chapter 5.

{298}

"I must freely confess that I do not know what difference, except a difference in rank, there is in England between a city and a borough. ... A city does not seem to have any rights or powers as a city which are not equally shared by every other corporate town. The only corporate towns which have any special powers above others are those which are counties of themselves; and all cities are not counties of themselves, while some towns which are not cities are. The city in England is not so easily defined as the city in the United States. There, every corporate town is a city. This makes a great many cities, and it leads to an use of the word city in common talk which seems a little strange in British ears. In England, even in speaking of a real city, the word city is seldom used, except in language a little formal or rhetorical; in America it is used whenever a city is mentioned. But the American rule has the advantage of being perfectly clear and avoiding all doubt. And it agrees very well with the origin of the word: a corporate town is a 'civitas,' a commonwealth; any lesser collection of men hardly is a commonwealth, or is such only in a much less perfect degree. This brings us to the historical use of the word. It is clear at starting that the word is not English. It has no Old-English equivalent; burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind from Rome downward. It is curious that this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still applied to a single house and its surroundings. ... In common talk we use the word borough hardly oftener than the word city; when the word is used, it has commonly some direct reference to the parliamentary or municipal characters of the town. Many people, I suspect, would define a borough as a town which sends members to Parliament, and such a definition, though still not accurate, has, by late changes, been brought nearer to accuracy than it used to be. City and borough, then, are both rather formal words; town is the word which comes most naturally to the lips when there is no special reason for using one of the others. Of the two formal words, borough is English; city is Latin; it comes to us from Gaul and Italy by some road or other. It is in Domesday that we find, by no means its first use in England, but its first clearly formal use, the first use of it to distinguish a certain class of towns, to mark those towns which are 'civitates' as well as burgi from those which are burgi only. Now in Gaul the 'civitas' in formal Roman language was the tribe and its territory, the whole land of the Arverni, Parisii, or any other tribe. In a secondary sense it meant the head town of the tribe. ... When Christianity was established, the 'civitas' in the wider sense marked the extent of the bishop's diocese; the 'civitas' in the narrower sense became the immediate seat of his bishopstool. Thus we cannot say that in Gaul a town became a city because it was a bishop's see; but we may say that a certain class of towns became bishops' sees because they were already cities. But in modern French use no distinction is made between these ancient capitals which became bishoprics and other towns of less temporal and spiritual honour. The seat of the bishopric, the head of the ancient province, the head of the modern department, the smaller town which has never risen to any of those dignities, are all alike ville. Lyons, Rheims, Paris, are in no way distinguished from meaner places. The word cité is common enough, but it has a purely local meaning. It often distinguishes the old part of a town, the ancient 'civitas,' from later additions. In Italy on the other hand, città is both the familiar and the formal name for towns great and small. It is used just like ville in French."

_E. A. Freeman, City and Borough Macmillan's Mag., May, 1889._

BOROUGH-ENGLISH.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

BOROUGHBRIDGE, Battle of.

Fought March 16, 1322, in the civil war which arose in England during the reign of Edward II. on account of the King's favorites, the Déspensers. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the leader of opposition, was defeated, captured, summarily tried and beheaded.

BOROUGHS, Rotten and Pocket.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830, and 1830-1832.

BORROMEAN, OR GOLDEN LEAGUE, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

BORYSTHENES, The.

The name which the Greeks gave anciently to the river now known as the Dnieper. It also became the name of a town near the mouth of the river, which was originally called Olbia,--a very early trading settlement of the Milesians.

BOSCOBEL, The Royal Oak of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.

BOSNIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BOSPHORUS, OR BOSPORUS, The.

The word means literally an 'ox-ford,' and the Greeks derived it as a name from the legend of Io, who, driven by a gad-fly, swam across the straits from Europe into Asia. They gave the name particularly to that channel, on which Constantinople lies, but applied it also to other similar straits, such as the Cimmerian Bosporus, opening the Sea of Azov.

BOSPHORUS: The city and kingdom.

"Respecting Bosporus, or Pantikapæum (for both names denote the same city, though the former name often comprehends the whole annexed dominion) founded by Milesian settlers on the European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch) we first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from Greece (480-479 B. C.) It was the centre of a dominion including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities on the Asiatic side of the strait; and it is said to have been governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy--called the Archæanaktidæ--for forty-two years (480--438 B. C.) After them we have a series of princes standing out individually by name, and succeeding each other in the same family, [438-284 B. C.]. ... During the reigns of these princes, a connexion of some intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connexion not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony--but of private intercourse, commercial exchange and reciprocal good offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well suited for the production of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand among all Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens, where Scythian slaves were numerous; while oil and wine, and other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in Bosporus and the other Pontic ports. {299} This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean maritime towns, and must have been greatly under the protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus), to push their fortunes. ... We have no means of following [the fortunes of the Bosporanic princes] in detail; but we know that, about a century B. C., the then reigning prince, Parisades IV. found himself so pressed and squeezed by the Scythians, that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis) to forego his independence, and to call in, as auxiliary or master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began--subject, however, after no long interval, to the dominion and interference of Rome."

_G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 98._

ALSO IN: _T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7._

See MITHRIDATIC WARS, and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

Acquisition by the Goths.

See GOTHS, ACQUISITION OF BOSPHORUS.

BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574. Capture by the Turks.

"During the reign of Justin [A. D. 565-574] the city of Bosporus, in Tauris, had been captured by the Turks, who then occupied a considerable portion of the Tauric Chersonesus. The city of Cherson alone continued to maintain its independence in the northern regions of the Black Sea."

_G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 8._

See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

BOSPHORUS: End----------

BOSSISM.

The "Spoils System" in American politics [see SPOILS SYSTEM] developed enormously the influence and power of certain leaders and managers of party organizations, in the great cities and some of the states, who acquired the names of "Bosses," while the system of politics which they represented was called "Bossism." The notorious William H. Tweed, of the New York "Tammany Ring" [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871] seems to have been the first of the species to be dubbed "Boss Tweed" by his "heelers," or followers, and the title passed from him to others of like kind.

BOSTON: A. D. 1628-1630. The first white inhabitant. The founding and naming of the city.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628, and 1630.

BOSTON: A. D. 1631-1651. The Puritan Theocracy. Troubles with Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson and the Presbyterians.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1646-1651.

BOSTON: A. D. 1656-1661. The persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669. The Halfway Covenant and the founding of the Old South Church.

"In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground that all baptised persons of upright and decorous lives ought to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the church, and therefore entitled to the exercise of political rights, even though unqualified for participation in the Lord's Supper. This theory of church membership, based on what was at that time stigmatized as the Halfway Covenant, aroused intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In 1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the principle of the Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was far from satisfying the churches, a synod of all the clergymen in Massachusetts was held five years later, to reconsider the great question. The decision of the synod substantially confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished to retain the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and Increase Mather agreed with him at the time, though he afterward saw reason to change his opinion and published two tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of all toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. This burning question was the source of angry contentions in the First Church of Boston. Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died in 1663, and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to declare itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the synod, and in token thereof invited Davenport to come from New Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy years old, was disgusted at the recent annexation of his colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation and came to Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston congregation, who did not like the illiberal principle which he represented. In little more than a year his ministry at Boston was ended by death; but the opposition to his call had already proceeded so far that a secession from the old church had become inevitable. In 1669 the advocates of the Halfway Covenant organized themselves into a new society under the title of the 'Third Church in Boston.' A wooden meeting-house was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the town, so that the society and its meeting-house became known as the South Church; and after a new church founded in Summer Street in 1717 took the name of the New South, the church of 1669 came to be further distinguished as the Old South. As this church represented a liberal idea which was growing in favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing church in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased so that the old meeting-house could not contain them; and in 1729 the famous building which still stands was erected on the same spot,--a building with a grander history than any other on the American continent, unless it be that other plain brick building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed."

_J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 6._

ALSO IN: _H. M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300 years, lecture 9._

_B. B. Wisner, History of the Old South Church, sermon 1._

_W. Emerson, Historical Sketch of the First Church in Boston, section 4-7._

BOSTON: A. D. 1674-1678. King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

BOSTON: A. D. 1689. The rising for William and Mary and the downfall of Andros.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

{300}

BOSTON: A. D. 1697. Threatened attack by the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1692-1697.

BOSTON: A. D. 1704. The first newspaper.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.

BOSTON: A. D. 1740-1742. The origin of Faneuil Hall.

See FANEUIL HALL.

BOSTON: A. D. 1761. The question of the Writs of assistance and James Otis's speech.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 176l.

BOSTON: A. D. 1764-1767. Patriotic self-denials. Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

BOSTON: A. D. 1765-1767. The doings under the Liberty Tree.

See LIBERTY TREE.

BOSTON: A. D. 1768. The seizure of the sloop "Liberty." Riotous patriotism.

"For some years these officers [of the customs] had been resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were frequently rescued from their possession by interested parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's sloop 'Liberty' (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she was placed under the guns of the 'Romney,' a man-of-war in the harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the 'Romney,' and finally in the Castle. These proceedings undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to Boston in September. The General Court was in session at the time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes if not in their measures."

_M. Chamberlain, The Revolution Impending (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 1)._

BOSTON: A. D. 1768. The quartering of British troops.

"Before news had reached England of the late riot in Boston, two regiments from Halifax had been ordered thither. When news of that riot arrived, two additional regiments were ordered from Ireland. The arrival of an officer, sent by Gage from New York, to provide quarters for these troops, occasioned a town meeting in Boston, by which the governor was requested to summon a new General Court, which he peremptorily refused to do. The meeting then recommended a convention of delegates from all the towns in the province to assemble at Boston in ten days; 'in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war with France'--such was the pretence--they advised all persons not already provided with fire-arms to procure them at once; they also appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to be observed by all the Congregational societies. Delegates from more than a hundred towns met accordingly at the day appointed [Sept. 22], chose Cushing, speaker of the late House, as their chairman, and petitioned Bernard to summon a General Court. The governor not only refused to receive their petition, but denounced the meeting as treasonable. In view of this charge, the proceedings were exceedingly cautious and moderate. All pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed. In the course of a four days' session a petition to the King was agreed to, and a letter to the agent, De Berdt, of which the chief burden was to defend the province against the charge of a rebellious spirit. Such was the first of those popular conventions, destined within a few years to assume the whole political authority of the colonies. The day after the adjournment the troops from Halifax arrived. There was room in the barracks at the castle, but Gage, alarmed at the accounts from Massachusetts, had sent orders from New York to have the two regiments quartered in the town. The council were called upon to find quarters, but, by the very terms of the Quartering Act, as they alleged, till the barracks were full there was no necessity to provide quarters elsewhere. Bernard insisted that the barracks had been reserved for the two regiments expected from Ireland, and must, therefore, be considered as already full. The council replied, that, even allowing that to be the case, by the terms of the act, the provision of quarters belonged not to them, but to the local magistrates. There was a large building in Boston belonging to the province, known as the 'Manufactory House,' and occupied by a number of poor families. Bernard pressed the council to advise that this building be cleared and prepared for the reception of the troops; but they utterly refused. The governor then undertook to do it on his own authority. The troops had already landed, under cover of the ships of war, to the number of a thousand men. Some of them appeared to demand an entrance into the Manufactory House; but the tenants were encouraged to keep possession; nor did the governor venture to use force. One of the regiments encamped on the common; for a part of the other regiment, which had no tents, the temporary use of Faneuil Hall was reluctantly yielded; to the rest of it, the Town House, used also as a State House, all except the council chamber, was thrown open by the governor's order. It was Sunday. The Town House was directly opposite the meeting-house of the First Church. Cannon were planted in front of it; sentinels were stationed in the streets; the inhabitants were challenged as they passed. The devout were greatly aggravated and annoyed by the beating of drums and the marching of the troops. Presently Gage came to Boston to urge the provision of quarters. The council directed his attention to the terms of the act, and referred him to the selectmen. As the act spoke only of justices of the peace, the selectmen declined to take any steps in the matter. Bernard then constituted what he called a Board of Justices, and required them to find quarters; but they did not choose to exercise a doubtful and unpopular authority. Gage was finally obliged to quarter the troops in houses which he hired for the purpose, and to procure out of his own military chest the firing, bedding, and other articles mentioned in the Quartering Act, the council having declined to order any expenditure for those purposes, on the ground that the appropriation of money belonged exclusively to the General Court."

_R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., chapter 29 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN: _R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 6._

_T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774, pages 202-217._

{301}

BOSTON: A. D. 1769. The patriots threatened and Virginia speaking out.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.

BOSTON: A. D. 1770. Soldiers and citizens in collision. The "Massacre." Removal of the troops.

"As the spring of the year 1770 appeared, the 14th and 29th regiments had been in Boston about seventeen months. The 14th was in barracks near the Brattle Street Church; the 29th was quartered just south of King Street; about midway between them, in King Street, and close at hand to the town-house, was the main guard, whose nearness to the public buildings had been a subject of great annoyance to the people. ... One is forced to admit ... that a good degree of discipline was maintained; no blood had as yet been shed by the soldiers, although provocations were constant, the rude element in the town growing gradually more aggressive as the soldiers were never allowed to use their arms. Insults and blows with fists were frequently taken and given, and cudgels also came into fashion in the brawls. Whatever awe the regiments had inspired at their first coming had long worn off. In particular the workmen of the rope-walks and ship-yards allowed their tongues the largest license and were foremost in the encounters. About the 1st of March fights of unusual bitterness had occurred near Grey's rope-walk, not far from the quarters of the 29th, between the hands of the rope-walk and soldiers of that regiment, which had a particularly bad reputation. The soldiers had got the worst of it, and were much irritated. Threats of revenge had been made, which had called out arrogant replies, and signs abounded that serious trouble was not far off. From an early hour on the evening of the 5th of March the symptoms were very ominous. ... At length an altercation began in King Street between a company of lawless boys and a few older brawlers on the one side, and the sentinel, who paced his beat before the custom-house, on the other. ... The soldier retreated up the steps of the custom-house and called out for help. A file of soldiers was at once despatched from the main guard, across the street, by Captain Preston, officer of the guard, who himself soon followed to the scene of trouble. A coating of ice covered the ground, upon which shortly before had fallen a light snow. A young moon was shining; the whole transaction, therefore, was plainly visible. The soldiers, with the sentinel, nine in number, drew up in line before the people, who greatly outnumbered them. The pieces were loaded and held ready, but the mob, believing that the troops would not use their arms except upon requisition of a civil magistrate, shouted coarse insults, pressed upon the very muzzles of the pieces, struck them with sticks, and assaulted the soldiers with balls of ice. In the tumult precisely what was said and done cannot be known. Many affidavits were taken in the investigation that followed, and, as always at such times, the testimony was most contradictory. Henry Knox, afterwards the artillery general, at this time a bookseller, was on the spot and used his influence with Preston to prevent a command to fire. Preston declared that he never gave the command. The air, however, was full of shouts, daring the soldiers to fire, some of which may have been easily understood as commands, and at last the discharge came. If it had failed to come, indeed, the forbearance would have been quite miraculous. Three were killed outright, and eight were wounded, only one of whom, Crispus Attucks, a tall mulatto who faced the soldiers, leaning on a stick of cordwood, had really taken any part in the disturbance. The rest were bystanders or were hurrying into the street, not knowing the cause of the tumult. ... A wild confusion ... took possession of the town. The alarm-bells rang frantically; on the other hand the drums of the regiments thundered to arms. ... What averted a fearful battle in the streets was the excellent conduct of Hutchinson"--the lieutenant-governor, who made his way promptly to the scene, caused the troops to be sent back to their barracks, ordered the arrest of Captain Preston and the nine soldiers who had done the firing, and began an investigation of the affair the same night. The next day a great town meeting was held, and, as crowds from the surrounding towns pressed in, it was adjourned from Faneuil Hall to the Old South Church, and overflowed in the neighboring streets. A formal demand for the removal of the troops was sent to the governor and council by a committee which had Samuel Adams at its head. Governor Hutchinson disclaimed authority over the troops; but their commanding officer, Colonel Dalrymple, proposed to compromise by sending away the 29th regiment and retaining the 14th. As the committee returned to the meeting with this proposal, through the crowd, Adams dropped right and left the words, "Both regiments or none."--"Both regiments or none." So he put into the mouths of the people their reply, which they shouted as with one voice when the report of the committee was made to them. There was a determination in the cry which overcame even the obstinacy of Governor Hutchinson, and the departure of both regiments was ordered that same day. "In England the affair was regarded as a 'successful bully' of the whole power of the government by the little town, and when Lord North received details of these events he always referred to the 14th and 29th as the 'Sam Adams regiments.'"

_J. K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams, chapter 11._

ALSO IN: _R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 6._

_R. Frothingham, The Sam Adams Regiments (Atlantic Monthly, volume 9, 10, and 12; 1862-63)._

_J. Q. Adams, Life of John Adams, chapter 3 (volume l)._

_T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Mass. Bay, 1749-1774, pages 270-280._

_H. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution (Centennial edition), pages 15-79._

_F. Kedder, History of the Boston Massacre._

BOSTON: A. D. 1770. The fair trial of the soldiers.

"The episode [of the affray of March 5th] had ... a sequel which is extremely creditable to the American people. It was determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if their fate was sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for seven months, till the excitement had in some degree subsided. Captain Preston very judiciously appealed to John Adams, who was rapidly rising to the first place both among the lawyers and the popular patriots of Boston, to undertake his defence. Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so unpopular a cause, but he knew also his professional duty, and, though violently opposed to the British government, he was an eminently honest, brave, and humane man. {302} In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who was also of the patriotic party, he undertook the invidious task, and he discharged it with consummate ability. ... There was abundant evidence that the soldiers had endured gross provocation and some violence. If the trial had been the prosecution of a smuggler or a seditious writer, the jury would probably have decided against evidence, but they had no disposition to shed innocent blood. Judges, counsel, and jurymen acted bravely and honourably. All the soldiers were acquitted, except two, who were found guilty of manslaughter, and who escaped with very slight punishment. It is very remarkable that after Adams had accepted the task of defending the incriminated soldiers, he was elected by the people of Boston as their representative in the Assembly, and the public opinion of the province appears to have fully acquiesced in the verdict. In truth, although no people have indulged more largely than the Americans in violent, reckless, and unscrupulous language, no people have at every period of their history been more signally free from the thirst for blood, which in moments of great political excitement has been often shown both in England and France."

_W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century,