zeal, his puritanism, and rebellion, on a gibbet at Charing-Cross.--His daughter married a merchant in Newport, Rhode-Island, and lived and died with an excellent character.--Her Father having met with so tragical an end, I omit to mention her Husband’s name, whose Posterity live in good reputation.--Governor Hutchinson reports, that the widow of Hugh Peters was supported, till 1671, by a collection at Salem, of 30_l._ per ann. Were this report true, it would be much to the reputation of Salem for having _once_ relieved the unfortunate. Mr. Hutchinson might have pointed out the cause of the unhappy widow’s necessity; but he has left that part to me, and here it follows:--After Hugh’s Death, the selectmen of Salem were afraid that the King [Charles II.] would seize on his estate in Salem, as had been the case in regard to what the Parliament had given him in England. They therefore trumped up a debt, and seized and sold the said estate to the families of Lyndes and Curwin, who possess it to the present time;--and the selectmen of Salem allowed the widow 30l. per ann. for the wrong they had done her and her daughter. It is not likely that the widow was supported by any charitable collection; for William Peters was a man of great property, and had a deed of the whole peninsula whereon Boston stands, which he purchased of Mr. Blaxton, who bought it of the Plymouth Company; though Mr. Hutchinson says Blaxton’s title arose merely from his sleeping on it the first of any Englishman.[17]--This was well said by Mr. Hutchinson, who wanted to justify the people of Salem in seizing the land and expelling Mr. Blaxton from his settlement in 1630, because he said he liked Lords-Brethren less than Lords-Bishops.--Moreover, Thomas Peters, at the same time, was living at Saybrook, and was not poor.--Those two Gentlemen were able and willing to support the widow of an unfortunate brother whom they loved very tenderly.--They took great care of his daughter, and left her handsome legacies.--From these considerations, I am induced to believe, that the widow of Hugh Peters never subsisted on any contributions, except what she received from her brothers William and Thomas Peters.--Mr. Hutchinson makes a curious remark, viz., If Hugh Peters had returned to his parish, he would not have suffered as he did.--He might have said, with greater propriety, that, if Hugh Peters had not been a fanatic and a rebel more zealous than wise, he never would have left his Parish for the agency of the people of New-England, who never paid him the stipulated allowance for his support in England, tho’ he gave them thanksgiving-days, instead of fasting, for the space of twenty years, and procured, in 1649, from Oliver Cromwell, a charter for the