could bind the borough, which then had no existence. Payment was refused and a suit to compel payment was brought. A borough meeting voted to pay it and passed the following vote, introduced by one of the most influential citizens :

"That in ordering the payment we in no respect recognize, acknowledge or allow the justness, legality or collectibility of said bill, but order its payment, believing it cheaper and better for the people knowingly to submit to the extortion of an insignificant sum of money, than to enter into a contest which will tend but to the disruption of the peace of our community, and the opening up of a disgraceful quarrel the end of which no person can foresee."

In 1869 the reservoir of the Danbury water-works gave way and caused loss of life and a great destruction of property. Able counsel advised the borough that it was not liable, but the borough procured the passage of an act authorizing it to settle, adjust and pay the damages, and provided for the appointment of a commissioner to fix the amounts if the parties could not agree. Under the act nearly $27,000 was paid to 123 parties, in amounts ranging from $5 to $4,500. These are examples of the methods used to avoid litigation. The question as to the wisdom of these methods is submitted to the judgment of the reader.

Borough action is not always consistent with itself, and there is often too much ground for the charge of favoritism. Many boroughs establish fire limits within which it is unlawful to build wooden buildings or to enlarge existing buildings by a wooden addition, "except by permission of the warden and burgesses." In some boroughs such permission is almost invariably granted on request. In others the petitions are granted or denied with no apparent reason for such diverse action. The suspicion exists that influential persons can procure such permission that is denied to persons of less consequence. In Ansonia an addition made to a barn by a prominent citizen was allowed to remain "provided the owner pay $100 into the treasury." Within a month a vote was passed releasing him from the payment. In another case the warden was ordered to

put an injunction on the erection of a wood building, and at the next meeting of the warden and burgesses the warden was authorized to grant a permit to complete the building.

In Birmingham a well had been dug in the sidewalk and the proprietor had moved out his fence and brought the well within the enclosure. This was an illegal encroachment, a nuisance. The subject was "considered" by the warden and burgesses and it was voted "that the warden give notice to-to forthwith remove the encroachment which is deemed a nuisance." Two weeks afterwards the annual borough meeting was held. The warden, in a written report, referred to nuisances by encroachments on the streets and called on the citizens to decide whether they should be suppressed or not He said, "if public officers are at every step to be found fault with and not to be sustained because individual interests are to suffer by the execution of the law, then I would advise that the whole code of laws be rescinded and the borough charter again referred to our legislature for revocation."

He announced that he had allowed the use of his name as a candidate for re-election, and assured the freemen that if elected and the burgesses should appoint him committee on nuisances, "he should proceed without fear or favor to execute the law and enforce the penalties."

The meeting unanimously passed a resolution sustaining the sentiments of the warden's report, and asserting that it was the duty of the warden and burgesses to insist upon the maintenance, by the citizens, of the borough laws, and then re-elected the warden.

The burgesses at once appointed the warden committee on nuisances. The subject of the encroachment above referred to was fully discussed, and it was voted "that the whole matter be left with the warden to carry out the law," but at the next meeting of the warden and burgesses it was voted "that no present action be taken in regard to " the encroachment. No other action was ever taken by the borough authorities and the encroachment remained for more than twenty years.

But it cannot be said that this personal influence on official action is peculiar to boroughs. It exists in all governments, especially in all popular governments, and it will exist until public opinion shall demand, in official action, a disregard of personal influences. There is no difference in kind between favoritism in a court of burgesses, and a legislative yielding to the influence of a state lobby, which is the bane of American legislation.

It will be seen that clasticity is a feature in borough administration. Boroughs that were chartered with the expectation of restraining cattle, suppressing nuisances, passing fire laws, and perhaps procuring a fire engine, and of doing little more, have so enlarged their purposes as to change, within their limits, all the conditions of living. The towns are like iron castings, any number of which, and all substantially alike, can be made from the same pattern; the boroughs are as unlike as the machines that the artizan constructs to produce his varied wares. At the present time there is an almost infinite diversity in the charters, as well as in the ordinances and other forms of borough action. But the will of the people of the borough has been the basis of legislative action, and the result shows the capacity of the people of Connecticut for improvement in municipal government.

THE FAMILY

OF

NATHANIEL EATON,

OF CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

BY DANIEL C. EATON.

[Read April 22, 1884.]

THREE of the persons bearing the name of Eaton who came to New England within the first twenty years of its settlement were the brothers Theophilus, Samuel and Nathaniel. Their father was the Rev. Richard Eaton, for some years vicar of the parish of Great Budworth, in Cheshire, as was his father, also named Richard, before him. Two abstracts of the will of the second Richard have been received, one by Professor Dexter from the late Col. Chester, and one taken afterwards by Miss Anwyl. Col. Chester's abstract was published, with some notes on the family, by Professor Dexter, in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1884. Each copy contains a few items omitted in the other. Putting the two together, the amended abstract reads thus:

"I, Richard Eaton, Clerk, etc.; will dated 11th July and signed 12th July, 1616, proved 14th January, 1616-17, by Theophilus Eaton. My two houses called Pow House and the Poos House, in Over Whettley, co. Chester, and a piece of land which I lately bought of John Eaton, of Sandyway, and all my other lands, I give to my wife Elisabeth for her life.