John Gough Nichols: Writer, Editor and Reviewer
His review of Whitmore’s Lexington speculations, while phrased with the courtesy one would expect of the Victorian gentleman in the drawing at the right, was resoundingly negative.
Nichols summarized Whitmore’s arguments against Hudson’s theory, then turned to Whitmore’s own theory, noting that “it is one, it will be seen, in which he entertains a strong personal concern.” The reviewer reproduced Whitmore’s statement of his theory in full: almost a page of reduced-size type.
At the end of that long quotation, Nichols wrote “All this is very fairly and impartially stated by Mr. Whitmore, but in passing judgment upon his argument we must confess that we are not disposed to assent to it.” The peerage granted to the first Lord Lexington (also spelled Lexinton) and inherited by his son struck Nichols as the only reasonably probable source for the original town name, which had otherwise been lost and forgotten until King Charles’ gratitude brought it back to life.
Whether or not Governor Dudley’s family was connected with that of Lord Lexington, Nichols suggested that some of that family had been interested in claiming such a connection. In support of this, he cited an article in his own magazine, entitled “The Dudleys of Massachusetts.” The author, a Mr. Alard, argued in favor of such a connection. However, I couldn’t find anything in the article that associated this genealogical ambition specifically with Governor Joseph Dudley. Whatever interest there was may have flourished only among the governor’s direct and collateral descendants in the 19th century, when Alard’s article was written.
Nichols also expressed the opinion that “Governor Joseph Dudley may have had a greater voice in naming this and some other towns than Mr. Whitmore is disposed to allow.” Not only Robert Sutton, Lord Lexington, but also the Earls of Leicester and Rutland were known to him, and the towns of Leicester, Rutland, and Sutton were all named within a couple of years after Lexington, while Dudley still held office. Although Nichols didn’t respond directly to Whitmore’s assertion that Dudley and Lord Lexington were not acquainted, these remarks about the naming of Lexington and Sutton rest on the assumption that they were.
The issue of acquaintance is worth a closer look. Lord Lexington didn’t spend his whole career as an ambassador in foreign courts. In 1691 he was a member of King William’s privy council, and from 1699 to 1705, when between diplomatic assignments, he served on the Council of Trade and Plantations (also known as the Lords of Trade). This was the body in official charge of England’s overseas colonies, and Dudley had spent a great deal of time and energy cultivating its members while he was lobbying—plotting is actually not too strong a word—to be appointed governor of Massachusetts Bay province. After ten years of constant effort, he achieved this goal in 1702, three years after Lord Lexington had become a member of the council. It’s most unlikely that he and Lexington failed to cross paths, especially since it appears that their political views were closely in harmony. Dudley’s desire to honor the baron by naming not just one but possibly two towns after him could have been an expression of gratitude for supporting his appointment.
In 1713, some might also have suspected that Governor Dudley was motivated by personal ambition in flattering a politician who was expected to occupy a high place in Her Majesty’s next government. But when the town of Sutton was named in 1715, Lexington’s party had fallen from power and he was in forced retirement on his estate. At that point, a salute by Dudley—if that’s in fact what the naming of Sutton was—would have been a sign of genuine friendship, for the governor could have had nothing to gain by it.
(…continued—Click Next below.)
