tee, and each year some young lawyers, merchants, and
tradesmen, or mechanics, were brought forward. The vacancies that
occurred enabled the committee to compliment a retired merchant, or
successful mechanic, with a seat in the House. The attendance of
members was not enforced, and it was quite irregular. A full House
consisted of about three hundred and fifty members, but sixty was a
quorum. It was common for merchants and lawyers to call at the House,
look at the orders of the day, and then go to business. In an exigency
they were sent for and brought in to vote.

The House was not a place for luxurious ease. The members sat on long
seats without cushions, having only a narrow shelf on the back of the
seat next in front on which with care a book might be laid or a
memorandum written. A drawer under the seat for the documents
constituted a member's outfit. There were four wood fires--one in each
corner of the great hall. Members sat in their overcoats and hats, and
in one of the rules it was declared that when "a member rises to speak,
he shall take off his hat and address the speaker."

Boston sent John C. Gray, John C. Park, Charles Francis Adams, George
T. Bigelow (afterwards Chief Justice of the State), Edmund Dwight,
Charles P. Curtis, George T. Curtis, John G. Palfrey and others who
were men of mark.

From other parts of the State there were Alvah Crocker, of Fitchburg;
Henry Wilson, of Natick; Thomas Kinnicutt and Benjamin F. Thomas, of
Worcester; John P. Robinson and Daniel S. Richardson, of Lowell;
Samuel H. Walley, Jr., of Roxbury, and others.

Mr. Gray was the son of William Gray, the leading merchant of Boston at
the close of the last century. Mr. Gray was kept in the House for many
years. He was familiar with the rules and usages, and his influence
within certain limits was considerable. His integrity was undisputed.
Nobody suspected him of personal interests in anything. As chairman of
the Committee on Finance, he guided the expenditures of the State with
economy and rigid justice. As a speaker his powers were limited to a
statement of the facts bearing upon the case. To argument in any high
sense he did not aspire.

John C. Park was a good talker. His resources were at his command.
His style was agreeable, his argument clear, his positions reasonable,
and yet his influence was extremely limited. His experience as a
lawyer was the same, substantially. He was not capable of carrying