No, this is not about the current contentious battles, local, state and nationwide. I thought it might be fun to see what elections looked like in 1684.
As
I've probably said ad nauseam, I do a lot of genealogy. One of my earliest ancestors, John Floyd, my
eighth-great-grandfather, born around 1636, was living in Lynn (then Romney
Marsh), Massachusetts as early as 1662, and since there was a limited pool of
able-bodied men back then, he served in various public offices over the years.
Since Massachusetts was very scrupulous about keeping records, I can trace his
political career.
Actually he's one of my favorite ancestors, not because he was brilliant and successful, but because he got into trouble a lot. He was a lieutenant in King Philip's War (and may well have trodden the earth upon which I now dwell) and his men mutinied—twice. In 1692 he was arrested as a witch (but not convicted). He died in Lynn in 1701 and is buried there.
So
I'm always looking for interesting details about his life, and that's how I
stumbled upon the Boston Town Records of 1683-84, which report,
At a publique meetinge of the
inhabitants of Bostone upon lawfull warning for the election of officers of the
towne for the yeare ensueinge were chosen for:
[Now,
here's the fun part. Old Captain John
was elected as Surveyor of Rumny Marsh, but that was pretty tame. However, among the other offices filled were:]
Clarkes
of ye Market (four men, including Isack Goose and Benjamin Breame)
Sealers
of Leather & to inspect the cuttings & Gashings of Hydes
Water
Bayliffes
Packers
of Fish & Flesh
Measurer
of Salt
Scauengers
(Scavengers)
Hogg
Reeues (Reeves)
Cryers
Also,
"Voted, That the Custome of practice taken vp by ye Towne at the
chooseinge of Jurors, not to choose any to that service yt were present at the
Meetinge, be hence forth made Voyde, & that it be free to choose as well of
those present as out of such as are absent."
If
I'm reading this right, up until March 1684, if you weren't at the meeting you
could be called as a juror. Maybe they
weren't finding enough people for a jury, if they had to include the elected
officials as well. (In April of that year it was noted "That for a more
orderlie choice of Jurors for the time to come there should be a committee
chosen to take a list of such pesons in all ptes of the Town, as are able &
discreete men fit for that service…for amore orderlie choice then formerly that
ye Courts may be the better supplied with able & suffitient men, & the
burden of yt seuice not lie vpon a few."
For
all of that, there are also officers whose title we (at least in Massachusetts)
would recognize today: Moderator,
Selectmen, Constable. The group voted on
road repairs and surveying of town boundaries.
I
won't guess how many of the above positions were officially eliminated or which
still linger on the books of various municipalities, but I haven't seen a hog
reeve lately (nor any wandering hogs).
But if you live in Massachusetts, there a comforting sense of
continuity: attend your town meeting and you're participating in a tradition
over three centuries old. I guess we'll survive another year's worth of
elections.
2 comments:
This could well be where the "don't miss the election meeting - you don't know what office you will hold" originated. Fascinating. Thanks for sharing it.
What? No fence viewer? One of my ancestors was the first to hold that post in a town in New York state in the 1790's. Actually, I'm guessing it's the same as surveyor. I've always had fun with genealogy, too, and it doesn't hurt that it's a great source for plot ideas.
Kathy/Kaitlyn
Post a Comment