. 4 Archives, 103, 44. 
 
24 
 
 posed defect in the law, which did not in express words 
 enable the sheriff to execute a conveyance with warrantee, 
 those persons who had been inclined to bid at such sales 
 were discouraged from so doing. Whereupon the memo¬ 
 rialist felt it to be his duty to lay these facts before the 
 Court. 
 
 The Council on the 14th of December, 1752, 1 ordered 
 the appointment of a committee to take the matter of the 
 memorial under consideration and to report a bill. The 
 House non-concurred on the 15th, and ordered the memo¬ 
 rial dismissed. On the 23d the House reconsidered this 
 action, concurred with the Council and filled the Com¬ 
 mittee. January 3, 1753, 2 the bill was reported to 
 the Council, and passed to be engrossed. April 7, the 
 House ordered the Committee appointed December 23 to 
 prepare a bill as soon as may be. 3 On the 9th the Coun¬ 
 cil concurred in this order. On the 12th this Committee 
 was ordered by concurrent vote to sit forthwith and report 
 thereon as soon as may be. 4 
 
 On the 19th of June, a Committee of the General Court 
 was appointed 5 to inspect and examine the accounts of the 
 Commissioners, and to report at the next sitting of the 
 Court the present state of the aceouuts and what they judge 
 proper to be done thereon. 
 
 December 21, 1753, 6 an Act in further addition to the 
 several laws in being for the more speedy finishing the 
 Land Bank and Manufactory Scheme was passed by the 
 Council to be engrossed. January 21, 1754, 7 the House 
 passed an order that a Joint Committee prepare a bill 
 for this purpose, and the Council concurred in this order. 
 April 13,® such a bill was reported in the Council and 
 read a first time. On the 19th it was passed 9 in concur- 
 
 1 Archives, 103, 44. 
 
 0 Court Records, XX., 127. 
 
 2 CourJ Records, XIX., 523. 
 
 8 Archives, 103, 99. 
 
 4 Court Records, XX., 10, 21. 
 
 6 Archives, 103,151. 
 
 7 Ibid., XX., 177. 
 
 8 Ibid., XX., 220. 
 
 9 Ibid., XX., 231. 
 
25 
 
 rence to be engrossed, and the same day the vote was 
 reconsidered and the Council non-concurred. February 
 19, 1755, 1 the bill was revived, and on the 21st and 22d 
 read a first and second time in the Council, and with an 
 amendment was passed to be engrossed. 2 On the 25th, 
 the House passed the bill a first, second and third time in 
 concurrence, 3 and on the 27th this bill became a law. 4 
 
 The bill opens with the allegation that further provision 
 is necessary to be made with regard to the sale of real 
 estate of delinquents. The first section is retroactive in 
 certain cases, as well as applicable to the future, and pro¬ 
 vides that if after levy on the real estate of a partner for a 
 sum assessed upon him, the sheriff shall obtain from the 
 register of deeds a certificate that prior to October, 1743, 
 the said partner had not conveyed the estate to any other 
 person, he shall be authorized and empowered after the 
 time allowed for redemptions shall have elapsed to execute 
 a warrantee deed to the purchaser. Section two gave to 
 claimants the right to bring suit within one year from the 
 date of the conveyance by the sheriff, and in the meantime 
 such claimants were barred from any action of trespass or 
 ejectment. Provision was made for the case of absence 
 from the province or the legal incapacity of a claimant. 
 
 By the third section, the estates of all partners were 
 made liable for the costs and charges which might arise 
 from such conveyance. By the fourth section, an attested 
 copy of a Land Bank mortgage was made good evidence 
 in any suit upon such mortgage. By section five the 
 powers of Commissioners, conferred by previous legisla¬ 
 tion, were declared not to be abridged by this Act. The 
 most curious feature of this Act is the recognition of the 
 mortgages given to the Land Bank. 
 
 On the 10th of March, 1758, 5 John Jeffries and Samuel 
 
 1 Archives, 103, 235. 4 Prov. Laws, III., 802, Ch. 24,1754-5; 
 
 « Court Records, XX., 412, 416. 6 Court Records, XXII., 249. 
 
 8 Archives, 103, 307. 
 
26 
 
 Danforth, two of the Commissioners, presented a petition 
 to the General Court for a lottery as the most likely 
 method for the speedy and effectual redemption of the 
 bills still outstanding. This petition was referred to a 
 Joint Committee. On the 18th, 1 this Committee reported 
 that in their judgment it would be expedient to find out 
 more exactly the value of the outstanding bills before 
 taking any new steps towards their redemption. They 
 further recommended that possessors should be required 
 to bring in Land Bank bills to the Commissioners within 
 a limited time; that the Commissioners should be re¬ 
 quired to mark bills thus submitted, so that they could 
 be distinguished, and then return them to the owners; 
 that a date ought to be fixed, after which it ought to be 
 made a penal offence to pass any of the bills which had not 
 been submitted to the Commissioners; that a lottery at 
 present was undesirable. 
 
 The report was accepted and a Committee was appointed 
 to prepare a bill in accordance with its suggestions. Such 
 a bill was introduced and passed, and became a law March 
 27, 1758. 2 
 
 Meantime the Commissioners were proceeding as best 
 they could with the work of collecting the sums due from 
 partners and directors. The character of the opposition 
 which they met with is sufficiently indicated in the following 
 extract from the News-Letter of August 24, 1758 :— 
 
 To be sold at Public Auction at the Exchange Tavern in 
 Boston TO-MORROW at NOON The Dwelling-House, 
 Malt-House, and other Buildings, with the Garden and 
 Land adjoining, and the Wharf, Dock and Flatts before 
 the same, being Part of the Estate of the late Samuel 
 Adams Esq. deceas’d, and is situate near Bull-Wharf, at 
 the lower end of Summer-Street in Boston aforesaid, the 
 said Estate being taken by Warrant or Execution under 
 the Hands and Seals of the Honourable Commissioners 
 
 1 XXII., 264. 
 
 ft ^ La.cri 2 1Y., T4, Ch. 28,1757-8. 
 
27 
 
 for the more speedy finishing the Land-Bank or Manu¬ 
 factory Scheme. 
 
 The Plan of the Ground and the Terms of Payment 
 may be known by enquiring of 
 
 STEPHEN GREENLEAF. 
 
 To Stephen Greenleaf, Esq. ; 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I observe your Advertisement for the Sale of the 
 Estate of Samuel Adams, Esq. Director of the late Land 
 
 Bank Company-Your Predecessor Col. Pollard, had the 
 
 same Affair in Hand five Years before his Death, but with 
 all his Known Firmness of Mind, he never brought the 
 Matter to any Conclusion, and his Precept, I am told, is not 
 
 returned to this Day.-The Reason was—He, as well as 
 
 myself, was advis’d, by Gentlemen of the Law, that his 
 Proceeding was illegal and unwarrantable ; and therefore 
 he very prudently declined entering so far into this Affair 
 
 as to subject his own Estate to Danger.-How far your 
 
 Determination may lead you, you Know better than I.- 
 
 I would only beg leave, with Freedom, to assure you, that 
 I am advis’d and determined to prosecute in the Law, any 
 Person whomsoever who shall trespass upon that Estate; 
 and remain, Your humble servant 
 
 August 16, 1758. SAMUEL ADAMS. 
 
 In January, 1759, two of the partners, against whom 
 executions had been obtained by possessors, petitioned the 
 General Court for relief. 1 They were George Leonard, 
 of Norton, who had been sued by James Otis, and Benja¬ 
 min Jacob, of Scituate, who had been sued by Robert 
 Treat Paine. The matter was referred to a Committee. 
 
 The examination of the outstanding bills in the hands 
 of “possessors” so-called, revealed the fact that they 
 amounted to less than one thousand pounds. No assess¬ 
 ment had been laid, which had been permitted to stand, 
 since December, 1745. The original Commission ap¬ 
 pointed in 1743 was composed of John Jeffries, Samuel 
 Danforth, and John Chandler. The latter lived in 
 Worcester, and very soon after the organization of the 
 
 i Archives, 103, 681, 683. 
 
28 
 
 Commission resigned. In the Spring of 1759, Jeffries 
 resigned, and it became necessary to reorganize the Com¬ 
 mission. To accomplish this a new act was passed, in the 
 preamble of which the various difficulties which had pre¬ 
 vented the Commissioners from closing the affair were 
 rehearsed, and the statement was made that the amount of 
 bills then outstanding was nine hundred and ninety-five 
 pounds. 1 
 
 The new Commission was composed of Thomas Gold- 
 thwait, Nathaniel Hatch, and Samuel Danforth, who were 
 instructed in Section one to make an assessment of three 
 thousand pounds, on such of the persons whose names were 
 given in the published list in the supplement of the Boston 
 Gazette , 1745, then living in the province, as they should 
 judge of ability to pay the assessment. The assessment 
 was to be published, and thirty days after publication was 
 given for payment. Then the Commissioners were to 
 issue executions against the estates of delinquents, and the 
 form of the execution was given. 
 
 Section two of the Act was devoted to the redemption of 
 bills. In section three authority was given the Commission¬ 
 ers to call sherifl’s to account who neglect to serve warrants. 
 Section four provided for a second assessment upon those 
 whose names were not included in the first assessment. 
 Section five gave the Commissioners power to dispose at 
 private sale of seized estates under certain circumstances. 
 Section six related to sessions of the Commissioners. Sec¬ 
 tion seven was devoted to the protection of sheriffs. Per¬ 
 sons who should purchase lands at the sales were debarred 
 from bringing actions for damages against them. 
 
 In October, 1759, 2 the Council passed an order calling 
 on town clerks and assessors to furnish certain information 
 relative to partners, but the House non-concurred. 
 
 1 Prov. Laws, IV., 1S9, Ch. 20,1758-59. 
 a Court Records, XXIII., 60. 
 
29 
 
 January 4, 1760/ a number of the directors and partners 
 petitioned for a lottery in aid of the Land Bank, setting 
 forth that the difficulties in the way of a fair adjustment of 
 matters had always been great, and that the various vicissi¬ 
 tudes which the Company and the Commissioners had ex¬ 
 perienced had so complicated affairs that relief of some sort 
 was necessary. This petition was referred to a Committee 
 which reported favorably on the 8th of February, 2 and 
 submitted a draught of an act authorizing a lottery. The 
 selectmen of the town of Boston were named as managers. 
 
 In the preamble to this Act, which was passed February 
 13, 1760, 3 one reason alleged for permitting its passage 
 was that a final period to the affairs of the Land Bank 
 Company might be reached, and a stop put to the frequent 
 applications to the Court in relation thereto, whereby the 
 public affairs of the Province had been greatly interrupted. 
 The managers were authorized to raise thirty-five hundred 
 pounds by one or more lotteries. Details as to the methods 
 of selling the tickets, carrying on the drawings and dis¬ 
 posing of the money, were prescribed. The whole thing 
 was to be completed within eighteen months from March 
 1, 1760. Instructions were given the Commissioners as to 
 the application of the moneys which might be paid over to 
 them by the managers, and they were directed during the 
 term limited for finishing the lottery to forbear issuing any 
 assessment. 
 
 The managers proceeded to carry out the lottery as best 
 they could. Lotteries had been a favorite method of 
 raising money for purposes which could not command 
 pecuniary support, but just then were rather heavy on the 
 market. The tickets were divided into three classes, and 
 the drawings were to take place at different periods. As 
 early as June, 1760, 4 doubts arose whether the work of the 
 
 1 Archives, 103, 439. 
 
 2 Court Records, XXIII., 221. 
 
 a Prov. Laws, IV., 288, Ch. 25, 1759-60. 
 
 4 Archives, 104r-5. Court Records, XXIII., 393. 
 
30 
 
 managers would not be wasted unless the Company itself 
 could step in at the end and take in its own name the un¬ 
 sold tickets offered for a particular drawing. On the 
 twelfth of June a resolve was introduced in the House, giv¬ 
 ing the Commissioners the power to take in behalf of the 
 Company, at its risk and for its profit, unsold balances of 
 tickets in the hands of the managers, provided the number 
 of tickets thus taken did not exceed in value the net pro¬ 
 ceeds of those of the same class which had been sold. This 
 resolve passed the House, and was duly concurred in by the 
 Council. 
 
 When the eighteen months given for finishing the lottery 
 had expired, there still remained in the hands of the man¬ 
 agers about one-half the tickets of the third class. A 
 resolve was therefore introduced in the House, 1 extend¬ 
 ing the time for the completion of the lottery for six months 
 from December 1, 1761. This was duly passed, was 
 concurred in by the Council, and consented to by the 
 Governor. 
 
 This extension to the time for finishing the lottery 
 expired June 1, 1762. The managers then represented 
 that they still had a number of tickets unsold and that they 
 could not finish the class they then had in hand, unless 
 further time was given them. The first step taken was to 
 pass in concurrence a resolution granting the request of the 
 managers. 9 This was on the third of June. It evidently 
 occurred to some of those interested that they had permitted 
 the Act to expire before they had passed this resolve. A 
 bill was therefore introduced reviving the former Act, and 
 extending the date for finishing the work until December 1, 
 1762. 3 This became a law June 12. 
 
 In the preamble to this Act it is stated that classes one 
 and two had been drawn, and the greater part of the 
 tickets for class three had already been sold. 
 
 1 Court Records, XXIV., 13S-9. 
 
 2 Court Records, XXIV., 399. 
 
 8 Prov. Laws, IV., 588, Ch. 11, 1762-63. 
 
31 
 
 On the ninth of September, 1762, 1 the managers again 
 petitioned the General Court. Notwithstanding their best 
 efforts, they still had on hand about thirteen hundred tick¬ 
 ets. Under the authority given them the greatest number 
 that they could place to the Company’s account was about 
 seven hundred. They must either abandon the proposed 
 drawing or take the risk themselves. The postponement 
 of the drawing would raise a general clamor. It was 
 unreasonable to expect them as individuals to take any 
 risk. They therefore asked for relief. 
 
 In response to this petition, it was voted and ordered 
 that the drawing of the third class be postponed until 
 Tuesday, the 28th of September, current. 2 That in the 
 meantime the managers use their best endeavors to sell the 
 rest of the tickets, and what should then remain unsold 
 should be at the risk and profit of the Company. In case 
 it should result in loss, the Commissioners were authorized 
 “ to hire y e money on Interest to defray such deficiency to 
 enable y e managers to pay off y° benefitt tickets.” Author¬ 
 ity was also given the Commissioners to assess the partners 
 for the sum so deficient. 
 
 The lottery ultimately netted the Commissioners the sum 
 £556. 15s. 6d., 3 less than a sixth of the sum authorized 
 to be raised, and not enough to provide for the redemption 
 of the bills. It became the duty of the second Commission 
 to levy an assessment, and to collect the same. 
 
 On the eighth of September, 1763, they levied such an 
 assessment on those of the partners living in the Province 
 whom they judged able to pay, and after publication 
 according to the terms of the Act, proceeded to issue their 
 executions in the form prescribed by the Act. A special 
 blank was printed for the purpose following the language of 
 the Act. 4 
 
 1 Archives, 104, 235. 
 
 2 Archives, 104, 237. 
 
 8 Archives, 104,452. Report of Edward Sheaffe. 
 
 4 Suffolk Files, 83,620-1. 
 
32 
 
 The outstanding bills now carried with them over twenty 
 years’ interest, and the Company was weighted down with 
 the charges of these tedious and expensive proceedings. 
 The greater part of the first assessment laid by the second 
 Commission was readily collected, but when they proceeded 
 to carry out the instructions given them in the Act and levy 
 a second assessment upon the estates of those omitted in 
 the first assessment, so as to raise money to refund those 
 who had overpaid ; to relieve those who had been compelled 
 by possessors to redeem bills; and to defray charges, they 
 experienced the same trouble as that which blocked the 
 way of the assessment in 1749, and the Commissioners 
 found themselves for the time powerless to do more. 
 
 June 15, 1764, 1 John Jewell and others, late partners, 
 represented to the General Court, that in 1745 they had 
 been assessed enough to redeem all outstanding bills, after 
 which a lottery was granted, and since then a further 
 assessment had been laid. That they had expected to bo 
 reimbursed instead of assessed, and they prayed for repre¬ 
 sentation on a Committee which should examine, audit, and 
 adjust the Commissioners’ accounts. The House voted to 
 grant the prayer of the petitioners, but the Sonnt -c non- 
 concurred. 
 
 March 6, 1765, 2 Samuel Danforth, in behalf of him¬ 
 self and of the other Commissioners, submitted a nar¬ 
 rative account of the various proceedings that had taken 
 place in their efforts to adjust the affairs of the bank, the 
 opposition they had met with, and the effect that it had 
 produced. In the course of this narrative he uses language 
 from which it may be inferred that the first assessment of 
 the second Commission provided money enough to redeem 
 all the outstanding bills. The second assessment was how¬ 
 ever resisted, and he prayed that the General Court would 
 examine into affairs, make a reasonable allowance for the 
 
 1 Court Records, XXIV., 2G6. 
 
 2 Court Records, XXV., 418. Archives, 104, 324. 
 
33 
 
 services of the Commission, and consider whether anything 
 further could be done. This memorial was referred to a 
 Joint Committee, which was afterwards authorized to sit in 
 the recess of the Court and report at the next session. 
 
 If there was anything to be learned from the experiences 
 of the Commissioners it was that there was no possi¬ 
 bility of collecting the amounts still delinquent upon the 
 assessments of 1744 and 1745. June 21, 1 the Committee 
 apparently asked for more time, and they were then 
 instructed to sit during the recess of the Court and report 
 at the next session, and an order to that effect was passed. 
 
 January 30, 1766, the Committee to which Danforth’s 
 memorial was referred 2 reported that large amounts were 
 delinquent on the old assessments, and that it was the first 
 duty of the Commissioners to collect these amounts and also 
 what was found in 1751 to be due from the directors. 
 Meantime the last two assessments ought to be suspended. 
 The Commissioners were also called upon to submit as full 
 and clear a statement of the affairs of the Land Bank as the 
 present circumstances would permit, to the General Court 
 at their May session, 1766. This report was accepted and 
 February 4 a Committee was appointed to bring in a bill 
 according to its terms. 
 
 The Committee appointed to draught a bill, submitted 
 its report to the Council February 19. 3 Consideration of 
 the same was referred by the House to the next session. 
 
 February 21, 4 it was voted to call upon the several 
 Commissions to finish the Land Bank, to lay before the 
 General Court at the next session, a general statement of 
 its affairs and a particular account of their several charges. 
 
 February 26, 1767, 5 Edward Sheaffe, in behalf of a 
 Committee to which had been referred the examination of 
 the late Land Bank, filed an elaborate report, covering the 
 
 1 Archives, 104, 324, et seq. 
 
 2 Archives, 104, 370. 
 
 « Court Records, XXVI., 185. 
 
 4 Ibid., 192. 
 
 6 Archives, 104, 452. 
 
34 
 
 history of the winding up of the Bank, and showing the 
 amount which the Commissioners must account for. 
 
 The accounts of the first Commissioners were laid before 
 the House, March 4, 17C7, 1 and were referred to a com¬ 
 mittee to consider and report, and next day the order of 
 reference was made to include the reports of both commis¬ 
 sions. 2 [Friday?] March ,14, 3 the Council proposed to 
 the House to adjourn until Monday and that the Committee 
 on Land Bank affairs should sit forthwith. To this the 
 House agreed. March 17, 4 the report of the Committee 
 was read in Council and sent down. March 19, 5 the 
 House voted that a Committee consisting of Capt. Sheaffe 
 and two others arfd such as the Board might add should be 
 a Committee to sit in the recess of the Court, to examine 
 the accounts of the Commissioners of both commissions, 
 to hear directors and partners, and to report at the May 
 session what they should deem proper as to the accounts, 
 and as to what was necessary to put an end to the scheme. 
 The Council concurred in this resolve and named two mem¬ 
 bers to serve on the Committee. 
 
 March 20, 1767, 6 Danforth and Hatch having resigned 
 and Goldthwait having removed to such a distance that he 
 could not conveniently attend meetings, the two Houses 
 met and chose three Commissioners. 
 
 On the same day, 7 a Committee was appointed by con¬ 
 current vote of both Houses, to bring in a bill to empower 
 Edward Sheaffe, Samuel Dexter and James Humphreys, 
 Esquires, who had been chosen Commissioners for settling 
 the Land Bank Company, to execute the trust to which 
 they were appointed. The Committee reported the same 
 day, and the bill became a law. The various powers and 
 duties conferred upon the previous Commissioners were, 
 
 1 Court Records, XXVI., 461. 
 3 Ibid., XXVI., 455. 
 
 8 Ibid., XXVI., 486. 
 
 * Ibid., XXVI., 492. 
 
 6 Archives, 104, 438. 
 
 8 Court Records, XXVI., 601. 
 
 7 Archives, 104, 443. 
 
35 
 
 by this Act, extended to the new Commissioners, 1 but 
 until further order of the Court their functions were lim¬ 
 ited to the collection of assessments already levied. They 
 were from time to time to report progress to the General 
 Court. 
 
 , The Committee appointed March 19 reported through 
 Thomas Flucker, June 5, 1737.2 The substance of this 
 report is that there was £1,740. 7s. 3d. due from the 
 directors to the partners, with interest from September 9, 
 1740, which the Committee thought should bo paid in 
 equal proportion by the surviving Directors, and by the 
 estates of the deceased Directors, allowance being made 
 foi what had been paid by the Directors towards the 
 assessment of 1763. In addition to the foregoing, there 
 were certain specific sums which had previously been found 
 to be due from individual Directors, these also were said to 
 be due. 
 
 Those sums and what could be collected from delin¬ 
 quents, the Committee were of opinion should be applied 
 in satisfaction of the debts of the Company. They believed 
 it to be impracticable to attempt any relief of partners who 
 believed that they had been unjustly assessed. To accom¬ 
 plish what the Committee advised, they recom/nended that 
 a new bill be brought in. Consideration of this report was 
 on the 25th of June postponed to the next session. 3 
 
 In December, 1767, Jeffries and Danforth filed a new 
 account. 4 In 1751, the Committee of which John Wheel¬ 
 wright was chairman, had made a report, and certain of 
 their findings had been accepted. The Commissioners, 
 therefore abandoning any attempt to make an exact state¬ 
 ment prior to the loss of their papers accepted the findings 
 of Wheelwright’s committee as final, and filed their ac¬ 
 counts covering the period after April, 1751. They prayed 
 that these be accepted, and that they might be discharged. 
 
 8 Archives, 104, 483. 
 
 * Archives, 104, 495. 
 
 1 Province Laws, IV., 919, Ch. 19, 1766-67. 
 
 2 Archives, 104, 449. 
 
86 
 
 The reports of the Commissioners specified as follows : 
 one signed Samuel Danforth and Nathaniel Hatch, one 
 signed John Jeffries, and one signed Samuel Danforth, 
 were, on the 5th of January, 1768, referred to a Committee 
 for consideration and report. 1 
 
 January 14, the hearing of the partners and directors 
 which was to have taken place by appointment at the pre¬ 
 vious session, was postponed. 2 On the 21st, it was again 
 postponed. 3 On the 27th, the hearing was held in the 
 Representatives’ Room, the Council being there present. 4 
 At this hearing, an exception was taken by Mr. Auchmuty 
 to the propriety of the General Court taking cognizance of 
 the matter. The hearing was therefore, on the 28th ad¬ 
 journed to the next week, and Mr. Auchmuty was directed 
 to proceed at that time to apply the rules of law he had 
 advanced to the particular case under consideration. All 
 other parties concerned were, at the same time, entitled to 
 be heard by counsel learned in the law. Mr. Auchmuty 
 was requested to reduce his pleas to the jurisdiction of the 
 Court, to writing, and to file the same in the office of the 
 Secretary. 
 
 February 4, 5 there was an interchange of courtesies 
 between the two Houses. The Council notified the Board 
 that it was ready to join the blouse in hearing Mr. Auch¬ 
 muty if he desired to be heard further upon the subject. 
 The House in return inquired of the Council if they had 
 settled the point raised by Mr. Auchmuty as to the jurisdic¬ 
 tion of the General Court. The Council replied that they 
 had only settled the point of jurisdiction so far as to be 
 willing to hear Mr. Auchmuty’s arguments on that point, 
 if he was desirous of presenting them. The next day, the 
 Board called for the reports on Land Bank affairs, 6 and 
 the papers which had accompanied them. 
 
 1 Court Records, XXVII., 120. 
 
 2 Archives, 104. 510. 
 
 8 Archives, 104, 515. 
 
 4 Court Records, XXVII., 102, 163. 
 6 Court Records, XXVII., 179. 
 
 0 Court Records, XXVII., 180. 
 
37 
 
 The questions which perplexed the General Court may 
 be inferred from the form in which was passed on February 
 6, a resolve originally introduced on the 3d of February. 
 
 The following was the form in which it went through: 1 
 
 In the House of Representatives, February 3, 1768. 
 
 The House having taken into consideration the plea 
 offered by Robert Auchmuty, Esq., to the jurisdiction of 
 this Court, in the hearing ordered to be had before the 
 whole Court, on Wednesday, the 27th of January last, 
 which hearing was then had before the two Houses only 
 (His Excellency having been prevented being present, by 
 indisposition). Upon the report of a committee of both 
 Houses, the last session, wherein the Committee reported 
 that a Bill be brought in to assess the sum of seventeen 
 hundred and forty pounds 7/3 with interest from Septem¬ 
 ber 9, 1740, on the late Directors of the Land Bank Com¬ 
 pany as due to the Partners of said Company. The said 
 plea having been duly considered and it appearing that the 
 jurisdiction of this Court, in the case mentioned, hath been 
 already established by sundry Acts of Parliament which 
 have received the Royal sanction, Resolved, that this Court 
 will proceed to a hearing of the said affair, on Tuesday 
 next, the 9th instant, at ten o’clock in the forenoon, upon 
 the merits of the case. And that the parties concerned may 
 then have liberty of being heard by themselves or by coun¬ 
 sel learned in the law. 
 
 An affidavit was made by George Leonard, February 
 8, 2 at the request of Robert Auchmuty, to the effect that 
 in October, 1740, an agreement was circulated among the 
 partners, authorizing the use of a certain proportion of their 
 bills in trade; that he personally declined to participate 
 in the trade. At the same time, Robert Auchmuty openly 
 refused to have anything to do with the trade. That both 
 he and Auchmuty declined to serve upon the committee for 
 the adjustment of the affairs of the Bank. That five of the 
 directors were appointed to receive and burn the bills, 
 whose names he gave to the best of his recollection. Fob- 
 
 i Archives, 104, 518. 
 
 2 Archives, 104 . 520. 
 
38 
 
 ruary 9, 1 the hearing appointed by the resolve of the 
 6th took place. Auchmuty claimed that the committee of 
 the General Court in 1751 settled all accounts between the 
 directors and partners 2 and that the payment by the direc¬ 
 tors of the balances then found to be due from them must 
 protect them from any further demands on account of said 
 Bank. Until the Court should determine whether this 
 point was sustained, Auchmuty declined to proceed further 
 in his defence. 
 
 The Court declined, on the 10th of February, 3 to 
 express any opinion upon this point until they should have 
 heard all that Auchmuty had to offer, and appointed the 
 next succeeding Friday at ten o’clock, for a hearing, when 
 the Committee were requested to be present and explain 
 their reasons for finding the sums said to be due from the 
 directors, and when opportunity would be afforded for all 
 concerned to be heard. On the 12th, 4 the Committee were 
 ordered to reduce to writing the reasons upon which they 
 framed their report, and to serve a copy on Auchmuty. 
 Auchmuty was also ordered to reduce his answer thereto to 
 writing and to lay the same before the Court before Friday, 
 the 19th of February. 
 
 On the 20th, 5 the report of the Committee on the affairs 
 of the Land Bank was read and recommitted. 
 
 On the 26th, 6 the Committee to which the reports of 
 the Commissioners had been referred, reported. A Com¬ 
 mittee was appointed on the part of the House, March 
 l, 7 1° lake the accounts under consideration, to sit dur¬ 
 ing recess, to hear Commissioners, directors and partners, 
 and to report next session what should be allowed each 
 Commissioner for his services. The Council concurred 
 in this action on the 3d of March, and completed the 
 Committee. 
 
 1 Court Records, XXVII., 185. b Court Records, XXVIL, 22S. 
 
 2 Archives, 104, 523. 6 Archives, 104, 533. 
 
 3 Archives, 104, 523. i 2bid. 
 
 4 Archives, 104, 525. 
 
39 
 
 On the 3d of March, 1 an order was passed authorizing 
 the Committee which was appointed February 12, to 
 reduce to writing the facts and reasons upon which they 
 framed their report relative to the Land Bank Company 
 and which had not been able to conclude its work, to pre¬ 
 pare the same during recess of the Court, to serve a copy 
 on Robert Auchmuty, so that the directors might make 
 answer at the May session. 
 
 There is a report on file 2 which deals with the question 
 of the liability of the directors and which may be the report 
 of this Committee. It is not dated and is not signed, 
 and its character and purpose can only be identified by its 
 contents. 
 
 Under date of June 7, :1 the following entry is to be 
 found: — 
 
 In Council. The Committee appointed the last session 
 of the General Court to reduce to writing the reasons and 
 evidence upon which their report relative to the Land Bank 
 or Manufactory Scheme was founded, and to deliver the 
 same to Robert Auchmuty, Esq., made report of their 
 doings thereon, and thereupon ordered that the same be 
 considered on Friday next, at ten o’clock in the forenoon, 
 and that Robert Auchmuty be notified of this order, that 
 he may then put in a reply thereto if he see cause. 
 
 In the House of Representatives, read and concurred. 
 
 The foregoing is the last entry in the records of the 
 Court in which the affairs of the Land Bank are under 
 consideration of the legislators. One other entry, made 
 two years thereafter, would indicate that in the interim the 
 whole thing had permanently disappeared. On the 9th of 
 November, 1770, 4 a petition was presented by Samuel 
 Dexter, James Humphreys and Edward Sheaffe, for certain 
 allowances for services and for expenses incurred by them 
 in the examination of the affairs of the Land Bank in 1760 
 
 1 Archives, 104, 539. 
 
 * Ibid., 104, 508. 
 
 8 Court Records, XXVII., 321. 
 
 4 Court Records, iXXVIII., 359. Archives, 104, 443. 
 
40 
 
 and 1767. These three men constituted the Commission to 
 finish the Bank, appointed March 20, 1767. The applica¬ 
 tion for pay apparently covers their services as committee¬ 
 men prior to their appointment as Commissioners, and they 
 ask that the allowance be made out of the public treasury. 
 Among the items included is the bill of Seth Blodget, 1 
 for rooms, attendance, wine, dinners and punches. The 
 amount consumed by the Committee, when stated in old 
 tenor, is appalling. £57, 18, 9, mainly for drinks, at fifteen 
 sessions of a committee of three, would apparently task the 
 services of the most experienced trencher-men of the day, 
 but this sum when reduced to lawful money dwindles to 
 £7, 14, 6, an amount not after all so great as to tax even 
 modern credulity. The consideration of a portion of this 
 petition was referred to the next session. The habit in that 
 respect was confirmed, and the last record that we have 
 of the Land Bank is that an application for pay for services 
 of a committee investigating its affairs, no longer directed 
 against its funds but this time made upon the public 
 treasury, is to come up at the next session amongst the 
 unfinished business. 
 
 1 Archives, 104, 440.