The assembly known long ago as "The Great and General Court," being in session when this article was commenced, the mind of the writer was naturally led to the above topic upon which to employ his pen; and as Concord and the Legis. lature have moved together in harmony nearly seventy years, something of their history may be acceptable. THE LEGISLATURE A MIGRATORY BODY. Prior to Concord becoming the permanent seat of government, sessions of the Legislature had been held in several of the chief towns. This history of the Legislature commences with 1776-that being the year of national independence -from which time until 1808, the Legislature was a migratory body. The sessions, however, from 1776 to 1782 were held either in Exeter or Portsmouth, and nearly all in the former town. In those seven years the Legislature was in session thirty times; in all seven hundred and seventy-seven days; or one hundred and eleven days each of those seven years. The five sessions of 1781 were in There were Exeter, and, from 1782 to 1787, there were twenty sessions, and the places where the Legislature met were Exeter, Portsmouth and Concord. twenty-seven sessions between 1776 and 1782, six of which were in the year 1777; the six occupying one hundred and twelve days. In 1780, the body now under consideration was in session during some portion of March, April, June, October and December. In 1781, one hundred and fifteen days were devoted to the service of the State, and in the following year sixty days were thus spent. The first session held in Concord was in 1782. It began on the 13th of March and terminated on the 27th. A second, of sixteen days, was held here in June; another, of five days, in September; a fourth, of twelve days, in Exeter, and a fifth, of ten days, in Portsmouth. These five sessions occupied, however, only sixty days. The only other towns than Portsmouth, Exeter and Concord, in which the General Court has convened were as follows: Charlestown, one of the three sessions of 1787; Amherst, one of the three in 1794; Hanover, sixteen days, in 1795, and at Hopkinton in 1798, "Upwards of one hundred and fifty mem1801, 1806 and 1807. NUMBER OF MEMBERS. The Senate has always, from 1792, consisted of twelve, and the House, from early times, has been an assembly in which the people were fully represented. But it is not possible to determine, from the printed Journals of the early years in this century, of precisely how many the popular branch consisted, and utterly so to designate the towns members whose names appear in the yeas and nays represented, for the towns were not given, as is now the invariable practice. The Journal of the House for the June session of 1802 commences as follows: bers met agreeably to the Constitution," etc. In 1803, the yeas and nays on a certain question were declared to be 70 to 68. In 1808, 87 to 75. In another case, the same session, 95 to 64. The House Journal of 1809 contains the names of members and the towns they represented, and the six counties into which the State was then divided were represented as follows: Rockingham, 43 members; Strafford, 29; Hillsborough, 37; Cheshire. 33; Grafton, 26, and Coos 4. In all, 172.. REPRESENTATION OF TOWNS. In 1812, Portsmouth had three Representatives, and Dover, Gilmanton and Concord, two each; all other towns, one A RURAL NEW ENGLAND VILLAGE. each, except in cases requiring the for- eral Court." In consequence of that mation of classes, which were as follows: vote, a building was constructed on South Hampton and East Kingston; ground now occupied by the City Hall, Hampton Falls and Seabrook; Litchfield and used by the State and the town up and Londonderry; Hawke and Sandown; to the year 1819, when the Legislature Allenstown and Bow; Middleton and commenced to occupy the edifice in Brookfield; Effingham and Ossipee Gore; which its sessions have ever since been New Hampton and Centre Harbor; An- held. trim and Windsor; Greenfield and Society Land; Wendell and Goshen; New London and Wilmot; Dorchester, Orange and Dame's Gore; Thornton, Peeling and Ellsworth; New Holderness and Campton; Hebron and Groton; Alexandria and Danbury; Lincoln and Franconia; Lancaster, Jefferson and Breton Woods, [now Carroll]; Adams, Bartlett and Chatham; Cockburne, [now Columbia], Colebrook, Shelburne, Stewartstown and Errol; Northumberland, Stratford and Percy, [now Stark]; Dalton and Whitefield. CONCORD BECAME THE CAPITAL. The writer cannot ascertain by legislalative journals that any discussion took place during the session of 1807, regarding the selection of a permanent place of meeting. But in the House Journal, June 19, of that year, is the following record: "The vote of yesterday, that the next session of the General Court be holden at Hopkinton came down from the Honorable Senate for the following amendment: that the word Hopkinton be erased, and Concord inserted,' which amendment was concurred in;" and, "Voted, That Messrs. Ham, Sweetser, Odell, Quarles, Fisk, Miller, Edgerton, Buffum, Webster, and Bedell, with such as the Senate may join, be a committee to wait on His Excellency the Governor, and inform him that the business of the present session is finished, and that the Legislature are ready to be adjourned to the last Wednesday of May next,to meet in Concord." That the people of Concord, a long time before the above procedure, entertained the expectation that the Legislature would, at some time, cease being a migratory body, is probable; for on the 30th of August, 1790, they "Voted, To raise one hundred pounds for building a house for the accommodation of the Gen In 1808, the population of Concord was about two thousand, and nearly all those inhabitants who dwelt within a mile of the site upon which the State House was afterwards erected, lived upon the highway since known as Main Street. The occupation of at least half of them was tilling the soil; that of people in other sections of the town almost exclusively so. We were a rural population, just beginning to put on the appearance of a New England village. There was only one edifice in the town set apart for the public worship of God; the "meetinghouse" of the olden time, with a porch on two of its sides, and a towering spire, surmounted by the effigy of that bird whose crowing reminded Peter of his delinquency in denying his Lord and Master. But, even then, the town contained a goodly number of families of cultivated taste, who were well educated, according to the standard of that day, and in easy pecuniary condition. There were then several taverns along Main Street, each, however, of limited capacity, and a member of the Legislature resorted for entertainment to private houses. "Taking Court boarders" was then the practice in a large number of families; not so much, in some conspicuous instances, for pecuniary gain, as to enjoy the society of distinguished gentlemen in the Legislature. In these hospitable abodes was often found the best society of that day. Governor Langdon wa a boarder in the family of Deacon John Kimball; Governors Gilman and Smith made the mansion of Hon. William A. Kent-the same where General Lafayette tarried, while here two days in 1825-their home when in Concord; and these chief magistrates were associated in their boarding places with other gentlemen in high social and political position. Hon. John Bradley, him self once a member of the Senate, and Hon. Thomas W. Thompson, Speaker of the House in the years 1813 and 1814, and Senator in Congress from 1814 to 1817, entertained members of the "Great and General Court;" and at a later period, Hon. Isaac Hill, John George, William and Joseph Low, entertained Governors and prospective Congressmen. Jeremiah Mason, Daniel and Ezekiel Webster, and other lights of the early part of the present century, made domestic dwellings their abiding place when in Concord. Such was the custom of the times; and there yet remain people amongst us who relate with much satisfaction the agreeable occurrences in their parent's houses, when politicians, wits, clergymen, lawyers and others, of a now long gone period, were inmates of those habitations. The drift into the public houses of Concord is of comparatively modern date; utterly unknown during the period here under consideration. In early days, members of the Legislature came to town in their own vehicles or upon the backs of their own horses; put those animals out to pasture, and the owners, in many instances, did not return to the towns they represented until the close of the session. THE ELECTION SERMON. From 1784 to 1831-both years included -sessions of the Legislature were preceded by public religious services in some meeting-house, where the session was held; a discourse being delivered by a clergyman appointed by the Governor. Those were occasions of the utmost "pomp and circumstance," and such of them as took place in Concord are in distinct remembrance by people who still live. The Governor and Council, the Senate and House of Representatives, many clergymen, wal ing by themselves, two and two, gentlemen in the various positions of life, pre eded by martial music and a military corps, all on foot, with a miscellaneous crowd on the sides of the street as spectators, proceeded to the ancient and then only meeting-house in Concord. The number of people in that ancient, spacious and well remembered house during those religious services was very great; and when all had become composed for the exercises of the day, the spectacle was of very impressive character. PREACHERS OF THE ELECTION SERMON. The following are the names of preachers of the "Election Sermon:" Rev. Messrs. McClintock of Greenland, (1784), Belknap of Dover, Haven of Portsmouth, Langdon of Portsmouth, Noble of New Castle, Ogden of Portsmouth, Evans of Concord, Morrison of Londonderry, Wood of Weare, Rowland of Exeter, Peabody of Atkinson, Gay of Dover, Payson of Rindge, Burnap of Merrrimack, Woodman of Sanbornton, Hall of Keene, Porter of Conway, Paige of Hancock, Miltimore of Stratham, Bradstreet of Chester, McFarland of Concord, Rowland of Exeter, Shurtleff of Hanover, Beede of Wilton, Bradford of Francestown, Holt of Epping, Sutherland of Bath, Dickinson of Walpole, Merrill of Nottingham West, [now Hudson], Allen of Hanover, Howe of Claremont, Bradford of New Boston, French of NorthHampton, Tyler of Hanover, Cooke of Acworth, Ellis of Exeter, Williams of Concord, Bouton of Concord, Moore of Milord, Crosby of Charlestown, and Lord of Hanover, [1831.] DISCONTINUANCE OF RELIGIOUS SERVICES. In the House of Representatives, June, 1831, Benjamin M. Farley, Esq., of Hollis moved that a committee be appointed on the part of the House to select some per son to preach the Election Sermon. Charles F. Gove, Esq., of Goffstown, moved that the resolve of Mr. Farley, be in definitely postponed; which motion prevailed, 107 to 81; and so the ancient custom was abolished, after its observance for forty eight years. Thenceforth, the assembling of the Legislature has been of less remarkable character than under the old order of affairs. Only in exceptional cases has there been a military parade, and in some instances, Governors elect have passed, with no other escort than the committee of the two houses, from their boarding place to the Representatives' hall, and been quietly inaugurated. THE SPEAKERSHIP. The Speakership of the House of Representatives, under the State, as under the Federal Government, is a position of much responsibility, of delicate and arduous duties, and no inconsiderable power and influence. Especially when we consider the fact that the New Hampshire House of Representatives is the largest legislative body in the country, and that it is made up, each year, of a large proportion of members entirely without experience in legislative business, yet fully conscious, and even jealous of their rights as representatives of the sovereign people, it is apparent that in order to the satisfactory discharge of the duties of this office the Speaker must be a man of keen discernment and rare tact, as well as sound judgment and decision of character. Yet, of the numerous individuals who have occupied this position in the past,there have been few, if any, who have failed to give general satisfaction, both on the score of ability and in impartiality, (except, perhaps, in times of intense partisan excitement) while many have distinguished themselves in a high degree for the able, judicious and popular manner in which they have performed their duties. Since the adoption of the Constitution of 1792, forty-nine persons have held the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives in this State. These, with the years for which they served, are as follows: 1793, Nathaniel Peabody; 1794, John Prentice; 1795 and 1796, Russell Freeman; 1797, William Plummer; 1798 to 1804, inclusive, John Prentice; 1805 and 1806, Samuel Bell; 1807 and 1808 Charles Cutts; 1809, George B. Upham; 1810, Charles Cutts; 1811 and 1812, Clement Storer; 1813 and 1814, Thomas W. Thompson; 1815, George B. Upham; 1816, David L. Morrill: 1817, Henry B. Chase; 1818 to 1820, inclusive, Matthew Harvey; 1821, Ichabod Bartlett; 1822, Charles Woodman; 1823, Andrew Pierce; 1824, Andrew Pierce and Edmund Parker; 1825, Levi Woodbury, Henry Hubbard ; 1826 and 1827, Henry Hubbard; 1828, James Wilson, Jr.; 1829, James B. Thornton; 1830, Samuel C. Webster; 1831 and 1832, Franklin Pierce; 1833 to to 1836, inclusive, Charles G. Atherton; 1837 and 1838, Ira A. Eastman; 1839 and 1840, Moses Norris, Jr.; 1841, John S. Wells; 1842 and 1843, Samuel Swazey; 1844 and 1845. Harry Hibbard; 1846, John P. Hale; 1847, Moses Norris, Jr.; 1848 and 1849, Samuel H. Ayer; 1850 and 1851, Nathaniel B. Baker; 1852, George W. Kittredge; 1853, J. Everett Sargent; 1854, Francis R. Chase; 1855, John J. Prentiss; 1856 and 1857, Edward H. Rollins; 1858 and 1859, Napoleon B. Bryant; 1860, Charles H. Bell; 1861 and 1862.Edward A. Rollins; 1863 and 1864, William E. Chandler; 1865 and 1866, Austin F. Pike; 1867 and 1868, Simon G. Griffin; 1869 and 1870, Samuel M. Wheeler; 1871, William H. Gove; 1872, Asa Fowler; 1873, James W. Emery; 1874, Albert R. Hatch; 1875 and 1876, Charles P. Sanborn; 1877, Augustus A. Woolson. Those at all familiar with the political history of the State and nation will recognize in this list of names, not a few that have become illustrious. It may, in fact, well be doubted if the roll of Speakers in any other State furnishes an equal number of names of distinguished reputation. Of the forty nine men enumerated, twenty two-nearly one half-occupied seats in the Congress of the United States, thirteen having been members of the Senate. Seven were Governors of the State, eleven Presidents of the State Senate and five Justices of the Supreme Court. One was a member of the Cabinet and a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, one a Minister to Spain, and one President of the United States. Many of them haye occupied the |