South America. And the same thing is shown in the early history of Britain; for cats were then held in so great estimation that their preservation was considered of the utmost importance, and in the reign of Howel the Good, a Cambrian prince, who died A. D. 948, special laws were made to fix the price of different animals, and among them the cat was included on account of its scarcity and utility. The price of a kitten before it could see was fixed at one penny, till proof could be given of its having caught a mouse two pence, after which it was rated at four pence, and this was a great sum in those days. It was likewise required that the animal should be perfect in its senses of hearing and seeing, should be a good mouser, and have its claws whole. If any one should steal or kill the cat that guarded the prince's granary, the offender was to forfeit either a milch ewe, with her fleece and lamb, or as much wheat as when poured on the cat, suspended by its tail (its head touching the floor), would form a heap high enough to cover the tip of the tail.

And on such an array of facts as this the contestants for a literal interpretation of the story rest their case.

But neither of these views appears to me to be the correct one, for if there is no truth in the statement that Whittington got his wealth by a cat, how did it happen that his name was and is always associated with this animal; how did it happen to him rather than to some other man? There is always a history connected with such an association; something in the character, condition and circumstances of the man that makes it appropriate, or properly descriptive, or else it would not be. No man would have such a story attached to his name if there were no reason for it, and it is no matter how foolish a reason it may be. The other particulars of the story could easily be increased and enlarged upon by its transmission through so many centuries; but there must have been something that was the origin of the idea that he had a cat. To ask us to believe, as the literal interpreters do, that it was a veritable cat, seems to be asking too much when we call to mind the many similar stories of other men living in different countries and at different times; and I rather incline to the opinion expressed in sport by Foote, that Whittington obtained his wealth in the coal trade, and that it was the cat of the collier that gave rise to the story. There is no doubt that the boats that carried the coal to London were called cats, and Webster gives as one of the meanings of the word the following: "A strong-built ship from four to six hundred tons burden and employed in the coal trade." And the history of the ' use of coal in London agrees very curiously with the time that Whit

tington flourished. It was first made an article of commerce from the north to the metropolis in 1381, when Whittington was just of age. Previous to that time its use had been prohibited in London by a proclamation of Edward I., issued in 1306. And Prynne gives us the reason for the proclamation:

"When brewers, dyers and other artificers using great fires began to use sea coals instead of dry wood and charcoals in and near the city of London the prelates, nobles, commons, and other people of the realm, resorting thither to Parliament and upon other occasions, with the inhabitants of the city, Southwark, Wapping and East Smithfield, complained thereof twice, one after another, to the king, as a public nuisance, corrupting the air with its stink and smoke to the great prejudice and detriment of their health. Whereupon the king first prohibited the burning of sea coal by his proclamation, which being disobeyed by many for their private lucre, the king, upon their second complaint, issued a commission of oyer and terminer to inquire of all such who burned sea coals against his proclamation within the city, or parts adjoining to it, and to punish them for their first offense by great fines and ransoms, and for their second offense to demolish their furnaces and kilns wherein they burnt sea coals, and to see his proclamation strictly observed for times to come."

Dr. Bachoffner in a lecture before the Royal Polytechnic Institution mentions the fact that three separate proclamations were issued against the burning of coal, and that it was at last made a capital offense, and a man was actually accused, tried, condemned and put to death for burning coal within the metropolis. Such a statement as this seems almost incredible, and although no record has been found of any conviction or execution for such an offense, still we can hardly suppose that it would have been made before such a society without some ground for it. At any rate, these facts show that there was a great source of wealth in the coal trade in those early days, or men would not have been so willing to disobey the royal command; and all restrictions being removed in Whittington's early manhood, he may have laid the foundation of his wealth with this kind of a cat.

Again, it is a common thing in the English language for one word to be substituted for another, when both words sound alike, but mean different things; so that it would be no difficult matter to invent the whole story of the cat, the pussy, when there was no other foundation for it than the cat, the coal boat. One example will show this.

In King Lear, Edgar, disguised as a madman, tells Gloster what he eats and drinks and how he suffers, and closes with the well-known couplet

"But mice and rats and such small deer

Have been Tom's food for seven long year."

We do not see why mice and rats should be called "deer;" but the difficulty vanishes when we remember that Shakespeare undoubtedly used originally the Anglo-Saxon word "deor," which means "beasts;" and Tom meant "mice and rats and such small beasts" had been his food for seven long year, and the word being the same in sound as our English word for a special beast, the meaning of the couplet has been somewhat obscured. But I am not so strenuous in support of this theory of the story as to seek a quarrel with any who do not agree with me. If you prefer that your childhood remembrances should not be disturbed, consider a veritable cat as the hero of the story; there are many who will agree with you, and these early recollections are the most sacred we have. As Martin Luther said: "I would not for any quantity of gold part with the wonderful tales which I have retained from my earliest childhood, or have met with in my progress through life;" and with such testimony as that, you do well to cherish them, and let no words of mine cause you to depreciate the value of your treasure.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF GEN. DEARBORN AS MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSIONER IN 1838 AND 1839, FOR THE SALE OF THE SENECA INDIAN LANDS.

BY HENRY A. HOMES, LL.D.

[Read before the Albany Institute, October 12, 1880.]

At a sale at auction, in Boston, in October, 1878, of books and manuscripts from the library of J. W. Thornton, one of the titles in the catalogue, describing the articles offered for sale, read as follows: "Journal of a Mission as Commissioner from the State of Massachusetts to the Seneca and Tuscarora Indians; and an account of the treaties held with those tribes, in the years 1838 and 1839, for the sale of their lands, and for their emigration west of the Mississippi. By H. A. S. Dearborn, Superintendent of Massachusetts. In 3 vols. 4to."

It was thought that these volumes might be worth securing for our State Library. I wrote to Hon. Lewis H. Morgan of Rochester, to obtain his opinion as to their probable value. You are all well aware of Mr. Morgan's extensive acquaintance with New York Indian History. His well-known volume, "The League of the Iroquois," gives their history, religion and customs with a touching eloquence. In answer, he referred me for explanation to a passage in this volume. From this extract, and from the manuscripts themselves, I learned that they referred to a treaty of the United States with the Seneca and Tuscarora Indians in the extreme western part of this State, whereby 119,000 acres of their lands were to be sold, and they were to emigrate to Green Bay, Michigan. But the measures by which the treaty with the Indians had been secured were represented to have been tainted with so much corruption and fraud, there was so much opposition on the part of the Indians themselves to emigrating, they were supported in their opposition by so many friends, especially by the Society of Friends, that the purchasers, the Ogden Land Company, finally made a compromise, and yielded up to them more than half of the land which they had purchased.

This transaction was painted by Mr. Morgan, in the passage to which he referred me, in very sombre colors. I quote a portion of it as illustrative of the nature and importance of the subject:

"The darkest frauds, the basest bribery, and the most execrable intrigues which soulless avarice could suggest have been practiced in

open day, upon this defenseless and much-injured people. The natural feelings of man and the sense of public justice are violated and appalled at the narration of their proceedings. * * * The Georgia treaty with the Cherokees, so justly held up to execration, is a white page compared with the treaties of 1838 and 1842, which were forced upon the Senecas. This project has already, however, in part, been defeated by the load of iniquity which hung upon the skirts of these treaties."**

In another passage, in the same volume, he remarks:

"The (United States) government bartered away its integrity to minister to the rapacious demands of the Ogden Land Company." The author is an adopted member of the Seneca tribe.

In view of this and similar declarations, I concluded that it was certainly for the interest of the State, that in a transaction where the good name of the United States, of Massachusetts and of New York, were all more or less implicated, the original documents belonging to one of the chief parties to the transaction, the State of Massachusetts, should enter into the possession of the State of New York. And accordingly, the three volumes, of about 1,100 pages of manuscript, letter-sheet size, were purchased at the auction for about twenty dollars each. On examination, I found them to be a valuable addition to the historical records of the State, and well worthy of being preserved for reference.

Before describing the MSS., let me very briefly mention a few of the antecedent historical facts regarding our relations with these Indians, for the sake of some of the younger members in the audience, who may not be familiar with them. Massachusetts and New York, under their original powers from Great Britain, claimed jurisdiction from their western boundaries to the Pacific ocean. This interfering claim of Massachusetts was settled by an agreement or contract of that State with New York, December 16, 1786, at Hartford, Conn., by which the territorial jurisdiction of New York was acknowledged, while Massachusetts only retained the right to buy the 4,000,000 acres which she claimed, from the Indians, at such times as they were willing to sell. This pre-emptive right was one which Massachusetts could dispose of in portions to other parties. The first great sale was made to Messrs. Phelps & Gorham, in 1788, and next in time, 1,250,000 acres to Robert Morris, the great financier, the nation's great benefactor, in 1791. He formed the Holland Land Company to facilitate the sale of the land. It was this purchase which brought upon Morris those financial embarrassments which could and did

*Morgan's League of the Iroquois, Roch., 1851, p. 33. The same, p. 458.