early legislation, bring forth with greater force the phase last alluded to, but it is not likely that any case will better illustrate the various points involved in the general legislation on the subject.

It was doubtless true that so long as the legislative body styled itself a Provincial Congress, it still regarded the local government as subordinate to Great Britain. Nor did the change in name to a Colonial Assembly carry with it any idea of separa

tion from the Crown. Caution was therefore natural in the legislation of the provincial and of the colonial periods, and it is not surprising to find that in many of the resolves ordering the seizure of the property of loyalists, there is an underlying idea of a possible future accounting. Why this state of mind should have survived after the abandonment of the colonial theory, even though the State for a time did not adopt a constitution, is not clear, yet it was not until 1779 that the Confiscation Act was passed, although the seizure and sale of the personal property and the appropriation of the rents derivable from the real estate were in the mean time accomplished through various resolves, which were ultimately superseded by an act which was euphe mistically entitled "An Act to prevent the waste, destruction, and embezzlement of the goods or estates of such persons who have left the same and fled to our enemies for protection; and also for payment of their just debts out of their estates."

The first of the papers connected with the Chandler case is dated April 18, 1777, but references in

subsequent papers to anterior events show that before the passage of the act to prevent the waste, destruction, and embezzlement of the goods or estates of refugees, the property of Chandler in Worcester had been seized by the committee of correspondence.

Thus we have proceedings inaugurated under authority conferred by the resolves passed prior to this act, and as we examine the papers in their chronological arrangement, we find steps taken which illustrate not only every section of the act, but also the amendments to it, until finally we reach the proceedings under the Confiscation Act and the sale of the real estate.

There can be but little doubt that a review of these proceedings, accompanied by copies of the original papers, will be of value to historical students. Some interest will naturally be excited in the fate of the victim of these proceedings who, driven from Worcester by the ill usage of his fellow townsmen and prohibited by legislation from returning to his former home, died a lonely exile in London. Although but little is known of his career after he went to London, we can learn something about him, and such information as is at hand will be found in the next chapter.

CHAPTER II

JOHN CHANDLER, LOYALIST

THE branch of the Chandler family to which belonged the refugee whose fortunes we are following settled in Woodstock, then a part of Massachusetts. There were four Johns in succession, and it was through the energy of the first of them that the family fortunes began to rise. The progenitor, William Chandler of Roxbury, seems to have been incapable of taking care of himself. It was under his son John that the move to Woodstock was made, and it was due to his thrift that the second John had a fair start in life.

In the paper communicated to the American Antiquarian Society, which has already been referred to, Hon. Horace Davis says of the latter: "He accumulated a comfortable property; he represented Woodstock in the General Court, and served in the Indian Wars with some distinction as Major and Colonel. When Worcester County was formed in 1731, he was made Probate Judge and Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and he was for seven years a member of the Governor's Council."

Of his personality we have but a shadowy outline, but chance has preserved for us an address made by

1

him to the Grand Jury on the 5th of February, 1734, at the first court of general sessions held in the first court house built by the county of Worcester. An account of the proceedings on that occasion is given in the "Weekly Rehearsal" of February 18. The speaker, whose identity with Hon. John Chandler of Woodstock was established by Rev. Dr. Bancroft,1 was evidently a man of some cultivation. He approaches the subject of the dedication of the building in an apologetic tone, as if he feared that his participation in the affair might be construed into an approval of "the superstitious custom used by many in the world, of dedicating or consecrating to saints or angels, places built for public use and service." His opinion was that they should dedicate themselves to the service of God. He praised the new court house, which, he says, exceeds "so many others in the Province built for the like service, in the capaciousness, regularity, and workmanship thereof." He quotes from the Old Testament, asking the gentlemen of the jury wherein they "can be better instructed than in the charge given by Moses, at the command of God, to the officers of the tribes of Israel," and he winds up his charge to the jury with a stated approval of their past conduct, which, however, he cautiously qualifies with the limitation, "as far as I have observed."

This brief speech enables us to get a much clearer conception of the man than is to be derived from

1 See sermon delivered January 6, 1811, published in Worcester, 1811, note a.

the mere rehearsal of the offices that he held, or from any narrative of his life which can be constructed from the events known to us in connection therewith.

With reference to the career of the third John, Mr. Davis says that he "moved to Worcester, where he held pretty much every office in the County. He was Selectman, Town Treasurer, County Treasurer, Sheriff, Register of Probate, Register of Deeds, Probate Judge, Chief Justice of County Courts, Representative to the General Court, Colonel in the Militia, and a member of the Governor's Council. He was also appointed by Governor Shirley, in 1754, a delegate to the proposed congress designed to concert measures for the union of the British American Colonies. He died in 1762, wealthy and full of honors. In him the family reached its zenith."

In further evidence of the prominent position which he occupied in public affairs, it may be mentioned that he was one of the three commissioners named by the assembly in the "Act for the more speedy finishing of the Land Bank or Manufactory Scheme," which act was passed by the General Court, January 15, 1742-43. This office he accepted, but the labor connected with it was found to be much more irksome than was anticipated, and the performance of the duties was practically incompatible with a residence in Worcester. He therefore resigned very soon after the organization of the commission. He also held for a number of years the office of Clerk of Courts for Worcester County.