History of East Boston.


Samuel Maverick, Grantee of Noddle's Island; His Ancestry.  ·  Samuel Maverick; His Personal History.  ·  Samuel Maverick; His Ecclesiastical Troubles.  ·  Noddle's Island a Place of Refuge to the Baptists.  ·  Samuel Maverick, Royal Commissioner.  ·  The Maverick Family.  ·  The Ownership Traced From Samuel Maverick to Samuel Shrimpton.

The Early Condition, Name, and Ownership of Noddle's Island.

Noddle's Island is situated at the confluence of Charles and Mystic rivers, the united currents of which separate it from the city of Boston by a distance of one third of a mile. Its settlement dates back to the earliest accounts of Massachusetts bay, and its history includes many interesting incidents both of a local and general character. In investigating the circumstances connected with the settlement and subsequent history of this Island, it has been found expedient to examine the records of the discoveries and settlements upon our extended sea-coast, in one of the most important harbors of which it is situated, and the early charters of the Plymouth and Massachusetts colonies. Many persons recollect the Island as it was before it was conveyed to the East Boston Company; recollect the old farm-house and surrounding barns, the little wharf, the bridge which connected Camp hill with the rest of the Island, and the various appurtenances which naturally belonged to a well-kept farm.

The Island, ever after its discovery, was a favorite pasturage ground; and during the summer months, fine herds of cattle, flocks of sheep, and scores of horses, could be seen feeding along the green valleys and up the hill-sides. Its was a great treat for the boys to assist in transporting the horses from Boston to the pastures of the Island. They enjoyed the trouble of getting them aboard the boats, and assisting in rowing across the channel, and as the boats struck the beach, the boys would leap upon the backs of the horses, jump them overboard, and swim them ashore, regardless of the salt water bath or the temporary danger. Other islands in the harbor were used for pastures, but Noddle's Island was perhaps more extensively than others, on account of its proximity to the city and the establishment of a ferry. For a long course of years, these islands were a source of great convenience and profit in this way, and especially about the time of the Revolutionary war, they were well stocked with all kinds of domestic animals, which were brought from the surrounding country. These horses and cattle were the cause of many difficulties between the Americans and the British, and at one time gave rise to a severe engagement on Noddle's Island.

Noddle's Island was a favorite fishing ground for men, boys, and family parties; and in the quiet days of summer and autumn, along the pebbly beach, could be seen the patient fisherman, throwing their lines into the restless waters which rolled at their feet, and pulling out the incautious fish, while a little way from shore, in small boats, which rose and fell with every wave, the more expert ones would haul in the small cod, tom-cod, and flounders. When enough had been caught to supply the wants of the party, all would go ashore, kindle a fire on the beach, and, in primitive style, fry their fish, or make an old-fashioned chowder, and, with a few extras brought in from the other side of the channel, enjoy their repast with a zeal to be envied by modern epicures. Boats without cuddies, and sometimes larger ones, which went below for fish of larger weight, on their return landed upon the Island, and, kindling their fires, cooked the fish which they had brought with them. It was no unusual thing to see as many as eight or ten fires at a time along the shore, and the parties engaged in various ways,—some in looking at their lines in the water with all a fisherman's patience and anxiety, others wandering up and down the beach, gathering sticks for the fire, or enjoying the prospect and the invigorating breezes, while still others were bending over the little fires, tending the fish which they were frying, or watching the kettle, which, suspended from crotched sticks, hung its sooty sides into the blaze.

The Island then presented a good picture of early times, early habits, and of the men of former days. But the beach fire has gone out, and the forge and furnace take its place; the steam-ferry plies where once the little milk canoe made its uncertain trips; immense ships and steamboats come to their wharves, where once the horses swam ashore; the pasture ground is covered by warehouses and private dwellings; the steam-engine supersedes the hay-press; and, in truth, "old things are passed away, and behold, all things are become new." And of the ancient frequenter of the Island it can be truly said—
"New streets invade the country; and he strays,
Lost in strange paths, still seeking, and in vain,
For ancient landmarks, or the lonely lane,
Where oft he played at Crusoe when a boy."
By patent, dated Nov. 3, 1620, King James the I. gave to the "Council of Plymouth" a grant of lands, "lying between forty and forty-eight degrees north of latitude, and in length by all this breadth throughout the main land, from sea to sea."

A settlement was commenced by the "Plymouth Company," at Plymouth, on the 22d of Dec., 1620; and on the 13th of Dec., 1622, the Council of Plymouth, from whom the company derived their rights, gave to Robert Gorges, youngest son of Ferdinando Gorges (who had expended £20,000 in fruitless attempts to make settlements), and his heirs, "all that part of the main land in New England, commonly called and known by the name of the Massachusetts, or by whatever name or names whatsoever called, with all coasts and shores along the sea, for ten English miles, in a straight line, towards the north-east (accounting 1,760 years to the mile), and thirty-one English miles, after the same rate, into the main land, through all the breadth aforesaid; together with all the islands so-lying within three miles of any part of the said land.

Capt. Robert Gorges was employed by the Council of Plymouth, in 1623, as lieutenant-general, "to restrain interlopers and regulate all affairs." He acted under this commission but a few years, having died in 1628 without issue, when the land descended to John Gorges, his eldest brother. In January, 1628-1629, John conveyed to Sir William Brereton, of Handforth, in the county of Chester, baronet, and his heirs, a part thereof, namely,—"All the land in breadth lying from the east side of Charles river to the easterly part of the cape called Nahant, and all the lands lying in length twenty miles north-east into the main land, from the mouth of the said Charles river, lying also in length twenty miles east into the main land from the said Cape Nahant. Also two islands lying next unto the shore between Nahant and Charles river, the bigger called 'Brereton,' and the lesser 'Susanna.'"

Thus it appears that Noddle's Island, whose history it is the particular object of these pages to illustrate, the larger of the two, was first called Brereton, after the grantee. And as Sir William had a daughter Susannah, the other was probably named in honor of her. This latter, laid down on the old maps as Hog island, afterwards received the name of Belle isle from Joseph Russell, the owner of it, at the close of the last century. After his death it was purchased by the late John Breed, Esq., of Charlestown, a bachelor, who lived upon it in a large one-story stone house, of great length, built by himself. His brother in England is the present proprietor; and it is now sometimes called Breed's island.

It appears from the Massachusetts archives, that "Sir William Brereton sent over several families and servants, who possessed and improved large tracts of the lands granted to him, and made several leases," but it is not known that he ever came to this country. Probably he did not, as his grant was not recognized by the company or government; and, as will hereafter appear, he was a man of authority and of great note at home. The largest of these islands took its name, indeed from him; but then it often happens that an estate is called by the name of a tenant in possession, rather than that of a proprietor, especially if the latter is a non-resident. Such has since been the case with this Island; for, owing to the fact that Henry Howell Williams and his son Thomas occupied it as lessees for seventy years, it almost lost its proper name, and was often called William's Island. But the name by which the Island has been familiarly known, from the earliest knowledge of it to the present time, has been Noddle's Island.

Conjecture has heretofore been busy to ascertain how the Island acquired its singular name, and after all the examination which has been made, the question is still unsettled. The solution of the mystery, however, seems to be connected with the fact, that at the time the first mention of the Island is made under that name there was a person in the colony of the name of William Noddle, and there can be little doubt that the Island takes its name from him. He was a man of character, being made a freeman as we learn by the Colony Records, in 1631. The grant of the Island by the general court (1st April, 1633) to Samuel Maverick, it will be observed, was made to him, not under the name of Brereton's or Maverick's Island, as it probably would have been had Maverick been the first occupant, or had the renowned Sir William Brereton's claim been respected, but by that of Noddle's Island. Now it is not a violent presumption, that the person from whom it took its name was this same William Noddle, and that he was probably a settler upon the Island previous to the grant to Maverick.

That the Island borne this name prior to the grant to Maverick is evident. Johnson, in his Wonder-working Providence, speaks of Maverick as being at Noddle's Island in 1629; and Governor Winthrop mentions in his Journal under date of December 24, 1630, that "three of the Governour's Servants, coming in a shallop from Mistick, were driven by the wind upon Noddle's Island in 1629; and Governor Winthrop mentions in his Journal under date of December 24, 1630, that "three of the Governour's Servants, coming in a shallop from Mistick, were driven by the wind upon Noddle's Island, and forced to stay there all that night without fire or food." This renders it certain that the Island, when spoken of, was commonly called by that title. We hear of no other person in the colony of that name, unless in the mention made in Winthrop's Journal in June, 1632, that one Noddle, an honest man of Salem, carrying wood in a canoe in the South river, was overturned and drowned." But this may have been, and doubtless was, the same individual, and he probably was a bachelor, as his name, so far as we know, has been extinct in Massachusetts ever since the upsetting of that canoe.

If it be inquired, "How did William Noddle get to this country at so early a period?" we answer:—It may have been that he was one of the persons sent over by Sir William Brereton as one of his settlers, or that he came over in one of the fishing shallops which cruised along the coast soon after the settlement of Plymouth. Several of these vessels had arrived and made fishing establishments at Piscataqua (Portsmouth and Dover), Cape Ann, and Naumkeag (Salem). At Merry mount, in Braintree, was the colony of Morton. Settlements also were made at Winnisimet and Charlestown (in the former place, according to Hutchinson, about the year 1626). These vessels were more numerous than is generally supposed; for we are informed, that as early as 1622 there were thirty-five of them on the coast of New England. Noddle may have come over with some of these parties, and been left at the Island which now bears his name; or he may have gone there from some of these fishing settlements; for there are historical proofs that there were removals from place to place even at this early period. For instance, we have an account of the journeying of David Thompson, some years before the arrival of Winthrop, from Piscataqua to the island in Boston harbor that bears his name, and from thence to Plymouth; and also an excursion to this Island, by Miles Standish, the year after the arrival at Plymouth.

That Noddle's Island had been inhabited some time before the arrival of Governor Winthrop is presumed from the fact, that some of the passengers in the ship Mary and John who wished to proceed from Nantasket where they were put on shore, May 30, 1630, by Captain Squeb, to Charles river, where they were bound, obtained a boat of some who had staid in the country, at Noddle's Island and Charlestown, for trade with the natives. This must have been quite a large boat, as the party consisted of ten persons, who went to explore, and who took their goods with them in the boat. They also carried with them "an old planter," as they called him, who "had staid in the country and could speak something of the Indian language." From the fact that he is called an "old planter," and that he had acquired such a knowledge of the language as to make himself understood by the Indians, we infer that he must have been one of the settlers before spoken of at Noddle's Island or at Charlestown [On their way, the boat stopped at Charlestown, where they ate boiled bass at an Englishman's house, but had no bread to eat with it. They sent the old planter to the Indians, and he persuaded them to keep at a distance that night. The next morning the Indians appeared, and in a friendly manner sent some of their number holding out a bass, and our people sent a man with a bisquet; and so they exchanged, not only then but afterward, "a bisquet for a bass.].

From the above-mentioned facts the inference seems to be justifiable, that the name which superseded the one given to this Island by Sir William Brereton was derived from William Noddle, a probable early resident upon it. He seems to have been the Robinson Crusoe of the Island without his "man Friday," and to have cruised about in his little canoe until he found a watery grave.

No regard seems to have been given to the grant of the Plymouth Company to Robert Gorges, or to the title of Sir William Brereton, who held under him, while at the same time great respect was paid to the latter person as a man. Leases were made under this grant, and families were sent over; and Sir William himself was only prevented from coming by the breaking out of the civil wars, in which he distinguished himself upon the popular side. As no compromise could be made with him, his claim and its litigation were bequeathed to posterity. His son-in-law, Edward Lenthall, Esq., of the Inner Temple (who married Susannah, for whom the "lesser island" was named), in 1691 claimed the lands in the right of his wife, but the claim was disowned by the committee of the council. Hutchinson observes that the grant of the Council of Plymouth to Captain
Robert Gorges was loose and uncertain, and no use was ever made of it.

Capt. Robert Gorges, the brother of John, the grantor, and the son of Sir Ferdinando, was a man of some eminence in that early period of the colonial history, if we may judge by his title; for he was employed by the council in 1623, as lieutenant-general, to "restrain interlopers and regulate all affairs." He was the first person who bore that title in this country. We have no recollection of this title having been conferred on any person from that time until it was given to General Washington, as commander-in-chief of the armies of the United States, in the quasi war with France in 1798; nor from that time until, by a late vote of congress (in 1855), the complimentary title of Brevet Lieut.-General was conferred upon Major-General Winfield Scott, the general in chief of the armies of the United States, for his gallant and distinguished conduct in the war with Mexico, as exhibited in the victories which he gained over the enemy. Thus we see, that, in the course of upwards of two centuries, there have been but three persons who have held that high military rank. The powers of the two latter officers, however, as commanders of the armies, were in wide contrast with those of the former, whose limited power as lieutenant-general was the very humble one of "restraining interlopers, and regulating all affairs!" Notwithstanding his high commission, and the extraordinary authority given by it, as his grant was not confirmed, he sacrificed his distinguished rank to interest, left the colony, and never returned to resume the duties of his office in restraining interlopers; and it is not known who afterward wore his epaulettes, or upon whom his responsible duties descended, or whether interlopers were ever afterward molested by so high a functionary. Not so with Sir William Brereton, the first grantee of Noddle's Island, and the major-general of Cheshire, Staffordshire, and Lancashire. Although he had so large a grant in this country, he never left England; for he valued his rank and military fame more than he did his extensive possessions in the new world, and his military honors at home were greater by far than any he could hope for here. His wonderful exploits are recorded in a valuable work, printed in London in 1647, and very rare in this country, written by John Vicars, and called "England's Worthies under whom all the Civil and Bloudy Warres since Anno 1642 to Anno 1647 are related."

Sir William was indeed a valiant knight; and perhaps it was fortunate that he did not come to this country and settle on that "bigger island" which for a little time bore his name; for Winthrop and Standish, and their companions, would hardly have dared to come into the vicinity of this renowned soldier in the "Bloudy Warres," through fear that, differences of opinion arising, they might be as "notably beaten" and "utterly routed" as "that arch malignant enemy, Sir Thomas Aston."

This "bigger island," which this famous Sir William named for himself in 1628-9, was in the following year called Noddle's Island by Governor Winthrop, from its former probable occupant. It is also noted by that name of the 5th of July, 1631, in an enumeration of the islands in Boston harbor in the public records of Massachusetts.

It was then ordered "that all the Ilelands within the Lymitts of this pattent, viz: Conant's Ileland, Noddle's Ileland, Thompson's Ileland, together with all other Ilelands within the lymits of our pattent, shall be appropriated to public benefits and uses, & to remaine in the power of the Governor & Assistants (for the time being), to be lett and disposed of by them to helpe towards publique charges, & that no Prson whatsoever shall make any use or benefitt of any of the said Ilelands by putting on Cattle, felling wood, raising slate, &c, without leave from the Governor & Assistants for the time being."

At this early period the Island was frequented by waterfowl, pigeons, and other edible birds, and on this account proved so attractive to the hunters that it was very soon found necessary to pass a law to protect the game which flocked thither in great numbers. This law or order, which may be interesting to sportsmen, was passed on the 3d of April, 1622, to the effect "that noe person whatsoever shall shoote att fowle upon Pullen poynte or Noddles Ileland, but that the said places shall be reserved for John Perkins to take fowle with netts." What a privilege! None such is granted in these days. Whether the ducks or plover which two centuries afterward frequented the Island in great numbers were at that time so plenty as to be caught with nets, we are left in doubt, except from the terms of the statute. Be that as it may, the writer of this, a half century since, in a violent north-east storm, has known that kind of plover called dough-birds, from their superlative fatness, light upon the Island in such large flocks and in such a wearied condition, that it seemed as difficult for them to fly as it is for seals to run; and Mr. Williams related to him, that in attempting to rise on the wing they were chased by the men and boys and knocked down with clubs! None are now to be seen where once they were so abundant, and even the market offers but few a fifty cents apiece! It was remarked by him that they flew by Boston in the month of August, and if the August storm passed and these birds were not seen upon the Island, but very few of them would be seen in the market that year. Often, as they flew over the Island in flocks, they were shot, and were sometimes so fat that their breasts would break open as they fell upon the ground. It is, however, more probable, that the fowl which Mr. Perkins had the exclusive privilege of catching with nets were the wild pigeons, which frequent the first clearings in the woods, rather than ducks or plover, which require no statute to prevent them being caught in that manner. It however does not appear on the grant what consideration was paid for it, nor why Mr. Perkins should have had this exclusive privilege. But as the public always liked a quid pro quo for all benefits received, it is not impossible that he was a progenitor of the same family which in our day have so distinguished themselves by their munificent liberality to our public institutions. If so, the grant may be easily accounted for, as the grantors would have rested in security of getting a consideration in a full tithe of the earnings of his industry. Mr. Perkins, however, enjoyed this privilege but a short time, as the Island was soon after granted to Mr. Maverick for a special consideration, without any reservation of this right.

It appears that from the time of Mr. Perkins grant down to the extensive improvements within the knowledge of the present generation, the Island has been a great resort for birds. This is shown in an anecdote in the journal of the Williams family, which, as illustrative of this fact, is here inserted, although it anticipates the chronological arrangement.

Says the journal, under the date of the 2d of September, 1795: "Tom (Williams) went out with his gun, and returned at one with six dozen birds, with the assistance of Harry (Williams), who met him at the farm. He would not stay to dine, but took a new recruit of powder, and set off again. They returned at five, with three dozen more."

Prior to 1633, the accounts of Noddle's Island are very meagre, but with that year commences a series of events which constitutes an uninterrupted narration, abounding in historical interest.

Samuel Maverick, Grantee of Noddle's Island; His Ancestry.

On the 1st of April, 1633, the record states, that—

"Noddle's Island is granted to Mr. Samuel Maverick, to enjoy to him and his heirs for ever, yielding and paying yearly at the General Court to the governor for the time being, either a fat wether, a fat hog, or 40s. in money, and shall give leave to Boston and Charlestown to fetch wood continually, as their need requires from the southern part of the said Island." [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 104] On the 7th of December, 1636, the jurisdiction of the Island was laid to Boston, and on the 13th of May, 1640, it was declared "that the flats round about Nodles Iland do belong to Nodles Iland to the ordinary lowe water marke." [Ibid. pg. 291.]

The name of Maverick has been associated with the colonial history from its earliest dates, and especially with the history of Noddle's Island, the first grant of which, by the general court, was to Samuel Maverick, who had occupied it for several years previous. There were a number of persons in New England by the name of Maverick as early as 1630; and the names of the Rev. John Maverick, Samuel, Elias, Moses, and Antipas have come down to posterity. From circumstances hereafter to be named, it seems probable that they were all connected by family ties, although it is sometimes difficult to trace the precise relationship. The early history of the family is involved in much obscurity, which is the more to be lamented as some of its members bore a conspicuous part in the affairs of the colony. [There was a Radford Maverick, vicar of Islington, England, in 1603, and R. Maverick, rector of Trusham, between 1586 and 1616 (Mass. Hist. Coll.); but it does not appear whether those of the name in this country were of this connection.] The direct narrative of this book has particular reference to Samuel, the first grantee of Noddle's Island; but it has been thought proper to introduce all the information relative to those of the name which a diligent search and patient investigation could afford.

The fact that no previous attempt has been made to present a connected account of this family or of any of its members has induced the writer to make a thorough search among the early records of the colony; and as the result of his labors, while many points remain unsettled, and some errors may have crept in through the well-known difficulties attending a search into old records, he is able to present a more connected and fuller history of the Mavericks than has before been published. As many disputed points are thus settled, and others are fairly stated, and some important facts recorded, it is hoped that the general reader will find much to interest, and the antiquarian some dates and items which will gratify his taste for the ancient and honorable.

The most prominent of any of the name was Samuel Maverick, the owner and first white inhabitant of Noddle's Island, a stanch Episcopalian and a firm royalist. Around him as a centre, we find others of the name among the first settlers in Massachusetts Bay; and from these, probably, have originated the few families which have borne the name throughout the country. It is impossible, with one exception, to ascertain when these different Mavericks emigrated from England. This exception is the Rev. John Maverick, of Dorchester. Before going particularly into the life of Samuel Maverick, a few facts will be given, which have been collected concerning his father, "the godly Mr. Maverick," who was one of the original pastors of the first church in Dorchester.

The Rev. John Maverick was a minister of the established church, who resided about forty miles from Exeter, in England, [Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. *28, note; Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 128, 129, etc.; Young's Chronicles, p. 347, n.; New England Memorial, p. 111, note.] and, judging from the scattered accounts which have come down to us, he was a godly man, a beloved pastor, and a safe and trustful guide in temporal and spiritual things. The first mention made of him is at the time of the pious people assembled in the New Hospital, Plymouth, England, and were formed into a Congregational church. This was early in the year 1630; a year in which "it pleased God of his rich grace to transport over into the bay of the Massachusetts divers honorable personages, and many worthy Christians." [New England Memorial, p. 107, etc.]

Preparations were then being made for a large emigration to New England, or more particularly to the Massachusetts colony, and Winthrop's fleet was getting in readiness as speedily as possible. Having decided to leave their native country for an unknown wilderness, or, more truly, compelled to leave, or else yield their freedom to worship God how and when they pleased, the preliminary arrangements were prosecuted with an earnestness of purpose and a religious feeling which made manifest their motives of action. The day of this meeting at the hospital was an important one to those who were incurring the frown of the government by thus assembling. A decisive step was then taken, which was to affect the whole future course of their lives, and, with the reverence peculiar to those days and too rare in these latter times, they looked to their spiritual leaders for direction in all things. A devout and earnest spirit characterized that meeting. Mr. White, an indefatigable promoter of the colony and a man eminent in his profession, preached in the forenoon. In the afternoon, the Rev. John Warham, a celebrated divine of Exeter, and Rev. John Maverick, who lived about forty miles from him, were chosen and ordained by the church as their clerical officers. The fact that Mr. White was present and cooperated with the others is good evidence that the two ministers then chosen were well qualified, and adapted for the important station they were to fill. They had both been ministers of the established church in England, and had, therefore, been ordained by some bishop, as none other in those days were allowed to preach; nor, indeed, were separate congregations allowed until the civil war commenced, in 1642. Such was the rigor of government at that time, that Mr. Maverick and Mr. Warham would not have been allowed to form a Congregational church at Plymouth, were it not that those who thus associated were preparing to emigrate to New England, and were nearly ready to sail thither. [Prince's Annals, pp. 369, 370.] Cotton Mather includes Mr. Maverick in his "First Classis" of ministers, which "classis," he says, "shall be of such as were in the actual exercise of their ministry when they left England, and were the Instruments of bringing the Gospel into this Wilderness, and of settling Churches here according to the Order of the Gospel." [Mather's Magnalia.] It is, of course, not probable that Mr. Maverick would have been spoken of as in the actual service of his office, unless he had been a clergyman, (and of the church, of course), previous to the meeting at Plymouth. Besides, he is at that time spoken of as "the godly Mr. Maverick," as if he was well known, which would not be probable if he had been a private citizen. Prince, in speaking of the "eminent and noted ministers" who came over in Winthrop's fleet, mentions "Mr. John Maverick, and Mr. John Warham, who had been ministers in the west country. These were the first who came to set up Christian churches in this heathen wilderness, and to lay the foundation of this renowned colony." [Prince's Annals, p. 281. Also Brandford's Hist. Mass. p. 23.] It appears, from different authorities, that he was older than Mr. Warham, and in one place we find him mentioned as the "good old Mr. Maverick." [New England Memorial, p. 111.] This point will have its weight upon another page.

The meeting at the hospital was a judicious step, fitted to preserve union, and secure their civil and religious liberty; and the uniting themselves in a church previous to their embarkation gave a character and system, and definite purpose, to the enterprise, which would be of great use to the members when they should arrive in the new world. It is a fact worthy of note, that these were the first emigrants to this country known to have prepared themselves in this manner with full ecclesiastical privileges prior to leaving England. They came to this country as an organized church, and immediately on arrival they were ready to act as such, and thus had many advantages which were to be obtained only from concerted action.

The meeting at the hospital, and other attending circumstances, are thus recorded in the quaint old style:—

"In ye year 1629, Divers Godly Persons in Devonshire, Somersetshire, Dorcetshire, & other places, proposed a Remoue to N. England, among whom were two Famous Ministers, viz. MR. JOHN MAVERICK (who I suppose was somewhat advanced in Age), & Mr. John Wareham (I suppose a younger man), then a preacher in the City of Exon, or Exeter, in ye County of Devon. These good People met together at Plymouth, a Sea-port Town in ye sd County of Devon, in order to ship themselves & families for New England; & because they designed to liue together, after they should arriue here, they met together in the New Hospital in Plymouth and associated into Church Fellowship and chose ye sd Mr. Maverick & Mr. Wareham to be their Ministers & officers; the Revd. Mr. John White of Dorchester in Dorcet (who was an active Instrument to promote ye Settlement of New England, & I think a means of procuring ye Charter) being present, & preaching ye forepart of ye Day, & in ye latter part of ye Day they performed ye work aforesaid." [Blake's Annals of Dorchester, 7-10; Gen. & Hist. Register, Vol. V. p. 398, etc.]

Roger Clap, in his Memoirs, gives the same account, together with some personal matters. He says: "I never so much as heard of New England until I heard of many godly persons that were going there, and that Mr. Warham was to go also. . . . . . . I then wrote to my father, who lived about twelve miles off, to entreat his leave to go to New England; who was so much displeased at first that he wrote me no answer, but told my brethren that I should not go. Having no answer, I went and made my request to him; and God so inclined his heart that he never said me nay. For now God sent the reverend Mr. Maverick, who lived forty miles off, a man I never saw before. He, having heard of me, came to my father's house; and my father agreed that I should be with him, and come under his care; which I did accordingly. So God brought me out of Plymouth the 20th of March, in the year 1629-1630, and landed me in health at Nantasket, on the 30th of May, 1630, I being then about the age of twenty-one years. Blessed be God, that brought me here! It was God that sent Mr. Maverick, that pious minister, to me, who was unknown to him, to seek me out that I might come hither."

"There came many godly families in that ship. We were of passengers many in number, (besides seamen,) of good rank. Two of our magistrates came with us, viz., Mr. Rossiter and Mr. Ludlow. These godly people resolved to live together; and therefore, as they had made choice of those two reverend servants of God, Mr. John Warham and Mr. John Maverick, to be their ministers, so they kept a solemn day of fasting in the New Hospital in Plymouth, in England, spending it in preaching and praying; where that worthy man of God, Mr. John White, of Dorchester, in Dorset, was present, and preached unto us the word of God in the fore part of the day; and in the latter part of the day, as the people did solemnly make choice of and call those godly ministers to be their officers, so also the reverend Mr. Warham and Mr. Maverick did accept thereof, and expressed the same. So we came, by the good hand of the Lord, through the deeps comfortably, having preaching or expounding of the word of God every day for ten weeks together by our ministers."

The company set sail from Plymouth on the 20th of March, 1629-30, in "that great ship of four hundred tons," the Mary and John. The vessel was indeed a floating Bethel. Religious services were held daily, and the pious passengers seemed impressed with the duties and responsibilities they were soon to meet. The ship, under the command of "one Captain Squeb, arrived at Nantasket (now Hull) ye 30th of May, 1630. They had agreed with Capt. Squeb to bring them into Charles River, but he was false to his bargain, and turned them ashore at Nantasket and their Goods, leaving them in a forlorn wilderness. They got a Boat of some that had staid in ye Country, (I suppose for Trade, for there were some on Noddle's Island and at Charlestown that staid in ye Country for Trade with ye Natives,) and with their goods rowed (as I suppose) up to ye Mouth of Charles River, it being about 3 Leagues. They went up the River until it grew narrow and shallow, Intending there to set down, it being about ye place where Watertown now is. They had not stayed here but a few days but ye Rest of their company had found out a neck of land joyning to a place called by ye Indians Mattapan (Dorchester), so they settled at Mattapan.

"They began their Settlement here at Mattapan ye beginning of June, as I suppose, or thereabout, A.D. 1630, and changed ye name into Dorchester. Why they called it Dorchester I have never heard, but there was some of Dorcet Shire, and some of the town of Dorchester that settled here." [Gen. and Hist. Reg. Vol. V. p. 390; Blake's Annals of Dorchester, pp. 7-10.]

This Captain Squeb appears to have treated his passengers in a most shabby manner. Instead of bringing them up Charles river, according to his engagement, he landed the sea-worn wanderers with their goods upon Nantasket Point, and there left them "to shift for themselves in a forlorn place in this wilderness." Says Roger Clap, "Capt. Squeb turned ashore us and our goods, like a merciless man; but God, even our merciful God, took pity on us," etc. On the next day after their arrival they obtained a boat from some of the old planters, and having laden her with goods and manned her with some able men well armed, they went up towards Charlestown to see whether the company could be accommodated there, while others went to explore the adjacent country for a location. [Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 134.]

At Charlestown the boatmen found "some wigwams, some few English, with an old planter who can speak Indian, and one house." [The "one house" was probably the one at Charlestown, "wherein lived Thomas Walford, a smith."] Continuing their course up the river, they landed their goods at Watertown. As evening came on, they were greatly alarmed on learning that a body of three hundred Indians had encamped "hard by." Fortunately for them, the "old planter" had accompanied the party; for, going to the Indians, he persuaded them to leave, and the explorers were left unmolested. [Prince's Annals, p. 277; Snow's Hist. Boston, p. 25; Young's Chronicles, p. 349.] This incident shows that this "old planter" must have resided here some time, as he had evidently learned the language of the Indians, and was sufficiently in their confidence and acquaintance to exert an influence over them. The devout Clap says, with a thankful heart, that God "caused many Indians (some hundreds) to be ruled by the advice of one man, not to come near us. Alas, had they come upon us, how soon might they have destroyed us! I think we were not above ten in number. But God caused the Indians to help us with fish at very cheap rates." [Young's Chronicles, p. 350.] A friendly intercourse was immediately established between the Indians and the English, commencing with that most ancient form of hospitality, the offering of food. In this instance the Indians made the first advances. A shelter was erected here for their goods, but they did not remain long, for their companions found a neck of land suitable to keep cattle on, and this party was ordered to join them. "So we remove to Mattapan, begin the town, name it Dorchester, and here the natives also are kind to us." [Prince's Annals, 278.]

The Mary and John was the first of the large fleet of ships, seventeen in number, which arrived in New England in 1630, having one hundred and forty persons on board. [List of ships which arrived in New England in 1630:—1. Lion.; 2. Mary and John.; 3. Arbella.; 4. Jewel.; 5. Ambrose.; 6. Talbot.; 7. Mayflower.; 8. Whale.; 9. Hopewell.; 10. William and Francis.; 11. Trial.; 12. Charles.; 13. Success.; 14. Gift.; 15. Another.; 16. Handmaid.; 17. Another sent out by a private merchant. See Prince's Annals; Young's Chronicles, p. 311, etc.] They landed at Nantasket on the 30th of May. On the 14th of June, the admiral of the New England fleet arrived in Salem. In the vessel which bore this distinction came Winthrop and Isaac Johnson as passengers. Soon after their arrival, a party set out from Salem to find a suitable place for settlement, and in their excursion met with the party from the Mary and John. Says Winthrop, "As we came home (from Charlestown to Salem) we came by Nantaskott, and sent for Capt. Squib ashore (he had brought the west country people, vix. Mr. Ludlow, Mr. Rossiter, Mr. Maverick, etc., to the bay, who were set down at Mattapan), and ended a difference between him and the passengers; whereupon he sent his boat to his ship (the Mary and John) and at our parting gave us five pieces." [Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. p. *28. "Five pieces"—a salute of five guns.] The cause of this difference was, without doubt, the ill treatment of the passengers as before stated. For his base conduct Captain Squeb was afterward obliged to pay damages. [Trumbull's Hist. Connecticut, Vol. I. p. 8.]

Having decided to settle at Mattapan, afterward Dorchester, they move thither "by the Lord's day," which they hallow with praise to him for his protection, and other appropriate acts of worship. Mr. Maverick and Mr. Warham, immediately on their arrival, put their already organized church into operation, the same day that church-fellowship was commenced at Watertown. [New England Memorial, p. 110.] The church at Watertown had not then been organized; that at Dorchester emigrated as an organized body, thus conclusively establishing its priority.

The remainder of the week is spent by the Dorchester emigrants in "setting up cottages, booths, and tents" to protect their families, and on the following Sabbath they renew their vows of Christian faithfulness by partaking of the sacrament. Thus prepared with an harmonious organization, godly and honored ministers, and in the full enjoyment of those free religious privileges for which they had sacrificed so much, they commence the experiment of colonial life. A common interest pervades the company; the ends in view, whether principal or subordinate, have a common demand on their united efforts; and a deep religious feeling controls all their actions and purposes, calls into exercise their best affections and powers, and insures the security of their highest welfare. In this manner did the Dorchester settlement commence, a fine example of a firm purpose and determined energy controlled and exercised by religious principle.

Mr. Maverick took the freeman's oath on the 18th of May, 1631, having made application on the 19th of October preceding, [Farmer's Register, p. 346; Prince's Annals, p. 355.] and appears to have been active in his duties as a pastor and citizen, and an instance is on record of his successful services as peacemaker. Prince states, that, "by the mediation of the reverend Mr. Maverick, Warham, and Wilson, governor Winthrop and deputy-governor Dudley are now happily reconciled." [Ibid. p. 401.]

An instance is recorded, by Winthrop, [Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. *72.] of the "wonderful working of a kind providence," in the preservation of the life of the Rev. Mr. Maverick and the meeting-house at Dorchester of which he had charge, and which contained the military stores. From his ignorance as a magazine keeper, and not having any apprehension of danger, he incautiously attempted to dry some wet gunpowder in a pan over the fire! The powder ignited from the heat of the pan, and, communicating with "a small barrel of two or three pounds," which was kept in the meeting-house as the only place of saftey, exploded. The explosion, instead of blowing up the house and all its contents, as might have been expected, and thus have left the settlement unprotected from a savage foe, "only blackened the thatch of the house a little, and signed the parson's clothes." How very fortunate for the "parson," that it turned out only a "flash in the pan," instead of destroying the meeting-house and putting a sudden end to his earthly ministrations!

This was the first meeting-house built in Dorchester, and was erected on Allen's Plain for the first associated church in England which came to this country as such, under the charge of the Revs. Mr. Maverick and Warham. It was built on logs, in 1631, was about twelve feet in height, and was surrounded with palisades. In addition to its more appropriate uses, it was the place of deposit for military stores, and the place of refuge in case of alarm from the savages. [Blake's Annals of Dorchester.] It is not to be wondered at that the old divine should have claimed the meeting-house, cum privilegio, as a magazine keeper; for to whom could the key of the fortress which contained the military stores be committed by the church with more propriety than to the guardian of their souls? But, however well versed he may have been in spiritual warfare, it is evident, from this attempt to dry powder over a fire, that he was not worldly wise in the use of carnal weapons. This hairbreadth escape of Mr. Maverick is justly reckoned among the many instances of that "wonder-working providence" of which those godly people, in their emigration to the new world, had so large experience.

Before 1635, strange as it may seem, complaints were made in some towns that "the people were straitened for want of room." At Dorchester and Newton, particularly, were these complaints heard, and the ultimate result was the settlement of Connecticut. [Barry's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. p. 215.] Without doubt, other reasons, and those more powerful, urged this migration. Bradford, in speaking of this removal to Windsor, says that they "hereing of ye fame of Conightecute river, had a hankering mind after it." [Brandford's Hist. Plimoth Plant'n, p. 338.] Glowing descriptions had reached them of the beautiful valley of the Connecticut, and the country had been commended to them as "a fine place for habitation and trade." [Brandford's Hist. Plimoth Plant'n, p. 338.] In the early part of May, 1635, a party from Dorchester made an overland journey to the "New Hesperia," and settled at Windsor, where they were located when Sir Richard Saltonstall's bark arrived. [Barry's His. Mass. Vol. I. p. 218. "Hubbard suggests that jealousy had something to do with this removal; for 'two such eminent stars, such as were Mr. Cotton and Mr. Hooker, both of the first magnitude, though of different influence, could not well continue in one and the same orb.'" The company established themselves near the Plymouth trading house, of which Gov. Bradford complained, regarding them as infringing upon the rights of others who had prior possession and purchase of the Indians, and the Dutch sent to Holland for commission to deal with the new-comers. [Winthrop, I. p. *166.] "The greatest differances fell betweene those of Dorchester plantation and them hear; for they set their minde on that place, which they had not only purchased of ye Indians, but where they had builte; intending only (if they could not remove them) that they should have but a smale moyety left to ye house, as to a single family; whose doings and proceedings were conceived to be very injurious, to attempt not only to intrude themselves into ye rights and possessions of others, but in effect to thrust them out at all." [Bradford's Hist. Plimoth Plant. p. 338.] These troubles about the right to the soil and the different settlements were of a serious nature, but were adjusted after a time, although "the unkindnes was not so soone forgotten." [Ibid. Bradford gives a pretty full account of these difficulties, and the learned editor, in his notes, refers to other authorities.—Winthrop, I. *181.] This company consisted of about one hundred men, with women and children, mostly from Dorchester. Still cherishing the principles which brought them from their native land, they were actuated mainly with the wish to spread the blessings of the religion they professed. And as they pursued their weary journey of fourteen days, they were constant in their worship of God, in whom they trusted for protection. The dark old forests echoed the psalms and hymns with which they lightened their steps, and as the voice of prayer and praise ascended to heaven, the Indians were attracted by the strange and impressive sight, and "looked on with silent admiration." [Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 222.]

This removal of the Dorchester people was very disagreeable to their ministers; but as the greater part of the church went, the pastors decided to go also; [Vol. IX. Mass. Hist. Coll. p. 148.] and Mr. Warham joined them in September, 1636, leaving his colleague, Mr. Maverick, who intended to do the same in the following spring. [Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 249; Young's Chronicles, p. 480, note; Bradford, p. 36; Barry, I. 219.] But death prevented him from leaving the place of his first ministrations in the new world: he died on the 3rd of February, 1636-7, being about sixty years of age. Winthrop, in mentioning his death, calls him "a man of a very humble spirit, and faithful in furthering the work of the Lord here, both in the churches and civil state;" [Winthrop, I. *181.] a compliment as high and honorable as it is truthful and well deserved. He probably died in Boston, and was buried in the first burying-ground in Dorchester. [Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. I. 98; Vol. IX. 170.] Nothing has come down to posterity which shows him other than a good citizen, a devoted pastor, a prudent, and at the same time firm and fearless, "defender of the faith," and a sincere Christian; uniting the qualities of citizen, pastor, and patriot in a happy manner.

It is greatly to be regretted, that the records of the lives of some of the first settlers are so meagre in their details; still, this very paucity makes us the better study and appreciate the few particulars which have been preserved. Especially in regard to all of the name of Maverick, the strange lack of material from which to make a connected account of the family is to be regretted when we consider the important part which some of the name have borne in the colonial history.

Samuel Maverick; His Personal History.

Samuel Maverick, of Noddle's Island, was a son of the Rev. John Maverick, of Dorchester, and was born in England about the year 1602, as appears from a deposition given by him on the 8th of December, 1665. Being the son of a clergyman, he undoubtedly received a good education (as is evinced by his public letters), and thus was well fitted to fill the various important positions which he occupied. As the time of his birth is of considerable importance in settling some disputed points, the deposition is inserted here entire:—

"Samuel Mauerick aged 63 yeares or thereabouts, deposeth that sometime last yeare, having some speech wth Samuell Bennet Senr of Lynne, as to a match intended betweene his son Saml [Suffolk Deeds, Lib. 4, fol. 328.] Benett Junr & a dau. of Capt. Wm. Hargrave of Horsey doune Mariner. The sd Bennet senr did promise that if his sonne should marry wth sd Hargraues dau. he would make over to him the house he now liues in with barnes stables, lands &c. belonging to sd farme & £80 of stock, wth this prouisoe that sd Bennet Junr should yearly pay his father during his life £20. if he needed it or demanded it and to the best of my remembrance he wrote so much to Capt. Hargraue. He also tyed his sonne not to alienate the premises wthout his consent dureing his life. Thus much he testifieth and further saith not. Boston Decr 7th 1665 Taken upon oath the 8th Dec. 1665
Samuel Mavericke
Before Thomas Clarke, Commiss.
[John Gifford Aged 40 yeares, testifies to the same affair.]"
[Suffolk Deeds, Lib. 4, fol. 328.]

According to this deposition, therefore, he was born about the year 1602, and must have been comparatively a young man when he first came to this country.

The questions have arisen, whether Samuel Maverick of Noddle's Island was the son of the Rev. John Maverick, and whether he was the royal commissioner. These questions can be correctly answered, and proof will be presented to show that Samuel Maverick of Noddle's Island was the son of Rev. John Maverick, and was the royal commissioner.

Upon these disputed points, numerous authors have made the essential mistake of stating that the son of Samuel Maverick, the original grantee of Noddle's Island, was the royal commissioner; and even Mr. Savage, who is usually so correct in his facts and dates, and is so excellent an authority upon historical matters, indorses the same errors when he says: "In the Chronological Observations, p. 252, appended to his (Josselyn's) Voyages, he (Samuel Maverick) is strangely confounded as the father of Samuel Maverick, Esq., the royal commissioner in 1664, with the Rev. John Maverick, minister of Dorchester;" and at the close of the note Mr. Savage adds, "He died March 10th, 1664." [Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. *27, note.]

The learned editor of Winthrop's Journal, in this short sentence, has fallen into both of the errors alluded to in the quotations above given, and the additional one of placing the death of the commissioner in 1664. He evidently supposes that the son of Samuel Maverick of Noddle's Island was the royal commissioner, and that the first grantee of the Island was not the son of the Dorchester divine. In tracing the history of Samuel Maverick in chronological order, it will be proper here to consider only the question as to his parentage, leaving to a more appropriate spot the discussion of his identity with the royal commissioner. That he was the son of the Rev. John is made perfectly clear by Josselyn, who says: [Mass. Hist. Coll. 3d Series, Vol. III. p. 377.] "1630. The Tenth of July, John Winthrop Esq; and the Assistants arrived in New England, with the Patent for the Massachusetts, they landed on the North side of the Charles River, with him went over Thomas Dudley, Isaac Johnson, Esquires; Mr. John Wilson, Mr. George Phillips, Mr. Maverich, (the Father of Mr. Samuel Maverich, one of his Majestie's Commissioners) Mr. Warham Ministers."

There can be no doubt that the "Mr. Maverich" here spoken of is the Rev. John. It will be remembered, that the Rev. Mr. Warham came in the same vessel with the Rev. Mr. Maverick, and that both were ministers, with which Josselyn's account agrees. Most, if not all, of the other persons mentioned by Josselyn, came over in other ships of the fleet, of which the Mary and John was the pioneer, and brought the Dorchester ministers. Roger Clap's narrative, from which quotations have been made on previous pages, corroborates this view of the subject; as also does the reliable "Annals of Dorchester," reprinted by the Dorchester Antiquarian and Historical Society in 1846, from the original manuscript of the author, James Blake, who died in 1750. The accuracy and veracity of Mr. Blake are proverbial, and "this work was for many years the principal authority for all the early accounts published of the town of Dorchester." The ages of the two men also favor this view, if any thing was necessary in addition to the positive assertion of Josselyn, who was his contemporary, and probably spoke from personal knowledge. Rev. Mr. Maverick was advanced in life when he came to this country, as he died, in 1636, at about the age of sixty; [Winthrop, I. *181.] consequently, he was born about 1576. Samuel Maverick was born, as we have seen, about 1602, or when the Rev. John was twenty-six years of age. These figures, therefore, bear strong evidence on the question; and, indeed, there is no room for reasonable doubt on the subject. In addition to this, the fact that all of the name of whom we have any knowledge should settle so near to each other in the vicinity of Boston is strong presumptive evidence that they were connected by family ties.

Samuel Maverick came to New England some years before his father; but the precise date cannot be ascertained. It is evident that he was in the country, and doubtless located on Noddle's Island, before the arrival of Winthrop in 1630, for Winthrop made his house a stopping-place on the 17th of June, 1630, on his excursion from Salem "to the Mattachusetts" [Winthrop, I. *27.] (meaning the country lying around the inner bay, Boston harbor), the same excursion on which he met the party from the Mary and John. Savage thinks that he came in 1628 or 1629, [Ibid. note. Oliver's Puritan Commonwealth, p. 419 says that "the arrival of Winthrop found Samuel Maverick, a clergyman of the Church of England, already settled on a flourishing plantation at Noddle's Island."

This calling Samuel Maverick "a clergyman, &c .," is only one of the many unaccountable errors in that remarkable book. The writer could only have made this statement from a superficial knowledge of the man and the family, and doubtless mistook Samuel for the Rev. John of Dorchester, although it seems strange how this could have been done.] and Drake also places his name on the list of those who were here as early as 1629. [Drake, Hist. Boston, p. 57. Importance enough has not been attached to the adventurers who came to Massachusetts Bay before the arrival of Winthrop. They are far more numerous than we have been accustomed to suppose. The fishing vessels along the coast were very many, and isolated settlements were commenced in different places. As early as 1626, we find mention made of planters at Winnisimet, who probably removed from some of the other plantations; [Hutchinson, 2d London Ed. Vol. I. p. 8.] and perhaps were of the Gorges company. The conjecture that several of the scattered settlers in and about Boston Harbor came over with Robert Gorges is a reasonable one. They lived generally within Gorges' Patent, whose intended colony was Episcopalian, and Maverick, Blackstone, Walford, and Thompson were of this faith. [Drake, Hist. Boston, p. 50, note.] That Samuel Maverick was at Noddle's Island in 1629 is evident from Johnson, who says, the planters in Massachusetts Bay at this time (1629) were William Blackstone, at Shawmut (Boston), Thomas Walford, at Mishawum (Charlestown), Samuel Maverick, at Noddle's Island, and David Thompson, at Thompson's island (near Dorchester). [Johnson's Hist. New England, ch. 17; Young's Chronicles, p. 150, note.] Farmer also locates him there at that time, but probably upon the same authority. He says that he "lived at Noddle's Island, the settlement of which he commenced in 1628 or 1629." [Farmer's Register of First New England Settlers, p. 192.]

The learned editor of the Genealogical Register, in a notice of a book, [The Landing at Cape Anne, etc., by John Wingate Thornton. Boston, 1854.] in which an effort is made to establish the theory that Roger Conant was the first governor of Massachusetts, says: "Who will say that Mr. Samuel Maverick did not begin his settlement on what is now East Boston, a year before the arrival of Conant? His settlement was not only never abandoned, but it was far more substantial than that at Cape Ann or Salem before the arrival of Governor Endicott. Now, for aught we can see to the contrary, a descendant of Governor Maverick has as good right for his ancestor's title as the descendants of Conant." [Gen. Reg. Vol. IX. p. 94.]

That very excellent authority, Prince's Chronology, says, under date of 1630: "On Noddel's Island lives Mr. Samuel Maverick, a man of very loving and courteous behavoir, very ready to entertain strangers; on this island, with the help of Mr. David Thompson, he had built a small fort with four great guns to protect him from the Indians." [Prince's Chronology, p. 309.] This extract shows that Maverick had then been in the country long enough to have established a reputation for hospitality, and for "loving and courteous behavior," which could only have been accomplished by a residence of some time continuance. Edward Johnson, who was one of Winthrop's company, says, that "on the north side of Charles River, they landed near a small island, called Noddle's Island, where one Mr. Samuel Mavereck was then living, [1630,] a man of a very loving and courteous behavior, very ready to entertain strangers, yet an enemy to the reformation in hand, being strong for the lordly prelatical power. On this Island he had built a small fort with the help of one Mr. David Thompson, placing therein four murtherers to protect him from the Indians." [Young's Chronicles, p. 322, note; Snow's Hist. Boston, p. 31] That the reader may not misapprehend the character of these "murtherers" as inhabitants of the Island, we have the authority of Phillips, in his "New World of Words, or Universal Dictionary," printed in London in 1706, that "Murderers, or Murdering Pieces" were "small cannon either of Brass or Iron, having a Chamber or Charge consisting of Nails, old Iron, &c., put in at their Breech. They are chiefly used in the Forecastle, Half Deck, or Steerage of a Ship, to clear the Decks, when boarded by an Enemy; and such Shot is called a Murdering Shot." The same signification is given by Smith, who speaks of "a ship of one hundred and fortie tuns and thirty-six cast Peeces and murderers." [History of Virginia, etc. Richmond Ed. II. p. 208. Breech loading guns have been considered as a modern invention; but here, as in many instances, if we do not mistake the purport of the definition, a modern invention is but the revival of something well known in former times.] How or when those early settlers, Maverick, Blackstone, Walford, and others came over is uncertain; there is no record accessible to enable us to settle the date. Maverick may have come in one of the fishing and trading vessels which frequented the coast for a number of years prior to the settlement of the Bay, or he was probably one of those who accompanied Robert Gorges to settle his patent. [Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 137; Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. *27, note.] Eliot says, "he seemed to have in view trading with the Indians, more than any thing else." [Eliot's Biog. Dict. p. 316.] It is safe to record his settlement here as early as 1629, and probably as early as 1628 (although he was not taxed in that year for the brief campaign against Merrymount); and that his residence, his locus in quo, was on Noddle's Island in 1629 and 1630 is made certain from Johnson, Prince, and Young above quoted. Our earliest accounts, then, of Samuel Maverick, as taken from those authors who have become classic, represent him as a whole-souled, generous, hospitable man, of warm impulses and courteous behavior, a royalist and Episcopalian, living in a strongly fortified residence on Noddle's Island. Such is his character and such his location when he first appears upon the page of history.

But Maverick's early connection with this country was not limited to Noddle's Island; for we find that in 1631, he, with others, had a patent for lands in Maine, under the president and council of New England. These same premises were also given to him by deed, in 1638, by the council of New England and Sir Ferdinando Gorges. The supposition that Maverick was one of those who came over to settle the Gorges patent (not improbable, with Robert Gorges, in 1623), gains plausibility from the fact that he held this land at so early a period under Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and that a "plantation" was actually there commenced. It does not appear why Maverick made choice of Noddle's Island for his residence, rather than his lands on the banks of the "Agamenticus;" but it is reasonable to suppose that the few settlers in the vicinity of Boston, Episcopalians, and the probability that Massachusetts Bay would be the soonest colonized of any part of the New England coast, influenced him in locating his abode. The fact that he owned land in Maine as early as 1631 is rendered certain from a deed, which our investigation has brought to light in the York county (Maine) records. This deed is of sufficient importance in its names and dates to justify its insertion in the Appendix.

Among "the names as such as desire to be made freemen" on the 19th of October, 1631, is that of Samuel Maverick; [Ibid. 366, 367.] but he was not admitted until two years after that time, although he had been in the country before the arrival of Winthrop and his company, and, of course, before the arrival of the charter. He took the freeman's oath, alone, on the 2d of October, 1632, [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 79.] although not a member of the church. The reason of this delay is not apparent. Whether he was prevented by his business in trading along the coast, whether he intentionally postponed it, or whether the colonial government was unwilling to admit an avowed Episcopalian, does not appear. Hutchinson, usually correct, is in an error when he says: "Mr. Maverick, being in the colony at the arrival of the charter, was made a freeman before the law, confining freedom to such only as were members of the churches, was in force, but, being an Episcopalian, had never been in any office. [Hist. Mass. Bay, Vol. I. p. 145.]

Eliot, in his Biographical Dictionary, page 317, following Hutchinson probably, makes the same mistake. It is not so surprising to find the error repeated by the author of the Puritan Commonwealth. He says that these privileges (i.e. rights, citizenship, voting, etc.) were conferred before "that monstrous alteration of the charter," the "church-member act," was adopted. The general court records must be taken as authority on all points therein treated. At the time Mr. Maverick made application, there seems to have been no general rule adopted as to citizenship, although there was before he was admitted. More than a hundred persons applied for admission on the same day with him, and it doubtless became apparent that some system must be adopted, especially as the freemen had just acquired the political trust of "chuseing Assistants." [Mass. Records, I. 79.] At that critical period, when a government was being formed, it was important to have some effectual restriction upon the crowds who claimed the rights of citizenship, in order that, from the mass of emigrants of all classes and conditions in socitey, unknowing and unknown, a proper selection might be made of those suitable to control the affairs of the colony. With this end in view, the court of assistants not only denied to some the rights of citizenship, but even of inhabitancy, and ordered some to be sent back to England, "as persons unmeete to inhabit heere." Upon these considerations, by an act passed on the 18th of May, 1631, "to the end the body of the Commons may be preserved of honest and good men, it was ordered and agreed that for time to come, noe man shal be admitted to the freedom of this body polliticke but such as are members of some of the churches within the lymitts of the same." [Ibid. 87.]

This precaution, which at first glance might appear rigid and bigoted, upon investigation vindicates itself by every consideration of safety and justice, and as a measure necessary to self-preservation. Then follow upon the records, "the names of such as tooke the oath of freeman," the first list of freemen to be found in the records. Samuel Maverick's name is not among them, and he was not admitted until about a year and a half afterward, as before stated, when he was allowed to take the freeman's oath, although not a member of any church "within the lymitts," and known as a strong Episcopalian.

It is more than probable, that any doubts which my have been entertained by the Puritans as to the propriety of admitting a churchman were in the end overcome by the well-known characteristics of the man, his intimate business relations with the governor at that time, and his prominence in the colony as an active promoter of the general cause, and eminent by his generous hospitalities. An article on ecclesiastical history in the Historical Collections says on this point: "Mr. Maverick, who had fixed his tent on Noddle's Island, and possessed considerable property when the banks of Charles river were settled by our fathers, had been declared a freeman, though an Episcopalian, which shows they were less rigid when they first came over then they were afterward." [Mass. Hist. Coll. IX. pp. 47, 48.]

Josselyn mentions that Winthrop and his company went first to Noddle's Island; and this is, doubtless, one of the many instances where Maverick exercised his public hospitalities in entertaining the new-comers, weary with the long and tedious voyage, at his fortified house.

Says the quaint old writer:—

"The Twelth of July (June?) Anno Dom. 1630. John Winthrop, Esq; and the assistants, arrived with the Patent for the Massachusetts, the passage of the people that came along with him in ten Vessels came to 95000 pound; the Swine, Goats, Sheep, Neat, Horses, cost to transport 12000 pound, beside the price they cost them; getting food for the people til they could clear the ground of wood amounted to 45000 pound; Nails, Glass, and other Iron work for their meeting and dwelling-houses 13000 pound; Arms, Powder, Bullet, and Match, together with their Artillery 22000 pound; the whole sum amounts unto One hundred ninety two thousand pound. They set down first upon Noddles-Island, and afterward, they began to build upon the main. [Josselyn's Account of Two Voyages to New England, p. 172, or Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. III 3d Series, p. 326.]"

Immediately following the above quotation is a sentence which curiously illustrates the rigor and watchfulness with which our ancestors commenced their civil and social system; and, in the particular instance given, it is by no means certain but that such a system might be adopted with good effect in our own day. The passage is this:—

"In 1637, there were not many houses in the Town of Boston, amongst which were two houses of entertainment called Ordinaries, into which, if a stranger went, he was presently followed by one appointed to that Office, who would thrust himself into his company uninvited, and if he called for more drink than the Officer thought in his judgement he could soberly bear away, he would presently countermand it, and appoint the proportion, beyond which, he could not get one drop."

The "Observations," after speaking of the landing of "Winthrop" and his associates in July, 1630, says: "The Eagle was called the Arabella, [See an interesting note in Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 70, on this name Arabella.] in honor of the Lady Arabella, wife to Isaac Johnson Esq; they set down first upon Noddle's Island, the Lady Arabella abode at Salem." [Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. III. 3d Series, p. 377.]

Maverick was engaged in commerce at an early date, and identified himself with the efforts to promote the success of the colony. Although opposed in religious sentiment, he joined with Governor Winthrop and Governor Thomas Dudley in trading expeditions, a circumstance which shows that he possessed the confidence of the new settlers, and that he was a man of enterprise and energy in the colony. It is more than probable, that, from his previous residence in the country, he had an acquaintance with the coast and with the different settlements, and for this reason was a valuable aid to Winthrop and his company. He was a man of much importance in those days of small things; and was associated with the primates of the colony, not in the civil rule, but in affairs of a commercial character.

In Thomas Dudley's letter [Force's Historical Tracts, Vol. II.; Young's Chronicles, p. 301; Mass. Hist. Coll. VIII. 6. Prince says (Annals, 323), "1630, Octr. The Gov. D. Gov. and Mr. (Samuel) Maverick join in sending out our Pinace to the Narragansetts to trade for corn to supply our wants."] to the Countess of Lincoln, it is stated: "About the end of October, this year 1630, I ioyned with the Governour & Mr. Mavericke in sendinge out our pinnace to the Narragansetts to trade for to supply our wants, but after the pynace had doubled Cape Codd, she putt into the next harbour shee found, and there meetinge with Indians who showed their willingness to Truck, shee made her voyage their and brought vs 100 bushells of corne at about 4 s. a bushell which helped vs somewhat. From the coast where they traded they saw a very large island, [Prince, in his Chronology, p. 323, says: "This is no doubt the island of Aquethneck, after called Rhode Island."] 4 leagues to the east which the Indians comended as a fruitefull place full of good vines and free from sharpe frosts, haueing only one entrance into it, by a navigable river inhabitted by a few Indians, which for a trifle would leaue the Island, if the English would sett them vppon the maine, but the pynace haueing noe direction for discovery, returned without sayling to it, which in 2 hours they might haue done. Vppon this coast they found store of vines full of grapes dead ripe, the season beeing past whether wee purpose to send the next yeare sooner, to make some small quantitie of wine if God enable vs, the vines growinge thinne with vs & wee not haueing yett any leasure to plant vineyards." On the 14th of March, 1632, "the bark Warwick (undoubtedly named in honor of the Earl or Countess of Warwick, firm friends of the colony), arrives at Nantasket, and the 19th at Winesemet, having been at Piscataquack and Salem to sell corn which she brought from Virginia." And again we find that in "1632, April 9. The Bark, Warwick and Mr (S) Maverick's Pinance, go out, bound to Virginia, no doubt for corn."

In 1635, Maverick went to Virginia to purchase corn, stock, etc., and remained there nearly a year, during which time Moses Maverick paid rent for Noddle's Island, having charge of it for Samuel while absent. Winthrop, in a letter to his son, [Appendix to Winthrop's Journal, p. 465] says: "It hath been earnestly pressed to have her [the Blessing] go to Virginia for Mr. Maverick and his corn; but I have no heart to it at this season, being so perilous both to the vessel (for worms) and especially the persons. I will never have any that belong to me come there if I can avoid it; but Mr. Mayhew hath taken order the Rebecca shall go, if she can be met with."

And afterwards, in his Journal, [Aug. 3d, 1636, Vol. I. p. #191.] he says: "Samuel Maverick, who had been in Virginia near twelve months, now returned with two pinnaces and brought some fourteen heifers, and about eighty goats (having lost above twenty goats by the way). One of his pinnances was about fourty tons, of cedar, built at Barbathes, and brought to Virginia by Capt Powell, who there dying, she was sold for a small matter. There died in Virginia (by his relation) this last year above eighteen hundred, and corn was there at twenty shillings the bushel, the most of the people having lived a great time of nothing but purslain etc. It is very strange, what was related by him and many others, that, above sixty miles up James River, they dig nowhere but they find the ground full of oyster shells, and fishes' bones etc.; yea, he affirmed that he saw the bone of a whale taken out of the earth (where they digged for a well) eighteen feet deep."

A letter is on record, which illustrates the confidence placed in him in business matters. The following is "A Copie of a Letter sent by Captaine William Jackson to Mr Samuel Mavericke," viz.:—

"SIR,—I would intreate you that if I should not come for New England that you would be pleased to demand of Mr Richard Parsons the summe of one hundred and sixty pounds sterling wth a fourth part of what Voyage he hath made if he haue not giuen Account to my Atturneys at Providence & a fourth part of a certaine Frigot called the John; And likewise there is one Captaine Growt, and Captaine Breame and Mr. John Winshawe wch hath promised to be heare the next Spring wch is indebted vnto me the summe of two hundred pounds sterling wch is to be payed in New England, & likewise I left a smale Vessel at Providence wch is to send her goods to New England if it please God she do take any purchase I am to haue sixe Eights for the Vessel & Vittailing: And likewise I left at St Christophers wth my Atturney betwixt fourty and fifty thousand weight of Tobacco wch he did promise to bring or send to you in New England wch if he do I would intreate you to receiue for my Vse; either in Whole or in part as he can get it into his hands.

"My Atturney in St Christopher is Captaine William Eppes; & my Atturneyes at Providence is Mr Fountaine & Mr. Evenn Morgan the Secretary wcg if Mr Parsons do take any purchase and do come from thence you may demand the Covenants wch is betwixt him & me for the fourth part of what I haue wth him: And likewise one Mr Steward is master of the other smale Vessel wch is called the Boune Voyage wch is to bring or send such goods as she shall take to New England; and there to give an account of what shall belong vnto mee.

"Likewise I have sent you Mr. Parsons bond, and Captaine Growte, Captain Breames and Mr. Winshawes Bond, and a Bond of one Captaine Powels wch if he come for New England wth a Voyage I would intreate you to demand the money of him, but if he should come and haue made no Voyage I would that you should not demand it of him; so wishing you good health I take my leave and Rest.

"Your loveing frend
WILLIAM JACKSON."

This 20th of 7 ber 1640. [Suffolk Deeds, Vol. I. p. 30.]

Maverick also had business transactions with the noted La Tour, as appears from an "Indenture of a fraightmt made 14 Jan. 1645, betweene Charles of St. Steven Knight senor de la Tour of one-part & Samuel Maverick for & in behalfe of the Right Worp Sir David Kirke, Knight one of the Lords Proprietors of New foundland & Governor thereof of the other part Witnesseth that the sd Sam [Suffolk Deeds, Vol. I. p. 75.] Maverick in behalf of sd Kirke hath let vnto freight vnto the said Mosieur la Tour a certaine Vessell called the Planter burden 35 tunns of thereabout, for a voyage in her to be made vppon the coast of Lacadie betweene the Capes of Sable & Britton & for the time of 3 months &c. [the vessell to be properly furnished & sd La Tour to pay sd Maverick for sd Kirk 1/2 half of all the furs & Merchandise he shall get by trade wth the Indians &c] 'Divers Gents & Merchts my frends on consideration of my present poore distressed condition haue been pleased for my support to furnish mee wth a quantity of goods to trade wth the Indians (in this my intended voyage in the Planter) [amounting to abt £500 sterling]—engaging to pay sd Maverick in furs &c to that amt 6 days after his return. 19 Jan 1645.

"CHEVALIER DE LA TOUR." [Suffolk Deeds, Vol. I. p. 75.]

A passage in the Massachusetts Records has given rise to some discussion as to the character of the "Mr. Maverick" therein referred to. The passage is as follows:—

"It is ordered that Mr Shepheard, and Robte Coles shalbe ffyned 5 mks a peece & Edward Gibbons XXs for abuseing themselves disorderly with drinkeing to much stronge drinke aboard the Frendshipp & att Mr Mauacke his howse at Winettsemt." [Mass. Records, Vol. I. pg. 90.]

Were there nothing else by which to judge of the character of either Elias or Samuel Maverick, this passage, taken alone, would have an unfavorable bearing; although the strictness of the laws at that time, and the severe punishments inflicted for small crimes, are well known. On examination it appears that a part of the cargo of the Friendship was, "2. hoggsheads meatheglin, drawne out in wooden flackets, but when these flackets came to be received there was left but 6 gallons of ye 2 hogsheads, it being drunke up under ye name of leackage and so lost," [Bradford's Plimoth Plantation, p. 269.] and in another place the crew is spoken of as a "most wicked and drunken crue." [Ibid. 291.] The probability is that the liquor was drunk on board the Friendship, and thence they went to Mr. Maverick's house. But that drunkenness was countenanced by either Elias or Samuel is contrary to all our knowledge of their respective characters. And still further, these men so fined were subsequently discharged. [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 243.]

There is another record, which reads as follows:—

"3d May 1631. It is ordered that Thomas Chubb shal be freed from the service of Mr. Samll Mauacke & shal become serv't to Willm Gayllerd of Dorchester," etc. [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 86.] Efforts have been made, in some directions, to impeach the character of Mr. Maverick from this record, which is only special pleading. If this Chubb had been bound to Mr. Maverick, of course he could not change his master without authority, and this record is no evidence that the change was on account of any misdemeanor of his old master.

In the year 1632, when the colony was alarmed by reports of piracy committed by one Dixy Bull, a man of note on the coast, the governor and council determined to send an armed vessel with twenty men to join others at Piscataqua, and this united party was to go in search of the pirate. Samuel Maverick's "pinnance" was selected for the purpose, and it made a cruise of several weeks, but without success. In the bills for this expedition, we find the following: "Paid by a bill from Mr. Samuel Maverick, being husband and merchant of the pinance for a months wages to Elias Maverick £2. 5s. Lieut. Mason for his service in the pinnance £10." etc. [Drake's History of Boston, p. 148 and note.]

When the name "Mr. Maverick of Winnisimmet" has been mentioned, it has sometimes been difficult to determine whether Elais or Samuel was meant. In Winthrop's Journal we find the following: "1633 Dec. 5. John Sagamore died of the smallpox and almost all his people; (above thirty buried by Mr. Maverick of Winesemett in one day)" and "when their own people forsook them, the English came daily and ministered to them: and yet few, only two families took any infection by it. Among others, Mr Maverick of Winesemett is worthy of a perpetual remembrance. Himself, his wife and servants went daily to them, ministered to their necessities, and buried their dead, and took home many of their children. So did other of their neighbors." [Winthrop's Jouranl *119, 120, note; Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 164; Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 173.] It has been generally supposed by writers, among whom are Savage, Drake, Felt, and others, that this referred to Samuel Maverick; but there are many circumstances which go to show that this act of Christian kindness was by another name, Elias, probably a brother of Samuel. At this remote day, and in the lack of positive records, it is impossible to determine the question. All that is known on either side will be given, and the intelligent reader can draw such a conclusion as seems most satisfactory to his own mind.

In Winthrop's narrative, one point is worthy of notice. He twice specifies on this point "Mr. Maverick of Winnesimmet," as if to distinguish him from Mr. Maverick of Noddle's Island, and in speaking of the latter, he invariably calls him simply "Mr. Maverick," without giving him any location; but in this case he gives the location, and the most natural conclusion is that it was done to distinguish the two men. Samuel Maverick at that time was well known as the proprietor of Noddle's Island, it having been granted to him on the 1st of April, 1633; and, since all the authorities agree in placing him on Noddle's Island from 1628 or 1629, so on through a long course of years, it would appear to have been generally understood that that was his place of residence. It will be noticed also, that the Indians were not assisted until the December following the April in which the Island was granted to Samuel Maverick. The Island, according to the best authorities, seems to have been his established home before the arrival of Winthrop, and here he had fortified himself with his fort, and "four murtherers," arrangements which pertain to a permanent, and not a temporary, habitation. Nor would he have protected himself at Winnisimet by building a fort and mounting the guns at Noddle's Island; nor after building his fort there, and after he "had fixed his tent" [Mass. Hist. Coll. IX. 47, 48.] there, and acquired a "flourishing plantation," [Puritan Commonwealth, p. 419.] would he be likely to leave for another place. Johnson locates him at Noddle's Island in 1629; Farmer also at the same time. Drake, and there is no better authority, says that Maverick's settlement on Noddle's Island was commenced a year before Conant's arrival, and that it was never abandoned. Prince states that he "lives" on the Island, in 1630, where "he had built a small fort." Edward Johnson, one of Winthrop's company in 1630, speaks of him as then living on the Island, and mentions his fortifications, [Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. XII. p. 86.] and the records of the court, and the histories which have come down to us, all unite in fixing his residence there, and speak of it as a well understood fact. The two principal reasons, probably, which have led to the supposition, that Samuel Maverick was of Winnisimet, are that he was the most prominent man of the name and occupies a more conspicuous place in the colonial history, and that the ferry to Winnisimet was granted to him. But it should be remembered, that the ferry was not granted until the 3d of September 1634, almost a year after the sickness of the Indians. According to the Records, 1634, Sept. 3: "The fferry att Wynysemet is graunted to Mr Samll Maaucke, to enjoy to him & his heires & assignes foreuer," [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 126.] etc. He did not hold it long, however, for on the 27th of February, 1634-5, Mr. Maverick and John Blackleach sold to Richard Bellingham "a messuage called Winnisimmet," etc., and "also his interest in the ferry." [Suffolk Deeds, I. 15.]

It is evident from this and from other records, that Samuel Maverick owned land at Winnisimet, and he probably desired the ferry as a mean of intercourse between the different portions of his estate. He owned a large tract of land on the Chelsea shore. For instance, we find that about the year 1642 he sold land there to William Stitson, the father-in-law of Elias Mavericke. The record states, that— [Suffolk Deeds, Lib. IV. fol. 40.]

"Wm Stitson of Charlestown, yeoman, sell to Elias Mavericke of Wenesimit wtin the precincts of Boston, all yt parcel of Land at Winesimit wch upward of 20 yeares I have quietly possessed by purchase from Mr. Saml [Suffolk Deeds, Lib. IV. fol. 40.] Maverick, 70 acres thereabouts. (8: 2: 1662)
WM STITSON
ELIZABETH X STITSON."

Still, this ownership of land at Winnisimet does not necessarily prove that he lived there, and indeed nothing is more improbable than that he should erect a strongly fortified residence, occupy it for years just previous to this sickness of the Indians, then move to Winnisimet, and in a short time go back to the Island, at which place we find him not long afterward. Another reason to show that the Maverick in question was not Samuel is, that, on the 4th of March, 1634-5, "Mr. Maverick" was ordered to remove to Boston, and not to give entertainment to strangers, etc. This, unquestionably, refers to Samuel, who was so noted for his hospitality, and his hospitality is always mentioned in connection with Noddle's Island.

Reasons like these give plausibility to the idea that it was not Samuel Maverick who was so kind to the Indians, although such acts would be in accordance with the benevolence of his character; while, from the reasons which follow, it is not improbable that the man in question was Elias.

Elias Maverick was born in 1604, and was admitted to the church in Charlestown on the 9th of February, 1632-3; [Budington's Hist. 1st Ch. in Charlestown.] but there is not positive evidence, which we have yet been able to find, which shows that he resided there. Granting that he resided at Winnisimet, the church at Charlestown was the nearest one he could join, and the ferry between Winnisimet and Charlestown being already established, there was regular communication between the two places. [Mass. Records, I. 87.] In the town records of Boston [Gen. Register, Vol. I. New Series, p. 203.] is recorded the marriage of Abigail, "Daughter of Ellias Mavericke of Winnesimet," 4th of June, 1655. His name does not appear on the list of those who were inhabitants of Charlestown in 1630; [Budington's Hist. p. 179.] it does not appear among possessors of land there in 1638, nor in town deeds from 1638 to 1665. This would indicate that he did not reside in Charlestown. His name is not found there as a resident, nor as a landholder, only as an active church-member. His locality in 1633 cannot yet be ascertained. Some one had been at Winnisimet for a number of years, but who, the records do not state. It may have been Elias Maverick; this is supposition; still it may be so. On May 2d, 1657, we find "Ellias Maverick of Winnisimmet," planter, buying land on Hog island, [Suffolk Deeds, Lib. 3, fol. 20.] and again in 1662 (2d month, 8th day), [Ibid. 4,40.] "Elias Maverick of Winnisimmet," bought land in Winnisimet of William Stitson (his father-in-law).

Winnisimet was ordered to "belonge to Boston" on the 3d of September, 1634. [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 125.] Children of Elias Maverick born subsequent to this date are found on the early records of Boston; still, this of itself would not be enough to substantiate the point, as sometimes in those early records, names were inserted of those belonging in other towns. [ Gen. Register, Vol. IV. p. 268] But taken in connection with all the circumstances, it seems to favor the idea that Elias was living at Winnisimet, especially when we are certain that he never resided within the limits of the city proper. That Elias made Winnisimet his home is made certain, still further, from his will, dated there, and which commences, "Elias Maverick senior of Winnasimmett." It will be given entire on another page. There is a record which states that Anne Herris became the wife of Elias Maverick of Charlestown; still, this does not of necessity prove that Charlestown was his residence. Of course, there were no records kept at Winnisimet, and Elias was well known as a prominent member of the church in Charlestown, and married a Charlestown woman.

From all that has been stated, a natural conclusion is that Elias Maverick is the one who is "worthy of perpetual remembrance" for his kindness to the poor Indians. The substance of the reason is this: that Samuel Maverick lived at Noddle's Island, and there is no positive evidence that he ever lived anywhere else within many years of the date in question (1633); Winthrop distinguishes between the two men, in locating one while he never locates Samuel, he being a man so generally known in the colony. Elias Maverick lived for many years at Winnisimet, and died there. He was a member of the church in Charlestown in 1632, and for the remainder of his life, so far as is known, but he was not a real estate owner there, nor is his name onthe town deeds between 1638 and 1665. The church at Charlestown was the nearest one to Winnisimet, and a ferry made communication between the two places. The births of his children are recorded in Boston, and Winnisimet was "laid to Boston" before these births occurred.

Except as a matter of curiosity, and for the sake of settling a disputed point, this question has no particulare importance. This kindness performed was creditable in the highest degree to the doer, whether Samuel or Elias, and is in accordance with the character of both of the men. If it was Elias, it shows that Christian kindness was exemplified in his character to a remarkable degree, especially when we consider the nature of that loathsome disease, and especially before vaccination was known. If it was Samuel, it shows the same Christian kindness and humanity, only in a higher degree; for although he was an Episcopalian, and as such was debarred from holding office, and in adhering to his faith was opposing the wishes of the colonists, yet he united with them in the noble work of benevolence, subjecting the minor differences of sect to the universal principles of Christianity.

Before closing this point, it should be stated, that, although in the printed text of his admirable history of Boston, Mr. Drake speaks of Samuel Maverick as the one who buried the Indians, yet in the Index, subsequently printed, he honors Elias with this distinction, and, in a note to the writer, he says: "On referring to my History, p. 164 (corrected copy), I find I have written against Samuel Maverick 'Elias?' having come to the conclusion (after I had printed), that the 'Mr. Maverick' was Elias, and not Samuel." Mr. Drake, from his thorough research, is probably as well qualified to judge on this point as any man living. Of course, a single date, locating Elias or Samuel in the year 1633, would decide the question; and it is possible that such a date may yet be found, although the most patient research has as yet failed of so doing.

With the destruction of the records at the burning of Charlestown in 1776 perished the records of the Maverick family; [On the authority of N. B. Mountfort, Esq., of New York City, a descendant of Maverick.] and this accounts for much of the difficulty in settling doubtful points.

In March, 1634, it was agreed by the general court that "noe wood shalbe felled at any of the islands nor elsewhere, vntill they bee lotted out, but att Muddy Ryver, Dorchester Necke or Noddles Island; yt all ye wood as yet left vpon ye Necke of land towards Roxburie, shall bee gathered vp and layd or heaped in pyles" before the seventh day of April next.

In the month previous to this regulation by the general court, the Town of Boston had passed the following order [Town Records, Vol. I. p. 2.]:— "Yt all the inhabitants shall plant eyther upon such ground as is alreadie broken up or enclosed in the neck, [Meaning the whole of the peninsula.] or else upon the ground at Noddles Island from Mr. Maverick's grant, and that every able man fitt to plant shall have allowed him two acres to plant on, & for able youth one acre, to be allotted out by Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Sampford, & Win. Cheeseborough, & Mr. Brenton or any three of them."

The hospitality of Maverick's mansion seems to have been generally acknowledged.

Josselyn, who made a voyage to this country, in 1638, in the "New Supply, alias the Nicholas of London," has given an interesting narrative. [Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. III. 3d Ser. p. 220, 226.] He arrived "before Boston," after a passage across the Atlantic of about seventy days, July 3d 1638, and after staying aboard a week, on the tenth of July he "went ashore upon Noddle's Island to Mr. Samuel Maverick (for his passage), the only hospitable man in all the country, giving entertainment to all comers gratis." "Having refreshed himself for a day or two upon Noddle's Island," he crossed to Boston, "which was then a village of not above twenty or thirty houses; and presenting his respects to Mr. Winthrope the Governor, and to Mr. Cotton the Teacher of Boston church, to whom he delivered from Mr. Francis Quarles, the poet, the translation of the 16, 25, 51, 88, 113, and 137 psalms into English Meeter, for his approbation, being civilly treated by all I had occasion to converse with, I returned in the Evening to my lodging.

"The Twelfth day of July after I had taken my leave of Mr. Maverick, and some other Gentlemen I took Boat for the Eastern parts of the Countrie," etc. Upon his return, he says, "The Thirtieth day of September I went ashore upon Noddles-Island, where when I was come to Mr. Maverick's he would not let me go aboard no more, until the ship was ready to set sail." [Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. III. 3d Ser. p. 231.]

These extracts from Josselyn show in the plainest manner the character and reputation which Mr. Maverick had secured as a hospitable and generous man, and wherever his name is mentioned by writers of that time, this description is universally sustained.

Samuel Maverick was one of the earliest (if not the earliest) of slaveholders in Massachusetts. A Captain William Pierce, who was a prominent person in the early years of the colony, carried to the West Indies, in 1637, some captive Pequods to sell for slaves. On his return from the Tortugas, 26th Feb., 1638, he had as a part of his cargo a number of negroes. These appear to have been purchased by Samuel Maverick and others. "This is the first notice," says Felt in his Annals of Salem, "that we have of this disfranchised class." [Felt's Annals of Salem, Vol. I. p. 414.] At no period in the history of Massachusetts does it appear that slavery was viewed with favor by the people at large, while on the contrary it was repugnant to the feelings of the Puritans, and was looked upon with abhorrence. Yet, now and then two or three negroes at a time were brought from Barbadoes and other British colonies and sold for about twenty pounds apiece, and as late as 1678 there was more than a hundred slaves in the Massachusetts colony. So that this cruise of Pierce's, and this purchase by Maverick and others, were not solitary instances, which make them to our enlightened views sinners above all others, but composed part of a series of similar cases, which, at that time, were looked upon in a far different light from the views which are at the present day entertained.

It is doubtless in reference to these same slaves, that Mr. Josselyn relates an incident, which at this day cannot be justified, but which truth in a historical narrative demands to be recorded:—

"1639. The 2d of October, about 9 of the clock in the morning, Mr. Maverick's negro woman came to my chamber window, and in her own country's language and tune sang very loud and shrill; going out to her, she used a great deal of respect towards me, and willingly would have expressed her grief in English; but I apprehended it by her countenance and deportment, whereupon I repaired to my host, to learn of him the cause, and resolved to entreat him in her behalf, for that I understood before that she had been a queen in her own country, and observed a very humble and dutiful garb used toward her by another negro who was her maid. Mr. Maverick was desirous to have a breed of negroes, and therefore seeing she would not yield by persuasions to company with a negro young man he had in his house, he commanded him, nill'd he, nill'd she, to go to bed to her, which was no sooner done but she kicked him out again. This she took in high disdain beyond her slavery, and this was the cause of her grief." [Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. III. 3d Series, p. 231.]

It must be remembered, that this was more than two hundred years ago, and that public sentiment then was not aroused to the moral and social evils of slavery, and the whole subject was looked upon in an entirely different light from what it now is; and while we with our present feelings and belief do justly condemn such conduct as is here referred to, although it then was, and now is, a common practice in slave countries, we shall do well to ask ourselves whether parallel instances are not numerous in our day, in the West Indies and in our own country, and to consider that these latter cases, committed in the full flood of moral, intellectual, and religious light of the nineteenth century, are beyond comparison more blameworthy than similar occurrences two hundred years ago.

Josselyn [It is a curious fact, that (26th June, 1639) Mr. Josselyn was visited by some neighboring gentlemen, who, "amongst variety of discourse," told him of a "sea-serpent or Snake, that lay quoiled up like a Cable upon a Rock at Cape Ann," considered by the Indians dangerous if molested.] also speaks very feelingly of an incident of a different nature, that occurred to himself. "That same day" (Oct. 2d, 1639), he says, "in the afternoon, I walked into the woods on the back side of the house, and happening into a fine broad walk (which was a sledg-way), I wandered till I chanced to spye a fruit, as I thought, like a pine-apple plated with scales; it was as big as the crown of a woman's hat. I made bold to step unto it, with an intent to have gathered it; no sooner had I toucht it but hundreds of Wasps were about me; at last I cleared myself from them, being stung only by one on the upper lip. Glad I was that I scaped so well; but by that time I was come into the house, my lip was swell'd so extreamly, that they hardly knew me but by my garments."

Johnson cites Henry Gardner, who speaks of Maverick as the "most hospitable man for entertainment of people of all sorts." [Young's Chronicles, p. 322, note.] He doubtless extended his hospitalities to persons who sympathized with him in religious sentiment, and who, of course, were obnoxious to the government on that account. At this time the colonial authorities were exceedingly apprehensive of efforts to establish Episcopacy here. They had left England for the purpose of enjoying their own views, and were determined that that form of religion from which they had willingly and at great sacrifice exiled themselves should not follow them. While this state of mind, and the corresponding actions, under the circumstances were necessary for their self-preservation, and thus were justifiable on that ground, still the effects in individual cases were often unhappy, and, at this lapse of time, appear harsh and unjust. In England there was a concerted plan to uproot Puritanism and establish Episcopacy. Laud, and other commissioners for this country, issued orders that none should leave the realm for New England without certificates of having taken the oath of supremacy and allegiance, and of being conformists to the discipline of the national church. [Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 203.] The court party felt that some decisive action must be taken, or else the Puritan colonists would get beyond their control. In furtherance of the plan, the Plymouth council agreed to surrender their charter to the crown, provided they could distribute their territory among members of their own body, and in the presence of his majesty they drew lots for the twelve royal provinces into which the territory had been divided. Thus the plan was in progress to establish the supremacy of the king and the authority of the bishops.

Says Winthrop: "It appeared likewise, by a copy of a petition sent over to us, that they had divided all this country of New England, viz., between St. Croix in the east, and that of Lord Baltimore, called Maryland, into twelve provinces, disposed to twelve in England, who should send each ten men to attend the general governour coming over; but the project took not effect. The Lord frustrated their design." [Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. #161.]

This is not the place to go into the details of this contest between the colonists and the church royalists. With increasing apprehension that a new governor would be brought to their shores, forcibly dissolve it, and carry out the proposed plan, the general court passed an order that no person should visit any ship without leave from some assistants until she had been anchored twenty-four hours at Nantasket, or some other harbor, not then unless it was evident that she was manned with friends. A beacon was ordered to be set up on Sentry hill, a watchman was stationed there, and a board of war was appointed to meet the emergency in case of a sudden invasion. The board was authorized to make every preparation for defence; to confine persons suspected of treasonable purposes against the commonwealth; fines were imposed, oaths of fidelity required, and every possible measure taken to protect themselves from the impending evil.

This brief statement is made to explain the following order of the general court in relation to Samuel Maverick, on the 4th of March, 1634-5, in the midst of these exciting times. It was ordered that he should, "before the last of December nexte, remove his habitation for himselfe and his family to Boston, and in the mean tyme shall not give entertainment to any strangers for a longer tyme than one night without leave from some Assistant, and all this is to be done under the penalty of £100." [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 140.] As he was an Episcopalian, and noted for hospitality to "all new-comers," he was doubtless put under these restrictions from fear lest he might have visitors for the purpose of promoting the introduction of the appointed government of New England. [Felt's Eccl. Hist. N. E. p. 208. In this valuable work a brief but good account of this controversy can be found.] This injunction was not of long duration, however, as it was countermanded in the September session. Felt says, "The suspicion against Samuel Maverick, as a staunch Episcopalian, having lessened, the injunction for his removal to Boston is repealed." [Mass. Records, Vol I. p. 159; Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 227.]

There is but little doubt that the authorities were jealous or suspicious of Mr. Maverick, as indeed they were of all who held views contrary to their own; and it is probable that the severe treatment he received at their hands influenced his subsequent conduct. He does not come under the head of the "pilgrim fathers." He was an Episcopalian and a royalist, evidently a good liver, a whole-souled, jovial Englishman, generous and kind, but not sympathizing with the Puritans in their peculiarities. Probably of a firm disposition, and not inclined to be subservient to the dictation of others, he naturally came in conflict with the more rigid rules of his neighbors. Possessing these traits of character, he was not a favorite with the colonial government, and, in turn, he had no great respect for it, expecially as he found it vacillating in its actions in most important matters relating to the welfare of the colony. And still he was always found ready to unite with the colonists, and do his full share in any public undertaking.

At the time of the exciting controversies between the Legalists and Antinomians so-called, the differences grew so great that they tended fast to a separation, and to the breaking up of social intercourse. Governor Winthrop, in July 1637, invited the late governor, Henry Vane, to accompany the Lord Ley at dinner at his house. But Vane not only refused to come (alleging a letter that his conscience withheld him), but also at the same hour he went over to Noddle's Island to dine with Mr. Maverick, and took Lord Ley with him. [Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. *232; Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 309.] This incident shows that Maverick continued his hospitalities, and was on familiar terms with the chief men of the colony.

Vane was "a true friend of New England, and a man of noble and generous mind." [Winthrop's Journal, Vol. II. p. 304.] Winthrop was his rival, and perhaps did not treat him so well as he probably wished he had done some years after. Vane filled the office of governor with general satisfaction, but was left out of office by a manœuvre of the minority. He bore this in silence, his conduct was that of a high-minded and good citizen; and when he left the country, the people, who regretted his departure, showed him every attention in their power. [Drake's Review of Winthrop, p. 18.]

Mr. Maverick's hospitality and humane disposition sometimes brought him into trouble and expense. He may not always have been prudent or particular enough in the objects of his charity; but at this lapse of time it is impossible to decide upon the merits of individual cases, especially when the records, of necessity, give only the bare facts without those attending circumstances, which, if know, might palliate seeming crime.

In 1641, one Thomas Owen and the wife of a William Hale had been imprisioned under the charge of illicit conduct. In some ways they found means to escape from custody, and it was ascertained that Mr. Maverick had admitted them to his house. It does not appear why he harbored them. He may have allowed them refuge as any other humane person would have done, seeing them in great distress; or there may have been peculiar circumstances connected with the case, which do not appear upon the records, and which justified some such course of action. However this may have been, he was fined one hundred pounds for this act; but it was afterward abated to twenty pounds. Mr. Maverick was not alone in this transaction, as we find six or eight individuals fined for the same offence; and this fact leads to the inference that the proceedings against Owen were considered as unjust by not a few of the community, and that Mr. Maverick exercised the kindness for which he was so celebrated, in his usual independent manner, without reference to the authorities. [Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 259; Mass. Records, Vol. I. p.335, Vol. II. p. 32; Ibid. p. 54.] His hospitable disposition subjected him to numerous fines, which, however, were frequently remitted; indeed, he seems generally to have been at war with the government.

Says the editor of Winthrop's Journal: "The character of Maverick induces me to believe that he supposed the parties innocent, which probably influenced Winthrop and the majority to a mitigation of the penalty . . . . . . My opinion of Maverick's conduct, reported in the text, gains confirmation for the implication of many others in the escape of the offenders." [Winthrop's Journal, Vol. II. *51, note.]

There are many instances recorded where Maverick was intrusted with public matters, even before his appointment as royal commissioner, and these instances only show that he possessed the confidence of the colonial government, and that they were willing to avail themselves of his services, although they did not allow him to hold any office. Such items, illustrative of his character and standing, may be introduced.

"On the 6th of June, 1637, Robert Anderson, for his contempt was fined £50, and sent to prison till he shall give satisfaction." "Mr. Samuel Mavericke," on the same day, "was injoined to keep in his hands of the goods of said Anderson to the value of £50 starling for his fine & to deliver him the rest of his goods." [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 199.]

In another instance he is directed to bring in his accounts for "publique busines" in which he had been employed; [Ibid. p. 101.] again, he is one of the referees in adjusting the differences between "Charles Towne & Newe Towne;" [Ibid. p. 101.] and, again, he with another individual is appointed to purchase clothing in England for a Wm. Bunnell, which expense the general court is to make good to them. [Ibid. Vol. II. p. 149.] In 1639, being bound in £10 for the appearing of James Meadcalfe, forteited his recognizance, and in December of the same year paid in £5 of it. [Ibid. Vol. I. p. 149.]

In 1640, among numerous grants of land by the town of Boston, Samuel Maverick and Thomas Fowle had 600 acres each, the greatest quantity allotted to any individuals. Maverick also had an additional grant of 400 acres of land in Braintree, by the town of Boston, "which was assigned unto Edward Bendall by said Maverick in 1643." [Boston Town Records, p. 67.]

Maverick owned, or had claim upon property, in Boston, for we find on record a mortgage to him from Robert Nash, butcher in Charlestown, on a tenement upon the hill near the dwellinghouse of "the Reverend Teacher, Mr. John Cotton, in Boston, formerly in the tenure of Lieut. Thomas Savage." The paper is dated on the 24th Sept., 1642, and discharged on the 29th August, 1648. [Suffolk Reg. Vol. I. fol. 35.] In 1651 he is mentioned as one of the executors of the will of John Mills, of Boston.

Without going into further detail to provide the assertion, it may be safely stated, that, so far as the records bear testimony to Maverick's position in society, he appears to have deserved, and to have received, the confidence and respect of those with whom he was associated, both in public and in private life. But, as already intimated, his religious views involved him in difficulties with the government of Massachusetts. A more particular narrative of these troubles forms the subject of another chapter.

Samuel Maverick; His Ecclesiastical Troubles.

In the Massachusetts colony there were from the commencement, individuals who held views, in both civil and ecclesiastical matters, contrary to the opinions and practices of the colonial authorities; as these became more numerous, and came to include in their number men of character and distinction, they were not backward in making complaints of such laws and enactments as they considered arbitrary and exclusive. The rigid laws of the colony, and in particular the law restricting to church-members the right to hold office, naturally gave great dissatisfaction to those who, by holding a different religious belief from their Puritan neighbors, were thus debarred from any influence or position in the government; and a desire for, and a determination to obtain, religious toleration, was rapidly gaining ground. Indeed, as early as 1645, the subject of equal civil and religious rights and privileges to all citizens was extensively agitated, books in defence of toleration were circulated, and the exertions to obtain the desired end became so promient that the authorities began to be alarmed. The movements of the disaffected were for a time carefully concealed under the guise of enlarging the liberties of the people, but the design could not long remain secret. The struggle commenced in Plymouth by a proposition for a "full and fee tolerance of religion to all men that would preserve the civil peace and submit unto government;" and there was no limitation or exception against any sect whatever. Turks, Jews, Papists, Arians, Socinians, Nicolaitans, Familists, indeed people of every belief, were to have equal rights and privileges. [Barry's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. p. 338.] It is not strange that such a proposition alarmed the Puritans, and was considered dangerous. The magistrates accordingly combined to defeat the movement, and the scene of action was removed to Massachusetts.

Prominent among those in the Massachusetts colony who were opposed to the prevailing principles of ecclesiastical policy, and the practices under them, was Samuel Maverick. The fact that his Episcopacy entirely excluded him from office was not calculated to conciliate his feelings towards the authorities, or bring about a change in his opinions. On the contrary, he, and others who were under the same disabilities, the longer they were made in this way to suffer, were the more determined in their views, and commenced a course of proceedings for the advancement of religious freedom by far the most formidable which had yet been witnessed in New England. In this movement, personal motives may have been mingled with others of a more general character, but the main object in view was a worthy one. It was, however, unfortunately urged at a wrong time and in a wrong manner to accomplish much good. For the authorities were then peculiarly suspicious of any new movement, and were vigilant to preserve the purity of the churches, and to suppress all innovation upon the established laws and usages. The efforts to obtain equal civil and religious rights and privileges may be said to have first taken a definite form in 1646. Says Hutchinson, "A great disturbance was caused in the colony this year by a number of persons of figure, but of different sentiments, both as to civil and ecclesiastical government, from the people in general." The principal persons connected with the controversy were William Vassall, a prominent member of the church in Scituate, a town in the Plymouth colony contiguous to Hingham in the Massachusetts colony, Dr. Robert Child, a yound physician from Padua, and Samuel Maverick. Vassall, who had much influence in the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies, prepared a scheme for petitions to be presented to the courts of both colonies by the non-freemen; and if these petitions were refused, the plan was to apply to parliment, pretending they were subjected to an arbitrary power and extrajudicial proceedings. The first two of the Massachusetts petitioners were Samuel Maverick and Robert Child. [Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. p. 145.]

In accordance with Vassall's scheme, a "Remonstrance and humble petition" was addressed (1646) to the general court, signed by Robert Child, Samuel Maverick, Thomas Fowle, Thomas Burton, David Yale, John Smith, and John Dand. They complained, 1st, that the fundamental laws of England were not acknowledged by the colony as the basis of their government, according to patent; 2d, that the civil privileges enjoyed by the freemen of the jurisdiction were denied to such as were not members of the churches, and did not take an oath of fidelity devised by the authority here, although they were freeborn Englishmen of sober lives and conversation; 3d, that they were debarred from Christian privileges, such as the Lord's supper for themselves, and baptism for their children, because they were not members of the particular churches here, although of good character, and members of the Church of England. They therefore prayed that civil liberty might be forthwith granted to all who were truly English; and that all members of the Church of England or Scotland, not scandalous, might be admitted to the privileges of the churches of New England; or, if these civil and religious liberties were refused, that they might be freed from the heavy taxes imposed upon them, and from the impresses made of them, or their children or servants, in time of war; if they failed of redress there, they should be under the necessity of making application to England, to the honorable houses of parliment, who they hoped would take their sad condition into consideration, provide able ministers for them, New England having none such to spare, or else transport them to some other place, their estates being wasted, where they may live like Christians. But if their prayer should be granted, they hoped to see the then contemned ordinances of God highly prized; the gospel, then dark, break forth as the sun; Christian charity, then frozen, wax warm; jealousy of arbitrary government banished; strife and contention abated; and all business in church and state, which for many years had gone backward, successfully thriving, &c.

The substance of the remonstrance is thus given in the Massachusetts archives:—

"1. They discerne not a clear settled forme of govnment according to ye fundantall laws of England, which seemeth strange &c.

"2. No body of lawes to enioy lives liberties, goods according to ye rights of English subiects from whence arise Jealousies of introducing arbitrary govnmnt, wch is detestable to or English nation, & to all good men, from whence is feare of illegall commitmts taxes customes uniustifiable przes, undue fines & unconceivable dangrs, by a negative, or destructive vote unduly placed, or not well regulated of a non conformity of all things they enioy, & of undue oathes subject to exposition according to ye will of ye giver.

"3. Wrfore they desire ye establishing of ye fundamtall lawes of England to wch we are obliged by or charter, & oathes of allegiance from wch if wee swerve ye be a powr setled to call us to account according to y lawes of England.

"4. Slavry & bondage, upon ym, & yr posterity intollerable by ym who ought to love, & respect ym as brethren, for not bearing office, or haveing votes, wrfore yey desire equall liberty wthout imposing oathes, or covenants, on ym unwarranted by ye patent nor agreeing with ye oath of allegiance, & ye place stiled a free state, rathr yn a Colony, or corporation of England or at least, yt yir bodies may not be imprest nor yir goods taken away least they ignorant of ye witness of ye warr may be forced upon yr destructions, & yt all taxes & impositions may be taken away, yt so they me be strangrs in all things; otherwise they are in a worse case yn ye Indians.

"5. yt none be banished, unles they breake yt known lawes of England deserving such punishmu, & yt those yt come may settle without two matrats hands.

"6. They desire librty for ye membrs of ye Church of England to enjoy all ordinances wth us, or els to grant liberty to settle ym selves in a church way according to Engl: and Scotland, wch if not granted they will petition ye Parliamt.

"7. These thinges amended all or calamities are like to cease, & all things prsper.

Robt Child, Thom Burton, John Smith, John Dand, Thomas Fowle, David Yale, Samu: Maverick."

It is evident that this petition was intended for an extensive circulation, as copies were rapidly spread into the adjoining governments of Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, and even in the Dutch Plantations, Virginia, and the Bermudas; and it seems to have been well understood that it was expected to reach English ears, and that it was to be forwarded to parliament. The petition gave great offence to the court and to the people generally; and in reply a declaration was published by order of the court, in which the charges were freely examined and the government vindicated. The petitioners were required to attend court, and, on so doing, urged their right of petitioning; to which it was replied, that they were not accused of petitioning, but of using contemptuous and seditious expressions in their remonstrance, and they were ordered to appear before the court. In the mean time there was much agitation in the community, and the civil authorities applied to the elders in the community, and the civil authorities applied to the elders for their opinions respecting the bearing of the laws of England upon the government here. It perhaps was fortunate that at this time the government in England was in too unsettled a condition to attempt to settle affairs in the colony. [Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 295.]

In November (4th) the court came together by adjournment, and the case of Dr. Child and others was taken up. Two of the petitioners, Fowle, who was preparing to sail for England, and Smith of Rhode Island, then in town, were required to find sureties for their appearance to answer. In the end they were all fined in proportion to their supposed demerits. Winthrop says: "The court proceeded to consider of their censure, and agreed, that the doctor [Doctor Child.] (in regard he had no cause to complain, and yet was a leader to the rest, and had carried himself proudly, etc., in the court) should be fined fifty pounds, Mr. Smith (being also a stranger) forty pounds, Mr. Maverick (because he had not yet appealed) ten pounds, and the other four, thirty pounds each." He adds, that, being called again before the court and admonished, "they were offered also, if they would ingenuously acknowledge their miscarriage, etc., it should be freely remitted. But they remaining obstinate, the court declared their sentence, as is before expressed." [Winthrop's Journal, Vol. II. pp. *291-2 and note.]

This exorbitant imposition excites both surprise and indignation, wholly opposed, as it was, to every principle of a free and enlightened government, and bearing with severity upon some of the most prominent and useful men of the colony. One of the petitioners was at that time associated with Winthrop as one of the selectman of Boston, and Maverick, another one, had that very year shown his interest in the welfare of the colony by advancing a larger part of the outlay required in fortifying Castle island, in which the town of Boston had engaged to save him harmless to a certain extent. [Ibid., note.] This harsh legislation can only be viewed as one of the arbitrary proceedings which were too frequent in the early days of the colony.

It should be remarked, that the court was not unanimous in its sentence. Mr. Bellingham, Mr. Saltonstall, and Mr. Bradstreet dissented, and desired that their dissent should be entered upon the records,—a course of action which reflects much credit upon them. Two or three of the deputies also dissented.

The petitioners then claimed the right to appeal to the commissioners for plantations, in England; but this was not allowed. Yet they appealed to parliament, and Dr. Child, with others, prepared in all haste to go to England to prosecute the appeal. The court, judging it dangerous to allow these men to proceed to England under these circumstances, and, under the pretence of detaining Child on account of his fine, determinded to seize him, and to take away and destroy whatever papers any of them might have, calculated to expose the proceedings here; and, as if to aggragate this intended outrage as much as possible, it was "agreed to defer it till the Doctor had been shipboard." But the plan being discovered, they say, "we sent the officers presently to fetch the Doctor, and to search his study and Dand's, both at one instant, which was done accordingly." Nothing obnoxious was found in the doctor's possession, but with Mr. Dand were found various objectionable documents, among which were two petitions to parliament setting forth the experience of the petitioners in the court in Boston, and suggesting remedies; also a paper consisting of some twenty questions respecting the validity of the patent of the colony; whether certain acts were not treason, and whether the courts had a right to prevent the establishment of churches according to the reformed English Church, and other inquiries of a similar nature.

Beside this search, so clearly unworthy of the authorities, there were other aggravating circumstances connected with the proceedings against Child, Dand, and Smith; and, to make the measure of punishment and disappointment full, they were held in durance until the ships had sailed. Vassall and Fowle sailed for England early in November, 1646.

Felt says: "The night before they intended to embark, order is given that search be made for their papers. At Dand's residence some are found, which Smith, being with him, catches up to be secure from exposure. When the officer seized them, the latter said 'he hoped, ere long, to do as much to the governor's closet and to him, as he did for them.' Among them is the petition of non-freemem, with twenty-five signers, most of them young men and strangers, which prays for liberty of conscience and a general governor; and also another, of the remonstrants to parliament. In the last document, prayer is made for 'churches according to the reformation of England,' and for the removal of several customs here, which the petitioners call grievances.

"Child, Smith, and Dand are committed to the custody of the marshal til the vessels bound to sea shall have sailed. This was on account of the new matter which appeared from their papers. On giving sufficient bail, the first was allowed to be confined to his house. The other two were kept in the house of the prison keeper. A young man, Thomas Joy, who had circulated the petition for the non-freemen, and otherwise busied himself against the authorities, was put in irons for several days, when he confessed that he had done wrong, and was therefore released." [Eccl. Hist. N. E. p. 592.]

The measures against Child were probably thus severe from the fact that, Winthrop says, "the writings were of his hand." By this phrase is undoubtedly meant that he drafted the petitions, for although Vassall was without doubt the prime mover in the controversy, he was not, to our knowledge, a man of public education, although his wealth and position in society gave him an extensive influence in the colonies. Child, who lived in the adjoining town of Hingham, was a talented man, and educated at Padua, that celebrated seat of learning. Even Winthrop, who was his bitterest opposer, calls him "a man of quality, a gentleman, and a scholar," and he of all the petitioners seems to have been the most likely to have been selected to draft different papers; indeed, they bear internal evidence of a discriminating and educated mind.

As Mr. Drake, the author of the admirable history of Boston, has given a well condensed account of Fowle's and Vassall's voyage, so far as this particular matter is concerned we repeat it in his language.

He says: "They went in a ship named the Supply. About the time of her sailing, Mr. Cotton preached a Thursday lecture sermon, with special reference to persons going over in her, were his hearers at the lecture, and he warned them against the bearers of such communications; that any such papers would prove a Jonas to the voyage; and recommended, if a storm did arise, that certain trunks should be searched for a Jonas. A storm did arise, and a certain female on board, who had heard Mr. Cotton's late sermon, ran about the ship in much consternation, insisting that if any passenger had a Jonas, it should be produced, and the ship delivered of it. She gave Mr. Vassall a call at midnight. He asked her why she came to him? 'Because,' she said, 'it was thought he had some writings against the people of God.' He told her he had only a petition to parliament, merely praying that they might enjoy the liberty of English subjects; and surely that could be no Jonas. She next paid Mr. Fowle a visit, in 'like distracted manner.' He told her he had only a copy of the petition, which himself and others had presented to the court at Boston. Thus he proceeded and read to her, and then said, that if she and the others judged that that was the cause of the storm, they might have it, and do what they would with it. She took the paper to her companions, who, after a consultation, decided that it should be cast overboard. But it is remarked, that though it was thus ceremoniously committed to the waves, there was no immediate cessation of the tempest; nor did it prevent another, which seemed to have doomed them all to certain destruction near Scilly, fourteen days after.

"Notwithstanding those and other storms during the voyage, and notwithstanding the real Jonas continued in the ship, and was 'cast up at London' in safety, as were all the ship's company; yet it was reported that they owned their safety to the destruction of the parliament, when, as Major Child says, it was only a copy of a petition to their own court at Boston; still the petition to parliament, with a copy of that thrown overboard, and other writing of that nature, were still in the ship, and safely delivered at London, as before mentioned." [Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 298.]

The petitioners may not have been all of the best temper, nor in all respects of the best intentions; but the treatment they received was singularly unjust. A number of years subsequent to this, Mary Hooke, a daughter of Maverick, in a petition to Governor Andros, refers to the severe treatment which her father received. This petition, which is an important one in many respects, is as follows [Mass. Archives, Vol. 128, p. 45; N. E. Hist. & Gen. Reg. Vol. VIII. p. 334.]:—

"Feby 13th, 1687—

"To His Excellency Sr Edmund Andros Knight Captn Generall and Governor in Chiefe in & over his Majesties Territory and Dominion of New England &c.

"The Humble Petition of Mary, the wife of Francis Hooke, of the Towne of Kittery in the Provynce of Mayne, Daughter and Heiresse of Samuel Mavericke, deceased,

"Sheweth unto yor Excellency

"That Your Peticoners said Father the sd Samuell Maverick was in the yeare of our Lord God 1648 an inhabitant and owner of a place called Noddle's Island in New England, now in the possession of Corronell Shrimpton, at which tyme, he yr Peticonrs sd father with some others drew upp a Peticon wth and intent to prsent it to the late Majty King Charles the first of ever blessed memory, in which Peticon they requested severall liberties which they did not then enjoy, and amongst other things for the baptizeing of their Children. But by some means or other the said Peticon was discovered by the Massathusetts Government and the Peticonrs imprisoned for a long season, and att length all fined, amongst which yor Peticonrs sd Father was fined the full summe of Two Hundred and Fifty pounds sterling; [She makes a mistake; the fine was £150.] Which sume he resolveing not to pay, and fearing the sd Island would be seized to make payment of itt, he made a deede of Gift of the sd Island to his Eldest sonne, not wth any designe to deliver the sd Deede to him, but onely to prvent the seizure of itt. But yor Peticonrs sd Eldest Brother heareing of itt, by a Crafty Wile contrary to his Fathers' Knowledge gott the sd deede into his custody. But whether he sold it, or how he disposed of itt yor Peticonr canot sett forth, soe that yor Peticonrs sd Father in his life tyme. And yor Peticonr since his decease hath been debarred of their just right, and partly by the Massathusetts Government continuing soe long, And yor Peticonrs Father being one of the Kings Comissrs sent with Collonll Niccolls Gen Sr Robt Carr & Collonll Cartwright to settle the affaires in New York & New England but were interrupted at Boston wth sound of Trumpett.

"Wherefor yor Peticonr humbly desires yor Excellency to take the prmisses into consideration and to graunt her some reliefe therein And yor Peticonr as in duty bound shall ever pray &c

MARY HOOKE."

[Mary Hooke married, first, John Palsgrave on the 8th of these 12th month 1655, and after his decease, on the 20th of September, 1660, Francis Hooke. "Francis Hooke is first introduced to us as a pious man and preacher of the gospel. He selected his place of abode at Winter-harbor, in Saco, where mention is made of him in 1660. Inflexibly attached as he was to the interests of Gorges, in belief that his right was well-founded, he was appointed to a justice, both under Archdale in 1663-4, and by the king's commissioners in 1665. For a period his acceptance of these offices, in connection with his political sentiments, might have rendered him unpopular among the partisans of Massachusetts; yet so entirely had he regained the public esteem in 1680 as to be appointed first country treasurer under President Danforth's administration, and a member of the council during the whole period of his presidency. He seems to have had the singular good fortune of a very few public men, that is, to be popular with all parties. For, in 1692 and 3, he was a member of the province council under the charter of William and Mary, a judge of probate two years, and also a judge upon the bench of the common pleas. He removed to Kittery before the commencement of the second Indian war, where he died in January, 1695. In a word, such was Francis Hooke, that no other of that age in the province was so public spirited and highly useful, none better beloved."—Appendix, Williamson's Hist. Maine, p. 679.]

The petitioners of 1646, two of whom went to England with their appeal in November of that year, had declared their intention of appealing to parliament. This is probably the one to which Mary Hooke refers, although, from the ambiguous manner in which her statement is worded, it might seem the petition to which she refers was sent in 1648. But as Charles I. had at that time lost his throne, she undoubtedly had reference to the petition of 1646, and the words, "at which time," may mean that the petition was sent when Maverick was owner of Noddle's Island.

In March, 1647, the assistants arraigned Samuel Maverick and William Clark for their active exertions in obtaining signatures to the non-freemen's petition, which it was intended to present to the Earl of Warwick and the other commissioners, who had the control of affairs in the North American colonies. Clark was a member of the Salem church. Both Maverick and Clark were bound over to the general court, Smith and Dand having given security for the payment of their fines. Relative to the first petition, they were bailed to appear at the same tribunal. Child declined to give similar bonds, and was therefore committed to prison. The reason for such particularity, as Winthrop observes, was that "the cause was of so great concernment as the very life and foundation of our government." [Felt's Eccl. Hist. N. E., p. 594.]

"On the 26th of May, at the general election, an effort was made by the favorers of the principles advocated by Child and others to choose a governor and magistrates who would sustain their cause. The attempt was unsuccessful, no one of their candidates being elected save Robert Bridges, belonging to Lynn, for an assistant." [Ibid. 596.]

On account of the insecurity of the Boston jail, the court in June gave instructions, that if all the prisoners of Dr. Child's company be released except one or two, these should be put in irons, unless they paid the charge for two watchmen. [Ibid. 598.]

It was ordered, in October, that Dand, one of the remonstrants, should be set at liberty on condition of tendering a suitable acknowledgment, and giving sufficient security for the payment of fifty pounds. [Ibid. 602.]

If by "all the prisoners of Dr. Child's company" is meant all who signed the remonstrance to parliament, then Maverick was at one time imprisoned for an offence like that his daughter names; and that this was the case is evident from a clause alluding to his imprisonment in one of the petitions presented by Maverick to the court, which is given on a subsequent page.

On the 26th of May, 1647, the court agreed upon the sentence against the petitioners, and it is thus recorded:—[Mass. Records, Vol. III. p. 113.]

"The Courte having taken into serious consideracon the crimes chardged on Doct Robt Child, Mr John Smith, Mr Thomas Burton, Mr John Dand & Mr Samuell Mauericke, & whereof they have binn found guilty vpon full evidence by the former judgement of this Courte, have agreed upon ye sentence here ensewing respectively decreed to each of them,

£ s. d. Doctor Child, two hundred pounds, & imprisonment vntill it be payed or security given for it . . 200 00 00
Mr John Smith, one hundred pounds, & imprisonment as before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 00 00
Mr John Dand, two hundred pounds & imprisonment as before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 00 00
Mr Tho: Burton, one hundred pounds & imprisonment as before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 00 00
Mr Sam: Mauericke, ffor his offence in being pty to ye conspiracy one
hundred pounds, & imprisonment as before
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 00 00
Mr Sam. Mauericke, ffor his offence in breaking his oath, & in appealing agnst yt intent of his oath of a freeman, ffifty pounds & imprisonment as before. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 050 00 00
Jacob Barney, contradicens to ye sentence of ye Courte."

Maverick did not quietly submit to this heavy tax, but earnestly addressed the court on the subject. The following petition is copied from the archives:— [Lib. 38, B. 228.]

"I Samuell Mavericke humbly request that whereas at a Corte held in May & June 1647 there was layd to my charge conspiracy and periury, for wch I was fined 150£, no witnes appearing either viva voce or by writinge, but was refered to the records for sufficient testimony to convince me, wch records I could not obtaine in thirteen weekes, in the space of one month after sentence I yielded myself prisonner according to the order of Corte, & after my abode there 12 dayes paid the fines, & so was discharged, wch time haveing gotten coppies of the records, and finding nothing materiall against me, whereby I may, (as I conceive) be rendered guilty, so as to deserve so great a fine, or to lye under so great disparagment upon record.

"I therefore humbly desire this honored Courte, that my fines may be repaid, and my Credit repaid, by recording my innocency, if such testimony do not further appeare, as may render me guilty:

"SAMUELL MAUERICKE.

8 (3) 1649"

Another petition, for the remission of his fines, etc., entitled "Mr Mauericke's 2nd petition," was presented on the 16th of May, same year, and is thus recorded. [Lib. 38, B. 228]

"To the honnored Generall Courte, now assembled in Boston.

"May it please you:

"Whereas I have been formerly chardged wth conspiracy & perjury, wch to my vnderstanding, hath not binn sufficyently pvd agt me, tho the Courte, vpon the evidences brought against me, sentenced and fined me 150£, & having searched the records cannott yett see sufficyent evidence to prove the chardges against me, wch mooved me to petition this honnored Courte for a review of my cawse; yett I desire the Courte to vnderstand me, so as if I accoumpted myself altogether free of error, but have cawse rather to suspect and judge myself and accons then your justice and p'ceedings; and being confident and experimentally assured of yor clemency to others in the like kind, I am bold rather to crave yor mercy in the favorable remittance of my fines then to stand either to justify myself or p'ceedings, wch as they have (contrary to my intencons) prooved p'judicyall and very offensive, so it hath binn, is, and willbe, my griefe and trouble. I shall not trouble you wth arguments respecting myself and family, though the burden lyes heavy in that respect; the only motive lies in yor owne breasts, yor wonted charity, wch will render you to the world mercifull, and refresh and fully satisy yor humble petitioner, who doth remaine

Your humble servant

"SAMUEL MAUERICKE."

To this petition the deputies consented in full, "wth reference to the consent of our honnored Magists." But the magistrates refused their consent, and the petitioner failed in his request.

We find yet another petitione, in these words:—

"To the right worppll the Gouernor Deputie Gouernor and Assistants togeather wth the honord Deputies now Assembled in the Generall Court at Boston—

"The Humble Petition of Samuell Mavericke sheweth that Whereas yor Petitionr did in or about November last prferr a peticon to this honored Court; wherein hee desired you would graunt him a review of his Tryall, the reparacon of his Creditt, and remittmt of fines imposed on him for the reasons therein Declared as more fully doth appeare by the sayd Peticon, a Coppy whereof hee doth heerewth prsent vnto you but receiving noe Answer.

"Hee doth Humbly request you to take the sayd Peticon into yor serious Consideracon being ready to make his Purgation on Oath if desired, and willing if any Evidence appeare suffitient to Render him Guiltie (and hee not able apparently to Contradict it) freely to Submit vnto the Sentence; his Request being, (as hee supposeth) reasonable, hee doubts not of yor fauorable Answer wch will farther Obleidge him Euer to Remaine

Yor Humble Servant."

Mr. Maverick's perservering efforts were, at last, partically successful; for on the 19th of June, 1650,—

"In answer to the petition of Mr. Samuel Mauericke for the remittinge or mitigantion of a fine of one hundred & fiftie pounds formerly layd vppon him, it is ordred, that the petitionor shall haue the one halfe of the foresd fine abated. p Curiam." [Mass. Records, Vol. III. p. 200.]

Mr. Maverick, a few years later, had these proceedings of the government in full remembrance, and doubtless enjoyed the exercise of the power given him over those who had, but a short time before, judged his actions so severely; and it is only another instance of the vicissitudes of life, when the accused becomes the accuser, the law-breaker the lawgiver.

On this whole subject, Drake justly observes: "It may appear strange that Mr. Maverick should submit to so many indignities as from time to time it has been seen that he did; a man that Boston could not do without. He was a gentleman of wealth and great liberality. A few pages back, 291, we have seen how much the town was indebted to him for help to rebuild the fort on Castle island. He may have looked upon these and other proceedings against him as petty annoyances, to which it was best quietly to submit, not wishing to set an example of opposition to the government, or, having a large property at stake, he might not wish to jeapordize it." [Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 296] Says another writer: "He was compelled to contribute to the support of the elders, but, with his family, was excluded from all participation in the solemn ordinances of religion." [Puritan Commonwealth, p. 419.] When considering the peculiar circumstances under which he was placed, and the evident fact that his position as a man of wealth, liberality, hospitality, public spirit, enterprise, and rank in soiety, demanded at least equal rights and privileges, it must be admitted that he exercised exemplary patience.

It is sad to contemplate such acts of oppression as have been briefly noticed, whatever the provocation might be that called them forth. The government appears to have been for a long period in constant fear of attempts, both here and in the mother country, to establish Episcopacy, to which their own independence would be brought into subjection; and that fear was doubtless the chief incentive in all their harsh and oppressive acts towards members of the Church of England contending for their rights. But a significant clause in the letter of Charles II. (28th June, 1662) to the Massachusetts Colony, illustrates that the spirit of intolerance was not confined to New England, nor to any particular sect of Christians. "We cannot be understood hereby to direct, or wish, that any indulgence should be granted to those persons commonly called Quakers, whose principles being inconsistent with any kind of government, we have found it necessary, by the advice of Parliament here, to make a sharp law against them, and are well contented that you do the like there." [Danforth Papers.]

In the spirit of toleration and mildness our ancestors were far in advance of the mother country; and it would be well for those who delight in dwelling on the confessed severity and rigidness of the early settlers, and their spirit of intoleration to all who differed from them, to compare, with reference to this point, Old England and New England at that time. Such a comparison will show that our honored ancestors, although to our present ideas harsh and bigotedly illiberal, still were many years ahead of the times in which they lived. It was natural that they should be jealous of any innovation in their religious worship. They had left their own country on account of the persecutions of the church, and, with singular self-sacrifice, had crossed the ocean and founded a settlement to enjoy their own forms of worship and their own ideas of government; and when they saw the attempt made to establish here the very system from which they had fled, they resisted, and resorted to measures which we cannot approve; but yet they were much milder measures, and more in accordance with the opinions of the present day, than were pursued under the same circumstances in England. It is by no means certain but that, with all our boasted liberality of sentiment, we should act in the same manner if placed in a similar situation; and our judgment of others should always be regulated by the time and the peculiar circumstances which surround the subject. Situated as we now are in the full enjoyment of the fundamental principles which our forefathers established, it is difficult for us to appreciate their peculiar situation, or to realize the difficulties they had to encounter and overcome. Their tenacity of opinion and jealousy of intrusion led to a too intense expression of their ardor in the cause they had espoused, and for the establishment of which they had planted their feet on these western shores. Smarting with their recent sufferings from intolerance at home, they could not brook the thought that they were to be followed over the waters by the same spirit. They pursued a course of measures perhaps impolitic and severe, and upon which we look back with regret. But, while we condemn, let us not forget the extraordinary circumstances in which they were placed, and let us give our judgment upon an honest investigation and just appreciation of all the peculiarities of the case.

Noddle's Island a Place of Refuge to the Baptists.

Similar in character to the Episcopalian troubles in the Massachusetts colony were the Baptist difficulties, which lasted for a period of twenty years, and involved both church and state in an unhappy controversy.

In the direct order of time, the sale of Noddle's Island by Maverick came between these two religious controversies, but they are so closely connected in character it is thought best to present them in juxtaposition, even at the sacrifice of strict chronological order. Suffice it then in this place to say, that, during the protracted contest in which the persecuted Baptists took refuge on Noddle's Island, the Island was not in Maverick's possession, nor was he connected with it in any manner. With him circumstances had vastly altered. He had sold his Island home, and, as a royal commissioner, was in the exercise of authority over those who so recently had apparently taken delight in using with severity their brief authority over him.

Persisting in their harsh treatment of all who differed from what might with propriety be called the Established Church of the colony (for such it was in spirit), the authorities, in opposition to the well-known wishes of the crown, and in spite of the presence of the royal commissioners, who had power over them in these matters, afflicted the Baptists with the same rigorous treatment with which they had treated Maverick and his Episcopalian friends. Resisting the authority of the commissioners, the colonial government determined, at all hazards, to preserve its favorite form of religious worship untainted with any heresies, and this persecution of the Baptists well illustrates this point, and is pertinent to the narrative.

As Noddle's Island was long the residence of Maverick, the zealous Episcopalian and royalist, whose efforts to obtain religious toleration and civil rights brought him only fines and imprisonment, so also it was, after it passed out of his possession, the refuge of the First Baptist Church of Boston, while under the interdict of the provincial government.

"I give," said Henry Shrimpton, the father of Coloniel Shrimpton, a subsequent owner of Noddle's Island, in his will, dated July 17th, 1666, "ten pounds to the society of Christians that doth meet at Noddle's Island, of whom is Gould & Osborne & the rest, as a token of my love." That this was also a token of his liberal and catholic spirit, and his indifference as to official prejudie, the facts relating to this society will show.

This was not only the "First Baptist Church of Boston" (a name it still bears), but for nearly forty years comprised almost all the Baptist interests in the colony. Formed in Charlestown 28, 3, (May) 1665, by Thomas Gould, Thomas Osborne, Edward Drinker, and John George, who were then baptised, and Richard Girdall, William Turner, Robert Lambert, Mary Girdall, and Mary Newell, who had been Baptists in England, the organization was preceded by ten years of ecclesiastical troubles, and followed by ten more of legal oppression.

Gould and Osborne had been members of the First Church in Charlestown; but, "it having been a long time," says Gould, "a scruple to me about infant baptism, God was pleased at last to make it clear to me by the rule of the gospel that children were not capable nor fit subjects for such an ordinance." This was in 1655; and the omission at that time to present his child for baptism, introduced those troubles which issued in the formation of a Baptist church. He was cited to appear before the Charlestown church, and he did so; and at several meetings the propriety of infant baptism was discussed at length. The discussions resulted, as such disputations generally do, in convincing neither party. No church action, however, was had until he adopted the practice of leaving the church during the performance of this rite. Upon this and other manifestations of his dislike, as he himself says, he was "dealt with" for "unreverent carriage." The proceedings ran through two years, in the course of which he was laid "under admonition." From that time he ceased to attend the meeting at Charlestown. A short time elapsed, and he was summoned to answer for so doing. His reply that "he had not rent from the church, for they had put him away," was not considered valid; and, in June, 1658, after conference between himself and the church, in which he justified his long absence from the church in the way of schism, never having used any means to convince the church of any irregular proceeding, but continuing peremptorily and contumaciously to justify his schism."

No further notice was taken of him, although he still continued absent for more than five years; nor until he had begun to hold meetings upon the Sabbath in his own house. Upon this new offence, he received, in February, 1664, a second "admonition" for "schism," and for refusing to make any explanations regarding "a private meeting kept at his house on the Lord's day."

At the same time, Osborne, who in the preceding November had been "admonished" together with his wife, the former for "anabaptism," the latter, not only for that, but also for what the church styled "Quakerism," received a second censure. The object of the church in this proceeding being still unattained, and, in addition to the former reasons, it appearing that these persons had formed themselves into a chruch, they were summoned to meet the Charlestown church to account for their withdrawal. They refused to appear; a further delay was had, a second summons being in the mean time issued, which met with the same result. After still a third notification, on the 30th of July, 1665, Gould, Osborne, and Mrs. Osborne were, for "withdrawing from the church and neglecting to hear the church," formally excommunicated.

Had these persons been subjected to no more violent proceedings than these of the Charlestown church, they would have had slight cause to complain. That their principles were in several respects irreconcilable with those of their former church; that the manner in which their opinions were expressed was far from conciliatory and respectful; that the proceesings against them were neither hurried nor unlawful; and that the treatment of the church's authority was certainly not according to usage, is clearly evident. In the cases of Gould and Osborne, the final action was taken for long withdrawal from public worship, and refusal to meet the charges against them; Osborne complaining that they "gave no liberty to several brethren to prophesye," and "that they limited the ministry to learned men." In the case of Osborne's wife, action was taken for "her notorious neglect of the public worship of God, denying our churches to be true churches, and also the church's power over her;" in that of John Farnum, one of the first members,—having been early a member of the Dorchester church, and afterwards of the Second Church in Boston,—it was "for renouncing communion with the church, holding familiarity with excommunicated persons, slanders against several holy and worthy men," and in persisting to refuse communion with the church except upon the preposterous conditions that "they must set up the ordinance of prophecy; promise to baptize no more infants; all be baptized (i.e. rebaptized) themselves; put away their present teacher (Rev. Mr. Mayo) from his office." As they denied the Puritan churches to be churches, and "did not consider that any but practical believers who had been baptized upon a profession of faith (thus excluding the great bulk of church-members) could be visible members of the church of Christ," [Hist. First Bap. Church, Boston, 1853.] it is difficult to see how the churches could have taken any different action. Indeed, soon after, the Baptist church itself excommunicated Farnum for the same offence of withdrawing from worship and refusing to hear the church, as we shall see. But when the state brought its force to bear against these few conscientious and powerless men and women, the subject takes a different aspect; for, although their conduct was in many respects unjustifiable, neglect would have rendered harmless those whom force exalted into martyrs.

For the first ten years this church appears to have held its meetings mostly at Noddle's Island. In August following its formation, their place of meeting was not publicly known; for the constable of Charlestown was directed to use his endeavors to discover it. But in the next April (1666) they plead in court that they steadly attended public worship; which open statement, with the legacy in the will of Henry Shrimpton, July 17, 1666, already quoted, makes it evident that their place of gathering was then well known; though when these meetings were first held there, and at just what time Gould moved there (which were apparently coincident), it is impossible to tell; yet it seems evident that it was as early as the summer of 1665. Drake says: [Hist. Boston, p. 378] "The date of the first Baptist church in Boston is reckoned from the time of Mr. Gould's removal to Noddle's Island, ascertained to be in the year 1668. From this date the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary was celebrated in 1818." This is an error, as various circumstances go to show that Gould resided at the Island two or three years previous to 1668.

In 1668 the church had increased to eighteen members; and for some years, as appears from their correspondence, they were know as the "Church of Jesus Christ worshipping at Noddle's Island in New England." Samuel Hubbard of Newport, R.I., so addressed them in Nov. 1671. In Nov., 1670, Drinker, in a letter to Clarke and his church at Newport, says, "Warrants are in two Marshal's hands for brother Gould, but he is not yet taken because he lives in Noddle's Island, and they wish to take him at town." And again, "we keep a meeting at Noddle's Island every first day, and the Lord is adding some souls to us still, and is enlightening some others. The priests are much enraged." [Backus, Hist. Bap. I. 398] Under date of 1674, Capt. John Hull, in his MS. Diary writes, "This summer the Anabaptists yt were wont to meet at Noddle's Island met at Boston on ye Lords Day. One Mr. Symond Lind letteth one of them an house which was formerly Mr. Rucks."

At this time half a dozen of these brethren were living at Woburn, among whom were Elder John Russell, Senr., who held meetings with them on the Sabbath, when they could not go to the Island. As, besides having "set up the ordinance of prophesies," which thereby allowed all members to take part in their meetings, they had several elders, it is not probable that these meetings were discontinued at that time, although Gould was in prison. Drinker is styled "Reverend," and Isaac Hill, the first person admitted after the organization, is included among their ministers. But Gould, while he lived, was regarded as their pastor, and his residence at Noddle's Island, until the erection of a church at Boston twelve years afterward, was their house of worship. "Little is known of him," says the brief history of the church already quoted, "more than that he suffered much from the bigotry of his opponents, and was founder of the church which included almost the whole of the Baptist interests in the colony of Massachusetts for more than forty years."

The laws, whose severity Gould and his associates were made to feel for the ensuing ten years, were by no means new enactments, nor did all of them have special reference to the Baptists. Such was the first in point of time, passed in 1635, which forbade citizens from "meeting upon the Lord's day" under a penalty of imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five shillings for each offence, to be imposed by any two assistants; and which was reenacted with more fulness in 1646. Such also was the law of March 3d, 1635, which rendered illegal the formation of a new church without the consent of "the magistrates, and the elders of the greater part of the churches;" a law intended for those of the established faith, and considered necessary in a country so thinly settled as to render a multiplying of churches not only troublesome as to harmony, but burdensome as to support, and which bore with especial severity on those who not only subdivided, but renounced the fellowshiop of, the churches which they abandoned. The law, however, which was intended directly for such cases, was passed 13th Nov., 1644, against the Anabaptists; that, after recapitulating the troubles which had arisen from these people in other commonwealths as they "who have held the baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors," and mentions that "divers of this kind" had appeared in Massachusetts who denied the ordinance of magistracy and the lawfulness of making war, declares that all persons who should offend in the specified particulars shall be banished. It is fair, however, to notice the statement of the general court, two years after, that those who differed merely in judgment in point of baptism and live peaceably amongst us" were not to be molested; to which the venerable Increase Mather, in 1681, adds his unimpeachable testimony, that he had never known "those that scruple Infant Baptism to be molested merely on the account of their opinion;" and he bases the propriety of the banishment of such as created trouble upon the fact that they themselves and their families into a "Wilderness that so they might be a peculiar People by themselves," and appeals to their opponents "to do as they would be done by, and deal with us as they would have us to deal with them were they in our case and we in theirs."

There was a law enacted on the 4th Nov., 1646, against any person who should go about to destroy or disturb the order of the churches by open renouncing their church state or their ministry, or other ordinance, upon various specified "pretences," for which the penalty was 40s. per month, "so long as he continue in his obstinacy."

Under all these enactments were the Baptists proscuted. In less than three months after the church was gathered, 20th Aug., 1665, the constable of Charlestown was directed to discover the place of meeting of Gould and his associates, and in case of failure to report their names and places of abode to some magistrate. [Backus, Hist. Bap. I. 371.] In consequence, perhaps, of the latter direction, Gould, Turner, Osborne, and George were summoned in September before the court of assistants held at Boston, and "legally convicted of a schismatical opposition to the churches of Christ here settled, and of profaning the holy apointment of Christ, and in special, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, by administering the same to persons under censure of an offended church among us, and presuming, as a covert of their irreligious and pernicious practices, to declare themselves to be a church of Christ." [Mass. Records, Vol. IV. Part 2, p. 290.] No penalty was inflicted at this time beyond an admonition to desist from their meetings and irreligious practices; but in October, on their own acknowledged disregard of this advice and their expressed determination to persist, they were disfranchised, and made liable, upon conviction before any magistrate, to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the general court.

In April following (1666) they were "presented" in the county court at Cambridge, "for absenting themselves from the public worship." They replied, referring to their meeting at Noddle's Island, that they constantly attended such worship. The court decided that that was not a lawful assembly; and Gould and Osborne were fined £4 each, and required, in bonds of £20 each, to appear at the next court of assistants; refusing to obey the decision in either respect, they were committed to prison.

At the ensuing session the court of assistants confirmed the sentence of imprisonment until the fines were paid; and in September the general court, after a full review of the case, sustained the decision. As the convicted men were soon after at liberty, it is probable that they complied with the arbitrary sentence. At the same time the general court reaffirmed its order of October, 1665, in relation to the "said schismatical assembly."

"Thus they went on from time to time," says Backus, "till the court of assistants met at Boston 3d March, 1668, when on an appeal of Gould from a judgment of the county court at Charlestown, the jury decided in his favor. The decision was not satisfactory to the court, and the jury were sent out again with instructions to return a special verdict. They did so; the decision of the lower court was confirmed; judgment was entered; the appellant refused to pay the imposed fine, and again was committed to prison. [Backus, I. 373-375.]

Such peculiar arguments failing to convince these men of their errors, the governor and council determinded to allow a public discussion on the points at issue. The 14th of April was the day selected; the place was "the meeting-house at Boston;" the question, "whether it be justifiable by the word of God, for these persons and their company to depart from the communion of the churches, and to set up an assembly here in the way of anabaptism, and whether such a practice is to be allowed by the government of this jurisdiction?"

There was a great concourse on the day appointed. Gould, Farnum, Osborne, and others were present, and with them several members of Mr. Clarke's church at Newport, sent to assist their brethren in debate. On the other side, several of the ministers were requested to assemble with the governor and council. An elaborate debate, doubtless as convincing on both sides as such debates usually are, was had and closed; and, in May, the Baptists were summonded to declare its effect. Their views and resolutions were still unchanged; and from the apprehension of various dangers to the commonwealth set forth in the sentence, the court ordered their banishment on and after the 20th July next following; and Gould, to whose prison life the public debate had been only an episode, was released to enable him to obey the mandate of the authorities.

They did not submit to the decision; and within a fortnight after the specified time they were again in prison. On the 14th of October they addressed a petition to the government, stating their conscientiousness in their peculiar views, but asserting their "innocence touching the government, both in Civil & Church affairs," and begging to be set at liberty.

Their petition was also sustained by a paper numerously signed by persons in Boston and Charlestown; but so far from aiding in the desired object, the latter paper, although respectful and proper in tone as well as creditable to the signers, gave such offence to the general court that several of its promoters were fined, and others severely censured. The petition itself had no favorable results.

Farnum, as we judge from a court order of 7th November, 1668, submitted to the authorities, and was released. Gould and Turner, more resolute, were still undaunted, and remained in prison. In March, 1669, it is worthy of notice that they were released upon their parole, for three days, to visit their families and also "to apply themselves to any that are able and orthodox for their further concernment." How they chose to interpret this is probably seen in the fact, that on Sunday the 7th of that month a service was held at Gould's house on Noddle's Island, for attending which, Drinker was committed to prison, where he lay until the ensuing May. Doubtless Gould and Turner were returned to prison.

But tidings of these matters had reached England and excited sympathy. Letters of remonstrance from the Independents came to the colonial government, as to their treatment of the Baptists. Thirteen ministers in London, among whom were Goodwin, Nye, and Owen, wrote to Governor Bellingham, 20th March, 1669, with urgent requests that these proceedings might cease. Others more privately attempted the same thing, declaring the peace and mutual affection which existed between such classes in England. It is not know what effect that produced, though it may be on this account that the imprisoned were set at liberty.

But that the temper of the government was unchanged is evident; for on the 30th of November, Turner was again in prison, and warrants were out for Gould, who consulted his safety by remaining at Noddle's Island, whither the constables did not go. And in May, 1672, the law of 1644, prescribing banishment to such as should openly condemn infant baptism, was reenacted.

On the 7th of December, 1672, Governor Bellingham, always hostile and rigorous towards the Baptists, died. A large part of the people, though disagreeing with their peculiar views, had always disapproved of the treatment of the government; and when, in May 1673, John Leverett succeeded to the office of governor, his well-known sentiments in favor of milder treatment found no obstacle to their exercise. For six years the Baptists had peace. Enjoying their own views, they worshipped unmolested, and they still continued to meet at Gould's house on Noddle's Island, at least so long as he lived. It was in the midst of this quiet, in October, 1675, that Gould died. After years of ecclesiastical and legal trouble, he had the happiness to leave the church which he had founded, at rest. So prosperous had they been, that the question of a second church was mooted, but for the time deferred.

On the 16th March, 1679, Governor Leverett died. He was succeeded by Bradford. Under his administration the tribunals again took cognizance of the Baptists. Several persons were tried and fined, and others were admonished. Still, they proceeded to carry out a plan now conceived, that of erecting a house of worship in Boston, taking care, however, that nothing should be known of its contemplated use until it was finished. They met in it for the first time on the 15th of February, 1679. In May the leaders were summoned before the courts; and to meet this case, and perhaps others, a new law was passed, forbidding the erection or use of any house of worship without permission of the authorities; any meeting-house, after three meetings, to be forfeited to the country. To save their property, they refrained from meeting in it until information of a royal edict, granting liberty of conscience to all Protestants, was received. They then met in it again, notwithstanding the royal order; the doors were nailed up by the order of the court, 8th March, 1680, and a notice posted forbidding all meetings within it. Its owners then met in the yard in front, but a week or two after forced the house open. They entered it, and continued there undisturbed until the 11th of June following, when they were summoned to answer for violating the statute of 15th February, 1679. Squire, Drinker, Russel, and some others, appeared. After a hearing, they were released from fines, but were still forbidden to meet as a society, or to use for public worship the house they had built; to which effect the governor admonished them in open court. But this admonition was the last exercise of power: with it their trials from church and state authorities ended; and, after twenty years of vexatious persecution, the Baptists had rest.

At the very time the Baptists were suffering their persecutions, Maverick (who had sold his interest in the Island) was laboring, as one of the royal commissioners, to secure religious freedom to all, under instructions from the crown, in which, however well the object of establishing Episcopacy may have been disguised, it was well declared to be "very scandalous that any many should be debarred ye exercise of his religion, according to ye laws & custome of England by those who by ye indulgence granted have liberty left to be of what professn in religion they please; in a word, persons of good & honest conversation who have lived long there may enjoy all the priviledges ecclesiasticall & (in the colonies) civill wch are due to them, and wch are enjoyed by othrs as to choose an be chosen into places of government & the like; and that differences in opinion doe not lessen their charity to each other since charity is a fundamental in all religion."

Samuel Maverick, Royal Commissioner.

IT has been seen in Chapter IV., that Maverick's Episcopacy, and his efforts to obtain equal civil and religious rights and privileges for people of every religious belief, subjected him to the constant displeasure of the colonial government, under which he suffered persecution and hardship. Under these circumstances it is not strange that he should have become disaffected, and should have harbored considerable ill feeling toward the colony. Certainly, the treatment he received was not calculated to make him friendly in his feelings towards, or intercourse with, his provincial neighbors, or strenuous in his exertions to advance those measures of theirs which were so contrary to his own ideas of justice. Indeed, his subsequent life shows that he persisted in his loyalty to Episcopalianism and the king, and that he had not so far conquered the author of evil but that, contrary to the advice in the old hymn, he "let his angry passions rise;" and, upon a change in the home government, exerted himself most strenuously to maintain his position, and acquire authority and power over those who had ill-treated him. This partook more of weak human nature than of Christian forbearance; but Maverick's disposition was not such as to induce him to submit to indignity.

With this end in view, upon the restoration of Charles II. he went to England to complain to the king, and was two or three years in soliciting that commissioners might be appointed , who should visit New England with the authority to settle all difficulties. [Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. 250.] His efforts were successful; and on the 23rd of April, 1664, Charles II. appointed four commissioners, of whom Samuel Maverick was one, to whom extraordinary powers were given to reduce "the Dutch at the Manhadoes," to visit the New England colonies, and hear and determine all matters of complaint, settle conflicting questions which had arisen concerning the charters, and, indeed, to adjust all difficulties, and effect the peace of the country. [The subject of the commission is a very broad one, and covers many important points, and it would require a volume to set it forth in a proper manner. In this narrative there is only room to present the leading facts in such a manner as to give a general idea of the subject. Voluminous documents are to be found in the Mass. Records, N.Y. Col. Hist., Hutchinson's Collections, and Hist. of Mass., etc. The writer has also had the opportunity, by the kindness of G.H. Snelling, Esq., of examining the "Danforth Papers;" an old MS. of great value, relating exclusively to the difficulties between the colonial authorities and the royal commissioners.]

The colony of Massachusetts never was in high favor with the mother country; for from the first its leading men, and in fact the colonists generally, had shown a distasteful regard for their rights, and a calm decision in maintaing them. Upon the overthrow of the protectorate of Cromwell, the enemies of Massachusetts gained ground rapidly in England; the principal men of the colony trembled at the restoration, and had continual fears of being deprived of their privileges; and these were not groundless. The ear of the king was soon obtained by the Quakers, and perhaps other enemies of New England, and he sent a requirement to the colonial government to answer the complaints in England. To this end Mr. Bradstreet and Mr. Norton were sent to represent the colony as loyal and obedient! a colony which had justified every circumstance in the course of Cromwell, and publicly praised the piety and justice of the court which had brought Charles I. to the scaffold. [Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 359.] On the return of these agents, King Charles sent his oft quoted letter of 28th June, 1662. [Mass. Records, Vol. IV. par. 2, pp. 58, 160-162, etc.; Danforth Papers.] In this letter is a clause, which shows the position which the government intended to assume, and from that time did take, relative to Episcopacy, Maverick could already see the dawn of a brighter day for his religious opinions; and the colonial authorities could easily perceive how their harsh treatment of him and others who differed from the Puritan mode of worship was soon to bring about its own retribution.

Says Charles in this letter: "Since the principall end & foundation of that charter was & is the freedome & liberty of conscience, wee doe hereby charge & require that that freedome & liberty be duely admitted & allowed, so that such as desire to vse the Booke of Comon Prayer, & performe their devotions in that manner as is established here, be not debarred the exercise thereof, or vndergo any prejudice or disadvantage thereby, they vsing their liberty wthout disturbanc to others, & that all persons of good & honest liues & conuersations be admitted to the sacrement of the Lord's supper, according to the Booke of Comon Prayer & their children to baptisme." No explanation is necessary to show how this clause would controvert the views and actions of the colony, or how important it would have been in its general character if it had been carried out. They had retained their charter up to this time, although it had been more than once demanded; but should they now be required to deliver it up, they would not be able to resist the power which would be brought to bear upon them. It is doubtless true that the charter did not grant to the colonists all the privileges which they exercised; but they had enjoyed these so long with the tacit acquiescence of the government, that they considered themselves entitled to their free exercise.

It is not improbable that the unpleasant state of feeling existing between the mother country and the Massachusetts colony had influence with the crown in listening to the solicitations of Maverick. His representations of the state of affairs in Massachusetts were supported by others who were unfriendly to the colony. A letter from Capt. Thomas Breedon to "My Lords and Gentlemen" is on record, which gives to the government any thing but a favorable account. Says Breedon: "The distinction of freemen and non-freemen, members & non-members, is as famous as Cavalers & Roundheads was in England;" . . . "they look on themselves as a free state," some "say they will dye before they loose their liberties and priviledges; by which it may appeare how difficult it is to reconcile monarchy and independency; . . . there should be a speedy course taken for setling and establishing this country in due obedience & subjection to His Majtie" etc.

In the spring of 1664, intelligence came to this country that several ships were soon to arrive from England, and with them persons of distinction. By order of the court the charter was put in the charge of four of their number for safe-keeping, and a day of fasting and prayer was appointed to be observed throughout the juristiction. [Hutchinson, Vol. I. p. 230.]

The ships sailed from Portsmouth, England, having on board four hundred and fifty men, and four commissioners of oyer and terminer, [Washburn (Judicial History, p. 35) thus specifies them.] who were appointed to visit the colonies and hear and determine all matters of complaint. This commission consisted of Col. Richard Nichols (the commander of the expedition), Sir Robert Carr, George Cartwright, and Samuel Maverick, [Goodrich's Hist. United States, p. 50, erroneously calls him Richard Maverick.] any two or three of them consituting a quorum, Col. Nichols being always one. The king's commission, after setting forth the reasons for this appointment, says:—

"Know yee therefore, that wee reposing special trust and confidence in the fidelity, wisdome, and cicumspection of our trusty and well-beloved Colonel Richard Nichols, Sir Robert Carre, Knt., George Cartwright, Esq., and Samuel Maverick, Esq., of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have made, ordained, consituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, ordain, consitute and appoint the said Colonel Richard Nichols, Sir Robert Carre, George Cartwright, and Samuel Maverick, our Commissioners, and do hereby give and grant unto them, or any three or two of them, or of the survivors of them, of whom wee will the said Colonel Richard Nichols during his life, shall be alwaies one, [This provision is thus alluded to in a letter from Cartwright to the secretary of the state. "Since all the plantations both of Dutch and Swedes upon the South River were reduced under the obedience of his Majestie in October last, Mr. Mavericke and my selfe have had nothing to doe but to observe His Majesties commands in visiting the English Colonies; but we have not had power to doe anything; for together he and I cannot act without a third man, though each of us, single, may act with Colonel Nicolls; but he is detained at New York," etc.] and upon equal division of opinion to have the casting and decisive voice, in our name to visit all and every of the said colonies aforesaid, and also full power and authority to hear and receive, and to examine and determine, all complaints and appeals in all causes and matters, as well military as criminal and civil, and to proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the peace and security of the said country, according to their good and sound discretions, and to such instructions as they or the survivors of them shall have, or shall from time (to) time receive from us in that behalfe; and from time to time, as they shall find expedient, to certify us or our privy counsel, of their actings and proceedings, touching the premises," etc. [Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. p. 535; N.Y. Col. Hist. Vol. III. p. 64.]

This commission bore date of the 25th of April, 1664, the sixteenth year of the reign of Charles II., that is, the sixteenth year from the execution of his father, Charles I., but only the forth year after the restoration; the protectorate of Cromwell was made of no account in the royal reckoning. It was preceded by a letter from Charles II. bearing date 23d of April, two days previous to the date of the commission to the governor and council of Massachusetts, stating some of the objects of the commission, and speaking of the commissioners as "persons of known affection to our service and of long experience;" of this, the colonists had no doubt!

In the instructions by which the royal commissioners were to be guided, the king commands them to give assurance to the governor and council of his tenderness, care, and affection for the inhabitants of the colony; and of his confident expectation that by the representations of that nature they should make, the evil designs of disaffected ones would be discouraged, and the loyalty and affection of his subjects, in turn, would be secured. They were then to open the matter of "reducing the Dutch in or near Long Island, or anywhere within the limits" of the king's dominions, to entire obedience to his government. The general reasons assigned for this were, that besides affording refuge to all sorts of evil-doers, the Dutch made it their business to oppress their neighbors, and by unlawful and foul means to engross all the trade to themselves. This being done, the commissioners were next to desire them, after their own custom, constitution, and form, as soon as it could be done, to call a general council and assembly, to whom all these matters should be opened. They were to inform themselves of the state and condition of the neighboring "Kings and Princes or the other Natives adjoining," and to inquire what treaties or contracts had been made with them; how they had been observed on the part of the king's subjects; and, for the credit of Christianity, to redress any wrongs that might have been committed. They were also to ascertain what progress had been made in founding any college or schools for the education of youth, and the conversion of the infidels; and what success had attended endeavors of that kind. These things being accomplished, they were directed to "take a view of our letter of the 28th June, 1662, and examine how all those particulars therein enjoined by us, and which ought by their character to be observed, have been or are put in practice, as, that persons take the oath of allegiance, that all process, and the administration of justice, be performed in our name; that such as desire to use the Book of Common Prayer, be permitted so to do without incurring any penalty, reproach or disadvantage in his interest, it being very scandalous that any man should be debarred the exercise of his religion, according to the laws and customs of England, by those who by the indulgence granted have liberty left to be of what profession in religion they please; in a word, that persons of good and honest conversation, who have lived long there, may enjoy all the privileges, ecclesiastical and civil, which are due to them, and which are enjoyed by others, as to choose and be chosen into places of government and the like; and that differences in opinion do not lessen their charity to each other, since charity is a fundamental in all religion." [Colonial Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 54.]

This would be a great victory for Mr. Maverick to acheive over the colonists who had so persecuted him on account of his religious opinions, and was well calculated to gratify his ill feeling towards the Puritan government of the province.

The commissioners were to ascertain whether any persons standing attainted in parliament of high treason, referring particularly to those who sat in judgment on Charles I., were entertained and sheltered in the colony; and, if such should be found, to have them apprehended and sent to England; and finally, they were to inform themselves of the whole frame and condition of the government, both civil and ecclesiastical, and of its administration. [Mass. Hist. Coll. 3d Series, 7, p. 127.]

The instructions to them, of the same date, as commissioners to Connecticut, embrace, generally, the same matters, with some additional ones, that need not be repeated.

The private instructions to the commissioners, which were "to be considered and communicated only betweene themselves," are very significant as showing the designs of the home government. These instructions commence as follows:—

"Though the maine end and drift of yor employmt is to informe yourselves and us of the true and whole state of those severall Colonies and by insinuateing by all kind and dextrous carriage into the good opinion of ye principall persons there, that soe you may (after a full observation of the humour and interest both of those in governmt and those of the best quality out of governmt, and generally, of the people themselves) lead and dispose them to desire to renew their charters and to make such alterations as will appeare necessary for their owne benefit:— Yet, you may informe all men that a great end of your designe is the possession of Long Island and reduceing that people, etc."

They were "to use great dilligence together in the careful and exact perusall of the first and second charter;" and it was "wished that ye severall Governours should hold their places three or five yeares, and that before the midle of the last yeare three names should be sent over and presented to us, that one of them might be chosen by us for the next Governor," etc. They were to be particularly careful not to excite suspicion in the minds of the colonists that any change was intended in forms of religious worship, and that they might not give "any umbrage or jealousy," they were advised to frequent the churches and to be present at their devotion," though wee doe suppose and thinke it very fitt that you carry with you some learned and discreet Chaplaine, orthodox in his judgement and practice, who in your owne familyes will reade the Booke of Common Prayer & performe your devotion according to ye forme established in Church of England, excepting only in wearing the surplesse, which haveing never bin seen in those countryes, may conveniently be forborne att this tyme," etc. They were to "proceed very warily," and not "to appeare solicitous to make any change in the matters of Religion."

They were directed to employ all the art they possessed to lead the colonists to desire the renewal and alteraction of thier charters. Two points were named as specially desirable to be gained. The first was, the consent of the colonists that the governor be nominated or approved by the king. The second, that the militia be put under an officer nominated or recommended by him also. To this was added, "and it may be if they consider their charter they will not find that they have, in truth, the disposal of their own militia as they imagine." And the wish was expressed, that the general assembly might be so wrought upon that Colonel Nichols might be chosen by them governor, and Colonel Cartwright, another of the commissioners, major-general. [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 60, etc.]

The commissioners also were intrusted with a letter from the king to the governor and council of Massachusetts. [Ibid. pp. 51-64.]

This recital of the object and duties of this commission has been made, because Maverick, whose character, as the first proprietor of Noddle's Island, it is one object of these pages to illustrate, was one of the commissioners, and in some of the matters alluded to, he had, years before, taken a deep interest and borne an active part. In further illustration of his character and position, extracts will be given from some letters of his which are extant.

The ships containing the troops and the commissioners became separated in a fog when near the end of the voyage, and those having on board Colonel Nichols and George Cartwright arrived at Boston on the 23d of July (1664), while the vessels conveying Sir Robert Carr and Mr. Maverick arrived at Piscataqua, now Portsmouth, N.H., on the 20th of the same month.

Maverick's zeal in the objects of his mission did not allow him any delay, and he immediately began the exercise of his newly obtained authority. On the very day of his arrival he writes to Thomas Breedon, at Boston, as follows:—

"Pascataway, July 20, 1664.
"CAPT. BREEDON,

"It hath pleased God (after a tedious voyage of near ten weeks time), that two of our ships arrived here this after noon at Pascataway where we hourly expect our other two. The Guiney commanded by Capt. Hyde we lost this day se'night, and Capt. Hill with the Elyas on Sunday last;

"It happened, that as we were ready to come in, there went out from hence a Pinck, taken as a prize by a ship of Jamaica, but by the authority from the Governor of Massachusetts, the prize was as I understood seized upon and those that first took her, secured as prisoners by Capt., Oliver, and carried for Boston. I shall desire you to repair to the Governor and Council, and advise them to take care how they dispose of such things as may be out of their bounds, and not fit for them to take cognisance of, his Majesty's Commissioners being at length come into these parts (of whom you know me to be one). I cannot now tell you the time and place, I long to see you at, our stay here being only for a little water and our other ships, which if they come not in time, we must go to our appointed port in Long Island, from whence you shall be sure to hear further from

Sr. your very loving friend
"SAMUEL MAVERICK." [Colonial Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 65]

Mr. Maverick sent, at the same time, a letter to Mr. Jordan, announcing his arrival and his desire to see him the first opportunity, and also one to Major-General Denison to the same effect. The next day he wrote a letter to the Hon. William Coventry, which closes thus:—

"Sr, I have more then hopes, all things in these parts will prove very sucessfull for His Majtys & His Royall Highnesses service & interest of which, I have already received great testymonyes, for their continuall prosperity and happiness, My prayers and utmost endeavours shall never bee wantinge

"I shall not presume to give you further trouble at this time but to subscribe

Sr your most humble servant
"SAMUEL MAVERICK." [Colonial Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p.66.]

In their private instructions the commissioners were allowed to go first, either to Long Island, on account of the troops they carried, or to New England, at discretion, — and they came to Boston. If their authority was above that of the governor and council in the matter of the prizes, it must doubtless have been derived from the general grant in their commission, which has been already given, to visit all the colonies, with "full power and authority to hear and receive, and to examine and determine all complaints and appeals in all cases and matters as well military as criminal and civil, and proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the peace and security of the said country, according to their good and sound discretion."

On the 23d of July, Commissioners Carr and Maverick wrote from Piscataqua to Mr. John Rickbell, of their intention to "suddenly bee in Long Island, and desiring him to make all convenient haste to his habitation on the Island, and to acquaint those on the way thither who were well affected towards the Commission and his Majestys service that they had arrived."

Soon after his arrival, Maverick was found claiming religious privileges as aforetime. James and Mary Oliver, in a manuscript to which we shall again refer, testify as follows: "This we can and do wll remember further, Mr. Maverick said we should begin about 8 o'clock in the morning on the Lord's day, and end about 10, and they would come in then and end about 12. And we begin at 1 and end at 2 o'clock, and they would continue till about 4. I well remember words spoken by Mr. Maverick divers times to this purpose." This appears to be an arrangement in regard to public worship; and if Maverick spoke authoritatively, as the taking of an affidavit would seem to indicate, he claimed something more than was his right, however discorteous the refusal of a request of that kind might be considered.

Nicolls, Cartwright, and Maverick commissioned Sir Robert Carr to reduce the Dutch on Delaware Bay, and commanding "all officers at sea and land, and all soldgers" to obey him. The state papers show that Carr executed his commission in an acceptable manner.

The colonial government did not wait for the action of the commissioners; on the 19th October, 1664, it sent, through John Endicott, governor, a long address to the king, setting forth their many troubles and greviances, and requesting that the commissioners might be recalled, although, according to their own confession, they had "yet had but a litle tast of the words or acting of these gentlemen." [Mass. Records, Vol. IV. Part 2, pp. 129-133.] This address could not have been bolder had the colony been an independent state, and the general court was given to understand that the request was highly offensive to the king. The Honorable Robert Boyle, a firm friend of the colony, in a letter to Mr. Endicott, frankly discountenanced the address, and particularly the request for the recall of the commissioners, and said that the principal friends of the colony in England regretted the action of the general court. [Danforth Papers; Drake's History of Boston, p. 377.] The truth was that the colony had determined to resist the commission.

The authority of the commissioners was absolutely denied; voilent controversies took place between them and the colonial government, the result of which was, that the attempt to establish their jurisdiction as a court of justice was defeated, and they were never recognized as such in Massachusetts, although they partially succeeded in the exercise of their powers in some of the neighboring colonies. [Washburn's Judicial Hist. p. 36; Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. pp. 229-255.] They met with less opposition in the Plymouth and Rhode Island colonies than in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Of the latter, the commissioners in their report say: "The Colony of ye Massachusetts was the last and hardlyest persvaded to use His Maties name in their forms of Justice," and the "refractoriness of this colony" is always represented as far greater than of the others. Indeed, in one letter to the governor and council of Massachusetts, the commissioners say: "The other Colonies have set you so many good examples, even that of Road Iland, one whom you have so long despised and disowned, and now lately derided for their submission to His Matie. The dangerousness of those wayes you are in, hath extorted thus much from us at the present for caution." [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 100.] Lord Chancellor Clarendon, in a letter to Nicolls, says: "I know not what to say to the demeanour of the Massachusetts Colony, only that I am very glad that the other Colonies behave themselves so dutifully, for which they will receive thanks from the King; and what sense his Matie hath of the behaviour of those of Boston you will find by the inclosed . . . the original to be sent to those of Boston . . . and if they do not give obedience to it, wee shall give them cause to repent it, For his Matie will not be sett downe by the affronts which he hath received." [Ibid. 116.] The colonial authorities were so suspicious of the commissioners, that they opposed them at every step. Col. Nichols, however, by his discreet conduct, gained the esteem of the people, but Carr and Cartwright are represented unfit for their duties. [Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. p. 250.] Maverick's presence was very disagreeable to the colonists, especially as he was clothed with authority; for doubtless they anticipated a retaliation of their visitations upon him; and in the letter to the king of the 19th Oct., 1664, they speak of him in particular as being an enemy to them; and manifest a fear that the commission will be characterized by acts of private revenge.

It was suspected that the commissioners intended to put the country to great expense, and abridge their greatest privileges, liberty of conscience, etc.; and such being the state of feeling, officers possessed of the most honest intentions relative to the colonies would meet with great difficulties, and their mission prove a failure. Cartwright, in a letter to Nicolls, dated 25th of Jan., 1664-5, alludes to this state of public feeling. " . . . the country is made to believe that we have put them to £300 charge already, and that we intend to exact 12d. for every acre of land, and £3,000 a year besides, and to abridge them of their greatest priviledges, liberty of their consciences, and many such; wch Mr. Maverick heard of amongst his friends, in every place where he hath been in this juristiction." In this letter he urges Nicolls to go with them to Rhode Island, and after they had determined the questions there, they would go to the "Eastern parts to determine the limits of those patents." [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 84.] Mr. Maverick refers to the public sentiment in a letter written from Boston to Col. Nichols, in the February following his arrival. In this letter he says: "I perceive you have heard some false reports. Col. Cartwright hath written at large to you, in which we all concur. He hath been too retired; I hope I have not been over sociable. I spent three weeks in several of the chiefest towns of the government, and I am deceived if in that journey I did not undeceive both magistrates, ministers, and other considerable persons." [Ibid. p. 88.] In this letter he coincides with the wish of Cartwright that Nicolls would go to Rhode Island; indeed, Cartwright said, "Mr. Maverick and myselfe are both of the opinion that this will be the best way for the doing of that wch we are entrusted with," etc. Says Maverick in this letter, "We intend, God willinge, to be at Road Island about the first of March, & shall much desire yor psence," etc. Be pleased to refer to the Coll's letters."

A subsequent letter from Maverick to Nicolls (dated 5th March, '64-5) speaks of arriving at Rhode Island and commencing business, and repeats what he had said in his previous note to the same individual. "I have used my utmost endeavour in the Massachusetts governt to undeceive ye deceived and to prpare them for ye election," etc. His efforts to undeceive the people did not succeed to any great extent, however, for the Massachusetts colony, in their long and plain address to the king, prayed him to "put a stop to these proceedings," and in speaking of the commissioners, represented one of them (Mr. Maverick) "as our knowne and professed enemy." The general court was not backward in its expression of dislike to him. In one place [Massachusetts Records, Vol. IV. Part 2, 168.] the record speaks of "some words & carraiges, that were distastefull to the people, fell from some of them, & in particular from Mr. Samuell Mauericke on his first arrivall in Piscataque Riuer, menacing the constable of Portsmouth while he was in the execution of his office." The colonists thought they observed in him a great animosity, which, they supposed, arose from his deep rooted prejudice against the church discipline; and that this prejudice called forth the moroseness of his natural temper, which manifested itself in harsh expressions, and occasioned some to look upon him as a professed enemy. "For they observed he was never willing to accept of any common courtesy from any of the inhabitants, as if he had had some special antipathy against them all in general; but the contrary is known by some that had occasion of more free converse with him, to whom he always discovered much civility in his behavior. But when he had received any disgust from any ruder sort of the people, as he occasionally passed up and down the country, it is not unlikely that he might highly resent the same, and could not refrain from an open discovery thereof upon other occasions; which certainly, without prejudice be it spoken, did his majesty no little disservice as to the matters then before them." [Hist. N.E. p. 579.]

When the conduct of the commissioners and the state of feeling among the people became known to the home government, Clarendon, then the Lord Chancellor, in March, sent over an answer to the address of the colony, in which he gave the petitioners plainly to understand that their address would not meet with the royal favor; and at the same time sent a letter to Maverick. In this letter, after expressing his disappointment at the conduct of Sir Robert Carr, and his great confidence in Colonel Nichols, he continues:— [Colonial Hist. N.Y. Vo. III. p. 92.]

"Worcester House, 5 March, 1664.

"I find by an address we have lately received from Boston, that the Governor and Council there are not at all pleased with your Commission, and that they will needs believe all their privileges are to be destroyed; but I suppose they are better informed since, and that the answer they have received from the King to their address, will dispose them to a better temper, and that the discretion and wisdom of the Commissioners will make them see how much they are mistaken in their apprehensions. I must tell you they seem most offended and troubled that you, whom they look upon as their enemy, should have any authority over them; but I am very confident the knowledge of their prejudice towards you, will make you much the more careful and watchful in your carriage, that they may have no just exception against any thing you do, and that they plainly discerne that you are quite another man in a public trust than what they took you to be as a neighbor, and that you have wiped out of your memory all impressions which ill treatment heretofore might have made in you. For if you should revenge any old discourtesies, at the King's charge, and as his Commissioner should do any thing upon the memory of past injuries, the King would take it very ill, and do himself justice accordingly. But I am confident I have not been so much mistaken in the observation I could make of your nature and disposition, that you can be liable to any of these reproaches, — however, the advertisement I am sure can do you no harm, and proceeds from much kindness.

"Remember me very kindly to Colonel Cartwright, and I am very glad your success hath been so good in the other Prouinces. I hope that of the Massachusetts will not deserve a worse report. I wish you all happiness, and am

"Good Mr. Maverick,
"Your affectionate serv't,
"CLARENDON."

The supposition of Clarendon, that, through better information, the wisdom and discretion of the commissioners, and the answer of the king to the address from Boston, the governor and council might have become of a "better temper," did not prove correct. Nor were all the commissioners the most discreet and conciliating. Carr's conduct, as appears from Clarendon's letter above, was such as to disappoint and offend the government. Cartwright also is represented as totally unfit for the business they came upon. Hutchinson says that he and Carr, "by their violent proceedings, rendered themselves odious;" and Maverick seems to have been not altogether the most peaceably inclined, as appears by his letter from Portsmouth, before his arrival, interfering with the government, which he had been instructed to carefully avoid.

There is a manuscript paper in the Massachusetts archives, purporting to be an affidavit of Captain James Oliver and his wife, in which they state that Maverick, being at their house "some time in January" of that year (1665), and, "speaking about divers things and persons in the country said, we should know that they [the commissioners] were they men we were to obey." The captain then told him that he supposed he was commanded one thing by the governors, from whom he had received his commission, and another by them; and asked him which he should obey. Maverick replied that he "might obey them [the governors] till after election, but no longer." He "further said we were both rebels and traitors for minting money and printing, which was treason for the country to do." In another manuscript, also in the archives, which is the testimony of three other individuals, Maverick is represented as complaining of the claims of the colonists, and saying that they included the territory of thirteen patents under their own.

The general court being at last compelled, by the direct questions of the commissioners, to abandon the equivocal position they had been holding, and openly announce their intentions, on the 24th of March, 1665, "with sound of trumpet in the Market Place in Boston below the Court House, and at the Dock head, and at the cross-way by Capt. Breedons" published a "Declaration," setting forth their views and position relative to the commissioners. In this, the court Declare to all the people of this Colony, that in the observance of our duty to God and His Matie and the trust committed to us by His Maties good subjects in this Colony, wee cannot consent unto or give our approbation of the proceedings of the aforesaid Gentlemen (referring to the commissioners), neither can it consist with our allegiance that we owe to His Matie to countenance any that shall in so high a manner go cross unto His Maties direct charge or shall be their abettors or consent thereunto." [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 95.] To this paper the commissioners made a short and severe reply, informing the court that they should "not loose more of their labours upon them, but referr it to his Majties wisdom, who is of power enough to make himself obeyed in all his dominions." [Ibid. 96.]

The contest between the commissioners and the colonial government was warm; both parties were earnest and persistent, and many letters passed between them; and at the same time the commissioners kept the lord chancellor fully informed of the difficulties under which they labored. The correspondence shows the determination on either side to maintain their respective positions, and it is probable that personal animosity added to the difficulties of amicably adjusting the points in dispute. The positions, and it is probable that personal animosity added to the difficulties of amicably adjusting the points in dispute. The position taken by the governor and council of Massachusetts, and as resolutely maintained by them, called forth from the officers of the crown strong accusations accompanied with threats, and it is not uncharitable to indulge the thought that Maverick felt some pleasure in having the right to address his former persecutors, as he deemed them, with authority and severity. In one letter to the governor and council, the following significant language is use, with much more of a similar character: "Striveing to grasp too much, may make you hold but a little. 'Tis possible that the charter which you so much idolize may be forfeited, and it may probably be supposed that it hath been many ways forfeited, and it may probably be supposed that it hath been many ways forfeited; untill you have cleared yourselves of those many injustices, oppressions, violences, and bloud for which you are complained against, to which complaints you have refused to answer; or untill you have His Maties pardon, which can neither be obteined by nor bee effectuall to those who deny the King's supremacy." In this letter the governor and council are accused of using bad grammar in their last letter; and it was asserted that they had "palpably (and we feare wilfully) misconstrued too many of His Maties gracious letters." [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 99.]

With all his zeal, Maverick was not without discretion. Hutchinson relates that in a dispute with one Mason, a constable, in Boston, in 1666, after another constable had been beaten when attempting to arrest him: "Sir Robert Carr said it was he that beat him, and that he would do it again. Mason replied, that he thought his majesty's commissioners would not have beaten his majesty's officers, and that it was well for them that he was not the constable that found them there, for he would have carried them before authority. Sir Robert asked, if he dare meddle with the king's commissioners? Yes, says Mason, and if the king himself had been there, I would have carried him away; upon which Maverick cried out, treason! thou shalt be hanged within a twelvemonth. Sir Robert Carr spake to Sir Thomas Temple and some others of the company, to take notice of what had passed; and the next day Maverick sent a note to Mr. Bellingham, the governor, charging Mason with high treason for the words spoken, and requiring the governor to secure him. The governor appointed a time for Maverick to come to his house and to give bond to prosecute the constable himself, at the next court of assistants; but Maverick, instead of appearing, thought proper only to send another note, promising to appear against the constable and charge him home, and therefore required that his person should be secured. The governor now thought it advisable to cause Mason to recognize, as principal, in five hundred pounds, with two sufficient sureties in two hundred and fifty each, for his appearance; but the day before the court, Maverick sent another note to the governor, desiring to withdraw his charge, being 'satisfied that although the words were rash and inconsiderate, yet there was no premeditated design in Mason to offer any injury to the king or his government.' The governor returned for answer, 'that the affair was of two high a nature for him to interpose in, Mason being bound over to answer.' Upon his appearance a bill was laid before the grand-jury, wherein he was charged with maliciously and treasonably uttering the treasonable words mentioned. According to the liberty taken by grand juries at that day, they only found 'that the words charged were spoken;' and Mason being brought upon trial and the words fully proved, the court of assistants suspended judgment, and referred the cause to the next general court, where it was resolved, that although the words were rash, insolent, and highly offensive, yet, as his accusers and witnesses all cleared him from any overt act, or evil intended against the king, the court did not see cause to adjudge him a capital offender, but sentenced him to be admonished in a solemn manner by the governor." [Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. pp. 254, 255.] "However trivial this anecdote may appear," continues Hutchinson, "yet there are circumstances which throw some light upon the character of the commissioners, as well as that of the governor and the judiciary and ministerial powers of the government at that time."

The commissioners' report concerning Massachusetts gives to the government a very severe account of the resistance of that colony to the officers of the crown; mentions in considerable detail the various causes of dissatisfaction with the condition of civil, judicial, and religious affairs in that colony, and states, that, with the few who remain loyal subjects of the king, it is "as it was with the King's party in Cromwell's time." The closing sentence of the report is: "Their way of government is Commonwealth-like; their way of worship is rude and called Congregational; they are zealous in it, for they persecute all other formes." The whole report is too long to be transferred to these pages; the reader who desires to see it in full is referred to the Colonial Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. pp. 110-113.

Of the numerous attempts of the commissioners in issuing civil and military orders in other colonies, in some of which they succeeded, as in Maine and Rhode Island, we need not speak; our narrative has more particular reference to their labors, and the results of their labors, in Massachusetts.

The commissioners were at last recalled, having been defeated in almost every measure they attempted. Perhaps they did as well as any men would have done under similar circumstances; but the ministry was ignorant of the state of the colonies, and the commission was undoubtedly a stretch of power, infringing in some respects upon the rights granted in the charter; wherefore the colonists considered themselves justified in resisting its authority. They had remarkable powers granted to them, extending over very many and important points of dispute, and they made a great many new ones; and they were determined to exercise all the authority which their commission and instructions would allow. On the other hand, the colonies, especially Massachusetts, supposing the commissioners were exercising more power than was conferred upon them, and with good reason suspicious of the ministry, opposed these officers at every step, and, in fact, thwarted all their undertakings. The correspondence between the colonial authorities and the commissioners, and between each of these parties and the home government, is voluminous. The Massachusetts colony presented and urged its own case with signal ability and shrewdness, showing itself ostensibly the most loyal of provinces, when in fact it was in real rebellion, defeating the royal officers in their every effort, and at the same time pretending to do this in the name of the king! At this very time they addressed the king, assuring him of their loyalty, and making him valuable presents to appease his displeasure at their treatment of his officers; one present which they sent was a ship load of masts, of which the king was in need, and which he "most graciously acknowledged." But it was not until after the commissioners had found out to their satisfaction that they could do nothing that they obtained from the general court a statement of its true position.

As might naturally be supposed, the recall of the commissioners, which was in 1665, was a cause of rejoicing to the colonists, and they doubtless took pleasure in supposing, however erroneously, that it was a virtual yielding of the contest. Nichols, writing from Fort James, in New York, to Secretary Arlington, concerning incursions of the French from Canada, says: "I have turned one third of the country militia into horse and dragoons; the like is done in Conecticot Colony, but the grandees of Boston are too proud to be dealt with, saying that his Majesty is well satisfied with their loyalty, and hath recalled both his Commission, and disgraced his Commissioners." There is no evidence that such was the case, and the statement simply shows the state of feeling in the colony. The king appears to have been satisfied with the general conduct of the commissioners, and particularly with Maverick, whom he retained in service and to whom he made a valuable present, and recalled them only when it was evident that nothing more could then be accomplished. Touching this point Maverick remarks, in a letter to Arlington, "In the afore mentioned signification (of August 6th, 1666), his Matie declared that he was well pleased with the acting of his Commissioners, and expressly commanded that noe alteration should be made in what they had done."

"After all," says a discerning writer, who has lately had this subject under consideration, "it is difficult to see how any commissioners, upon such an errand, could have given satisfaction. For a moment's consideration is sufficient to convince any one that the difficulty was not so much in the commissioners as in the undertaking. The king, of course, knew nothing about New England affairs, except from interested parties, and hence, when he gave these commissioners authority to come here and take the government out of the hands of the people, he acted with the same kind of inconsistency which ruined his father."

". . . . . . The fathers of Boston had cause, not long after, to speak of 'a remarkable providence,' by which much expected mischief was averted from their heads. The commissioners had collected all the unfavorable circumstances they could against the country, intending, on their return to England, to use their information to the prejudice of New England. All the papers collected for this purpose were in the keeping of Cartwright, who, on his passage to England, fell into the hands of the Dutch, who stripped him of every thing, even the papers in question, and he never could recover them." [Drake's Hist. Bost. pp. 372,373.]

Maverick's duties under the ministry did not wholly cease with the recall of the commission; for the king's confidence in him was so great that he was selected from all of the other commissioners to continue his labors in the royal service. This circumstance suggests the inference that his services had been very acceptable to those under whom he acted. The king and ministry were highly displeased with the treatment the commissioners had received, and were not inclined to suffer the indignity to pass unnoticed. More than all, it seemed necessary to take some decided measures to suppress the growing feeling of independence and of rights of self-government, which were becoming so very prominent in the Massachusetts colony. Charles II. doubtless remembered the "ill concealed joy" of this refractory colony at the fate of his father, and felt no small desire to assert triumphantly his own authority. This will serve to introduce the following statement in the record: "It being put to the question whither the Council mentioned in the paper given into the magists by Mr. Samuel Mauerick be meant of this Generall Court according to our sence the Court resolved it on ye affirmative." [Mass. records, Vol. IV. Part 2, p. 314.] And again (p. 315): "The Court hauing pervsed the paper presented to the magistrates by Mr Samuel Mauericke, now in Court, judge that some meete answer be given therevnto by this Court, & to that end haue chosen and appointed the honored Dept. Gover, Capt. Gooking, Majr Gen. Leueret, Capt. Waldern, Capt. Johnson, Mr. Humphrey Davie, & Mr. Peter Tilton as a committee who are hereby desired to drawe vp what they shall judge meete to be donne in the case by way of answer thereto, making their returne thereof to this Court."

The "paper" presented by Maverick was "a signification from his Majesty requiring the Council of this Colony to send five able and meete persons to make answer for refusing the juristiction of his Commissioner last year, whereof Mr. Richard Bellingham and Mr. Hawthorne to be two of them, whom he requires on their allegiance to come by the first opportunity." [Danforth Papers, which contain a full and interesting account of this special session of the general court. Hutchinson's Hist. Mass., Vol. I. p. 253.] The record appropriately calls this a "weighty matter," and it must have been peculiarly disagreeable to the court to have had it brought before them by their old acquaintance, Maverick, of any thing but "blessed memory."

A special session of the court was called by the governor on the 11th of September, 1666, and the "elders" (ministers) were invited to be present, and "affoord their advice." The forenoon of the 12th was spent in prayer, and on the 13th they proceeded to business. A long debate ensued, in which Bellingham, Bradstreet, Dudley, Willoughby (deputy-governor), Hawthorne, Stoughton, Winthrop, Sir Thomas Temple, and others participated. Some favored the request upon the ground that the king, as such, should be obeyed; that "right may not be denied because it may be abused;" that "the king can do no wrong because he acts according to law," etc.; while, on the other hand, it was maintained that "we must as well consider God's displeasure as the king's; the interests of ourselves and God's things, as his Majesty's prerogative, — for our liberties are of concernment, and to be regarded as to their preservation, for if the king may send for me now, and another to-morrow, we are a miserable people." [Danforth Papers.] There had been many who from the first had held to the opinion that the commissioners whould be received, and their authority acknowledged and submitted to; and when the "signification" of the king was presented to the general court, petitions in favor thereof were sent in from numerous towns. These petitioners were censured by the court for intermeddling, [Ibid.; Mass. Records, Vol. IV., Part 2, p. 317; Hutchinson's Hist. Coll.] and a different course decided upon.

An answer to the "signification" was returned by the colonial government, which shrewdly evaded as much as possible the real and well-known intent of the troublesome paper presented to them by Maverick, by throwing a doubt over its genuineness, thus giving to it a secondary importance, and while expressing their loyalty and humility still persisted in their independent course, and refused to obey the direction! And in the answer, they cannot resist the temptation to cast an implication upon their old "enemy," as will be seen in the following extract:—

"Wee may not omitt to acquaint your honors that a writing was deliuered to the Governor & Majestrates, by Mr. Samuel Mauerick, the 6th Sept. wthout direction or seale, which he saith is a copie of a signification from his majestie, of his pleasure concerning this colony of Massachusets, the certeinty whereof seems not to be so cleare vnto us as former expresses from his majesty haue usually been. [There was not much real doubt as to the authenticity of this paper, or of its importance, as it was presented on the 6th of Sept., and the court assembled on the 11th of the same month to act upon it.] Wee haue in all humanity given our reasons why wee could not submitt to the commissioners & their mandates the last yeare, wch wee understand lye before his majesty, to the substance whereof wee have not to add, & therefore cannot expect that the ablest persons among us could be in a capacity to declare our cause more fully. etc."

Immediately following the passage of this letter in the general court, a vote was passed to make a valuable present of masts to the king, and to raise one thousand pounds to defray the expenses. Of course, this could be looked upon only in the light of a peace-offering. The court well knew that the refusal to grant his request would naturally incur his displeasure, and it also well knew that kings, like other human beings, were susceptible of impression in this disinterested manner, and that at this particular time he was really in need of this very kind of timber for his royal navy. Maverick alludes to this present in a letter given on an advance page.

In this manner did the colonists maintain their position until the long continued and steadily increasing troubles found a full development in the overthrow of Andros. The course of action pursued by the colonial authorities throughout the controversy with the commissioners evinces an ability which excites our admiration, and the principles there maintained so firmly gained strength from year to year, until at last they resulted in a separation of the colonies from the mother country.

The recall of the commission did not oblige its members to return to England, and we find that Maverick remained in the country. In a letter to Col. Nicholls, under date of April 13, 1666, Lord Clarendon writes: "Though his Majesty thinks fit to recall his commissioners, who have in truth done all they ought to do, at least as much as they are suffered to do, yet it is not his purpose to recall any body whose business or inclination makes it convenient for them to reside there; and I hear Mr. Maverick resolves to stay in those parts." [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 116.]

Hutchinson says that Maverick "was in the colony (of Massachusetts) again in 1667 with a message from Col. Nichols, which is the last account given of him." [Hutchinson's Hist. Vol. I. p. 250.] But notwithstanding this remark, there are letters from Maverick, at New York, to Col. Nichols, then in England, as late as 1669. In one of them he says:—

"I have lately written to you by way of Boston and Virginia, giving you an account briefly how things stand in the northern parts, as how those of the Massachusetts have unranckled all that was done in the Province of Maine; although His Majesty expressly commanded that nothing should be altered until his pleasure were further known. They have further proceeded in committing Major Phillips and others to prison for receiving commissions from the commissioners to be Justices of the Peace and Military officers. They have given out that if they could take any of those that signed those commissions they would punish them severely; so that as the case stands at present it will not be safe for me to go thither. Not long since they sent a party of horse to demand tribute of the Naragansett Sachems, but they paid them not, telling them that they would pay King Charles and none else.

"Now give me leave to acquaint you a little how things go here at Yorke. Trails have been made several times this spring for cod fish, with very good success; a small ketch sent out by the governor hath found several good fishing banks; amongst the rest one not above 2 or 3 leagues from Sandy Hook, on which in a few hours 4 men took 11 or 12 hundred of excellent good Codd the last time they were out; and most of the vessels that go to and from Virginia take good quantities. That vessel is to go from New found Land to get fishermen, lines, hooks, and other necessaries for fishing: I doubt not but this Coast will afford fish in abundance.

"On the East end of Long Island there were 12 or 13 whales taken before the end of March, and what since we hear not; here are daily some seen in the very harbor, sometimes within Nutt Island. Out of the Pinnace the other week they struck two, but lost both, the iron broke in one, the other broke the warp. The Governor hath encouraged some to follow this design. Two shallops made for it, but as yet we do not hear of any they have gotten.

"The Governour with some partners is building a ship of 120 tuns by Thomas Hall's house; she is well onward, and may be finished in August; another of 60 or 70 tuns is building at Gravesend. . . . . . . The Old House is pulling down which proves so exceedingly defective above what could be imagined, that I think it must down to the bottom, and will prove a tedious and chargeable piece of work." [Colonial Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 182.]

Again, on the 5th of July, 1669, he writes:—

"By Letters lately received from Boston I am informed how exceedingly they boast of the gracious letters they have received from His Majesty and of his kind acceptance of the Masts they sent him, as also of the provisions they sent to the Fleet at Barbados. I am sure you know that the masts and provision were paid for by a rate made and levied on all the inhabitants, of which eight parts in ten are His Majesty's loyal subjects, and would voluntarily have done twice as much had those which were sent for been gone for England. That loyal party, which groans under the burthen of the Massachusetts government, now despair of relief, as by frequent letters from all parts I am informed.

"Those in the Province of Mayne since they seized on their records and taken them again under their government, are in exceeding bondage, and most earnestly desire you to endeavor to purchase their freedom.

"How they have lately acted in the King's Province you will see by a letter I lately received from Mr. Gorton which I send herein encolosed.

"It grieves me exceedingly to see His Majesty's loyal subjects and my ancient friends enslaved, as now they are; my whole aim was (in expending so much time and money) only to have procured for them some freedom; but now they are left in a far worse condition than we found them. I doubt not but they have by way of Boston, petitioned to His Majesty and craved your assistance, and I in their behalf humbly beg it of you."

In the same letter he further writes: "I hope in the midst of multiplicity of business you will not forget what I have desired you to do for me. I assure you since I came over in this employ I never received or got, directly or indirectly to the value of sixpence, one horse excepted, which Mr. Winthrop presented me with amongst the rest. And what I had by his Majesty's order, I have spent as much since I came over, and four hundred pounds besides in England in prosecution of this design. I leave it to you, not doubting of your care for me. If any course be taken for reducement of the Massachusetts, I hope you will not leave me out, as one (though unworthy) that may be employed in that design." [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 183.] This last clause shows that Maverick longed for another opportunity to gratify his feelings of revenge by exercising authority over his former oppressors.

On the 15th of October (1669) following, he again writes to Nichols: "May it please you to take notice that yours of the 12th July I received, for which I humbly thank you, as also for the favor you have been pleased to show me in procuring for me from His Royal Highness the gift of the house in the Broadway. I beseech you when you see a fit opportunity present my most humble service to His Royal Highness with many thanks for that his favor towards me, and I assure you it will be a great rejoicing to me if (yet before I die) I may be any ways serviceable to His Majesty or His Royal Highness in these parts, or anywhere else.

"You were pleased to inform me that you have made some progress tending to the relief of our poor friends in N. England but cannot yet bring it to issue so much desired by yourself and them. In their behalf I humbly beseech you to proceed in it, and am very sorry that Col. Cartwrite cannot be with you to assist in it. I have sent copies of some part of your letter to keep up what may be their drooping spirits for the present, the sad complaints which frequently come from them to me I shall not trouble you with repeating now. You know well in what bondage they live, and it grieves me to the heart to consider that they should be now in a far worse condition than we found them in." [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 185.]

This is the last we hear of Maverick; and the preceding extracts from his letters show pretty clearly what were his feelings towards the government of Massachusetts. Morton says of him: "About that time [1667] it was thought, by such as were judicious, that through the instigation of the said Maverick (whose spirit was full of malignity against the country), our both civil and religious liberties were much endangered; and the rather for that, probably, there would have been a concurrence of divers ill-affected in the land, had not the Lord prevented."

Investigation has failed to ascertain when, or at what time, Maverick died; but in the absence of any position information, the most natural supposition is, that, after the recall of the commission, he took up residence in the city of New York in the house presented to him by the Duke of York for his fidelity to the king, and there died. This gift of a house, and the fact that his numerous letters, from which extracts have been taken, are dated in New York, render it altogether probable that he made that city his home. The location of the house cannot now be ascertained. Maverick, in the letter above quoted, speaks of it as situated "in the Broadway;" a thorough investigation fails to fix the spot with any greater definiteness. Under the early laws of New York, deeds were not recorded in the county in which the land lay, and many deeds were left with the secretary of state at Albany. A careful examination of the existing records in that city has resulted in finding one deed, which is valuable as proving the assertion, that a house was presented to Maverick; and it also shows that the gift was made through the chief executive of the State.

This deed [Book of Deeds (at Albany), Vol. I. p. 133.] is dated on the 15th May, 1676, and is from John Laurence, of the city of New York, merchant, and Matthias Nicolls, of the same place, reciting that "Samuel Maverick, one of his Majesty's commissioners of New England, by virtue of a patent from Colonel Samuel Lovelace, then Governor, stood possessed of a certain house and lott of ground on the Broadway of this city, which came to their (the grantors) hands by the trust reposed in them by the last will of Samuel Maverick, deceased, for the use of Mary his daughter, the wife of Francis Hook in the colony of Massachusetts which house and lott by her approbation was exposed to public vendue and bought by the Deacons of this city, who sold it to William Vander Shusen of this city, to whom the trustees (Laurence and Nicholls) convey the said lot in the Broadway without any other description."

It seems surprising that writers and editors of our New England history should have fallen into the error of supposing that Samuel Maverick the son, who died in 1664, was the royal commissioner sent over that same year; and this notwithstanding Hutchinson has said, "Maverick seems to have been appointed only to increase the number and to be subservient to the others. He had lived in the colony from its beginning. He was always in opposition to the authority. Upon the restoration, he went home to complain to the king, was two or three years in soliciting that commissioners might be appointed; at length, the measures against the Dutch at New York being agreed upond, the conduct of that affair, and this extraordinary power were committed to the same persons. He was in the colony again in 1667, with a message from Colonel Nichols, which is the last account given of him." [Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. p. 250.]

Hutchinston certainly has underrated his importance, as the whole history of Maverick shows.

With all due deference to that excellent historian, who is generally so accurate in his statements and sound in his conclusions, he appears to have wholly misapprehended Maverick's position on this commission, and to have singularly underrated his influence and importance. The history of the whole matter most conclusively shows, that among the commissioners Maverick was second to none save Nicolls; it was by his persevering efforts that the commission was originally appointed, and on the very day he landed he commenced his correspondence, and from that time he was foremost in carrying out the plans of the government, travelling from place to place, even in advance of some of his fellow-officers, writing numerous letters to Lord Chancellor Clarendon, Secretary Arlington, and his brother commissioners, all of them evincing the influence and energy he carried into his office, and, indeed, it is easy to see his spirit pervading many a public document and private letter. The documentary evidence contained in the State Papers of New York (Colonial Hist. Vol. III.), the Massachusetts Records, the Danforth Papers, and various histories of that time, from which copious extracts have been made, show that Maverick had his full share of power, and exercised it; and he certainly occupies much space in the published correspondence, and his letters compare well with the other state papers in the same volumes. Nicolls himself, although the head of the commission, sought the advice of Maverick; in a letter to Governor Winthrop he says: "Y'rs of the sixt of May 1667 in answer to a letter from Sir R. Carr, Mr. S. Mavericke and myselfe baring date the 20th of 9ber 1666 hath remained in my hands in hopes that I might have heard from Mr. Maverick whose advice I have sought in the matter but not yet attained." [Colonial Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 158.] The uneasiness of the colony in regard to the commission, and the striking circumstance, that, in their address to the king, Maverick should be singled out from the rest and spoken of as an "enemy," conclusively show that his position was by no means an unimportant one. It is most probable, that the colony had more real cause of anxiety from Maverick than from any of the other gentlemen, and the recollection of the treatment he had received from their hands augmented their fears, and doubtless increased his animosity.

The year before his appointment as commissioner, on representations made by one Captain Scott to "His Majesty's Council for Foreign Plantations," of the practices of the Dutch, it was "ordered, that the said Capt. Scott, and Mr. Maverick, and Mr. Baxter do draw up a brief narration of and touching these particulars following: (viz) 1st of the title of his Majesty to the premises; 2dly of the Dutch Intrusion; 3dly of their deportment since and management of that possession, and of their strength trade and government there, and 4thly and lastly, of the means to make them acknowledge and submit to his Majesty's government, or by force to compel them thereunto or expulse them. And to bring in such their draught on paper to this Council, on this day seavenight, that this Council may humbly make report to his Majesty touching the whole matter as they shall see cause, and in the interim, the members thereof to be summoned." [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 46; Brodhead's History of New York.] This shows what the council for plantations thought of Maverick's capacity; and that there is no probability of his having been appointed a commissioner the following year "only to increase the number and to be subservient to the others." No; he could have been no mere makeweight in the commission. The "Council for Foreign Plantations" would not have intrusted so important a matter as this concerning the Dutch, with instructions to report within one week to incapable persons. We have seen that he was the first cause of the commission appointed in 1664, that it was appointed in answer to his solicitations; and, so far from being subservient to others, he was evidently foremost, on his arrival, in interfering with the doings of the colonial government. In truth, although nothing in particular is known of him before the coming of Winthrop and his company, he must have been a man of superior intellect and force, since, despite all opposition, he finally rose to so high a place of distinction and confidence under the crown.

By the quotations before made from Hutchinson, it would seem to be indicated clearly enough that the elder Maverick was meant. But there has been a question as to the identity of the commissioner with the elder Samuel Maverick, the grantee of Noddle's Island.

By a note in the second edition of Winthrop's Journal, given on page 70, it would appear that the learned editor supposed Samuel, the royal commissioner, to be a son of Samuel of Noddle's Island. The petition of Mary Hooke, which has been given in full on page 107, and which had not been published at the time the note referred to was written, enables us to settle the question beyond dispute; to assert with certainty that Samuel Maverick of Noddle's Island was the royal commissioner. The circumstances which called out this petition were these. The notorious Edmund Andros (called humane (!) by the candid author of the Puritan Commonwealth, p. 357), who was appointed governor in 1686, declared that the colonists had forfeited their charter, and thus had forfeited their possessions under it, and that the landholders were tenants at will. His object was to grant new titles, for which he could receive such fees as he chose to demand. In sending out his famous writs of intrusion to swindle the landholders out of all he could wrest from them, he disturbed the owners of Noddle's Island. Upon this, Mary, wife of Francis Hooke, Esq., of Kittery, Maine appealed to Governor Andros, stating that her father , Samuel Maverick, was owner of Noddle's Island in 1648, and that when a commissioner with Nichols, Carr, and Cartwright, he was interrupted with sound of trumpet, etc. It is an old proverb, "It is a wise child that knows its own father;" but Mary Hooke's testimony that her father, Samuel Maverick, owner of Noddle's Island, was also the royal commissioner, will not be questioned; for she asserted what she personally knew, and she would have been "strangely confounded" if her statement had been doubted. In her petition it says: "That your Peticoners said Father the said Samuell Maverick was in the yeare of our Lord God in 1648 an inhabitant and Owner of a place called Noddles Island in New England, now in the possession of Corronell Shrimpton, at which tyme ye Prs sd father with some others drew up a Peticon wth an intent to Prsent it to the last Majty King Charles the first," etc.; and again, "yor Peticonrs Father being one of the Kings Comissrs sent wth Collonll Niccolls Genll Sir Robt Carr & Collonll Cartwright," etc. This petition shows conclusively that the petitioner's father, Samuel Maverick, the original grantee of Noddle's Island, was the royal commissioner. But on this point the evidence is cumulative. The extract from the deed from Lawrence and Nicolls, given on page 155, also proves that Mary Hooke was the daughter of Maverick the commissioner, and that, under her father's will, she owned the house presented to him for his faithful services to the king. And still further, Samuel Maverick the son, who has so often been mistaken for the commissioner, died on the 10th March, 1664, and, therefore, during the years when the commissioners were fulfilling their duties, was in no position to hold any earthly office, although he was the occupant of an earthly position. The date of his death has been mistaken as being the time of his father's decease; and thus ex necessitate rei, the son was called the commissioner. That it was the son who died in 1664 is evident from various sources. For instance, in the Massachusetts Records (Vol. IV. Part 2, p. 145) is the appointment of "meete persons" to examine concerning "ye estate of the late Samuel Maverick Junior." This is under date of the 3d of May, 1665. [The error of confounding father and son, of mistaking the death of the son for that of the father, and supposing that the commissioner was the son of the original grantee of Noddle's Island, is repeated in several historical works. Among the books which have come under my observation in which these mistakes are made are Eliot's Biographical Dictionary, p. 317, note; Farmer's Register of First Settlers in New England, p. 192; Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. in a note by the Editor; Williamson's Hist. Maine, Vol. I. p. 491, note; (the note referred to says that Maverick the commissioner married the daughter of the Rev. John Wheelwright; but as Samuel the son married this lady, the mistake of the historian is evident); Savage's Ed. Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. p. 32, note; Washburn's Judicial Hist. Mass. p. 36; Folsom's Hist. of Saco and Biddeford, p. 139; Greenough's Hist. King's Chapel, p. 10; Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol IV. 3d Series, p. 194, note; Oliver's Puritan Commonwealth, p. 436; Dearborn's Boston Notions, p. 55; and, it is probable, in many other works which have not come under the writer's notice, and in nearly all of the above instances, the date of the death of the son is given as that of the father.

But the petition of Mary Hooke, and the death of Samuel Maverick, Jr., in 1664, settle the question beyond dispute.

As commissioner, Maverick appears to have been ready and in haste to exercise all the extra authority and power over the government and colonists of Massachusetts given in the instructions. Nor was this altogether unnatural. From the settlement of the colony to the time of his return to England, he had been often in conflict with its government, in part, at least, through persecution and the civil disabilities he was made to suffer. Deprived for a time of rights as a citizen, because of his religious opinions; perhaps never enjoying office, thought evidently capable, on the same account; and smarting under the memory of fines and imprisonment when living in the colony as a subject, it is not strange that he should have shown himself disposed to be somewhat arbitrary and tyrannical, when invested with such power, over the same government by which he had been so despoiled and oppressed. And yet he was by no means, in his nature, a hard and unfeeling man. As we have seen, Johnson, while he speaks of him as "an enemy to the reformation in hand, being strong for the lordly prelatical power," at the same time says, "he was a man of a very loving and courteous behavior, very ready to entertain strangers." Hubbard gives him credit for "much civility in his behavior" towards such as had "free converse with him." And Josselyn said, in 1638, that he was "the only hospitable man in all the country, giving entertainment to all comers gratis."

During the early years of his residence in the colony, upon Noddle's Island, he was distinguished for his hospitality, public spirit, and hearty cooperation in efforts for the welfare of the province; and if, in subsequent years, he manifested feelings different from these, they can only be considered as the natural result of the harsh treatment he had received. Like all men, he had his faults; but they were so small in comparison with his traits of character as a man, citizen, and public officer, that, in spite of all opposition, he rose to stations of high importance, enjoyed the confidence of his sovereign, and identified himself with the efforts to establish religious freedom in the colony.

The Maverick Family.

BUT little is known of the descendants of the Mavericks. With the destruction of the town records at the burning of Charlestown on the 17th of June, 1775, were lost the only means of making a full genealogical account. [From Judge N.B. Mountfort, of New York City, the author learns that his mother, who was a lineal descendent of the Mavericks, saw the spire of Christ Church in Boston lighted up as if on fire, and supposed such to be the case until it proved to be the reflection of the fire in Charlestown kindled by the British to cover their assault upon the redoubt; in that fire the records of the family were destroyed.] The most complete narrative which the writer has been able to make, from every accessible source, is as follows:—

Samuel Maverick had a wife named Amias when he made a conveyance of "the messauge called Winesemet," in 1634; he must have been married several years before, as his son Nathanial, in 1650, joined with him in the sale of Noddle's Island. Their children were Nathaniel, Mary and Samuel.

Mary, daughter of Samuel Maverick, married John Palsgrave, 8th February, 1655 (Gov. John Endicott officiating), and afterward, 20th September, 1660, Francis Hooke, a prominent citizen of Kittery, Maine. She is the Mary Hooke who presented the petition given on page 107.

Samuel, son of Samuel Maverick, married Rebecca, daughter of the Rev. John Wheelwright, in 1660, and died at Boston, on the 10th March, 1664. Very many writers have erroneously given this date as that of his father's death, and thus were compelled to call the son the royal commissioner. The children of Samuel and Rebecca were Mary, born on the 2d October, 1661; Hannah, born 23d October, 1663. The widow of Samuel Maverick, Jr., married William Bradbury, on the 12th March, 1671-2.

It is noticeable that there were three Samuel Mavericks living at the same time; namely, Samuel, grantee of Noddle's Island and commissioner, Samuel his son, and Samuel the son of Moses of Marblehead.

The following information has been collected relative to others of the name:—

Elias Maverick, of whom something has already been said, was probably a brother of Samuel. He was born in 1604, came to this country at an early age, and was one of the first members of the church in Charlestown, being admitted on the 9th of February, 1632-3, and made a freeman in 1633. The records show that he was an active member, taking a prominent part in the various church proceedings. The date of his immigration is not known, but it is not improbable that he and Samuel, Moses and Antipas, came at, or near, the same time. Elias was a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company in 1654; and the last half of his life, if not the very first years of his residence in this country, he lived at Winnisimet.

His will, containing many names and dates, is full of valuable matter to the antiquarian and genealogist, and hence may with propriety be given in full. It is as follows:—

"Elias Maverick senior of Winnasimmett within the Township of Boston, aged, do make this my last will. I give unto my wife Anna all my Estate both in Land houses and movables during her life, if she remain a widow, otherwise one third during life, prvided she freely consent to those terms I shall hereafter express.

"I give to my son Elias 5 acres of Land as an addition to the Land & house that I formerly gave him, as also that outhouse that I built not far to the westward of his house, to him his wife and children forever, prvided there be at all times 1/2 an acre of land left in common about the spring that is above his house wth a convenient high way thereunto for watering of cattle.

"I give to my son Peter £5 starling after my wives decease.

"I give to my son Paul Mavericke 25 acres of Land next unto my son Elias wch I give him in present possession by deed of Gift to him his wife and Children prvided that his Father in law Lievt John Smith, (whose daughter Jemimah he married) will give as a portion to his said son-in-law wth his daughter one halfe of that some of money that the sd Land shal be prized at by indifferent men chosen on either side, wch if he refuses to doe, then he shall injoy it after his mothers decease.

"I give to my grandson Jotham Maverick son of my son John 15 acres of Land adjoyning on the west side of my son Pauls Land, after his grandmothers decease to him and his heires forever, with this prviso that he shall have liberty to sell or alienate the same if he see good unto any one or more of his Uncles before mentioned but to no other man or men.

"I give to my grandson James Mavericke son of my son Peter 15 acres of Land next unto my Grand son Jotham, with the same prviso given to his cousen Jotham.

"Be it knowne that my intent in the division of the aforesd prcels of Land is that each of my sons and grandsons shall have such a prportion of Marish Land as is answerable to their quantity of upland that falls to their share—As for my dwelling house, outhouses, Orchard, Cornefield and so much Land adjoyning next the Creeke as will make up 40 acres wth the Orchard & corne field & meadow proportionable, I give to my 5 daughters, either to be sould or let to each of them an equall prportion.

"But if my sons Elias and Paul, whome I make joint Exectators of this my will, pay unto each of their sisters viz., Abigail Clarke, Sarah Walton, Mary Way, Ruth Smith, & Rebecca Thomas £50 apiece takeing in the moveables and a quantity of Marish wch I have at Hogg Iland of 20 acres of Land and upward for to help pay these Legacies, then the said houseing and Land shall be theirs to enjoy, and also they shall pay unto each of my Grand Children and great grand children 5s apiece.

"Whereas I am bound by obligation unto my Father in law William Stitson to keep him 16 Sheep yearly with their increase till towards winter & then to be left to the same number during his life, that my two sons Elias & Paul my Executors shall make good this engagement after their mothers decease & not before.

"As for my servant Jonas Holmes I give the remainder of his time unto my dear wife if she live so long or else to my Executors. And having forgotten to express Ruth Johnson my granddaughter that now liveth with me, I leave it with her grandmother to do as she pleaseth. My Father in law Deacon William Stitson, Aron Way senior & William Ireland senior to be overseers. The land was measured to be 120 acres if it fall short or exceed my will is that each dividend be prportionably abated or enlarged.

"13, Oct. 1681. Elias Mavericke.

"William Ireland senr William Ireland junr John Barnard, John Sentre Wm Ireland senr Wm Ireland junr and John Senter deposed 6 Nov. 1681.

"Will exhibited for probate by Elias Maverick and Paul Maverick 6 Nov. 1681." [Suffolk Deeds, Vol. VI. pg. 479.]

Elias Maverick married Anne Harris, whose mother married, as a second husband, Deacon William Stitson of Charlestown. Her mother, when she married Deacon Stitson, was the widow Elizabeth Harris, who, as Mrs. Harris, had children John, Thomas, William, Daniel, and Anne. Deacon Stitson, in his will (12th April, 1688), mentions Anne Maverick among the children of his first wife Mrs. Harris, and as the relict widow of Elias Maverick. [Gen. Reg. Vol. II. pp. 102, 218.]

Elias Maverick died on the 8th of September, 1684, aged eighty years, and was buried in the ancient burial-ground at Charlestown, where, a few years since, his gravestone and the inscription upon it might have been seen. It is to be lamented that the stone has been removed.

The children of Elias Maverick and Anne his wife were, according to the Charlestown church records, John, born 3d of February, 1635-6; Abigail (Clarke), born 10th of August, 1637; Elizabeth, born 2nd of June, 1639; Sarah (Walton), born 20th of February, 1640-1; Elias, born 17th of March, 1643; Paul, born 10th of June, 1657; and, according to his will, Peter, Mary (Way), Ruth (Smith), and Rebecca (Thomas), (he speaks of "5 daughters in his will"); also James, who is found recorded as a son of Elias in an inventory of the estate of James Maverick, "Proved 31st Oct. 1671, by Elias Mavericke to be a true inventory of his late son." [Probate Records, VII. p. 158.] This is probably the one who was a member of the Ancient and Honerable Artillery Company in 1658. [Hist. An. and Hon. Art. Co. p. 168.]

Of these children John, [Inventory of John's estate 27th April, 1680.] son of Elias, had a wife Jane ----, and another wife, Katharine Skipper, whom he married 9: 2: 1656. She is mentioned as the widow of John, 27th April, 1680 (IX.4.); children, John, born 18th April, 1653; Dorothy, born 23d January, 1654; Jotham, who married Mary, widow of John Williams. [Inventory of Jotham's estate taken in June, 1753. About seventy volumes of books are enumerated, thirty bound books in octavo, nine pictures, etc. Bk. 48, p. 65.]

Abigail, daughter of Elias, married Matthew Clarket 4: 4: 1655. [Hist. and Gen. Reg. Vol. I. New Series, p. 203.]

Elizabeth, daughter of Elias, married John Johnson 15th October, 1656; had a daughter Ruth.

Sarah, daughter of Elias, married ---- Walton.

Elias, son of Elias, married Margaret Sherwood 10th (8th mo) 1669 (admitted to the church 8th August, 1675), and probably a second wife Sarah. [Probate Records, VIII. 127, XIV. 35.] The children of Elias and Margaret were Elias, born 4th Nov. 1670; Margaret and Elizabeth, baptized 22 (6) 1675; Abigail, baptized 24 (7) 1676; Samuel, baptized 14 (6) 1687. [John Pratt, innholder, to be guardian unto his brother-in-law Samuel Mavericke, son of Elias Mavericke, of Boston, ship-wright, dec'd (being a minor about nine years of age), 19th April, 1697, (XI. 275).]

In the Genealogical Register, Vol. III. pg. 160, it is stated that Abigail Maverick of Boston, daughter of a clergyman who left England in the time of the persecution, married a William Tully, etc. There is probably some mistake in this statement, as an examination of the dates will show. Had she been the daughter of the Rev. John Maverick, the only clergyman of the name in this country of whom we have any account, she must have been at least sixty or seventy years old when the first of her ten children was born! for the Rev. John died in 1636, and her first child was born in 1702. The Abigail referred to in the Register is probably the daughter of Elias above mentioned; she was born in September, 1675, baptized 24 (7) 1676, and died on the 9th of December, 1750.

A daughter of Elias married a John Pratt, and innholder of Boston. [Letters of administration granted to John Pratt of Boston, innholder, on the estate of his father-in-law, Elias Mavericke, Sen'r, late of Boston, shipwright, dec'd, 2d Nov. 1696, (XI. 227).]

Paul, son of Elias, married "Jemimah," daughter of Lieut. John Smith; had a son John, baptized 14 (6) 1687, then aged one year; Moses, baptized 11 (7) 1681; Jotham, baptized 28 (8) 1683.

Peter, son of Elias, married Martha, daughter of Robert Bradford, [IX. 29. For many of these items the writer is indebted to T.B. Wyman, Jr., who has faithfully examined the Charlestown Records.] and had children; a son James.

In Suffolk Deeds mention is made of Hester, wife of Benjamin Whitney. She certifies to the birth of her two children by a former husband, James Maverick of Winnisimet; Martha Maverick, born 17th April, 1693; James Maverick, born 2nd October, 1699. This James Maverick, husband of Hester ---- (who subsequently married Benjamin Whitney, 7th August, 1705), was undoubtedly the son of Peter, and thus grandson of Elias Maverick of Winnisimet. In 1729, Benjamin and Hester (Maverick) Whitney convey estate in Boston, formerly of James M., to her children James and Martha, wife of Thomas Bellows of Southboro. [Gen. Reg. Vol. I. New Series, p. 225.]

Mary, daughter of Elias, married ---- Way.
Ruth, daughter of Elias, married ---- Smith.
Rebecca, daughter of Elias, married ---- Thomas.

Moses Maverick lived at Marblehead, with Isaac Allerton, whose daughter Sarah he afterward married; he was engaged in the fishing business in 1634, [Felt's Annals of Salem, Vol. I. p. 206.] in which year he was made a freeman (3d September). [Gen. Reg. Vol. III. p. 93.] In May of the next year, Mr. Allerton conveyed to his son-in-law Moses, all his "houses, buildings, and stages that hee hath att Marble Head, to enjoy to him & his heirs for euer." [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 147.]

He was born about 1610, and became a member of the church in Salem on the 12th of June, 1637. During the absence of Samuel Maverick to Virginia, Moses paid to the governor 40s. rent for Noddle's Island, 7th June, 1636. [Ibid. Vol. I. p. 176.] He may have hired the Island during the absence of his (probable) brother, or Samuel may have engaged him as a brother or relative to hold it during his southern excursion. After this, Moses continued to reside at Marblehead, and was licensed to sell wine there in 1638, as appears by the Court Records, 6, 7mo. 1638: "Moses Maverick is permitted to sell a tun of wine at Marble Head, and not to exceede this yeare." [Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 237.]

His first wife, Sarah Allerton, died before 1656, when he was married, 22, 8mo. 1656, by John Endicott, governor, to Eunice, widow of Thomas Roberts. His name appears as one of the petitioners against imposts in 1668. [Gen. Reg. Vol. IX. p. 82.]

By his first wife he had children Rebecca, baptized 7th Aug. 1639, married ---- Hawkes; Mary, baptized 14th Feb. 1640-1, died 20th Feb. 1655-6; Abigail, baptized 12th Jan. 1644-5; Elizabeth, baptized 3d Dec. 1646, who died before Sept. 1649; Samuel, baptized 19th Dec. 1647; Elizabeth, baptized 30th Sept. 1649; Remember, baptized 12th Sept. 1652; and perhaps others. The father, Moses Maverick, died 28th June, 1686, aged 76 years. In the settlement of his estate, in November of that year, are mentioned, —- daughter Mary, wife of Archibald Ferguson, died in 1698, (probably a daughter by his second wife); Sarah, only surviving daughter, and wife of John Norman; Moses Hawks, only son of eldest daughter Rebecca; William Hughes and Thomas Jackson, married to Elizabeth and Priscilla Grafton, daughters of daughter Elizabeth Grafton, deceased; the children of daughter Abigail Ward, deceased; and the children of daughter Remember Woodman, deceased. [Gen. Reg. Vol. VIII. p. 270.]

Antipas Maverick is recorded as "belonging to ye Ile of Shoals," in October, 1647; [Mass. Records, Vol. II. p. 199.] in 1652 we find him at Kittery, Maine, appearing before the commissioners, and submitting to the government of Massachusetts. [Gen. Reg. Vol. III. p. 193.] This circumstance gives plausibility to the conjecture that the different individuals by the name of Maverick were of the same family, for we know that Mary Hooke, the daughter of Samuel Maverick, lived in Kittery. Antipas married ----, and had a daughter Abigail, who was married to Edward Gilman, of Exeter. [Edward Gilman, who married Abigail Maverick, was called "Edward Gilman, 3d," being the son of Edward, Jr., and the grandson of that Edward who came from England to Hingham in 1638, removed to Ipswich at an early date, and to Exeter in 1652, where he spent the remainder of his days; the first Edward was the progenitor of the eminent family of the name, among whom were the late Governor John T. Gilman and Hon. Nicholas Gilman. Edward, third, was born about 1648, married 20th Dec. 1674; his will was dated 2d June, 1690, and proved 12th April, 1692; he owned lands in Kittery; his children were Edward, born 20th Oct. 1675; Antipas, born 2d Feb. 1677; Maverick, born 11th April, 1681; Abigail, who married Capt. Jonathan Thing; Catherine, who married Nathaniel Ladd; and Elizabeth. Descendents still remain in New Hampshire.]

All the known circumstances connected with the births, lives, business relations, and residences of Samuel, Elias, Moses, and Antipas, lend to the conclusion that they were brothers.

An Abigail Maverick was admitted to the church in Charlestown, 18th 12mo. 1637-8. [Budington's History of First Church in Charlestown.] She may have been a sister of Samuel, Elias, etc. At least, it is evident that she could not have been Abigail, daughter of Elias, as the latter was born 10th Aug. 1637.

The name Maverick has become extinct in New England, although descendants still remain; in New York, however, numerous persons perpetuate it. [For many of those facts relative to the descendants of the Maverick family in New York and Boston, the writer is indebted to Napoleon B. Mountfort, Esq. of New York, late judge of the police court in that city. He is a lineal descendant of the family. The writer would also acknowledge his indebtedness to Augustus Maverick, of the New York Daily Times, for the facts and dates.] It is highly probable that Samuel, the royal commissioner, removed his residence to New York after the Duke of York had presented him with a house; [New York Col. Hist. Vol. III. p. 185.] and subsequent to the siege of Boston, a branch of the Maverick family removed thence to New York. These removals account for the existence of the name in that city.

Prior to the revolutionary war, John Maverick, an importer of lingnum-vitae and other hard woods, resided in Boston, in Middle street (now Hanover), on the original site of the Hancock school-house. [The school is now removed to a better location; but the old house still stands, and is now used for primary schools and a ward room.—Hist. Boston, p. 219.] His shop, called the "Cabinet and Chest of Drawers," is mentioned in Middle street in 1733. Here he sold also "choice good silver and gold lace, silver buttons, thread, and cloths." He was a man of considerable property, owned slaves, and kept a carriage; he died before the war commenced, leaving children, — Nancy, Jemima, Sally, Mary, Jotham, and Samuel.

Of these children, Nancy became the wife of Nathaniel Phillips, who kept an apothecary shop in Orange (now Washington) street, at the corner of Bennet street. The children of Dr. Phillips were Elizabeth Phillips, who married the late John Parker, Esq., and was mother of Peter Parker (who married a daughter of Dr. Reed, of Charleston, S.C.), of the late John Parker, Jr. (who married Annie Sargeant and died childless), of Charles Parker (who married Miss Vandenburg, of Troy, N.Y.), of the late George Parker, of New York (who married, first, Annie Moore, of Charleston, S.C., secondly, Harriet Boardman, adopted daughter of William Boardman, of Hancock street, Boston), and of Eliza Parker (afterwards Mrs. William Shimmin); James Phillips, who married Annie, daughter of the late Richard D. Tucker; Polly Phillips and Nancy Phillips, who married respectively the late brothers William and Joseph Lovering, of Boston; Sarah Phillips, who died unmarried; Samuel Phillips, a painter, who also kept a paint shop in Washington street, above Boylston, and had a son John, who was a painter, and a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company; Nathaniel Phillips and William Phillips, merchants in Merchants' Row.

Jemima, the second daughter of John Maverick, was married to a Captain White, a king's officer, a tory during the revolutionary war; "but was otherwise," says Judge Mountfort, "a highly respectable gentleman!" He had a son, named Benjamin, who was employed at a large salary in the office of W. Winship; he had also had another son and two daughters. Captain White, with his family, resided in Essex street, opposite the old "Glass House," under the large elm trees, and there they died.

Sally, the third daughter of John Maverick, married Judge Stoddard, of Chelmsford.

Mary, the fourth daughter of John Maverick, married John Gyles, importer of fancy goods, who died of camp fever contracted from the barracks of the British troops, who were at the time were quartered near his place of residence, shortly prior to Boston being declared by General Gage to be in a state of siege. By this marriage, Mary had five daughters and two sons, viz.: Mary, wife of ---- Howard, dealer in cabinent ware: Ann,wife of Adam Knox, a sea-captain; Elizabeth, who married Levi Lane, a merchant on Long Wharf; Sarah, who married Joseph Mountfort, a sea captain (who was lieutenant in the nave under the brave Commodore Manley, and was with him in several naval engagements with the British vessels during the revolutionary war), [He was one of the party which, disquised as Indians, destroyed the tea in Boston harbor, and assisted in the tarring and feathering of Malcolm, who informed of the persons engaged in that celebrated feat. Malcolm was tarred and feathered, placed astride a rail, and surrounded by a crowd bearing torches. As the procession moved on, it stopped at the corner of every street, and the poor tale-bearer was made to cry out, "Here comes old Malcolm the informer;" which if he refused to do, his tormentors threatened to apply their blazing torches to his combustible exterior, and thus he was quickly compelled to announce his own infamous character, habit, and position. Mountfort was in the receipt of a pension at the time of his death.] and Mercy, the youngest daughter, who also married a sea-captain named Richard Roberts.

The sons of John Maverick, Jotham and Samuel, were merchants in Boston, and highly respected. There may have been other sons, whose names have not come down to us.

The widow of one of these sons of John Maverick was the mother of the Samuel Maverick who was shot in State street in the Boston massacre, on the 5th of March, 1770. [Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre. Boston, 1770.] Snow, in his History of Boston, in giving an account of the massacre, says, that among others, Samuel Maverick, whose mother lived in Union street, received a mortal wound, of which he died the next morning; and Loring, in his Hundred Boston Orators, says, "Samuel, a son of widow Mary Maverick, a promising youth of seventeen years, an apprentice to Mr. Greenwood, a joiner, was wounded by a ball that entered his abdomen and escaped through his back, and his remains were removed from his mother's house on the day of the interment."

The particulars of this massacre, and numerous depositions respecting it, are given in the "Short Narrative," etc., just referred to; and as the principal facts are familiar to all readers of history, they need not be repeated. The death of young Maverick, however, comes within the proper limits of our book. At the trial of the soldiers, one of the witnesses testified that he saw Maverick about two hours before his death, and asked him concerning the affair. Maverick answered that he "went up the lane, and as he got to the corner, he heard a gun; he did not retire back but went to the town-house; as he was going along he was shot." In answer to the inquiry where he was when wounded, he replied that he was "betwixt Royal Exchange lane and the town-house, going up towards the town-house." [Trial of William Wemms, etc. (soldiers), for the murder of Crispus Attucks, Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, etc., page 96.]

As, in addition to the published authorities above given, the writer has it in his power to present from an authentic source some particulars of this massacre, so called, which have never been printed, he will be allowed to enter more into details regarding this matter.

Mr. Joseph Mountfort, previously alluded to, was with Maverick at the time he was shot. He, with Samuel Maverick, Peter C. Brooks, Samuel and Thomas Carey, were playing marbles in the house of Mr. Carey, at the head of the Gardner's wharf, near Cross street, at the time the bells rang the alarm, and were thereby attracted to State street before the British troops fired. Here they observed that a tumult had arisen between some men and boys and the soldiers. Angry words were being exchanged, and missiles of various kinds were thrown. Some one threw pieces of ice, when the soldiers, exasperated by the boldness and taunts of their rebel opponents, discharged their guns at the crowd. Young Maverick cried out to his relative Mountfort, "Joe! I am shot!" and ran down Exchange street, then called Royal Exchange lane, to Dock sqare, where he fell to the ground, and was conveyed to his mother's house. He died the next morning. At that time the widow Maverick kept a genteel boarding-house in Union street, at the corner of Salt lane.

It is not a little singular, that Mr. Mountfort's name does not appear among the witnesses examined at the trial. The printed report (of which the writer has a copy, as well as copies of the other pamphlets printed at the time) is very full, and the other acccounts are quite minute; but the particulars above given are not contained in them. Yet, there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of Mr. Mountfort's narrative. The writer has it from his son, Judge Napoleon B. Mountfort, of New York, who is well informed on the subject.

The funeral of Maverick and the others who were killed upon the 5th took place on the following Thursday (the 8th). An immense assembly was in attendance, most of the shops were closed, and the bells were tolled in the city, in Roxbury, and in Charlestown. The four hearses met in King street, upon the spot where the tragedy took place; thence the procession, six deep, proceeded through the main street, followed by a long train of carriages. The bodies were deposited in one grave "in the middle burying-ground." The following patriotic verses were circulated on the occasion:—
Well fated shades! let no unmanly tear
From Pity's eye distain your honored bier;
Lost to their view, surviving friends may mourn,
Yet o'er thy pile shall flames celestial burn;
Long as in freedom's cause the wise contend,
Dear to yor country shall your fame extend;
While to the world the lettered stone shall tell,
How Caldwell, Attucks, Gray, and Maverick fell.
Joseph Mountfort had five sons and three daughters, namely, Napoleon B. [He worked wih the volunteers on Dorchester Heights in 1814, under George Sullivan, the engineer. The boys marched out from school early in the morning, under the command of the eldest boy, to the heights, taking their breakfast in tin pails.] (from whom the above description of the massacre, and many other items, are derived); Captain George M., who died many years ago; John, Lieut.-Colonel U.S. Art., who was wounded in the battle at Little York, Canada, under command of Gen. Zeblon Pike, and distinguished himself at the battle of Plattsburg, as well as in several other actions during the war of 1812, and who died about two years ago; Charles, who died about two years since; George, U.S. Consul at the Island of Candia (at Canea, the town); Sarah, Elizabeth, and Rhoda; these three daughters now reside in Boston.

There was a Peter Rushton Maverick, an Englishman and an engraver, who resided in New York City, and owned property (No 85) in Crown (now Liberty) street, about one hundred feet from Broadway. [The deed of this house from John K. Bancker and Margaret, his wife, to Peter Rushton Maverick, dated Aug. 18, 1802, is on record in lib. 78 of Conveyances, p. 38] It is stated by descendants that he came to this country from England (probably from the county of Kent), about the year 1774, when but eight or ten years of age. He was originally a silversmith, and is sometimes called "Peter Maverick, the first," to distinguish him from his son and grandson, all bearing the name of Peter and all following the same profession. Little is known of his character or circumstances. He was a free-thinker and a friend of Thomas Paine. His family through several generations displayed an unusual talent for engraving, and made it their occupation. For many years he etched and engraved, and had pupils, some of whom attained eminence. He was the best engraver in New York, yet he had not education in the art, and owed all his proficiency to his own persevering industry. The best specimens of his work are in Brown's Family Bible, published by Hodge, Allen, and Campbell in New York, and considered a great work for that time. Francis Kearney was his pupil, and Maverick demanded and received $250 for his instruction for three years, besides the advantages of his ingenuity and labor. In 1787-8 he taught William Dunlap (author of the History of Arts and Design in United States) the theory and practice of etching. He also instructed in the art of engraving, his son Peter, who, with his brother Samuel, were afterwards bank-note engravers of celebrity; the son, however, far excelled the father as an artist. Mr. Anderson, [Now living in New York, 279 Broome street.] the father-in-law of Peter R.'s son Andrew, well remembers Peter R.: he walked with "old Peter" in the procession of the trades in New York at the time of the adoption of the constitution; Peter represented the engravers, being then, in fact, the only one in the city.

Peter Rushton Maverick died about 1807, and left a will, recorded in the surrogate's office. [Lib. 50, p. 149.] By this, he devised his property in Liberty street, which appears to have been all he owned, to his wife for life, with remainder to his children. The widow survived him many years, always occupying the old house (85 Liberty street); she died 19th October, 1853, in the ninety-sixth year of her age; the property was then sold, and the proceeds were divided among the heirs. A lawsit ensued; since its settlement, a white marble building has been erected on the site of the old house. [In the New York Records, lib. 147 of Conveyances, p. 69, we find that Andrew Maverick, 21st of August, 1820, conveyed to John B. Jansen all his right, title, and interest in his father's estate; and on the 23d of February, 1829 (lib. 254, p. 218), Samuel releases his interest in the estate of his mother Rebecca.

The children of Peter Rushton Maverick, so far as can be ascertained, were these: Sarah, who married Benjamin Montague, both now dead, without issue; Rebecca and Maria, the first and second wives of James Woodhouse (now deceased), the first dying without issue, the second leaving children, now scattered; Ann, who married Patrick Munn, both of whom died without issue; Peter, born in New York in 1782; Andrew, and Samuel.

Mr. Bryant, Peter R.'s legal adviser, says that all of his sons married and left children.

Peter, son of Peter R., was twice married. How many children he had by his first wife is not known; one of them, Peter, was a dissipated man and went to ruin. His second wife was Miss Matilda Brown, whom he married in 1828; on his decease, June 1831, in New York, she came into possession of his portrait, painted by Jarvis. Peter had a son by this marriage, namely, Augustus Maverick, born 23d August, 1830, now one of the assistant editors of the New York Daily Times. As already said, Peter excelled his father in his profession. Among his engravings were some for Collins's Quarto Bible. He was for a time in most prosperous circumstances, his property principally accruing from his legitimate business. Some misfortunes connected with a partnership business reduced his means; and late in life, with a large family to support, he was obliged to commence anew. A.B. Durand, a distinguished portrait and landscape painter and engraver, was his pupil; and after serving an apprenticeship of five years (from 1812 to 1817), he entered into partnership with his teacher. As is often the case, the pupil, in course of years, surpassed his master; and the preference which Trumbull gave to Durand by employing him to the exclusion of Maverick, broke up the business connetion.

The tradition that Peter Rushton Maverick came from England would seem to indicate that this family was not connected with that to which this history particularly relates. Still, it is by no means improbable that all of the name were of common descent. An extract from a letter from Judge Mountfort to the writer will corroborate such a supposition. He says:—

"One Mary Lugg, or Rugg, in England, left a large propery to the heirs of Peter Maverick in America, more than sixty years ago. It was said to have been converted into money and deposited in the Bank of England. Samuel Parkman called to see my mother about this matter a half century or more ago. A Peter Maverick, believed to have been a brother of my great-grandfather, John Maverick, went to England a century ago, or thereabouts, and subsequently left England to return to America; but the vessel in which he took passage was never heard from, and is supposed to have foundered. We believe that this was the Peter Maverick to whose heirs the said bequest was made."

The descendants of Samuel, son of Peter R. Maverick, were notified to meet to adopt means to establish their title to the large sum of money left by Peter Maverick, of England. A lawyer was employed, but the descent could not be traced, as the family records were burned at Charlestown. Mr. Mountfort's mother said that they were descended from this Peter, but could give no legal proof. It is easy to see from these items, that the family supposed a connection to exist between the Mavericks of Boston and those of New York, and that there is a possibility, if not a probability, that the Peter whose property was left for heirs in America was connected with the John who lived in Boston prior to the Revolution.

It is hoped that the information relative to the Mavericks, thus gleaned from every accessible source by a patient investigation, is not without value. But whatever of interest may attach to others of the name, the life and character of Samuel Maverick, the first grantee of Noddle's Island, stand out in bold relief. Winthrop found him here in 1630; but when or whence he came will probably forever remain a mystery. Opposed in political and religious opinions and belief to the colonial authorities, he suffered, in consequence, hardships and persecutions; but, rising superior to all attempts to infringe upon his rights as a citizen or his faith as a churchman, he overcame all obstacles; outlived the calumnies of enemies; so overcame the prejudices of the Puritan rulers as to become prominent in public affairs, and to engage in important business matters with the governor; with an enlarged and liberal view of public policy and individual rights, he identified himself with the efforts to secure equal civil and religious privileges to all; secured in a remarkable degree the confidence of his sovereign, and held high and honorable office under him; and in his whole course through life, he showed himself a man of strong and generous impulses, of decision and energy, independence of mind and purpose, executive ability and perseverance in action,—all of which qualities fitted him to fill successfully places of responsibilty and honor, which he from time to time occupied. If he had faults, they were overshadowed by those nobler traits of character by which he was so distinguished, and which led him on, step by step, over all opposition, to positions of trust and high honor under his sovereign.

The Ownership Traced From Samuel Maverick to Samuel Shrimpton.

Having completed the biographical sketch of Samuel Maverick, the first grantee of Noddle's Island, and given accounts of the family, the direct narrative of the Island history is now resumed.

Immediately following the Episcopalian controversy related in Chapter IV., Maverick sold Noddle's Island, and took up his residence elsewhere. It will be remembered that Mary Hooke, the daughter of Samuel Maverick, states in her petition (given on page 107), that her father, feeling the fine imposed upon him to be unjust, resolved not to pay it; but fearing that the Island would be seized by the government in payment therefor, and desiring to secure himself, he made a deed in form of the Island to his eldest son, Nathaniel, but not intending to deliver the instrument to him. The son, however, more crafty than his father, obtained possession of the writings, and thus became nominally the owner of the Island.

The next change of title which took place was in 1650, when Maverick and his wife, conjointly with their son Nathaniel, sold it to Captain George Briggs, of Barbadoes, as appears by the record in the Suffolk Registry of Deeds. [Lib. 1, fol. 122.]

Whether the long series of indignities which Maverick received from the colonial government created in him a desire to leave his Island home, does not appear; but certainly such an inference could very naturally be drawn from the circumstances of the case. He had now (1650) resided upon the Island about twenty-five years, and without doubt his home was surrounded with the conveniences and comforts which so long a residence, with even ordinary improvements, would secure; and considering his character, position, and great hospitality, it is probable that his home was, for those times, commodious and perhaps elegant. It is therefore probable, that only the weariness induced by his long continued difficulties with the colonial authorities determined him to remove from its jurisdiction. This deed of sale was signed 14th January, 1649, and acknowledged 26th July, 1650.

Upon the 28th of the October following the date of the deed above given, Captain Briggs conveyed the Island to Nathaniel Maverick and his heirs forever, who upon the same day conveyed it to Colonel John Burch, of Barbadoes, and his heirs forever. But differences arose, and suits at law were had in several courts, in which it appears that Samuel Maverick claimed possession on the ground that the conditions on which the Island had been sold to Briggs were broken.

Colonel Burch, as assignee of Captain Briggs, through his attorney, Lieutenant John Sayers, brought an action against Samuel Maverick, for Noddle's Island, "at a special court held at Boston, 28th December, 1652. The court not receiving the verdict of the jury, the case, by course of law, fell to the general court to be determined."

The issue between Samuel Maverick and Colonel Burch coming before the general court, a resolution was introduced, giving the possession of the Island to Colonel Burch, on the performance of certain conditions.

The record states, [Mass. Records, Vol. III. p. 309.] under date of 18th May, 1653:—

"In the case between Colonell Birch and Mr. Mauericke, it is resolued on, & by this Court declared, that Noddle's Iland, & appurtenances, in the same condition as is expressed in the deede of sale to Capt. Brig, doth belong to Colonel John Birch, & possession is to be deliuered vnto him, his heires, or assignes, vppon the payment or legall tender of seuen hundred pound starlinge at the store howse next the waters side at the bridge in Barbadoes, in good marchantable suger, at prise current, as for bills of exchange payable in London imediatly after the expiration of thirty dayes sight of the judgement of this Court in this case, & that no charg be allowed to Colonel Birch."

Following this, and of the same date, is "A declaration of Colonell Birch, ordred to be recorded:"— [Mass. Records, Vol. III. p. 310.]

"I doe declare and publish to all men whom these may concerne, that I will justifie, that by the knowne lawes of England, I haue a right & tytle to Noddles Iland, in New England, & so cleare a right therevnto as any man hath to any thinge he there possesseth, the which I shall desire euery man whom it may concerne to take speciall notice off, that they be not deceiued in purchasing the same, or any part thereof, or paying any rent for any they doe hold, or may hereafter hold, from Mr. Mauericke, his heires, or assignes; & I shall desire that this declarat may be entered in the publicke records of New England, that all men may take care they be not deceiued. J.B."

There is another entry in the next volume of the records, by which it appears that the witnesses produced by both parties were heard before the general court, and the question decided "by resolution of a question," in very nearly the same words as just given in the resolution of the 18th of May, and to the effect, that, in case the said Birch did pay or legally tender £700 sterling at the storehouse next the water-side in Barbadoes, in Muscovado sugar, at price current as for bills of exchange payable in London immediately after the expiration of thirty days' sight of the judgment of the court, then the possession of the Island should be delivered to Col. Burch. [Ibid. Vol. IV. Part 1, p. 132.]

Judgment was rendered on the 7th of June, 1653. The decision by the general court having been final, and Burch having fulfilled the conditions, Samuel Maverick and his son Nathaniel made a new conveyance of the Island of the 31st of July, 1656, which is thus recorded:—

"Indenture made the last day (31) of July 1656, betwixt Saml Mauericke, Gent.& Nathl Mauericke, sonne & heire Apparent of sd Saml Mavericke of the one pt & Col. John Burch of the Island of Barbadoes Esqr of the other pt.

"Witnesseth that sd Mauericke & Amias his wife & sd Nath. Mauericke did by theire deed bearing date, 14 Jan. 1649, convey vnto Capt Geo. Briggs, an Island Called Noddles Island. And whereas sd George Briggs did by his deede bearing date 28 Oct. 1650, Convey sd Island vnto Nathl Mauerick and his heires for euer. And whereas sd Nathl Mauericke did the same day Convey sd Island vnto John Burch & his heires for euer And whereas since that time differences & suites of lawe haue binn had in suerall Courts and at last in the Generall Court at Boston betweene sd John Burch and sd Saml Mauericke for sd Island wherein it was exhibited that the aboue named George Briggs had not perfectly performed the Consideration by him undertaken.

"And whereas in sd Court It was at Last Ordered the 7th of June 1653 in case sd Burch did pay or legally tender £700 sterling at the store howse next the sea side in Barbadoes in muscavadoes Sugar at price Currant as for bills of exchange that then the possession of the sd Island to be deliuered to sd Burch.

"Sd Samuell hath Received full satisfaction of the sd £700, stirling menconed in the aboue order made at the Generall Court aforesayd.

"Sd Samuell Mauericke doth convey vnto sd Burch sd Nodles Island &c. SAML MAUERICKE

"Acknowledged last day (31) of July 1656, before me Thos. Gibbes."

This instrument is witnessed by six persons, and is followed by an appointment of an attorney by Mr. Burch, dated at Barbadoes, 5th November, 1656, and which reads thus:—

"Barbadoes,—I Col. John Burch of the Island abouesajd Appointe my well beloued friend Mr. Thomas Bratle of Charles Towne merchant, my Attourney to recouer of Mr. Samuell Mauericke an Island Comonly Called Nodles Island and likewise all other rights thereunto belonging, weh doth to me Appertayne. 5 Nov. 1656. JOHN BURCH.

"In the presence of John Sayes, John Newmaker.

"At Request of Mr. Thos. Bratle. Recorded 7 Jan. 1656." [Bk. II. fol. 323, 328.]

Possession of the Island was given by Maverick on the first of January, 1656-7, in the following words:—

"1 Jan. 1656 (7). Attest,—Nicholas Shopleigh, Randall Niccolls, John Jeffres, Willjam Rosewell, that wee sawe full and peaceable possession given of sd Island, houses, &c. by sd Mauerick & Amy his wife, to Thomas Bratle of Charles Towne Attorney to Col. John Burch of Barbadoes &c.
"(Before) JNO ENDICOTT, GOVr."
Thus Noddle's Island passed from the possession of the Maverick family.

Samuel Maverick, the generous citizen and staunch royalist, whose efforts for religious toleration, although fortified by the trust of royal commissioner given him by his sovereign, proved utterly futile, and drove him from his home; . . .
The Maverick Bank

The business character and prosperity of East Boston, in the opinion of many, seemed to demand that a bank should be established there for the better accommodation of those who would otherwise be compelled to go to the city for the transaction of their money affairs. Consequently a charter was obtained for the Maverick Bank, with a capital of $400,000, on the 28th of March, 1854, and it went into operation on the 18th of the following September. At first, it was located in the Winthrop block, which stands upon ground formerly occupied by the Maverick House and garden; but in 1856 (10th June) it was removed to State street, Boston (No.75), because, on trial, it was found that a greater amount of business on the amount of capital could be done that the Island of itself afforded, and that very many business men of East Boston could be more more conveniently accommodated in money transactions in State street than at first location of the bank. The present officers (1858) are as follows:—Samuel Hall, president; Samuel Hall, Wm. R. Lovejoy, Wm. C. Barstow, Noah Sturtevant, and Paul Curtis, of East Boston, and Henry N. Hooper and Martin L. Hall, of Boston, directors; Samuel Phillips, Jr., cashier; George F. Stone, teller; Alfred R. Turner, bookkeeper; William G. Brooks, Jr., messenger and clerk.

Gen. William H. Sumner

2 comments:

  1. Very interesting. I wonder what, if any, connection there is to the Mavericks of South Carolina who came from Barbados.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Mavericks of South Carolina are descended from Nathaniel Maverick, Samuel Maverick's son, who relocated to Barbados around 1650. His son John, in turn, moved to South Carolina as part of an exodus of Barbadians later in the 17th century.

    ReplyDelete