tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32894702581650651252024-02-17T21:05:46.735-08:00Samuel MaverickColonistPeter Maverickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10112022768644685401noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-74643159261037687302021-12-17T08:39:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:11:24.326-08:00The Indians at Winnisimmet<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="215" width="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNbkLHqEqvmAaihRdJETL-fB_PPxa0iIZGpLFpYDMUdgnLKzvrztFD1IDHxQQ-I6PtfAkDW2pnPIUAVnCK7HotljUkpXvRcr3nY2VpqS1fk3WblMhpnpl9u4rjAIlFSjsYt-OYAl0yy2q1/s400/massachusett+indians.jpg" style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"></div>
<br>
<div align="left">When Samuel Maverick built his Palisade House at Winnisimmet, the region was inhabited by Indians, though greatly reduced in numbers by two causes. In 1615 the Tarratines, a powerful tribe easterly of the Penobscot, made war with the Pawtuckets, whose lands extended from the Charles to the Piscataqua, including Winnisimmet, Rumney Marsh, and Pullen Point. This war was disastrous to the Pawtuckets, of whom were the Rumney Marsh Indians. The other cause, the plague of 1616, more fatal than war and less discriminating, ravaged the New England coast.<br>
<br>
The chief of the Pawtuckets was Nanepashemet of Lynn until the war with the Tarratines, when for safety he removed to the Mystic, near Medford, where he built a fortified house; but that did not protect him, for he was killed in 1619. He left a widow, three sons, and a daughter. Their English names were Sagamore James of Lynn; and Sagamore George of Salem, who, surviving his mother and brothers, became sachem of his tribe. The daughter was Yawata. After Nanepashemet's death his widow gathered the remnant of the tribe to the Mystic, where she governed it, leaving local rule, to her sons. Before 1635 she married Webcowet,—who became sachem in her right. She died about 1650.<br>
<br>
Sagamore John, as has been said, lived sometime by the Mystic, and later at or near Winnisimmet. The Charlestown records say that when the Spragues came from Salem to Charlestown in the summer of 1628, they "lighted of a place situate and lying on the north side of Charles river, full of Indians, called Aberginians. Their old sachem being dead, his eldest son, by the English called John Sagamore, was their chief, and a man naturally of a gentle and good disposition; . . . About the months of April and May, in the year of our Lord 1629, there was a great design of the Indians, from the Narragansetts, and all round about us to the eastward in all parts, to cut off the English; which John Sagamore, who always loved the English, revealed to the inhabitants of this town."<br>
<br>
After a year's acquaintance with the Indians about Boston Bay, Thomas Dudley wrote to the Countess of Lincoln that,<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:85%;">"Upon the river of Mistick is seated sagamore John, and upon the river of Saugus sagamore James, his brother, both so named by the English. The elder brother, John, is a handsome young man, [one line missing] conversant with us, affecting English apparel and houses, and speaking well of our God. His brother James is of a far worse disposition, yet rapaireth often to us. Both these brothers command not above thirty or forty men, for aught I can learn."</span><br>
<br>
December 5, 1633, Governor Winthrop recorded, as has been said, that<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:85%;">"John Sagamore died of the small pox, and almost all this people; (above thirty buried by Mr. Maverick of Winesemett in one day). The towns in the bay took away many of the children; but most of them died soon after.<br>
<br>
"James Sagamore of Saugus died also, and most of his folks. John Sagamore desired to be brought among the English, (so he was;) and promised (if he recovered) to live with the English and serve their God. He left one son, which he disposed to Mr. Wilson, the pastor of Boston, to be brought up by him. He gave to the governour a good quantity of wampompeague, and to divers others of the English he gave gifts, and took order for the payment of his own debts and his men's. He died in a persuasion that he should go to the Englishmen's God. Divers of them, in their sickness, confessed that the Englishmen's God was a good God; and that, if they recovered, they would serve him.<br>
<br>
"It wrought much with them, that when their own people forsook them, yet 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 the neighbours."</span><br>
<br>
I now bring together such incidents as I have found respecting the tribe of Indians to which those of Winnisimmet belonged.<br>
<br>
In a Court at Watertown, March 8, 1631. "Vpon a complaynte made by Saggamore John & Pet<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> for haueing 2 wigwams burnt, which, vpon examinaoon, appeared to be occaconed by James Woodward, serv<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">t</span></sup> to S<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> Rich: Saltonstall, it was therefore ordered, that S<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> Richard should satisfie the Indians for the wronge done to them, (which accordingly hee did by giueing them 7 yards of cloath,) & that his said serv<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">t</span></sup> should pay vnto him for it, att the end of his tyme, the some of 1<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">s</span></sup>."<br>
<br>
March 26, 1631. "John Sagamore and James his brother, with divers sannops, came to the governour to desire his letter for recovery of twenty beaver skins, which one Watts in England had <i>forced</i> him of. The governour entertained them kindly, and gave him his letter with directions to Mr. Downing in England, etc."<br>
<br>
At a General Court in Boston, May 18, 1631, "Chickataubott and Saggamore John pmised vnto the Court to make satisfaccon for whatsoeuer wronge that any of their men shall doe to any of the Englishe, to their cattell or any oth<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> waies."<br>
<br>
July 13, 1631. "Canonicus' son, the great sachem of Naraganset, come to the governour's house with John Sagamore. After they had dined, he gave the governour a skin, and the governour requited him with a fair pewter pot, which he took very thankfully, and stayed all night."<br>
<br>
August 8, 1631. "The Tarentines, to the number of one hundred, came in three canoes, and in the night assaulted the wigwam of the sagamore of Agawam, by Merimack, and slew seven men, and wounded John Sagamore, and James, and some others, (whereof some died after,) and rifled a wigwam where Mr. Cradock's men kept to catch sturgeon, took away their nets and biscuit, etc."<br>
<br>
September 17, 1631. "Mr. Shurd of Pemaquid, sent home James Sagamore's wife, who had been taken away at the surprise at Agawam, and writ that the Indians demanded [ ] fathom of wampampeague and [ ] skins for her ransom."<br>
<br>
April 16, 1632. "The messenger returned, and brought a letter from the governour [of Plymouth], signifying, that the Indians were retired from Sowams to fight with the Pequins, which was probable, because John Sagamore and Chickatabott were gone with all their men, viz., John Sagamore with thirty, and Chickatabott with [ ] to Canonicus, who had sent for them."<br>
<br>
At a Court, Boston, September 4, 1632. "Saggamore John, &c pmised against the nexte yeare, & soe euer after, to fence their corne against all kinde of cattell."<br>
<br>
November 7. "It is ffurther agreed, that S<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> Richard Saltonstall shall giue Saggamore John a hogshead of corne for the hurt his cattell did him in his corne."<br>
<br>
Sagamore John seems to have been friendly to the English; and they just to him. Sagamore James died young, in 1633, and therefore was little known by the Winnisimmet people. He lived at Saugus, and married the daughter of Passaconaway, the noted chief at Penacook (Concord, N. H.).<br>
<br>
On the death of John and James, the succession passed to their brother, Sagamore George, subject to the supreme authority of his mother, Squaw Sachem, widow of Nanepashemet. His jurisdiction, at first over Lynn and Rumney Marsh, after his mother's death, extended north and east of the Charles to the Piscataqua. His immediate possessions were in Winnisimmet, Rumney Marsh, Saugus, and Lynn; and his immediate subjects, the Rumney Marsh Indians. About 1676 his family removed to the vicinity of Lowell. In the war with the Wampanoags, the same year, he joined King Philip, was taken prisoner, and carried as a slave to Barbadoes, whence he returned. Born in 1616, married to a daughter of Poquanum, who lived in Nahant, he died in 1684, at the house of James Rumney Marsh, the son of his sister Yawata. He left a son and three daughters, the latter of great personal attractions.<br>
<br>
Sagamore George made trouble for the landowners in Rumney Marsh and adjacent towns. For more than ten years, sometimes by suit in the inferior courts, and at others by petition to the General Court, he pursued them for lands unjustly withheld, as he claimed. One of his petitions is preserved in the Massachusetts Archives:<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:85%;">"To y<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">e</span></sup> Right Wor<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">th</span></sup> y<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">e</span></sup> Go<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup>no<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> the Wor<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">th</span></sup> Dept-Gov<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup>no<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> 7 Magistrats of this hono<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">rd</span></sup> Courte,<br>
<br>
"The humble Petticon of George Indian, humbly Requesting Whereas yo<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> Peticon<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> hath often besought this hono<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">rd</span></sup> Courte to consider his Condicon, & weighing such Grounds & euedenc as he hath produced to declare & manifest his interest & Just Tytle to the Lands of his late brother deceassed, on mistick side, & conceiueing the hono<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">rd</span></sup> courte to be soficiently informed & possessed with the truth & equitie of his Cause in & Compassion towards yo<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> poore Indian & Petitioner, you will bee pleased to vouchsafe him somme smalle parte parcell or proportion of his inheritanc Land for himselfe & Company to plant in, which he only is bould to put you in Remembranc of as hertofore not doubting of his grante from y<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> Greate fauor toward him, whoe is willing to be now & euer<br>
<div align="center">An humble serv<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">t</span></sup> to this honuered Courte & Country<br>
George Indian.</div>in Answer to this petition the Dep<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">ts</span></sup>. thinke that the petitione<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> be referd to bring his action in some inferio<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup> Court Accordinge to law (aganist any y<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">t</span></sup> w<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">t</span></sup>hold it vnjustly from him) w<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">th</span></sup> Refenc to y<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">e</span></sup> Consent of y<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">e</span></sup> hono<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">rd</span></sup> magis<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">ts</span></sup>.<br>
herevnto<br>
<div align="right">William Torrey, <i>Cleric</i></div>The Mag<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">sts</span></sup> Consent heereto.<br>
<div align="right">Edw. Rawson, <i>Secre<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">ty</span></sup></i>"</div></span><br>
</div><div align="justify">Appended to this is the following deposition:<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:85%;">"Quachamaquine saith: when George Indians brother was sick of the pox before his death he spake to him & Egawam with him & said when I die I giue all my wompam & Coates & other things to my mother & all my ground to my owne brother meaning the Ground about powder horne hill, vnles his own sonne did liue but if his sonne dyed then none to haue the Ground but his brother George Indian, and Egawam saith the same; & they both say that seauen dayes after this John Sagamore George's Brother dyed 21 [3/mo] 1651</span><br>
<br>
These annoyances drove the Rumney Marsh people to the General Court. Sagamore George brought actions in which he was defeated, and pestered the General Court by petition until, out of patience, it declared, May 19, 1669, "that his clajme menconed in his petition concernes not the Generall Court to determine, but leaue him to the propriet<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">r</span></sup>s of the land to give him as they & he shall agree." I have given on another page all that is known of his later life.<br>
<br>
There is abundant evidence that the colonists as a whole, acting from their own impulses, as well as upon explicit and repeated instructions from the Company in England, treated the Indians fairly well. They purchased their lands at prices deemed equitable by both parties; they gave them equal protection with the whites before the law; and they honestly endeavored to bring them under the influences of civilization and Christianity, but with little success. Regular industry was distasteful to the savage, and the restraints of his new mode of life galling. He soon found that even a partial occupation of the lands which he had sold to the white settlers interfered with his hunting and fishing, and he regarded exclusion from any part of the soil, over which he roamed at will, as unjust. The General Court made many enactments between 1630 and 1640 to secure his rights as well as the safety of the colonists. Samples are these: [No one could employ or, if it was in his power to prevent, permit an Indian to] use a gun on any occasion or pretext under penalty of fine and imprisonment unless, as was provided after some years, with leave of the General Court. No one could sell him silver or gold, or powder or shot; or, without leave, "intertaine any Indian for a serv<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">t</span></sup>." If an Indian wished to trade peltries or other commodities, he could not go from house to house, but must repair to the "trucking howse." No white man could "sell, or (being in a course of tradeing,) giue any stronge water to any Indean"; or buy his land without leave of the Court, or repair his gun. Towns had power to "keepe away all strange Indians, & to restraine Indians by them from pphaning the Lords day." Care was taken to prevent, and to give satisfaction for, trespasses against them. In all places the English were to "keepe their cattle from destroying the Indians corne in any ground where they have right to plant; & if any corne bee destroyed for want of fencing or hearding, the towne shalbee liable to make satisfaction, . . . & the Indians are to bee incuraged to help towards the fensing in of their corne feilds."<br>
<br>
In 1685 the Indians about Boston were few and were neither useful nor respectable. Efforts for their improvement had disappointed their friends; and ten years before, on October 13, 1675, the General Court, doubtful as to their conduct in the apprehended war with King Philip, ordered "that all the Naticke Indians be forthwith sent for, & disposed of to Deare Island, as the place appointed for their present aboade." Neither they nor their successors took kindly to English ways. It was necessary to place them under guardianship, and deny them the rights of citizens; and to-day the only representatives of the once powerful tribes which inhabited these shores are an inconsiderable number of mixed breeds lately, if not now, the wards of the Commonwealth. Unlike the Latin Catholic races, Teutonic Protestants were unable to incorporate the native tribes into their political and social systems. Extermination, if not the law, was the fact. In 1685 the colonists in their distress turned to the remnant of the miserable race to save them from impending disaster.<br>
<br>
Mellen Chamberlain, <i>A Documentary History of Chelsea</i>, 1908</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-33830905304293708982021-10-16T08:02:00.003-07:002021-12-18T17:11:52.755-08:00Samuel Maverick<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfF2DZpY_7ztV0iZEuT8wImMdBeviQU_fx7e1bFedUoR2uye8AShgSDugkP7lrmiibx0TqJD1xoRhF9t2laliXnRT6zwjYf5ZA9tnCzegRP_2TEJFmDi60TzNd700OODjwLp0ER276P-G7/s1600/wood+map.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="400" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfF2DZpY_7ztV0iZEuT8wImMdBeviQU_fx7e1bFedUoR2uye8AShgSDugkP7lrmiibx0TqJD1xoRhF9t2laliXnRT6zwjYf5ZA9tnCzegRP_2TEJFmDi60TzNd700OODjwLp0ER276P-G7/s400/wood+map.gif" style="filter: alpha(opacity=50);" width="253" /></a></div>
<blockquote>M<span style="font-size: 85%;">ANY</span> the hero of the old-time days, <br />
Whose memory claims our honor and our praise;<br />
This one for freedom's cause scorned all beside, <br />
For conscience, justice, God, another died;<br />
But round one name, in all the wide country, <br />
Shineth the halo of sweet charity.<br />
Did other virtues fail,—yet fail they not; <br />
Whate'er his faults,—none lacketh them, God not!<br />
Of him, once more, may write the angel's pen,—<br />
"Behold a man who loved his fellow-men!"<br />
<br />
S. Alice Raulett, <i>The New England Magazine</i>, September, 1893</blockquote><div align="left">Contrast the Boston of today with its hundreds of thousands of people, its teeming industries, and its commercial activities, with the picture of almost utter solitude suggested in "Wonder-working Providence," by Edward Johnson, who came over with Gov. Winthrop's colony: "The planters in Massachusetts bay at this time [1629] were William Blackstone at Shawmut, Thomas Walford at Mishawum, Samuel Maverick at Noddles Island, and David Thompson at Thompson's island, near Dorchester. How or when they came there is not known." Until recently the exact year of Maverick's advent upon our shores has not been known. Various dates ranging from 1625 to 1629 have been given. Whether he came in one of the fishing shallops which cruised along the coast soon after the settlement of Plymouth, or how, is not known, but the actual year of his settlement has been now authoritatively fixed. [footnote: "Whence these people came, what brought them to the shores of Boston Bay, and when they set themselves down there, have been enigmas which the antiquaries, after exhausting conjecture, have generally dismissed with the remark that they will probably never be solved." Charles Francis Adams, Jr., in "Old Planters About Boston Harbor." Proceedings Mass. Hist. Soc. for June, 1878.]<br />
<br />
That delver in American antiquities, Mr. Henry Fitz-Gilbert Waters, of Salem, now resident in London, has proven that this "one of the first white men who ever settled on the shores of Massachusetts Bay," this one of the "old planters whom Gov. Winthrop found here," came as early as 1624. Plymouth had been founded; Wessagusset had commenced its career; Weston's colony had come and gone. Mr. Waters has found among other important things, notably the Winthrop map, Maverick's "A Briefe Discription of New England, and the Several Townes therein, together with the present Government thereof," wherein he says: "Now before I come to speak of Hudson's River, I shall most humbly desire the Hon<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">ble</span></sup> Councill to take it in consideration the great benefits and profitts, which may redound to the English by these Westerne Colonies if well managed. Of their present condition I have given a briefe accompt in my foregoing Relation, being my observations which for severall years I have spent in America, even from the year 1624 till within these two years last past." This "Discription" was written, probably, in the year 1660, to Sir Edward Hyde, then King Charles the Second's Lord High Chancellor, and shows that Maverick had travelled over New England, and the adjacent territory, extensively, and was well acquainted with the locality and products of the various places in New England of which he speaks,—some fifty or more of them. Some of his observations are curious and instructive: "In the yeare 1626 or thereabouts there was not a Neat Beast Horse or sheepe in the Countrey and a very few Goats or hoggs, and now it is a wonder to see the great herds of Catle belonging to every Towne I have mentioned; The braue Flockes of sheepe. The great number of Horses besides those many sent to Barbados and the other Carribe Islands. And withall to consider how many thousand Neate Beasts and Hoggs are yearly killed, and soe have been for many yeares past for provision In Countrey and sent abroad to supply Newfoundland, Barbados, Jamaica, and other places, As also to victuall in whole or in part most shipes which comes there." And of Boston: "And the place in which Boston (the Metropolis) is seated, I knew then for some yeares to be a Swamp and Pound, now a great Towne, two Churches, a Gallant Statehouse & more to make it compleate than can be expected in a place so late a wilderness."<br />
<br />
It has generally been considered that when Winthrop's colony arrived in Boston Harbor, in July, 1630, Maverick's residence was on Noddle's Island, now East Boston. The sole authority for this statement, says Hon. Mellen Chamberlain in his "Samuel Maverick's Palisade House of 1630," and the one which all historians have followed, is Edward Johnson, in his "Wonder-Working Providence," published in 1654, who says, "On the north side of Charles River, they landed near a small Island, called Noddel's Island, where one Mr. Samuel Maverick was then living, 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. [Like Blackstone, Walford, Thompson, and others, Maverick was an Episcopalian.] 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." [footnote: Phillips' "New World of Words, or Universal Dictionary," printed in 1706, defines "Murderers, or Murdering Pieces," as "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."]<br />
<br />
Untrustworthy as Mr. Chamberlain proves many of Johnson's statements to be, it is to be noticed that, although he says "on this island he had built him a small Fort," he previously says they landed <em>near</em> a small island, called "Noddels Island;" and that he did land near that island, at Winnisimmet, and that he there built a house, "the first permanent house in the Bay Colony,"—which stood as late as 1660—is now satisfactorily proved by Maverick's own "Discription," which says: "Winnisime.—Two miles South from Rumney Marsh on the North side of Mistick River is Winnisime which though but a few houses on it, yet deserves to be mencond. One house yet standing there which is the Antientest house in the Massachusetts Government, a house which in the yeare 1625 I fortified with a Pillizado and fflankers and gunnes both belowe and above in them which awed the Indians who at that time had a mind to Cutt off the English. They once faced it but receiveing a repulse never attempted it more although (as now they confesse, they repented it when about 2 yeares after they saw so many English come over)." And that he was living in Winnisimmet (Chelsea) as late as 1633, is confirmed by Winthrop, who says, under date of Dec. 5th of that year, while speaking of the ravages of the small-pox among the Indians: "above thirty buried by Mr. Maverick of Winesemett in one day;" "only two families took any infection by it. Among others, Mr. Maverick of Winisemett 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 others of their neighbors." This was none other than Samuel Maverick, as Mr. Chamberlain says: "Uniformly and without exception, both in the Colony Records and in Winthrop's Journal, Samuel Maverick is called 'Mr. Maverick.'<br />
<br />
This "Manor of Winnesimett," as it came to be called, and the land belonging, in which a John Blackleach seems to have been a part owner, and the "fferry att Wynysemet graunted to Mr. Sam'<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">ll</span></sup> Mauacke" by the General Court, were sold to Richard Bellingham, Feb. 27, 1634, soon after he arrived from England.<br />
<br />
Another mention of Mr. Maverick's property is as follows: "Mystic Side" was granted to Charlestown, July 2, 1633, when it was ordered that the "ground lyeing betwixte the North [Malden] Ryv<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> & the creeke on the north side of Mr. Mauacks & soe vpp into the country, shall belong to the inhabitants of Charlton." The year before Oct. 2, 1632, he had been admitted a freeman. Noddle's Island having been granted to Maverick April I, 1633. by the General Court, [footnote: 1633. I April. Noddles Ileland is graunted to Mr. Samll. Mauocke, to enjoy to him & his heires for ever, yeilding & payeing yearely att the Genall Court, to the Gounr for the time being either a fatt weather, a fatt hogg, or x ls in money, & shall give leave to Boston & Charles Towne to fetch word contynually, as their neede requires from the Southerne pte of the sd ileland.] and he having sold his Winnisimmet house, he built him a house on his new island home, probably during the year 1634, or spring of 1635, for although he was absent in Virginia from May 1635 to May 1636, his wife wrote a letter dated "Nottell's Iland in Massachusetts Bay, the 20th November, 1635;" and it is clearly indicated also by the Court records. Here he lived for many years, dispensing his hospitality on many and divers occasions as is witnessed by Josselyn, [footnote: "The only hospitable man in all the countrey, giving entertainment to all Comers gratis." Josselyn's Account, p. 12, (Mass. Hist. Coll. vol. iii, p. 220).] who made a voyage to this country in 1638, and other early travellers. Other grants of land were made to Maverick; one of 600 acres and one of 400 acres; the latter being located in "the upper parts of Monotocot River, neere Taunton Path," which he assigned to Edward Bendall in 1643. He was one of the patentees of lands in Maine, as early as 1631, as is witnessed by a deed found in the York County records.<br />
<br />
If not the earliest, Maverick was one of the earliest slaveholders in Massachusetts, having purchased one or more slaves of Capt. William Pierce, who brought some from Tortugas in 1638. Slavery was always repugnant to the feelings of our Puritan fathers, and from this fact, and the Episcopacy of Maverick, there was gradually engendered an ill-feeling between him and the government, which began to show itself as early as March, 1635, when the Court ordered Maverick to leave Noddle's Island by the following December, and take up his abode in Boston, and, in the "meantyme" not give "entertainment to any strangers for a longer tyme than one night without leave from some Assistant, and all this to be done under the penalty of £100." This, for fear that he might aid in some way, an anticipated and threatened change in New England affairs, to uproot Puritanism and establish Episcopacy; a plan concerted in England, but which came to naught. This injunction upon Maverick was repealed before December arrived. This was but one of many similar controversies which sprang up between Maverick and the government. Sumner, in his "History of East Boston," says: "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."<br />
<br />
Notwithstanding all this, he was frequently entrusted by the colonial government with more or less of the public affairs, as is abundantly witnessed by the records, although he held no public office. He seems to have been a man holding the goodwill and respect of all who came in contact with him; but, owning to his religious opinions, was involved in these difficulties with the government. These ecclesiastical troubles resulted in harsh and oppressive acts, on the part of the government, towards all who were members of the Church of England and who were simply contending for their rights. In 1646, a petition signed by "Robt Child, Thom. Burton, John Smith, John Daniel, Thomas Fowle, David Yale [and] Samm: Maverick," was addressed to the General Court, setting forth what they considered their grievances. For this a fine was imposed. Then the petitioners claimed the right of appeal to the commissioners for plantations, in England, which was not allowed; nevertheless, they appealed to Parliament. The signers of this appeal were treated with much indignation; and May 26, 1647, the Court passed sentence upon them as follows: "The Courte having taken into serious consideration the crimes charged on Doc<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">t</span></sup> Rob<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">t</span></sup> Child, M<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup>. John Smith, M<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Thomas Burton, M<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> John David & M<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Samuell Mavericke, & whereof they have been found guilty upon full evidence by the former judgement of this Courte, have agreed upon y<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">e</span></sup> sentence here ensewing respectively decreed to each of them." Mr. Maverick's fine was £150, a half of which was finally remitted after several petitions from Maverick, the first of which was as follows:<br />
<br />
"I Sameull Mavericke humbly request that wereas, at a Co<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup>te held in May & June, 1647 there was layd to my charge conspiracy for w<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">ch</span></sup> i was fined 150£, no witnes appearing either <em>viva voce </em>or by writinge, but was refered to the records for sufficient testimony to convince me, w<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">ch</span></sup> 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 the Co<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup>te, & after my abode there 12 dayes paid the fines, & so was discharged, w<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">ch</span></sup> 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 disparagement upon record.<br />
<br />
I therefore humbly desire this honored Courte, that my fine may be repaid, and my Credit repaired, by recording my innocency, if such testimony do not further appeare, as may render me guilty.<br />
<br />
8, (3), 1649. S<span style="font-size: 85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size: 85%;">AUERICKE</span>."<br />
<br />
Additional evidence that Maverick was incarcerated during these troubles is given in a petition to Sir Edmund Andros, February 13, 1687, by Mary Hooke, his daughter, who first married John Palsgrave, and then Francis Hooke, in which she says her father was "imprisoned for a long season." By this same petition of his daughter it is evident that for a while he became dispossessed of his home on Noddle's Island in a rather dishonorable and unfilial manner. She says, after referring to the above fine: "Which sume he resolveing not to pay, and fearing the s<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">d</span></sup> Island would be seized to make payment of itt, he made a deede of Gift of the s<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">d</span></sup> Island to his Eldest sonne, not w<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">th</span></sup> any designe to deliver the s<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">d</span></sup> Deede to him, onely to p<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup>vent the seizure of itt. But yo<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Peticon<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">rs</span></sup> s<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">d</span></sup> Eldest Brother heareing of itt, by a Crafty Wile contrary to his Father's knowledge gott the sd deede into his custody. But whether he sold it, or how he disposed of itt yo<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Peticon<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> canot sett forth, soe that yo<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Peticon<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">rs</span></sup> s<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">d</span></sup> Father in his life tyme and yo<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Peticon<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">rs</span></sup> Father being one of the King's Comiss<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">rs</span></sup> sent with Collon<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">ll</span></sup> Nicolls, Gen. S<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Rob<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">t</span></sup> Carr & Collonll Cartwright to settle the affaires in New York & New England but were interrupted at Boston w<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">th</span></sup> sound of the Trumpett."<br />
<br />
But by deed recorded in Suffolk Registry of Deeds, Lib. I, fol. 122, it seems that matters were adjusted only a few years after these troubles, for, in 1650, the Island was sold to "Capt. George Briggs of the Island of Barbados, in the West Indies, Esq.," by Samuel Maverick and his wife, Amias, their son Nathaniel,—" the Peticon<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">rs</span></sup> s<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">d</span></sup> Eldest Brother," above referred to,—"for divers good causes & valuable considerations vs hereunto moveing, especially for & in the consideration of fourty thousand pounds of good white sugar, double clayed," "giue grant bargaine sell alien convey enfeoffe assure confirme vnto the s<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">d</span></sup> Capt. Georg. Briggs a certain p cell of land or an Island comonly called or knowne by the name of Nodles Island lying and being in the Bay of Massachusetts in New Engl. aforesaid, together w<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">th</span></sup> the Mansion house millhouse & mill, bakehouse & all other of the houses outhouses barnes stables edifices buildings, water privileges easments commodities advantages immunities & emoluments whatsoever." There were some subsequent conveyances, but in 1656, the same parties, Maverick, wife and eldest son, made a final deed to one Col. John Burch, as "S<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">d</span></sup> Samuell hath Received full satisfaction of the s<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">d</span></sup> £700 stirling menconed in the aboue order made at the Generall Court aforesayed." <br />
<br />
Referring to the troubles that resulted in thus driving Mr. Maverick away from Boston, Drake says: "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; <em>a man that Boston could not do without</em>. He was a gentleman of wealth and great liberality. [W]e 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 jeopardize it." <br />
<br />
Certain it is that he now left his home on Noddle's Island; and his subsequent life shows him to have been a royalist, true to Episcopalianism and to the King; and upon the restoration of Charles II. he went to England to complain to the King; and was two or three years soliciting that commissioners might be appointed who should visit New England with authority to settle all difficulties. In this he succeeded; and April 23, 1664, the King appointed four commissioners, "Colonel Richard Nichols, Sir Robert Carre, Knt. George Cartwright, Esq., and Samuel Maverick, Esq.," "to visit all and every of the same colonies aforesaid, and also full power and authority to hear and receive, and to examine and determine, all complaints and appeales 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." Upon the arrival of the Commissioners in this country there commenced a controversy and a conflict between their authority and that of the colonial government, particularly that of Massachusetts Bay, which was persistent and determined. Many letters passed between them; reports were made by the Commissioners to the Lord Chancellor; and only with the recall of their Commissioners did anything like peace reign, and that but temporarily. An extended and interesting account of this controversy, together with many of the documents passing between the parties, is given by Gen. William H. Sumner, in his "History of East Boston," chap. VI., pp. 127-160.<br />
<br />
Just when and where Maverick died is not known, but it is generally thought that at the time of his death he was living in New York, probably on Broadway, in a house presented him by the Duke of York for his fidelity to the King. "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."<br />
<br />
This sketch of one of our very earliest Bay settlers, whom Adams pronounces "a man of education and refinement" and "a man of substance," cannot be better closed than by giving a few words of John Ward Dean's introduction to Maverick's "Discription" which was printed in the "Historical and Genealogical Register" for January, 1885. Speaking of this account of New England, his letter to the Earl of Clarendon, printed in the Collections of the New York Historical Society, for 1869, p. 19, and his letters printed in the third volume of the New York Colonial Documents, he says: "They show the persistency displayed by Maverick in his efforts to deprive New England, and particularly Massachusetts, of the right of self-government which had so long been enjoyed here . . . The death of Maverick, which occurred between October 15, 1669 and May 15, 1676, did not bring repose to the people of Massachusetts. In the latter year a new assailant of their charter appeared in the person of Edward Randolph, whose assaults on their liberties did not cease till the charter was wrested from them, and the government under it came to an end May 20, 1686."<br />
<br />
Elbridge H. Goss, <em>The New England Magazine</em>, November, 1886</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-1777733712930570672021-10-16T08:02:00.002-07:002021-12-18T17:11:35.991-08:00The Planters at Winnisimmet<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAhjEf5OhrNymWHpWc47Mbt9lcp3JXxKcTiRcJPVp7MBcXC31lI0dJqBTk8PjMW6DipFGDOzdHoAwVdP8uc15hFHbLzoS8Y-wYV-LbhsTOgTUG19SVFv0YFmCr1FZ6hG-V1UnxD8_UpGQ0/s1600/palisade+fort.jpg"target="_blank" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="400" width="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAhjEf5OhrNymWHpWc47Mbt9lcp3JXxKcTiRcJPVp7MBcXC31lI0dJqBTk8PjMW6DipFGDOzdHoAwVdP8uc15hFHbLzoS8Y-wYV-LbhsTOgTUG19SVFv0YFmCr1FZ6hG-V1UnxD8_UpGQ0/s400/palisade+fort.jpg" style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"/></a></div>
<br />
<div align="left">Hutchinson, writing of 1626, says, "I find mention made of planters at Winisimet about the same time, who probably removed there from some of the other plantations." But who these planters were, when or whence they came, or of their manner of life we know nothing.<br />
<br />
In 1624 Captain John Smith explored the coast of New England, looked into Boston harbor, and named the Charles. Probably for more than a century before this, fishermen from Europe had found their way hither, repaired their vessels, and traded with the natives. But the first permanent settlement in Boston harbor was at Winnisimmet, perhaps in 1624, certainly not later than 1625, when and where was "fortified" the oldest permanent house within the Massachusetts Bay Colony.<br />
<br />
This was Samuel Maverick's Palisade house. The date of its fortification is given by himself. In A Briefe Discription of New England, about 1660, he says, "Two miles Sowth from Rumney Marsh on the North side of Mistick River is Winnisime which though but a few houses on it, yet deserves to be mencond One house yet standing there which is the Antientest house in the Massachusetts Government, a house which in the yeare 1625 I fortified with a Pillazado and fflankers and gunnes both belowe and above them which awed the Indians who at that time had a mind to Cutt off the English, They once faced it but receiveing a repulse never attempted it more although (as now they confesse) they repented it when about 2 yeares after they saw so many English come over."<br />
<br />
But whence or with whom Maverick came, or of his parentage, we know nothing. Those of his name lived in Devonshire, about forty miles from Exeter, and of these was the Rev. John Maverick, who came over in 1630, and settled in Dorchester, where he died in 1636. It has been said, but with little reason, that he was the father of Samuel Maverick. At one time it seemed probable that Maverick, Blackstone, and Walford were of Gorges' Company, which settled on Weston's deserted plantation at Weymouth; but Maverick came a year later.<br />
<br />
Samuel Maverick, born about 1602, was twenty-two years old when he came to America in 1624. Neither the family name of his wife Amias, nor the time or place of their marriage is known. Their children were Nathaniel, Mary, and Samuel. There was an Elias Maverick here in 1630, who became the owner of that part of Winnisimmet not included in Samuel Maverick's deed to Richard Bellingham in 1634/5; and a Moses Maverick at Marblehead, 1635, who paid rent for Noddle's Island in 1636, having charge of it during Samuel Maverick's absence in Virginia; and, as already said, an Antipas Maverick at Kittery, Maine, where lived Mary Hooke, Samuel Maverick's daughter. <br />
<br />
Among the earliest grants by the Great Council for New England was that to Robert Gorges, youngest son of Sir Ferdinando, December 30, 1622, described as "all that Part of the Main Land in <i>New-England</i> . . . situate, lying and being upon the North-East side of the Bay, called or knowne by the Name of <i>Massachuset</i>, . . . together with all the Shoars and Coasts along the Sea, for ten <i>English</i> Miles, in a streight Line towards the North-East, accounting one thousand, seven hundred and sixty yards to the Mile, and thirty <i>English</i> Miles (after the same rate) unto the Main Land through all the Breadth aforesaid, together with all the Islets and Islands, lying within three Miles of any Part of the said Lands. . . ." These bounds, from the Charles on the south ten miles north towards Salem and thirty miles into the country, included Charlestown (and the modern towns set off from her), Chelsea, Revere, Winthrop, and East Boston, but not necessarily Boston.<br />
<br />
A government was formed for this territory, and in 1624 Robert Gorges came over as lieutenant-general and governor, with a suite of officers, to set up his court. But Winnisimmet, the most eligible place within his grant, was not its chosen seat. On the other side of the bay, at Wessagusset, now Weymouth, Thomas Weston's deserted plantation, outside the limits of his grant, Gorges made his settlement, September, 1623. It did not prosper, and the next year Gorges, disappointed and in failing health, returned to England with a part of his company, leaving his affairs with an agent.<br />
<br />
It has been said that some of those whom Gorges left at Wessagusset made settlements in the bay, as Blackstone's at Boston, Walford's at Charlestown, and Samuel Maverick's at Winnisimmet. Frothingham thinks it not improbable that the planters at Winnisimmet, of whom Hutchinson speaks, were of the Gorges' colony; and Lewis writes that Gorges, who "came over in 1623, took possession of his lands, and probably commenced a settlement at Winnisimet, which was also included in his grant." Thornton also says that "Gorges had attempted to establish a colony within the bounds of his patent, which he had taken possession of in person, but was not successful." These statements, though not improbable, rest on no disclosed authority.<br />
<br />
Robert Gorges' lands, it is said, descended to his brother John, who, in January, 1628/9, conveyed to Sir William Brereton "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 [Gorges' grant ran ten miles to the northeast and thirty miles inland] northeast into the main land, from the mouth of the said Charles river, lying also in length twenty miles 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'"—later known as Noddle's Island and Hog Island. John Gorges, probably in 1628, leased a portion of this territory to John Oldham (murdered by the Connecticut Pequots in 1636) and John Dorrell. But the title of John Gorges was disregarded in the Massachusetts Bay Charter from the King of March 4, 1628/9.<br />
<br />
Both the deed and lease of John Gorges included old Chelsea, and the Company recognized some equitable interest, if not a legal title, in the settlers near Gorges' tract. There is no known deed of Winnisimmet to Samuel Maverick and John Blackleach, yet their possession of it was not disturbed and their deed to Richard Bellingham in 1635 was recognized as valid by Boston in 1640.<br />
<br />
<b>Appendix</b><br />
<br />
[All that is known of Samuel Maverick leads to the inference that he had some connection with the Gorges settlement. A young man of about twenty-two, of ability and education, given the title of "Mr." in the early records and grants, and possessed in 1630, at least, of some property, Samuel Maverick seems to have belonged to the Gorges group. About the time Rev. Mr. Morell returned to England, and Blackstone removed to Boston, he fortified a house at "Winnisime," which lay within the limits of the grant to Captain Robert Gorges, and, according to Johnson's Wonder Working Providence, he was assisted in so doing by David Thompson, who had been chosen by the Council for New England as their agent or attorney to take possession of the land in the name of the Council and deliver possession to Captain Robert Gorges. Possibly Captain Gorges, who came over in September, 1623, and spent the first winter at Weston's deserted plantation, outside his grant, finding there some huts already standing, on his return to England, in 1624, left directions with David Thompson, as his agent, to confirm the possession of the land by effecting a settlement within his grant, and that Winnisimmet was chosen for the purpose as good farming land with a southern aspect; it was also easily defensible, being surrounded by river, sea, and marshes, and possessing a valuable spring of fresh water not far from the shore on the southern slope of the hill. Also it "overlooked the anchorage ground of the inner harbor," and the outlet of the Mystic River,—as Blackstone's house did the outlet of the Charles,—and thus might prove a coign of vantage from which to control the trade of the bay.<br />
<br />
That David Thompson dwelt with his family on Thompson's Island cannot be positively asserted. According to the Court record, the son claimed, in 1648, that his father, in 1626, "did erect the forme of a habitat" there; if so, it was unsubstantial and, apparently, had disappeared before the coming of Winthrop in 1630. It was forgotten by William Blackstone in 1650, though he remembered the island well, mentioning that it alone of the islands in the bay possessed a natural harbor, and that the settlers about the bay kept their hogs there,—doubtless during the planting season. Thompson possessed, according to Maverick, "a Strong and Large House" enclosed "with a large and high Palizado and mounted Gunns" at the mouth of the Piscataqua. A statement made by Hubbard is of interest in this connection, for Samuel Maverick, who married Thompson's widow, did obtain in Noddle's Island (East Boston) and the Chelsea peninsula land which tallies with that which Hubbard mentions, and assuming that Thompson, accompanied by Maverick, came to the Bay under the directions of Captain Robert Gorges or the Council for New England, the statement is in accord with all existing knowledge of the matter and would tend to place Thompson with Maverick at Winnisimmet. As Hubbard had sources of information not open to investigators of the present day, his statements are worthy of careful consideration though he was not a "critical historian" of the modern type. He wrote that David Thompson removed to Massachusetts Bay a year (?) after his settlement at Piscataqua. "There he possessed himself of a fruitful island, and a very desirable neck of land, since confirmed to him or his heirs by the Court of the Massachusetts, upon the surrender of all his other interest in New England, to which yet he could pretend no other title, than a promise, or a gift to be conferred on him, in a letter by Sir Ferdinando Gorges, or some other member of the Council of Plymouth." Probably if Captain Robert Gorges or the Council for New England wished to induce David Thompson to leave his house at Piscataqua and six thousand acres of land with the "power of Government" therein, it would have been necessary to offer some greater inducements than Thompson's Island. As a trading station it was doubtless valuable, but as a place of residence during the many months of a New England winter, unattractive. The discovery recently made that Samuel Maverick married Thompson's widow and hence, on the arrival of the Massachusetts Bay colonists in 1630, controlled his claims, affords a clue to the explanation of what has previously seemed mysterious,—his extraordinarily large possessions and influential position. Noddle's Island alone contained twenty times as many acres as were allotted to Blackstone. Thomas Walford, at Charlestown, does not seem to have been treated with consideration.<br />
<br />
In connection with Hubbard's statement, with its suggestion as to the liberality of Massachusetts, it is of interest to note that Noddle's Island was granted to Maverick at the time when Sir Christopher Gardiner was intriguing against the Massachusetts Bay Company in England. Sir Christopher appeared in Bristol August 15, 1632, and immediately began to make trouble for the colonists, as appears in letters from Thomas Wiggin to "Master Downinge" and Sir John Cooke, dated August 31 and November 19. Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain Mason took the opportunity presented by these complaints, and those of Thomas Morton and Philip Ratcliffe, to petition the King against the Massachusetts Bay Government. The matter was considered by the Privy Council January 19, 1632/3, when the authority of the Government at Boston was confirmed. The result of the case before the Council was known in Massachusetts in May, 1633. In the meantime the Governor and Assistants, who met April 3, had granted to Maverick Noddle's Island, and to Blackstone fifty acres of land in Boston; and in July "the governour and assistants sent an answer to the petition of Sir Christopher Gardiner, and withal a certificate from the old planters concerning the carriage of affairs, etc." The following year, in April, 1634, when grants of land were made by the General Court to the leading men of the colony, John Oldham received five hundred acres. The grant to Maverick in April, 1633, was a perpetual lease at a nominal rent. The General Court, at the July session of 1631, had given the Governor and Assistants power to lease the islands in the bay; hence, apparently, the form of the grant.<br />
<br />
Almost the whole of modern Chelsea, about one thousand acres, traces its title back to three men,—Samuel Maverick, Elias Maverick, and John Blackleach. There was a difference of but two years in the ages of Samuel and Elias Maverick, and Elias was in Massachusetts as early as the summer of 1630, the time of the coming of Winthrop, and the keeping of written records. Yet he owned at Winnisimmet only one hundred acres. William Blackstone, a bachelor, received but fifty. According to the general regulations of the Company, a settler could claim fifty acres for each member of his household. The most probable explanation for the exceptionally large holdings of Samuel Maverick in Chelsea and East Boston is that through his marriage with Mrs. Thompson there became united under his control the claims of a settlement which followed in the wake of Captain Robert Gorges' visit to New England. Winnisimmet was evidently prosperous before it was sold by Samuel Maverick and John Blackleach in February, 1634/4. The vote of May, 1634, directing Winnisimmet to join itself either to Charlestown or to Boston mentions "howses" there. The first ferry across the harbor was kept by a resident there,—Thomas Williams <i>alias</i> Harris, who was recognized by the General Court as ferryman at the May session of 1631. The tax assessed on Winnisimmet in July, 1631, two years after the settlement of Charlestown and one year after the coming of Winthrop, was one-sixth that of Charlestown, Boston, or Roxbury. The first two levies were to meet the expenses of the colony. Further evidence on this point is given by the "Winthrop Map," about 1633. There Winnisimmet, Weaguscus (Weymouth), and Agawam (Ipswich) are represented by three houses; Salem, Saugus, Charlestown, New town (Cambridge), Dorchester by four houses; Watertown by five houses; Boston by a fort, a windmill, and five houses; Roxbury by eight houses. Single houses are also represented,—Ten Hills, Mr. Cradock's at Medford, and Mr. Humphrey's at Saugus. No house is pictured on Noddle's Island, which is there represented as a well wooded isle,—a reminder of the fact that during Maverick's ownership the inhabitants of Boston were permitted to cut wood there.<br />
<br />
The grant of Agamenticus, in December, 1631, seems further evidence of a connection between Gorges and Maverick. At the instigation of Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Norton, and with the assistance of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, a grant of land was made December 2, 1631, to "Ferdinando Gorges, sonn and heire of John Gorges of London" (elder brother and heir to the lands and claims of Captain Robert Gorges); to several men by the name of Norton in England; to Robert Rainsford, the younger, of London; and to eight men of New England, among whom was Samuel Maverick Esq. W<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">m</span></sup> Jeffryes gent and John Busley gent, both almost beyond a doubt members of Robert Gorges' Company, were among the eight New Englanders. Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Norton is found, as Mr. Walter Norton, among "Those who wish to be freemen," in October, 1630, and was admitted, the following May, as Captain Walter Norton; he settled at Agamenticus before 1634. Ralphe Glover Merch<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">t</span></sup>, dwelling here in 1630, but died before July, 1633, without having taken the freeman's oath. The other grantees in New England were Thomas Graves, engineer, Tho. Coppyn Esq and Joell Woolsey gent. Of the latter two nothing is known; their names were omitted at the confirmation of the grant, March 2, 1631/2. It is not improbable that a number of the old planters, in the main a remnant of the Gorges settlement, united to secure this grant, and that it was made in 1631 by the Council for New England to the heir of Captain Robert Gorges, and to them as a compensation for the injury to his and their interest caused by the grant to the Massachusetts Bay Company. John Gorges, it is known, had laid claim to the territory. He had ignored the grant to Sir Henry Rosewell and his associates of March 19, 1627/8, and signed a deed to Sir William Brereton in January, 1628/9, a deed declared by the Massachusetts Bay Company invalid, February 10, 1629/30. Although Maverick's name is in the list of those who wished to be freemen in October, 1630, he did not take the oath until October, 1632, after the grant of Agamenticus. Note also the visit of the bark Warwick, presumably the bark of that name fitted out by Gorges, to Winnisimmet, March 19 to April 9, 1632.<br />
<br />
In this connection, considering the question of a possible relationship between Samuel Maverick and Rev. John Maverick, it may be worthy of note that the latter with his followers chose for their settlement Dorchester, which lay incontestably beyond the limits of the grant to Captain Robert Gorges. If the southern bound of his patent was a line due west from the end of Pullen Point, the Boston peninsula lay north of this, Dorchester did not. When Sir Ferdinando Gorges was intriguing against the Colony in England in 1634, the Dorchester people and the congregation of Rev. Thomas Hooker, which settled first at Mount Wollaston but was ordered by the General Court to remove to New town, began to agitate a removal to Connecticut. The Endicott and Winthrop colonists were anxious to establish settlements within the grant to Captain Gorges, in order to hold the territory against him.<br />
<br />
Possibly, Maverick came to America with Captain Christopher Levett, who arrived at David Thompson's house at Piscataqua in the winter or early spring of 1623/4. Captain Levett found there Captain Robert Gorges,—who had arrived twenty days before in a little ship of Weston's that he had seized at Plymouth,—and learned that he had been appointed a member of Captain Gorges' Council. Levett staid at David Thompson's a month, complaining that the snow interfered with his surveys, and then, in two open boats, coasted with his men along the Maine shore in snow and fog as far as Sagadahock, seeking a place to establish a settlement. If Maverick was of this party, it would explain his entry under the heading Sagadahock quoted above. Levett, it is to be observed, bestowed especial praise upon Agamenticus, of which place Maverick was one of the grantees. Captain Levett left some of his men in New England, intending to return, but was unable to do so. Compare with Maverick's Briefe Discription, Captain Levett's A Voyage into New England.<br />
<br />
J. P. Baxter, in his volume on Christopher Levett, printed by the Gorges Society, states, on the authority of Frank W. Hackett, that Maverick married the widow of David Thompson, and that her father was William Cole of Plymouth, England. The following facts confirm this statement. Among the notarial records of William Aspinwall are copies of an indenture, dated April 1, 1615, between "W<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">m</span></sup> Cole of Plymouth in the County of Devon Shipwright" and "David Thompson of Plymouth aforesaid Apothecary & Ems his now wife" and "daughter of the said W<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">m</span></sup>"; also of a receipt, dated January 3, 1625/6, for money paid Cole by his "daughter Amies Thomson," for which he was to account to her husband, David Thomson. These papers were brought to Aspinwall, May 26, 1648, "by the said Amies or Emes." Mrs. Amias Maverick, in her letter of November 20, 1635, speaks of her "ffatherles children." This letter is addressed to Mr. Robert Trelawny, merchant at Plymouth, England, where the father of the writer seems to have been then living. December 25, 1643, John Thompson, who regained Thompson's Island as son and heir of David Thompson, assigned a bill to "my ffather m<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Samuell Maverick."]<br />
<br />
<b>Samuel Maverick's Palisade House</b><br />
<br />
Of Samuel Maverick at Winnisimmet between 1625 and the coming of the Puritans to Salem in 1628 we know little; nothing of Blackstone at Boston, or of Thompson in connection with the island of his name in the bay. They were young men; Thompson was probably married in England. They were Episcopalians, neighbors, and, with Thomas Walford at Charlestown, apparently sole possessors of the lands in the upper bay. At Winnisimmet, in 1625, Samuel Maverick "fortified" his Palisade House—"The Antientest house in the Massachusetts Government." In this house he entertained Governor Winthrop and his party of exploration when they came up from Salem into Boston Bay, June 17, 1630; and here, August 16, 1631, some of Maverick's friends,—among whom was Edward Gibbons (his neighbor up the Charles, in what is now Somerville) afterwards a noted man,—fell under the displeasure of the Court of Assistants and were fined "for abuseing themselues disorderly with drinkeing to much stronge drinke aboard the Frendshipp, & at M<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Mauacke his howse at Winettsem<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">t</span></sup>." It was while Maverick was living in this house, as Winthrop records, December 5, 1633, that "John Sagamore died of the small pox, and almost all his people; (above thirty buried by Mr. Maverick of Winesemett in one day.) . . . Among others, Mr. Maverick of Winesemett is worthy of 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."<br />
<br />
The precise site of Samuel Maverick's Palisade House is not now determinable. Wood's Map of 1633 places Winnisimmet at the confluence of Mystic and Island End rivers, on the estate not included in the Maverick-Blackleach deed to Richard Bellingham of February 27, 1634/5. Remains of an ancient ferry-way, recently existing near the United States pier on the old Samuel Maverick estate, indicate that the Winnisimmet Ferry of 1631, granted to him in 1634, had its northern landing westerly of Chelsea Bridge, not far from the supposed site of his house. Nothing now marks more precisely its site unless, possibly, some old elms.<br />
<br />
Here Samuel Maverick lived from 1625 until the erection of a house at Noddle's Island. On this island, which the Court granted him on certain conditions, April 1, 1633, his wife is found, November 20, 1635, during her husband's absence in Virginia. From this time his history belongs to East Boston.<br />
<br />
The life and character of the first permanent settler of Winnisimmet, and one of the earliest in Massachusetts Bay, are of interest and, after 1634, fairly well known. But his pursuits, as those of Blackstone, Walford, and Thompson, while sole occupants of the upper bay, are mainly conjectural. From known facts, however, we may infer that Maverick traded for furs with the Indians and also with sporadic settlers and fishermen along the coast; he seems to have chosen his residence with reference to such trade, for which it was especially favorable. He was surrounded by Indians, and once incurred their hostility, but finally gained their friendship. At the mouth of the Mystic, and not far from that of the Charles,—rivers rising in the most populous seats of the Indians,—he was near the point which they passed in going to Revere Beach, where lately existing shell heaps indicated their presence in great numbers. In 1630 he owned a pinnace which, with Winthrop and Dudley, he sent to Narrangansett for corn. Though living in New England, Maverick retained his English connection,—for about 1630 he, "S<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Ferdinando Gorges, M<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Godfrey, Alderman ffoote of Bristol" and others were grantees of York in Maine, and of lands adjacent, on which "at great Cost and Charges wee setled many families."<br />
<br />
Maverick's conduct and writings evince a strong and disciplined mind. He rendered essential services to Winthrop's company when sorely needed; and his hospitality, courteous bearing, and human acts were remembered years later, even when ecclesiastical animosities had arrayed the colonists into hostile parties, in one of which he was conspicuous. Though, as he said of himself, as well as of some others, he was in "no way dissonant from yet best Reformation in England, and desireing alsoe to have a body of Lawes to be Established and published to prevent Arbitrary Tiranny," yet they were deprived of English immunities, subjected to oppressive fines, imprisonment, and indignities, which excuse any resentment afterwards shown towards the government which inflicted them. He died between October 15, 1669, and May 15, 1676.<br />
<br />
The later history of Samuel Maverick's estate at Winnisimmet not included in the Maverick-Blackleach deed to Bellingham, and now belonging to the United States, is as follows: "Upward of twenty yeares" before 1662, Samuel Maverick sold twenty acres to William Stitson by deed only known as recited in the latter's conveyance of the same to Elias Maverick in 1662. There is no known conveyance of the remaining hundred acres, but as they were occupied by Elias Maverick, and disposed of by his will, his title is unquestionable.<br />
<br />
William Stitson, from 1632, lived in Charlestown, where he was of the church, March 22, 1633, and deacon from October, 1659, until his death,—thirty-one years and five months, as is inscribed on his gravestone. He was a freeman June 11, 1633, of the Artillery Company 1648, and representative 1667-1671. His wife Elizabeth, widow of Thomas Harris, died February 16, 1670, aged ninety-three; and he married the widow of Captain Francis Norton August, 1670. His will is dated April 12, 1688, and he died April 11, 1691, in his ninety-first year. Though chiefly resident of Charlestown, I have given some particulars of his life, because he probably lived at one time at Winnisimmet, on the Samuel Maverick estate, a part of which he certainly owned. In 1631 Thomas Harris kept the ferry between Winnisimmet, Charlestown, and Boston. As has been said, Stitson married his widow, and continued the ferry. He had acquired an interest in it before 1635, when he sold it to Richard Bellingham, owner of the reversion. His allotment at Pullen Point was January 8, 1637/8, on what grounds unless he was then a citizen of Boston, it is difficult to conceive. Besides, in Oliver's adjoining allotment, he is called "William Stidson of Wynesemitt:" Nor is his name found among the inhabitants of Charlestown, January, 1634/5. He may have been then living at Winnisimmet, though November 30, 1640, he was styled as of Charlestown.<br />
<br />
Elias Maverick, born about 1604, died September 8, 1684, aged eighty. Probably he was a brother of Samuel Maverick, and possibly came over with him in 1624. Found at Winnisimmet in 1630, he was admitted to the Charlestown church February 9, 1632/3, and took the Freeman's oath the following June. In 1635 or earlier, it would seem, he married Anne Harris, daughter of Thomas and Elizabeth. She joined the same church October, 1639, and died at Reading September 7, 1697, aged eighty-four. Her gravestone is at Reading. He was of the Artillery Company, 1654. He was buried at Charlestown, where his gravestone was lately, but not now, to be seen. Wyman gives him no estate in Charlestown, nor does it appear that he ever lived there. For the most of his adult life he lived where he died, on the westerly part of the Maverick estate (now belonging to the United States). Winnisimmet Ferry, starting from his grounds, touched at Charlestown, where he found his most convenient church relations. That he was a legal resident of Boston January 8, 1637/8, is clear from his allotment at Pullen Point. He owned twenty acres at Hog Island. At his death, in 1684, he owned that part of Winnisimmet not included in the Maverick-Blackleach deed of 1635 to Richard Bellingham. By the deed from Stitson to him, April 8, 1662, it appears that he then owned the westerly part of this estate. But there is no recorded conveyance from Samuel to Elias Maverick; and the conjecture is that at some time before 1642 title was by deed unrecorded. <br />
<br />
The children of Elias Maverick, presumably born at Winnisimmet, were, according to Wyman, (1) John, born 3, baptised 27 (12 mo.) 1635/6. (2) Abigail, Aug. 10 (14) 1637; m. Matthew Clark. (3) Elizabeth, 2 (4) 1639; m. John Johnson. (4) Sarah, 20 (12) 1640/1; m. [Samuel] Walton. Elias 17 (1) 1643/4. (6) Peter, of Boston. (Mary) Jane, m. Aaron Way.jnr of Winnisimmet. (8) Ruth, m. Francis Smith, son of Lieut. John Smith of Winnisimmet, 1679. (9) Paul, b. June 10, 1657. (10) Rebecca, Jan 1, 1659/60; m. [George] Thomas. Elias Maverick's estate at Winnisimmet remained in possession of his heirs until 1709, when it passed to John Brintnall, who for fifteen years had been lessee of the ferry and keeper of the adjacent inn. As early as 1740, probably much earlier, the Maverick estate had been divided into two farms by a line running from the Mystic River northerly over the hill; and between 1740 and 1753 both farms were sold by John Brintnall to his son Benjamin. In 1769 Benjamin sold the westerly farm, and in 1772 the easterly, to Jonathan Green.<br />
<br />
January 31, 1791, Green sold his estate to Aaron Dexter for £900. It then consisted of a hundred and sixteen acres, on which were two dwelling-houses, four barns, and out-houses; "Reserving nevertheless out of the Premises" an acre and a half of "Marsh Land where a Dam or Dike now is, from said Island River to the Upland of the Premises;—And also saving and reserving twelve feet in wedth on each side of the said Dam all the way from the said Island End River to said Upland, Adjoining to said Acre and an half of Marsh."<br />
<br />
Dr. Dexter sold to Richard Williams, Samuel Chittenden, and others several lots on the westerly side of Broadway, from Beacon Street southerly; and for $18,000 the remainder (one hundred fifteen acres) to the United States, September 22, 1823, confirmed December 4, 1826. The Naval Hospital was erected in 1835, and the Marine Hospital in 1857.<br />
<br />
<b>Maverick's Place of Residence</b><br />
<br />
Who "Mr. Maverick of Winesemmet" was, and the site of his Palisade House, have troubled historians. Edward Johnson's Wonder-Working Providence says: "On the North side of <i>Charles</i> River, they [Winthrop's company in 1630] landed neare a small Island, called Noddells Island, where one Mr. <i>Samuel Mavereck</i> then living, a man of a very loving a curteous behaviour, very ready to entertaine strangers, yet an enemy to the Reformation in hand, being strong for the Lordly Prlaticall power, on this Island he had built a small Fort with the helpe of one Mr. <i>David Tompson</i>, placing therein foure Murtherers to protect him from the <i>Indians</i>"; but see Samuel Maverick's Palisade House, by Mellen Chamberlain. The question was settle by Maverick himself. [In order to reconcile the statement of Johnson that the fort was built by Maverick on Noddle's Island (East Boston), and Maverick's own statement, that in 1660 it was still standing at Winnisimmet (Chelsea), it has been suggested that the term Winnisimmet included the island (East Boston) as well as the mainland (Chelsea). There is no warrant for such an assumption. When Maverick became a resident of the island, he called himself Samuel Maverick of Noddle's Island, and his wife, in November, 1635, nine months after the sale of Winnisimmet to Richard Bellingham, dated her letter from "Nottells Iland in Massachusetts Bay." Before 1635, the reference is always to Winnisimmet in connection with Mr. Maverick; after 1635, to Noddle's Island.<br />
<br />
It seems certain that Samuel Maverick was living at Winnisimmet when the colonists arrived in 1630. Winthrop wrote, under date of December 24, 1630, that three of his servants were driven by the wind upon Noddle's Island and forced to spend the night there without fire or food; this would not have been the case if Samuel Maverick had been living then on the island instead of at Winnisimmet. In July, 1631, Noddle's, Thompson's, and other islands were placed in the hands of the Governor and Assistants, "to be lett & disposed of by them to helpe towards publique charges, & that noe pson w<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">t</span></sup>soeu<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> shall make any vse or benefitt of any of the said ilelands, by putting on cattell, felling wood, raiseing slate, &c, without leaue from the Gou<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">nr</span></sup> & Assistants for the time being"; and in April, 1632, the latter gave to John Perkins the exclusive right to shoot or trap fowls on Noddle's Island. This action would not have been taken if Samuel Maverick had been living there. An especial grant was necessary to insure Noddle's Island to Samuel Maverick, and this was not made until April, 1633. In the meantime Winnisimmet was already in his possession, confirmed to him, presumably, by the officers of the Company under its regulations as to "old planters." Samuel Maverick was living on Noddle's Island when Edward Johnson settled at Charlestown in 1636; this may account for the statement in the Wonder-Working Providence.<br />
<br />
As to Winthrop, Johnson says he landed "neare a small Island,"—presumably at Mr. Maverick's, as he was entertained by him. Although the natural inference from the passage quoted is that Maverick was then living on the island, Johnson may not have intended to convey the idea. Presumably Samuel Maverick's residence on Noddle's Island dates from the year 1635; it could not have been earlier than the summer of 1633. Note also in this connection that the Winthrop map, about 1633, pictures "Nottles Island" as wooded, and places no house thereon, while a group of houses appears at Winnisimmet.<br />
<br />
The following order by the General Court which met March 4, 1634/5, is of interest in this connection: "It is ordered, that M<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Sam<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">ll</span></sup> Mafiacke shall, before the last of Decemb<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> nexte, remove his habitacon, for himself & his ffamily, to Boston, &, in the meane tyme, shall not giue intertainem<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">t</span></sup> to any strangers for longer tyme then one night, without leaue from some Assistant; & all this to be done vnder the penalty of c<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">l</span></sup>. Considering Maverick's reputation for hospitality (Josselyn writes "Mr Samuel Maverick . . . the only hospitable man in all the Country, giving entertainment to all Comers <i>gratis</i>"), and the fact that the ferry on the road to Lynn had its landing on his grounds, that he had easy access to the shipping in the harbor, and owned ships himself, it is not surprising that he became an object of suspicion to the colonial and town authorities at a time when the charter seemed in danger, the arrival of Sir Ferdinando Gorges as general Governor of New England was feared, and the colony was being fortified to resist him.<br />
<br />
In the years 1634 and 1635 there was a strong movement in England for the abrogation of the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the appointment of a royal governor,—a movement in which Sir Ferdinando Gorges and the Council for New England participated. In February, 1633/4, an order was issued to Mr. Cradock to bring the patent of the Massachusetts Bay Company before the Council. April 28, 1634, a commission was issued by the King to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and nine others, giving them powers to control over all New England, including the right to remove governors and revoke letters patent "surreptitiously" obtained or "hurtful" to the "prerogative royall." Three days later a commission for a general governor of New England was issued, Sir Ferdinando Gorges being the governor chosen. A ship was building to carry the governor to New England. In September, 1634, Winthrop recorded that warnings from friends in England—to the effect that ships and soldiers were preparing "to compel us, by force, to receive a new governour, and the discipline of the church of England, and the laws of the commissioners,—occasioned the magistrates and deputies to hasten our fortifications"; a statement amply substantiated by the records of the General Court for the session beginning in September, 1634. At this same Court, as it happened, Winnisimmet was placed under the jurisdiction of Boston.<br />
<br />
In January, 1634/5, the ministers of the Massachusetts Colony, convened at the call of the Governor and Assistants, advised resistance to the rumoured governor "if we were able." The same Court which ordered Maverick to remove his habitation to Boston appointed a Board of War with extensive powers, including the right of life and death over "any that they shall judge to be enemyes to the comonwealth," and to order out troops in case of war; ordered that an oath of fidelity should be taken by all men over sixteen years of age; appointed a beacon on Sentry Hill and a watchman from April to October; decreed that the fort at Castle Island should be fully finished, ordnance mounted and the like before any other fortification should be proceeded with; and forbade any one to visit a ship without leave from an Assistant until it had lain at anchor twenty-four hours, and made it "apparent y<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">t</span></sup> shee is a ffriend," under pain of confiscation of all his estate.<br />
<br />
With such an excitement brewing, the town and colonial authorities, not unnaturally, looked with suspicion on Mr. Maverick, because of his early relations with Sir Ferdinando Gorges. Apparently he found his six months' experience under the jurisdiction of Boston unpleasant, and decided to sell his lands at Winnisimmet. Noddle's Island was not placed under the jurisdiction of Boston until March 9, 1636/7. In the meantime the Massachusetts Bay Government could, at this crisis, scarcely tolerate a man of doubtful loyalty in a place so accessible to the ships in the harbor as Noddle's Island. At least Maverick did convey to Richard Bellingham the lands at Winnisimmet, February 25, 1634/5, and the General Court, which met a week later, ordered him to remove his habitation to Boston. It is interesting to note that Blackstone, about this time, left Boston and settled in Cumberland, Rhode Island, within the limits assigned to Lord Gorges in the division of land among themselves by the Council for New England. Also the General Court which ordered Maverick to remove to Boston expressed a desire that Mr. Allerton should remove from Marble Harbour, and ordered him to appear at the next General Court, at which time, in May, 1635, it was recorded that Mr. Allerton had given his housing at Marble Head to his son-in-law, Moses Maverick, who also managed, apparently, the estate of Samuel Maverick during the latter's absence in Virginia the following winter, as he then paid to the General Court the rent for Noddle's Island.<br />
<br />
But the danger passed. A few weeks after the order directing Maverick to remove his habitation to Boston, that is, on June 16, 1635, Winthrop recorded that it was certified by "a letter from the Lord Say, and report of divers passengers," that the "great ship to send over the general governour . . . being launched, fell in sunder in the midst." Two months later, August 17, 1635, a ship arrived, bringing word that as it lay near Bristol, on May 27, Sir Ferdinando Gorges came on board, asked if there were passengers bound for Massachusetts, and assured the Rev. Daniel Maud of "his good will to the people there in the Bay, and promised that, if he ever came there, he would be a true friend unto them." Inasmuch as the Council for New England was still seeking the revocation of the charter of the Colony, such promises were of somewhat dubious value, but the destruction of the ship which should have brought him was a certain boon. The General Court, which met September 3, 1635, voted, "The order that enioyned M<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Sam<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">ll</span></sup> Mafiacke to remove his habitacon to Boston before the last of Decemb<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> nexte is repealed." It also rescinded the order as to visiting ships in the harbor. In November, Mrs. Amias Maverick was living on Noddle's Island, as she dated a letter there on November the 20th.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note, however, that Samuel Maverick went that autumn to Virginia and remained there for nearly a year, not returning until August 3, 1636. Boston was apparently willing to welcome his return, as, under date of April, 1636, Winthrop wrote there was some thought of sending the "Blessing" to Virginia "for Mr. Maverick and his corn." Certainly by the summer of 1636 all danger from Sir Ferdinando Gorges had passed. George Vaughan wrote from London in April that he had no encouragement as to New England, that "they were quite could in that matter, Mr. Mason being ded and Sr Ferdinando minding only his one divityon."<br />
<br />
<b>Samuel Maverick and Dixy Bull</b><br />
<br />
One of Maverick's pinnaces was taken by Dixy Bull, the noted pirate, against whom an expedition was fitted out, and for which another of his pinnaces was chosen. The cost was "Paid by a bill from Mr. Samuel Maverick, being husband and merchant of the pinnace, for a month's wages, to Elias Maverick, £2. Paid for victuals upon his account £2 5<i>s</i>." Samuel Maverick had been one of the grantees of Agamenticus in December, 1631. When the patent was confirmed in March, 1632, some names were dropped and four were added,—"Seth Bull, Cittizen and Skinner of London, Dixie Bull, Matthew Bradley of London, Gen<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">t</span></sup>, and John Bull, Son of the said Seth." Immediately thereafter, apparently, a ship was sent forth commanded by Dixie Bull; but it was seized by the French, if the report which came to Winthrop may be trusted, and Bull turned pirate. Possibly this explains Winthrop's record in December, 1632, that the pirates, besides promising future good behavior, "had given another pinnace in exchange for that of Mr. Maverick, and as much beaver and otter as it was worth more." A few months later, however, Maverick's pinnace was sent out "to take Dixie Bull." Winthrop reported that "after she had been forth two months, she came home, having not found him. After, we heard he was gone to the French." Clap said: "These Men fled Eastward, and <i>Bull</i> himself got into <i>England</i>; but God destroyed this wretched Man."<br />
<br />
Governor Dudley wrote to the Countess of Lincoln: "About the end of October this year, 1630, I joined with the Governor and Mr. Maverecke in sending out our pinnace to the Narragansetts, to trade for corn to supply our wants; but after the pinnace had doubled Cape Cod, she put into the next harbour she found, and there meeting with Indians, who showed their willingness to truck, she made her voyage there, and brought us a hundred bushels of corn, at about four shillings a bushel, which helped us somewhat." March 14, 1632, "The bark Warwick arrived at Natascott, having been at Pascataquack and at Salem to sell corn, which she brought from Virginia"; March 19, "she came to Winysemett"; and on April 9, "the bark Warwick, and Mr. Maverick's pinnace, went out towards Virginia." August 3, 1636, "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 pinnaces was about forty tons, of cedar, built at Barbathes, and brought to Virginia by Capt. Powell, who there dying, she was sold for a small matter."<br />
<br />
<b>Maverick’s Descendants</b><br />
<br />
[Matthew Clark, who married Abigail Maverick, June 4, 1655, lived first at Winnisimmet, where a daughter, Abigail, was born June 17, 1656; later at Marblehead. John Johnson, who married Elizabeth, October 15, 1656, was of Charlestown and Haverhill; she died March 22, 1673/4. Peter Maverick and John Maverick (who married Catharine Skipper, April 9, 1656) lived in Boston. The latter was described in deeds as a shipwright, owned a house at the North End of the town, and died before 1680. James, Elias, Jr., and Paul Maverick lived at Winnisimmet. These are the names on such tax lists as have been preserved: 1674, Elias Maverick and Elias Maverick, Jr.; 1681, the same, also Paul Maverick; 1687 and 1688, Widow Maverick and Elias Maverick; 1692, Elias and Paul Maverick; 1695, Paul Maverick; 1702, Paul Maverick and John Pratt. In 1687, the Widow Maverick was taxed for one poll, two horses, two oxen, six cattle, twenty sheep, and two swine; Elias, for one poll, two horses, nine sheep, and one swine. His housing was valued at three-fifths that of the western farmhouse. In 1702, John Pratt was taxed for one negro man, two cows, twelve sheep, and three horses; Paul Maverick, for three cows, twenty sheep, and one horse. As “Sea bookes and Instruments” and over a tun of logwood appear in the inventory of the estate of James Maverick, taken in 1671 by two of the neighbors at Winnisimmet, and as Elias Maverick, Jr., was described in legal documents as a “ship-wright,” it would seem that the family utilized their frontage on the sea and Island End River in addition to cultivating their farm.<br />
<br />
Elias Maverick, Jr., married Margaret Sherwood December 8, 1669. She was admitted to the Charlestown church August 8, 1675. The children recorded to them are: Elias, born November 4, 1670; Margaret, married John Pratt, July 29, 1691; Elizabeth.<br />
<br />
According to Wyman, all three were baptized August 22, 1675. Abigail, baptized September 24, 1676; Samuel baptized August 14, 1687. Elias Maverick died before November 2, 1696, as on that date his son-in-law, John Pratt, was appointed administrator of his estate, and five months later, guardian of his son Samuel. In September, 1697, three children were living,—Margaret Pratt, Abigail Maverick, and Samuel Maverick.<br />
<br />
In 1678, Elias Maverick, Sr., conveyed to his son Elias and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten, the house in which the son then dwelt, with the land which Elias, the father, bought of William Stitson. In January, 1695/6, Elias Maverick gave twenty acres of land near this house by deed of gift to his son-in-law, John Pratt, of Boston, inn-holder. In the tax list of 1695, both Elias Maverick, Sr., and John Pratt appear in division number one (the North End) of Boston, yet the inventory of the estate of Elias Maverick was taken by men of Winnisimmet. John Pratt was host of the well-known Salutation Inn, near the landing-place of Winnisimmet Ferry in Boston. Thence he removed, early in the autumn of 1697, “to Winnysimtt into his owne House standing night y<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">e</span></sup> fferry, there—where-into he hath removed his wines beare and other necessaryes for y<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">e</span></sup> accommodation of man & horse.” He petitioned the Suffolk “Court of Quarter Sessions for the Peace,” October 5, 1697, for permission to continue at Winisimmet his vocation as innkeeper. He increased his lands by purchase, and February 8, 1708/9, with his wife Margaret, conveyed to John Brintnall, for £400, forty-five acres, including the easterly homestead with twenty-six acres. He was then described as of Salem, innholder. <br />
<br />
Paul Maverick married Jemimah Smith, daughter of Lieut. John Smith of the adjoining Ferry Farm on the Bellingham estate. He owned the covenant at Charlestown, September 11, 1681. His children were: Moses, born February 8, 1680/81, baptized September 11, 1681, died January 28, 1685; Jotham, baptized October 28, 1683; John baptized, aged one year, August 14, 1687. Paul Maverick received by the will of his father twenty-five acres, and acquired, by payment of legacies to his sisters, the western farmhouse and fifteen additional acres. March 1, 1708/9, he conveyed to his son, John Maverick, joiner, the westerly homestead with forty acres, the consideration being £300. June 17, the latter conveyed the same to John Brintnall (his uncle) for £440. In June, 1709, Jemimah Maverick applied, in the name of her husband, Paul Maverick, for a license to sell strong drink as an innholder from “Mr. Hillier’s House in Middle Street,” Boston, it having been previously a licensed house. She stated that her husband was absent at sea and that she wished the business to retrieve losses in his estate. At the January term of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, in 1709-10, Jemimah Maverick was fined for selling strong drink without license. Later she married Henry Richman, of Boston.<br />
<br />
James, son of Peter Maverick, received from his grandfather Elias fifteen acres of the farm at Winnisimmet. From a deposition taken in 1718, and recorded at the Suffolk Registry, it is learned that he was a ferryman, and lived at Winnisimmet, where two children were born to him and his wife Hester,—Martha, born April 17, 1693, and James, born, the deposition states, October 2, 1699. Presumably the latter date is a mistake of the copyist, as James Maverick must have been twenty-one years of age when he joined in the conveyance to Brintnall, November 1, 1715. July 16, 1703, Hester Mavrick of Lynn, widow of James Mavrick late of Boston, presented a petition to the Governor and Council for permission to sell a part of her husband’s estate, the half “of a Small Plot of Ground” with “a little old house on it” on Wing Lane in Boston. She said that her “husband did about Eight years Since go out of this Port in a Voyage bound or London, & was then taken by the ffrench, & Since not heard of by any of his Relations, he Left me two Children a boy & a girl, with uery Small matters to Support & maintain them.” The house was not sold until 1728. August 7, 1705, the widow married Benjamin Whitney, and November 1, 1715, Benjamin and Esther Whitney of Framingham, and her children James and Martha Maverick, conveyed to John Brintnall fifteen acres lying between the lands conveyed to Brintnall by John Pratt and by the son of Paul Maverick; the consideration was £50, and there was no mention of buildings. Later Martha Maverick married Thomas Bellows of Southboro.]<br /><br />
Mellen Chamberlain, <i>A Documentary History of Chelsea</i>, 1908</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-70414981246651250952021-10-16T08:00:00.001-07:002021-12-18T17:12:16.953-08:00History of East Boston.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJQBkSrYJZgcAhZ7RLr57H2Bue9EHFxTlq-3vfrEyuikhcNEkgRQCeZGml98JRg94Tj37EnQc6WhXuE6wdpOm9ETn5Pc7jF-oB_Vw_InZZCFP60UWgf6HGH2uBipywMwjT_aqMsAIXJCpR/s1600/noddles-island.jpg"target="_blank" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="259" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJQBkSrYJZgcAhZ7RLr57H2Bue9EHFxTlq-3vfrEyuikhcNEkgRQCeZGml98JRg94Tj37EnQc6WhXuE6wdpOm9ETn5Pc7jF-oB_Vw_InZZCFP60UWgf6HGH2uBipywMwjT_aqMsAIXJCpR/s400/noddles-island.jpg"style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"/></a></div>
<br />
<div align="left"><a href="#samuel-maverick-grantee-of-noddles-island-his-ancestry">Samuel Maverick, Grantee of Noddle's Island; His Ancestry.</a> <span style="color:#999;"> · </span> <a href="#samuel-maverick-his-personal-history">Samuel Maverick; His Personal History.</a> <span style="color:#999;"> · </span> <a href="#samuel-maverick-his-ecclesiastical-troubles">Samuel Maverick; His Ecclesiastical Troubles.</a> <span style="color:#999;"> · </span> <a href="#noddles-island-place-of-refuge-to-baptists">Noddle's Island a Place of Refuge to the Baptists.</a> <span style="color:#999;"> · </span> <a href="#samuel-maverick-royal-commissioner">Samuel Maverick, Royal Commissioner.</a> <span style="color:#999;"> · </span> <a href="#maverick-family">The Maverick Family.</a> <span style="color:#999;"> · </span> <a href="#ownership-traced-from-samuel-maverick-to-samuel-shrimpton">The Ownership Traced From Samuel Maverick to Samuel Shrimpton.</a>
<br />
<br />
<b>The Early Condition, Name, and Ownership of Noddle's Island.</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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—<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"New streets invade the country; and he strays,<br />
Lost in strange paths, still seeking, and in vain,<br />
For ancient landmarks, or the lonely lane,<br />
Where oft he played at Crusoe when a boy."</span></blockquote>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."<br />
<br />
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; <i>together with all the islands so-lying within three miles of any part of the said land.</i><br />
<br />
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 <i>two islands lying next unto the shore between Nahant and Charles river, the bigger called 'Brereton,' and the lesser 'Susanna</i>.'"<br />
<br />
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 <i>Hog island</i>, afterwards received the name of <i>Belle isle</i> 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 <i>Breed's island</i>.<br />
<br />
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 <i>Noddle's Island</i>.<br />
<br />
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 <i>William Noddle</i>, 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 <i>Noddle's Island</i>. 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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>Noddle's Island</i> 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 <i>Noddle's Island</i> 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 <i>Noddle's Island</i>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>bisquet for a bass</i>.].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <br />
Robert Gorges was loose and uncertain, and no use was ever made of it.<br />
<br />
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 "<i>England's Worthies under whom all the Civil and Bloudy Warres since Anno</i> 1642 <i>to Anno</i> 1647 <i>are related</i>."<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
This "bigger island," which this famous Sir William named for himself in 1628-9, was in the following year called <i>Noddle's Island</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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 P<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>son 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."<br />
<br />
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 <i>fowle</i> upon Pullen poynte or Noddles Ileland, but that the said places shall be reserved for John Perkins to take fowle with <i>netts</i>." 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 <i>quid pro quo</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Says the journal, under the date of the 2d of September, 1795: "Tom (Williams) went out with his gun, and returned at one with <i>six dozen birds</i>, 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 <i>three dozen</i> more."<br />
<br />
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.</div><br><div align="justify"><a name="samuel-maverick-grantee-of-noddles-island-his-ancestry"><b>Samuel Maverick, Grantee of Noddle's Island; His Ancestry.</b></a> <br />
<br />
On the 1st of April, 1633, the record states, that—<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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 <em>Samuel Maverick</em>, 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 <em>Samuel</em>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The most prominent of any of the name was <em>Samuel Maverick</em>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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 "<em>First Classis</em>" of ministers, which "classis," he says, "shall be of such as were in the <em>actual exercise of their ministry when they left England</em>, and were the Instruments of bringing the Gospel into this Wilderness, and of settling Churches here according to the Order of the <em>Gospel</em>." [Mather's Magnalia.] It is, of course, not probable that Mr. Maverick would have been spoken of as in the <em>actual service</em> 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 "<em>eminent and noted ministers</em>" who came over in Winthrop's fleet, mentions "<em>Mr. John Maverick</em>, and Mr. John Warham, who <em>had been ministers in the west country</em>. 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 "<em>good old Mr. Maverick</em>." [New England Memorial, p. 111.] This point will have its weight upon another page.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The meeting at the hospital, and other attending circumstances, are thus recorded in the quaint old style:—<br />
<br />
"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 <em>Mr. Maverick</em> & 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.]<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
The company set sail from Plymouth on the 20th of March, 1629-30, in "that great ship of four hundred tons," the <em>Mary and John</em>. 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.<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
At Charlestown the boatmen found "some wigwams, <em>some few English, with an old planter who can speak Indian, and one house</em>." [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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.] <br />
<br />
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, "<em>only blackened the thatch of the house a little, and signed the parson's clothes</em>." 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!<br />
<br />
This was the first meeting-house built in Dorchester, and was erected on Allen's Plain for the <em>first associated church in England which came to this country as such</em>, 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, <em>cum privilegio,</em> 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.<br />
<br />
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 y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> 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 <em>jealousy</em> 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 y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Indians, but where they had builte; intending only (if they could not remove them) that they should have but a smale moyety left to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> house, as to a single family; whose doings and proceedings were conceived to be very injurious, to attempt not only to intrude themselves into y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> 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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.</div><br><a name="samuel-maverick-his-personal-history"></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><div align="justify"><b>Samuel Maverick; His Personal History.</b><br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"Samuel Mauerick aged 63 yeares or thereabouts, deposeth that sometime last yeare, having some speech w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> Samuell Bennet Sen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of Lynne, as to a match intended betweene his son Sam<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>l</sup></span> [Suffolk Deeds, Lib. 4, fol. 328.] Benett Jun<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> & a dau. of Capt. Wm. Hargrave of Horsey doune Mariner. The s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Bennet sen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> did promise that if his sonne should marry w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Hargraues dau. he would make over to him the house he now liues in with barnes stables, lands &c. belonging to s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> farme & £80 of stock, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> this prouisoe that s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Bennet Jun<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> 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 w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>out his consent dureing his life. Thus much he testifieth and further saith not. <em>Boston Dec<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> 7th </em>1665 Taken upon oath the 8th Dec. 1665<br />
Samuel Mavericke<br />
Before Thomas Clarke, Commiss.<br />
[John Gifford Aged 40 yeares, testifies to the same affair.]"<br />
[Suffolk Deeds, Lib. 4, fol. 328.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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 <em>Mr. Samuel Maverich, one of his Majestie's Commissioners</em>) Mr. Warham Ministers."<br />
<br />
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 <em>advanced in life</em> 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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
This calling Samuel Maverick "<em>a clergyman</em>, &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), <em>Samuel Maverick, at Noddle's Island</em>, 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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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 <em>invention</em> 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 <em>locus in quo</em>, 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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Says the quaint old writer:—<br />
<br />
"The Twelth of July (June?) Anno Dom. 1630. John Winthrop, Esq; and the assistants, arrived with the Patent for the <em>Massachusetts</em>, 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.]"<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"In 1637, there were not many houses in the Town of <em>Boston</em>, 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."<br />
<br />
The "Observations," after speaking of the landing of "Winthrop" and his associates in July, 1630, says: "The <em>Eagle</em> was called the <em>Arabella,</em> [See an interesting note in Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 70, on this name Arabella.] in honor of the <em>Lady Arabella, </em>wife to <em>Isaac Johnson </em>Esq; they set down first upon <em>Noddle's Island, </em>the <em>Lady Arabella abode at Salem.</em>" [Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. III. 3d Series, p. 377.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.:—<br />
<br />
"SIR,—I would intreate yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> that if I should not come for New England that yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> would be pleased to demand of M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Richard Parsons the summe of one hundred and sixty pounds sterling w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> 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 w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> hath promised to be heare the next Spring w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> is indebted vnto me the summe of two hundred pounds sterling w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> is to be payed in New England, & likewise I left a smale Vessel at Providence w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> 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 S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Christophers w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> my Atturney betwixt fourty and fifty thousand weight of Tobacco w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> he did promise to bring or send to yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> in New England w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> if he do I would intreate yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> to receiue for my Vse; either in Whole or in part as he can get it into his hands.<br />
<br />
"My Atturney in S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Christopher is Captaine William Eppes; & my Atturneyes at Providence is M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Fountaine & Mr. Evenn Morgan the Secretary w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>cg</sup></span> if M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Parsons do take any purchase and do come from thence yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> may demand the Covenants w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> is betwixt him & me for the fourth part of what I haue w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> him: And likewise one M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Steward is master of the other smale Vessel w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> is called the Boune Voyage w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> 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.<br />
<br />
"Likewise I have sent yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> Mr. Parsons bond, and Captaine Growte, Captain Breames and Mr. Winshawes Bond, and a Bond of one Captaine Powels w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> if he come for New England w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> a Voyage I would intreate yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> to demand the money of him, but if he should come and haue made no Voyage I would that yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> should not demand it of him; so wishing yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> good health I take my leave and Rest.<br />
<br />
"You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> loveing frend<br />
WILLIAM JACKSON."<br />
<br />
This 20th of 7 ber 1640. [Suffolk Deeds, Vol. I. p. 30.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"CHEVALIER DE LA TOUR." [Suffolk Deeds, Vol. I. p. 75.]<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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. <em>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,</em>" [Bradford's Plimoth Plantation, p. 269.] and in another place the crew is spoken of as a "<em>most wicked and drunken crue</em>." [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.]<br />
<br />
There is another record, which reads as follows:—<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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 <em>Mr. Maverick of Winesemett</em> 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, <em>Mr Maverick of Winesemett</em> 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 <em>Samuel</em> Maverick; but there are many circumstances which go to show that this act of Christian kindness was by another name, <em>Elias</em>, 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.<br />
<br />
In Winthrop's narrative, one point is worthy of notice. He twice specifies on this point "<em>Mr. Maverick of Winnesimmet</em>," 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 <em>all</em> 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 <em>December following</em> 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 <em>Noddle's Island</em>; 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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
"Wm Stitson of Charlestown, yeoman, sell to Elias Mavericke of Wenesimit w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>in the precincts of Boston, all y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> parcel of Land at Winesimit w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> upward of 20 yeares I have quietly possessed by purchase from Mr. Sam<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>l</sup></span> [Suffolk Deeds, Lib. IV. fol. 40.] Maverick, 70 acres thereabouts. (8: 2: 1662)<br />
W<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>M</sup></span> STITSON<br />
ELIZABETH X STITSON."<br />
<br />
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 <em>Noddle's Island.</em><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <em>Samuel</em> Maverick '<em>Elias</em>?' having come to the conclusion (after I had printed), that the 'Mr. Maverick' was <em>Elias</em>, and not <em>Samuel</em>." 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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; y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> all y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> wood as yet left vpon y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Necke of land towards Roxburie, shall bee gathered vp and layd or heaped in pyles" before the seventh day of April next.<br />
<br />
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.]:— "Y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> 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 <em>them</em>."<br />
<br />
The hospitality of Maverick's mansion seems to have been generally acknowledged.<br />
<br />
Josselyn, who made a voyage to this country, in 1638, in the "<em>New Supply</em>, 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 <em>only</em> hospitable man in all the country, giving entertainment to all comers <em>gratis</em>." "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. <em>Winthrope</em> the Governor, and to Mr. <em>Cotton</em> the Teacher of <em>Boston</em> church, to whom he delivered from Mr. <em>Francis Quarles</em>, the poet, the translation of the 16, 25, 51, 88, 113, and 137 psalms into <em>English </em>Meeter, for his approbation, being civilly treated by all I had occasion to converse with, I returned in the Evening to my lodging.<br />
<br />
"The Twelfth day of <em>July</em> after I had taken my leave of <em>Mr. Maverick</em>, 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 <em>Noddles</em>-Island, where when I was come to <em>Mr. Maverick's</em> 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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Samuel Maverick was one of the earliest (if not <em>the</em> 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.<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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-<em>serpent</em> or Snake, that lay quoiled up like a Cable upon a Rock at <em>Cape Ann</em>," considered by the Indians dangerous if molested.] also speaks <em>very feelingly</em> 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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.</div></span><br />
<a name="samuel-maverick-his-ecclesiastical-troubles"></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><div align="justify"><b>Samuel Maverick; His Ecclesiastical Troubles.</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The substance of the remonstrance is thus given in the Massachusetts archives:—<br />
<br />
"1. They discerne not a clear settled forme of gov<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>n</sup></span>ment according to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> fundan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tall</sup></span> laws of England, which seemeth strange &c.<br />
<br />
"2. No body of lawes to enioy lives liberties, goods according to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> rights of English subiects from whence arise Jealousies of introducing arbitrary govnmnt, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> is detestable to or English nation, & to all good men, fro<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span> whence is feare of illegall commitmts taxes customes uniustifiable p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>zes, undue fines & unconceivable dang<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>s, 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 y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> will of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> giver.<br />
<br />
"3. W<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>fore they desire y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> establishing of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> fundam<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>all lawes of England to w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> we are obliged by o<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> charter, & oathes of allegiance fro<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span> w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> if wee swerve y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> be a powr setled to call us to account according to y lawes of England.<br />
<br />
"4. Slav<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>y & bondage, upon y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span>, & y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> posterity intollerable by y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span> who ought to love, & respect y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span> as brethren, for not bearing office, or haveing votes, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>fore y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ey</sup></span> desire equall liberty w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>out imposing oathes, or covenants, on y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span> unwarranted by y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> patent nor agreeing with y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> oath of allegiance, & y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> place stiled a free state, rath<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>n</sup></span> a Colony, or corporation of England or at least, y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ir</sup></span> bodies may not be imprest nor y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ir</sup></span> goods taken away least they ignorant of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> witness of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> warr may be forced upon y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> destructions, & y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> all taxes & impositions may be taken away, yt so they me be strang<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>s in all things; otherwise they are in a worse case y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>n</sup></span> y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Indians.<br />
<br />
"5. yt none be banished, unles they breake y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> known lawes of England deserving such punishm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span>, & yt those yt come may settle without two ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>trats</sup></span> hands.<br />
<br />
"6. They desire lib<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>ty for y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> memb<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Church of England to enjoy all ordinances w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> us, or els to grant liberty to settle y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span> selves in a church way according to Engl: and Scotland, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> if not granted they will petition y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Parliam<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>.<br />
<br />
"7. These thinges amended all o<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> calamities are like to cease, & all things p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sper.<br />
<br />
Robt Child, Thom Burton, John Smith, John Dand, Thomas Fowle, David Yale, Samu: Maverick."<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <em>general governor</em>; 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.<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <em>Jonas</em> 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.<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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.]:—<br />
<br />
"Feby 13th, 1687—<br />
<br />
"To His Excellency S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Edmund Andros Knight Capt<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>n</sup></span> Generall and Governo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> in Chiefe in & over his Majesties Territory and Dominion of New England &c.<br />
<br />
"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,<br />
<br />
"Sheweth unto yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Excellency<br />
<br />
"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 y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> father with some others drew upp a Peticon w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> and intent to p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent it to the late Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ty</sup></span> 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 Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> imprisoned for a long season, and att length all fined, amongst which yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> 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 s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Island would be seized to make payment of itt, he made a deede of Gift of the s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Island to his Eldest sonne, not w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> any designe to deliver the s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Deede to him, but onely to p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>vent the seizure of itt. But yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Eldest Brother heareing of itt, by a Crafty Wile contrary to his Fathers' Knowledge gott the s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> deede into his custody. But whether he sold it, or how he disposed of itt yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> canot sett forth, soe that yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Father in his life tyme. And yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> since his decease hath been debarred of their just right, and partly by the Massathusetts Government continuing soe long, And yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> Father being one of the Kings Comiss<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> sent with Collon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ll</sup></span> Niccolls Gen S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Rob<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Carr & Collon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ll</sup></span> Cartwright to settle the affaires in New York & New England but were interrupted at Boston w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> sound of Trumpett.<br />
<br />
"Wherefor yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> humbly desires yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Excellency to take the p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>misses into consideration and to graunt her some reliefe therein And yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> as in duty bound shall ever pray &c<br />
<br />
MARY HOOKE."<br />
<br />
[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. "<em>Francis Hooke</em> 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."—<em>Appendix, Williamson's Hist. Maine, p.</em> 679.]<br />
<br />
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, <em>"at which time," </em>may mean that the petition was sent when Maverick was owner of Noddle's Island.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
If by "all the prisoners of Dr. Child's company" is meant all who signed the remonstrance to parliament, then <em>Maverick</em> 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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
"The Courte having taken into serious consideracon the crimes chardged on Doc<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Rob<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Child, Mr John Smith, M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Thomas Burton, M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> John Dand & M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Samuell Mauericke, & whereof they have binn found guilty vpon full evidence by the former judgement of this Courte, have agreed upon y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> sentence here ensewing respectively decreed to each of them,<br />
<br />
£ s. d. Doctor Child, two hundred pounds, & imprisonment vntill it be payed or security given for it . . 200 00 00<br />
Mr John Smith, one hundred pounds, & imprisonment as before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 00 00<br />
Mr John Dand, two hundred pounds & imprisonment as before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 00 00<br />
Mr Tho: Burton, one hundred pounds & imprisonment as before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 00 00<br />
<em>Mr Sam: Mauericke, ffor his offence in being pty to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> conspiracy one<br />
hundred pounds, & imprisonment as before</em>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 00 00<br />
<em>Mr Sam. Mauericke, ffor his offence in breaking his oath, & in appealing ag<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>nst</sup></span> y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> intent of his oath of a freeman, ffifty pounds & imprisonment as before</em>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 050 00 00<br />
Jacob Barney, contradicens to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> sentence of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Courte."<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
"I Samuell Mavericke humbly request that whereas at a Co<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>te held in May & June 1647 there was layd to my charge conspiracy and periury, for w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> 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, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> records I could not obtaine in thirteen weekes, in the space of one month after sentence <em>I yielded myself prisonner</em> according to the order of Co<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>te, & after <em>my abode there 12 dayes</em> paid the fines, & so was discharged, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> 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.<br />
<br />
"I therefore humbly desire this hono<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>ed 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:<br />
<br />
"SAMUELL MAUERICKE.<br />
<br />
8 (3) 1649"<br />
<br />
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]<br />
<br />
"To the honnored Generall Courte, now assembled in Boston.<br />
<br />
"May it please you:<br />
<br />
"Whereas I have been formerly chardged w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> conspiracy & perjury, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> 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, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> 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 yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> clemency to others in the like kind, I am bold rather to crave yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> mercy in the favorable remittance of my fines then to stand either to justify myself or p'ceedings, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> 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 w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> arguments respecting myself and family, though the burden lyes heavy in that respect; the only motive lies in yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> owne breasts, yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> wonted charity, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> will render you to the world mercifull, and refresh and fully satisy yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> humble petitioner, who doth remaine<br />
<br />
Your humble servant<br />
<br />
"SAMUEL MAUERICKE."<br />
<br />
To this petition the deputies consented in full, "w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> reference to the consent of our honno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>ed Magis<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span>." But the magistrates refused their consent, and the petitioner failed in his request.<br />
<br />
We find yet another petitione, in these words:—<br />
<br />
"To the right worpp<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ll</sup></span> the Gouerno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Deputie Gouerno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> and Assistants togeather w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> the hono<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rd</sup></span> Deputies now Assembled in the Generall Court at Boston—<br />
<br />
"The Humble Petition of Samuell Mavericke sheweth that Whereas yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Petition<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> did in or about November last p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>ferr a peticon to this honored Court; wherein hee desired yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> would graunt him a review of his Tryall, the reparacon of his Creditt, and remittm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of fines imposed on him for the reasons therein Declared as more fully doth appeare by the sayd Peticon, a Coppy whereof hee doth heerew<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent vnto you but receiving noe Answer.<br />
<br />
"Hee doth Humbly request yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> to take the sayd Peticon into yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> 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 w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> will farther Obleidge him Euer to Remaine<br />
<br />
Yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Humble Servant."<br />
<br />
Mr. Maverick's perservering efforts were, at last, partically successful; for on the 19th of June, 1650,—<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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; <em>a man that Boston could not do without.</em> 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 <em>equal</em> rights and privileges, it must be admitted that he exercised exemplary patience.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.</div></span><br />
<a name="noddles-island-place-of-refuge-to-baptists"></a><div align="justify"><b>Noddle's Island a Place of Refuge to the Baptists.</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Persisting in their harsh treatment of all who differed from what might with propriety be called the <em>Established Church </em>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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For the first ten years this church appears to have held its meetings mostly at <em>Noddle's Island</em>. 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.<br />
<br />
In 1668 the church had increased to eighteen members; and for some years, as appears from their correspondence, they were know as the "<em>Church of Jesus Christ worshipping at Noddle's Island</em> 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 <em>Noddle's Island</em>, and they wish to take him at town." And again, "we keep a meeting at <em>Noddle's Island </em>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 <em>yt were wont to meet at Noddle's Island</em> met at Boston on ye Lords Day. One Mr. Symond Lind letteth one of them an house which was formerly Mr. Rucks."<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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 "<em>Wilderness </em>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."<br />
<br />
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 40<em>s</em>. per month, "so long as he continue in his obstinacy."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <em>Noddle's Island</em>, that they constantly attended such worship. The court decided that <em>that</em> 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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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?"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <em>Noddle's Island</em>, 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.<br />
<br />
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 <em>Noddle's Island</em>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> exercise of his religion, according to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> laws & custome of England by those who by y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> 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 w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> are due to them, and w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> are enjoyed by oth<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> 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."</div><br><a name="samuel-maverick-royal-commissioner"></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><div align="justify"><b>Samuel Maverick, Royal Commissioner.</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>out 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.<br />
<br />
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 Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span>" etc.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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 <em>Col. Richard Nichols</em> (the commander of the expedition), <em>Sir Robert Carr, George Cartwright</em>, and <em>Samuel Maverick</em>, [Goodrich's Hist. United States, p. 50, erroneously calls him <em>Richard Maverick</em>.] 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:—<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"Though the maine end and drift of yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> employm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> 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 governm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> and those of the best quality out of governm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>, 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:— <em>Yet</em>, you may informe all men that a great end of your designe is the possession of Long Island and reduceing that people, etc."<br />
<br />
They were "to use great dilligence together in the careful and exact perusall of the first and second charter;" and it was "wished that y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> 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."<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
The commissioners also were intrusted with a letter from the king to the governor and council of Massachusetts. [Ibid. pp. 51-64.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
<div align="right">"Pascataway, July 20, 1664.</div>"CAPT. BREEDON,<br />
<br />
"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;<br />
<br />
"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<br />
<br />
Sr. your very loving friend<br />
"SAMUEL MAVERICK." [Colonial Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 65]<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>, I have more then hopes, all things in these parts will prove very sucessfull for His Majty<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>s</sup></span> & 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<br />
<br />
"I shall not presume to give you further trouble at this time but to subscribe<br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> your most humble servant<br />
"SAMUEL MAVERICK." [Colonial Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p.66.]<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Massachusetts was the last and hardlyest persvaded to use His Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> 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: "<em>The other Colonies have set you so many good examples</em>, even that of Road Iland, one whom you have so long despised and disowned, and now lately derided for their submission to His Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span>. 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 <em>other Colonies </em>behave themselves so dutifully, for which they will receive thanks from the King; and what sense his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> 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 Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> 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.<br />
<br />
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, "<em>Mr. Maverick and myselfe are both of the opinion</em> 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."<br />
<br />
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 govern<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> to undeceive y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> deceived and to p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>pare them for y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> 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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
"Worcester House, 5 March, 1664.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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<br />
<br />
"Good Mr. Maverick,<br />
"Your affectionate serv't,<br />
"CLARENDON."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> and the trust committed to us by His Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> good subjects in this Colony, wee <em>cannot consent unto or give our approbation of the proceedings of the aforesaid Gentlemen </em>(referring to the commissioners), neither can it consist with our allegiance that we owe to His Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> to countenance any that shall in so high a manner go cross unto His Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> 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 Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> wisdom, who is of power enough to make himself obeyed in all his dominions." [Ibid. 96.]<br />
<br />
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 Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> 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 Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> gracious letters." [Col. Hist. N.Y. Vol. III. p. 99.]<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> 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."<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
". . . . . . 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.]<br />
<br />
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 <em>growing feeling of independence and of rights of self-government, which were becoming so very prominent in the Massachusetts colony</em>. 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 magis<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>s by Mr. Samuel Mauerick be meant of this Generall Court according to our sence the Court resolved it on y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> affirmative." [Mass. records, Vol. IV. Part 2, p. 314.] And again (p. 315): "The Court hauing pervsed the paper presented to the magistrates by M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> 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. Gove<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>, Capt. Gooking, Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> 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."<br />
<br />
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 "<em>blessed</em> memory."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <em>loyalty</em> and <em>humility</em> 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:—<br />
<br />
"Wee may not omitt to acquaint your hono<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>s that a writing was deliuered to the Governor & Majestrates, by Mr. Samuel Mauerick, the 6th Sept. w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>out 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 <em>the 6th of Sept., </em>and the court assembled on the <em>11th of the same month to act upon it.] </em>Wee haue in all humanity given our reasons why wee could not submitt to the commissioners & their mandates the last yeare, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> wee understand lye before his majesty, to the <em>substance whereof wee have not to</em> add, & therefore cannot expect that the ablest persons among us could be in a capacity to declare our cause more fully. etc."<br />
<br />
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 <em>disinterested manner</em>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
Again, on the 5th of July, 1669, he writes:—<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"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.]<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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 "<em>in the Broadway</em>;" 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.<br />
<br />
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 <em>Mary</em> 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."<br />
<br />
It seems surprising that writers and editors of our New England history should have fallen into the error of supposing that Samuel Maverick the <em>son</em>, 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. <em>He had lived in the colony from its beginning</em>. 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.]<br />
<br />
Hutchinston certainly has underrated his importance, as the whole history of Maverick shows.<br />
<br />
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 <em>his</em> 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 9<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ber</sup></span> 1666 hath remained in my hands in hopes that I might have heard from Mr. Maverick <em>whose advice I have sought in the matter but not yet attained</em>." [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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <em>Samuel Maverick of Noddle's Island was the royal commissioner.</em> The circumstances which called out this petition were these. The notorious Edmund Andros (called <em>humane</em> (!) 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 <em>writs of intrusion</em> 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 <em>father </em>, Samuel Maverick, was owner of Noddle's Island in 1648, and that <em>when a commissioner with Nichols, Carr, and Cartwright</em>, he was interrupted with sound of trumpet, etc. It is an old proverb, "<em>It is a wise child that knows its own father</em>;" but Mary Hooke's testimony that her <em>father</em>, 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: "<em>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 y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> P<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> father with some others drew up a Peticon w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> an intent to P<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent it to the last Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ty</sup></span> King Charles the first</em>," etc.; and again, "<em>yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Peticon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> Father being one of the Kings Comiss<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> sent w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> Collon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ll</sup></span> Niccolls Genll Sir Robt Carr & Collonll Cartwright</em>," 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 <em>ex necessitate rei</em>, the <em>son</em> 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 "y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> estate of the <em>late Samuel Maverick Junior</em>." This is under date of the 3<em>d of May</em>, 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 <em>Samuel the son </em>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.<br />
<br />
But the petition of Mary Hooke, and the death of Samuel Maverick, Jr., in 1664, settle the question beyond dispute.<br />
<br />
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 <em>gratis</em>."<br />
<br />
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.</div></span><br />
<a name="maverick-family"></a><div align="justify"><b>The Maverick Family.</b><br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
<em>Samuel Maverick</em> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The following information has been collected relative to others of the name:—<br />
<br />
<em>Elias Maverick</em>, 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.<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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 w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> a convenient high way thereunto for watering of cattle.<br />
<br />
"I give to my son Peter £5 starling after my wives decease.<br />
<br />
"I give to my son Paul Mavericke 25 acres of Land next unto my son Elias w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> I give him in present possession by deed of Gift to him his wife and Children p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>vided that his Father in law Liev<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> John Smith, (whose daughter Jemimah he married) will give as a portion to his said son-in-law w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> his daughter one halfe of that some of money that the s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Land shal be prized at by indifferent men chosen on either side, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> if he refuses to doe, then he shall injoy it after his mothers decease.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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 w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> 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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"13, Oct. 1681. Elias Mavericke.<br />
<br />
"William Ireland sen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Willia<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span> Ireland jun<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> John Barnard, John Sentre W<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span> Ireland sen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> W<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>m</sup></span> Ireland jun<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> and John Senter deposed 6 Nov. 1681.<br />
<br />
"Will exhibited for probate by Elias Maverick and Paul Maverick 6 Nov. 1681." [Suffolk Deeds, Vol. VI. pg. 479.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
Abigail, daughter of Elias, married Matthew Clarket 4: 4: 1655. [Hist. and Gen. Reg. Vol. I. New Series, p. 203.]<br />
<br />
Elizabeth, daughter of Elias, married John Johnson 15th October, 1656; had a daughter Ruth.<br />
<br />
Sarah, daughter of Elias, married ---- Walton.<br />
<br />
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).]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
Mary, daughter of Elias, married ---- Way.<br />
Ruth, daughter of Elias, married ---- Smith.<br />
Rebecca, daughter of Elias, married ---- Thomas.<br />
<br />
<em>Moses Maverick</em> 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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
<em>Antipas Maverick </em>is recorded as "belonging to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> 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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
An <em>Abigail Maverick </em>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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Prior to the revolutionary war, <em>John Maverick</em>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Sally, the third daughter of John Maverick, married Judge Stoddard, of Chelmsford.<br />
<br />
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, "<em>Here comes old Malcolm the informer</em>;" 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 <em>character</em>, <em>habit</em>, and <em>position</em>. 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">Well fated shades! let no unmanly tear<br />
From Pity's eye distain your honored bier;<br />
Lost to their view, surviving friends may mourn,<br />
Yet o'er thy pile shall flames celestial burn;<br />
Long as in freedom's cause the wise contend,<br />
Dear to yor country shall your fame extend;<br />
While to the world the lettered stone shall tell,<br />
How <em>Caldwell</em>, <em>Attucks</em>, <em>Gray</em>, and <em>Maverick </em>fell.</span></blockquote>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.<br />
<br />
There was a <em>Peter Rushton Maverick</em>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Mr. Bryant, Peter R.'s legal adviser, says that all of his sons married and left children.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.</div><br><a name="ownership-traced-from-samuel-maverick-to-samuel-shrimpton"></a><div align="justify"><b>The Ownership Traced From Samuel Maverick to Samuel Shrimpton.</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The record states, [Mass. Records, Vol. III. p. 309.] under date of 18th May, 1653:—<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
Following this, and of the same date, is "A declaration of Colonell Birch, ordred to be recorded:"— [Mass. Records, Vol. III. p. 310.]<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"Indenture made the last day (31) of July 1656, betwixt Sam<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>l</sup></span> Mauericke, Gent.& Nath<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>l</sup></span> Mauericke, sonne & heire Apparent of s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Sam<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>l</sup></span> Mavericke of the one p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> & Col. John Burch of the Island of Barbadoes Esq<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of the other p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>.<br />
<br />
"Witnesseth that s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Mauericke & Amias his wife & sd Nath<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>.</sup></span> Mauericke did by theire deed bearing date, 14 Jan. 1649, convey vnto Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Geo. Briggs, an Island Called Noddles Island. And whereas s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> George Briggs did by his deede bearing date 28 Oct. 1650, Convey s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Island vnto Nath<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>l</sup></span> Mauerick and his heires for euer. And whereas s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Nath<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>l</sup></span> Mauericke did the same day Convey s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> 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 s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> John Burch and s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Sam<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>l</sup></span> Mauericke for s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Island wherein it was exhibited that the aboue named George Briggs had not perfectly performed the Consideration by him undertaken.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Court It was at Last Ordered the 7th of June 1653 in case s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> 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 s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Island to be deliuered to s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Burch.<br />
<br />
"S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Samuell hath Received full satisfaction of the s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> £700, stirling menconed in the aboue order made at the Generall Court aforesayd.<br />
<br />
"S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Samuell Mauericke doth convey vnto s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Burch s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Nodles Island &c. SAML MAUERICKE<br />
<br />
"Acknowledged last day (31) of July 1656, before me Thos. Gibbes."<br />
<br />
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:—<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
"In the presence of John Sayes, John Newmaker.<br />
<br />
"At Request of Mr. Thos. Bratle. Recorded 7 Jan. 1656." [Bk. II. fol. 323, 328.] <br />
<br />
Possession of the Island was given by Maverick on the first of January, 1656-7, in the following words:—<br />
<br />
"1 Jan. 1656 (7). Attest,—Nicholas Shopleigh, Randall Niccolls, John Jeff<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>es, Willjam Rosewell, that wee sawe full and peaceable possession given of s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Island, houses, &c. by s<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Mauerick & Amy his wife, to Thomas Bratle of Charles Towne Attorney to Col. John Burch of Barbadoes &c.<br />
<div align="right">"(Before) JN<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>O</sup></span> ENDICOTT, GOV<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>."</div>Thus Noddle's Island passed from the possession of the Maverick family.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><i>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; . . .</i></span></div><br><div align="justify"><b>The Maverick Bank</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Gen. William H. Sumner</div><br />
<center><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigMy1XoKQeBM3-SARwRssnRaqALkQHVKtnkfj5x5m6UMEiS_BG-rD8XDmRxOju9ox5Cdm_WjpKLhHOYjXj7R-drTz6Qu-IH9BxO4v5TcSQWt9d9chaCmYaJ8tFcjwMm_SddXczruAh0wg/s400/general-sumner.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5039760795042855250" style="filter:alpha(opacity=30)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,100,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,30,50,5)"></center>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-87503638997550432752021-10-16T07:59:00.002-07:002021-12-18T17:09:43.135-08:00Dorset Pilgrims<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkIxWwXFYWcN0-GSAtrxGmo8RWYOEk7KzpxFctSiRT9Ap5nqHH8k1Pd_rvn9yW5AGO59F_sSnbwQVMd6b2aDZhg6Uwfq6-QOl5r_aslLzMvDs3eitz57yF4y6XOslvAZacKFiW6QY_f5Nf/s1600/mayflower.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="267" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkIxWwXFYWcN0-GSAtrxGmo8RWYOEk7KzpxFctSiRT9Ap5nqHH8k1Pd_rvn9yW5AGO59F_sSnbwQVMd6b2aDZhg6Uwfq6-QOl5r_aslLzMvDs3eitz57yF4y6XOslvAZacKFiW6QY_f5Nf/s400/mayflower.jpg" style="filter: alpha(opacity=50);" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<a href="#earl-of-warwick-and-colonizing-of-america">The Earl of Warwick and the Colonizing of America 1600-35</a><span style="color: silver;"> · </span><a href="#john-white-and-west-countrys-atlantic-horizon">John White and the West Country's Atlantic Horizon 1620-30</a> <span style="color: silver;"> · </span><a href="#uprooting">The Uprooting 1630-35</a><span style="color: silver;"> · </span><a href="#voyage">The Voyage</a><span style="color: silver;"> · </span><a href="#sojourn-at-dorchester-on-massachusetts-bay">Sojourn at Dorchester On Massachusetts Bay 1630-35</a><span style="color: silver;"> · </span><a href="#retrospect">Retrospect</a>
<br />
<br />
<div align="left"><b>The Story of Westcountry Pilgrims Who Went to New England In the 17th Century: Preface</b><br />
<br />
I owe it to the prospective reader to explain the circumstances which led me to write this book.<br />
<br />
As with many such undertakings it developed unexpectedly as the by-product of a modest and private intention. This was to write something for our children about their family history. One of my wife's direct ancestors happens to have been a member of a Puritan group who emigrated to New England in the 17th century. Many years ago I began in odd moments to find out what I could about him and I became interested in the community of which he became a fairly prominent member. This community was recruited largely from Dorset by a famous Dorchester clergyman called John White and was dispatched by him across the Atlantic to found Dorchester on Massachusetts in 1630.<br />
<br />
The history of this community came to have a particular attraction for me as a historian. These West Country people were a constituent group of the great migration from England which settled Massachusetts Bay in the 1630s. Whether they knew it or not, they were emigrants, and my special interest had come to be concerned with the great European demographic explosion of the 19th century which populated the who North American continent. For largely historiographic reasons to do with period specialization, the original migration to New England in the 17th century had been handled in a separate context and according to different criteria. There were clearly marked contrasts and discontinuities between the two periods. The role of the 17th-century emigrant, whether to Massachusetts Bay or to Virginia, was different from that of his 19th-century successors, less clearly defined, understood or developed. The very word 'emigrant' first appeared in the language as late as 1754 and was applied to the Germans who emigrated to Pennsylvania. Our 17th-century subjects did not consciously think of themselves as moving from one country to another. They were simply Englishmen who had chosen to settle or 'plant' in a New England which was one of King Charles's dominions beyond the seas. It is not too far-fetched to think of them as predecessors of the 20th-century settlers of Southern Rhodesia or Kenya. They were colonial Englishmen and this distinction in itself is worth exploring. At the same time I thought it might be useful to approach the phenomenon of 17th-century New England from the broader angle of vision of a migration historian.<br />
<br />
There was another special interest for me in this West Country group who settled Dorchester, Massachusetts. They were the most homogeneous of all those shiploads of emigrants who constituted the Great Migration. They not only came largely from one West Country locality, gathered themselves into a church there and settled together on Massachusetts Bay, but, like a hive of bees, they swarmed a second time. Within five years the greater part of the Dorchester people uprooted themselves once more and trekked through the New England wilderness to settle on its 'frontier', the Connecticut River. Here, in a single plantation, which they also called Dorchester before they renamed it Windsor, they persisted as that same close-knit West Country community. But they were already on the move. They were arguably the first example of that phenomenon of westward migration which was to become such a dominant theme in American history.<br />
<br />
The fact that this was a West Country group is also of particular interest in the history of the founding of New England. When Samuel Eliot Morison wrote his brilliant <i>Builders of the Bay Colony</i> he gave pride of place among all those remarkable founding fathers to John White, the rector of Holy Trinity church, Dorchester, Dorset, that Puritan parson who, as the reader will discover, was the moving spirit behind the Puritan colonizing of New England. Recognizing the spiritual needs of the West Country fishermen off the New England shore, White conceived the idea of a farming-fishing settlement, organized the Dorchester Company and, when that failed, us the rump of it as the basis for a successor which, when taken over by men from the City of London and East Anglia, was transformed into the Massachusetts Bay Company. Morison did justice to White's pre-eminence and to that West Country whence came the first impetus for the settlement of Massachusetts Bay. Yet thereafter the West Country element in that epic became submerged by what was to become the dominant New England strain: that of the eastern counties and London, of the Winthrops, Congregationalism and the Boston ascendancy, so that in time another Harvard historian could assert that New England might properly have been called New East Anglia. New England history has been as dyed in that Boston wool as ever was English history in its Whig tradition, and that rather different early West Country strain has tended to be ignored like a poor and inconvenient relation in a proud family. It seemed to me that it might be interesting to add a Dorchester counterpoint to the dominant New England theme.<br />
<br />
I thought it also might be useful for an Englishman to look again at this case study from a perspective which embraced English origins as well as New England growth and development. Because of the unique role New England has played in the forming of American nationality, its history has been long and intensively studied and interpreted as a cradle of American values, always seeking the promise of the great events to follow, the Revolution and the Republic. The temptation to see it as an 'American' phenomenon from the start, a kind of Whig interpretation, was for an earlier generation inevitable. As a result the element of Englishness, of origins, tended to be at least foreshortened, used as a sort of permanent stage set, an unshifting backcloth, to what was regarded as an essentially American drama. It is true that within the last quarter-century as younger generation of scholars, using modern techniques of quantitative and sociological analysis, have produced a brilliant and sophisticated series of studies of New England towns. But they too, with notable exceptions, have taken English origins largely for granted.<br />
<br />
Also, owing to the nature of these techniques, such studies, immensely valuable as they are in their quantitative analysis of social data, tend to be static in the pictures they present, still photographs rather than cinema film. For the historian of migration this is a limitation. The very nature of the migration process is movement, not the slow and perhaps imperceptible movement of societies over a generation, but the immediate and dramatic actions of travel and adventure, of trials and errors, of heady successes and miserable failures. Such subject matter demands in addition the use of another, more old-fashioned technique: that of narrative. Narrative is essentially a literary art and, at a time when history is in danger of being hijacked by the social sciences, its practice is neglected and indeed in some quarters despised. But I make no apology for my attempt to bring alive, to tell the story - the history - of this particular band of emigrants in narrative form.<br />
<br />
For the social historian the art of narrative presents special difficulties because of the nature of evidence. For the most part we are not writing about outstanding individuals whose influential careers may be traced from public archives and personal papers. We are dealing with collective groups of little-known or anonymous people, knowledge of whom must be gleaned from the impersonal data of social statistics, of births, marriages and deaths, wills and inventories, land grants and conveyances, court records, ship's manifest, passenger lists and the like and the lucky chance of a diary, a bundle of letters or a business ledger. This has been especially so for the historian of migration who has only truly come into his own since the perfection of the new statistical techniques for analysing such intractable data.<br />
<br />
However, the reality underlying a particular migration story is not the undifferentiated mass of computerized statistics but the innumerable individuals and families who are often only partially and tantalizingly revealed by the historian's magnifying glass. In this study I have tried to tell the story in terms of individuals even at the risk of confusing the reader with a multiplicity of names of obscure people. Also, where the evidence supports it, I have written a particular episode round its principal protagonist. In the first chapter I have introduced the reader to the Jacobethan globe through the personality of the Earl of Warwick who leads us from the glittering powerplays of the court, by way of the operations of buccaneers in the West Indies, to pin that tiny point on the map of New England where Puritan planters raised their flag. . . .<br />
<br />
<a name="earl-of-warwick-and-colonizing-of-america"></a><b>The Earl of Warwick and the Colonizing of America 1600-35</b><br />
<br />
On Sunday, 24 July 1630, a company of sixty nobles and gentry in full panoply, accompanied by squires and pages, rode out from St. James's to the king's court at Whitehall. After parading round the tiltyard, they dismounted in St. James's Park, went up to the gallery and into the royal presence. There, one by one, King James I dubbed them Knights of the Bath in honour of his coronation which was to take place the next day. Among them was a young sprig of the nobility, sixteen-year-old Robert, now Sir Robert, eldest son of the third Baron Rich of Leighs in Essex.<br />
<br />
At the time he was knighted he was a Cambridge undergraduate. He was a golden boy, an outstanding member of the <em>jeuness d'orée </em>of his time. A contemporary wrote that 'he had all those excellent endowments of body and fortune that give splendor to a glorious Court' and referred to 'a lovely sweetness transcending most men'. The Rich family belonged to the new order of aristocratic magnates whom the social upheavals begun by Henry VIII's Reformation seventy years before had brought to the fore. The founder of the family's fortunes, Richard Rich, of a London merchant family, rose rapidly by means of the Bar and the Reformation Parliament to become one of Henry VIII's most infamous hatchet-men and, in 1548, under Edward VI, lord chancellor. In his career he managed to double-cross an array of notables as disparate as Cardinal Wolsey, Bishop Fisher, Sir Thomas More, Protector Somerset, and his close colleague Thomas Cromwell. He was instrumental as lord chancellor in putting through the Calvinistic reforms of Edward VI's reign, and then he ingratiated himself to Queen Mary by restoring the Old Religion and zealously persecuting heretics. He had a rapacious hand in dissolving the monastaries as a result of which he became the greatest landed magnate in Essex, converting Leighs Priory into his country seat. His grandson, Robert, the third Lord Rich, father of our youthful knight, therefore inherited one of the greatest fortunes in the land. Though considered by sophisticates to be coarse and uneducated, he was of sufficient wealth and position to be a worthy match for the Lady Penelope Devereux, daughter of the first Earl of Essex and sister of the Queen's favourite. This beautiful and talented young woman had as a girl been the object of Sir Philip Sidney's desire and the Stella of his celebrated sonnet sequence. Despite bearing Lord Rich seven children she cut a considerable figure at court until disgraced at the time of her brother Essex's execution and attainder in 1601. Restored to favour by James I, she once again became prominent in court festivities.<br />
<br />
It was through her influence that her eldest son Robert began so spectacularly a career at court which led to his wider role in public life. He was a talented courtier. Like his mother, he took part in the masques which were so sparkling a feature of the Jacobean court. On Shrove Tuesday, 1609, there was a masque to celebrate Lord Hadington's marriage, text by Ben Jonson, sets by Inigo Jones and music by Ferrabosco. As a chronicler wrote: 'The attire of the masquers throughout was most graceful and noble, the colours carnation and silver enriched with embroidery and lace, the dressing of their heads, feathers and jewels; their performance so magnificent and illustrious that nothing can add to the seal of it but the subscription of their names.' Among the earls, barons and their eldest sons who were the principal players was young Sir Robert Rich. He was also a skilled performer of the martial arts and regularly took part in those combats in the tiltyard which so appealed to the King.<br />
<br />
Yet for Robert Rich this was just gamesmanship. 'He used it but for his recreation', wrote contemporary Arthur Wilson, the dramatist and historian who, as his gentleman-in-waiting, saw him at close quarters. At the same time he was seeking more serious and public pursuits. After Cambridge he joined the Inner Temple and in 1610 he was elected Member of Parliament for Maldon, and thus embarked on a parliamentary career which would lead him to power and distinction among the leaders of the opposition to the autocratic government of Charles I. Our concern is with only one aspect of this achievement. As Wilson wrote, 'His spirit aimed at more publique adventures planting colonies in the Western World rather than himself in the King's favour.'<br />
<br />
Robert Rich, who became Earl of Warwick on his father's death, not only personifies a cardinal theme of English history in the era of the early Stuarts but, as we shall see, became a key and influential figure at court in the colonizing of New England in general and particularly in that venture which is the subject of this chronicle. As president of the Council for New England and himself the patron of Puritans, he had a principal hand in launching the Massachusetts Bay Company and in issuing to a group of Puritan noblemen and gentry the patent which laid claim to the territory of Connecticut. In thus providing a link between the power and authority of the English court and those tiny outposts on the edge of the world he is the appropriate beginning to this story.<br />
<br />
It goes back to his father. Not content with his landed wealth and powerful court connections, the third Lord Rich, like other Elizabethan magnates, augmented his fortunes by seafaring. For the previous forty years, with Catholic Spain in the ascendency and France weakened by religious war, the English were increasingly isolated from the Continent and, from the 1570s onwards, overtly at war with Spain and supporting the Calvinist revolt in the Netherlands. This was a time when a strong monarchy, a rising population, improved land and coastal transport, and the multiplying of money and credit, all stimulated more diverse industry - especially textiles and mining - and overseas commerce. English overseas trade had traditionally been chiefly with Channel and North Sea ports and the Iberian peninsula. The loss of Calais and the disruption of trade with Antwerp and the Channel ports had played havoc with these connections. Moreover, despite the explorations a century before by the Cabots and others, the English had been slow to exploit their strategic position at the gateway to the north Atlantic. West Countrymen had long before joined Bretons, Basques and Portuguese in fishing off the Newfoundland banks; but maritime expansion in the whole Atlantic basin appeared to be balked by the hated papistical Spaniards, King Philip II, his dons and Inquisitorial clergy who controlled the shipping lanes to their vast and rich empire in South and Central America and, more immediately to the point, in the Caribbean. Until the power of Spain was neutralized, freebooting expeditions like those of Raleigh which attempted to establish English trading posts on the Virginia shore and the 'Wild Coast' of Guiana were bound to prove abortive. Meanwhile the navigational and mercantile skills, the religious and ideological zeal of the mariners and merchants of England were devoted to challenging the maritime power of Spain in the Atlantic. In those days of rudimentary navies expensively mobilized only for specific operations, the chief instruments of Enlish sea power were armed merchantmen sailing on voyages whose object was part exploration, part trade but, above all, with 'letters of marque' or licences from the Queen, the capture of Spanish prizes. It was the heyday of the privateer. During the last years of Elizabeth's rein Lord Rich had built up one of the largest privateering fleets in England.<br />
<br />
In 1604, the year after the young Robert Rich became a knight, the new king of England at last made peace with Spain and so, for twenty-one years, letters of marque were no longer issued against Spanish merchantmen; but this did not unduly hinder English seafarers. Some smaller men, ship's captains and the like, crossed the shadowy line from privateer to pirate, often raiding Spanish treasure ships and other foreign merchantmen from English settlements in the Caribbean which became notorious as pirate lairs. But Lord Rich and his fellow admirals in their more ambitious and respectable freebooting, trading, privateering ventures simply obtained licences from other friendly powers like the Dutch who were happy to share the booty of the voyage, and disposed of their cargoes in Continental ports. In 1616 Lord Rich sent out three ships with a commission from the Duke of Savoy to prey on the Spanish. At the same time his son, our Sir Robert Rich, under the same flag of convenience, sailed for the Red Sea where, but for the intervention of the East India Company fleet, and in an act of blatant piracy, he would have captured a ship belonging to no less than the queen mother of the Great Mogl with cargo valued at £100,000. (The resulting embarrassment kept young Robert in litigation with the East India Company for a decade or more.)<br />
<br />
In 1618 Lord Rich died, having just become Earl of Warwick, and his son inherited both the title and his father's large-scale privateering enterprises. When after the death of James I in 1625 hostilities once again broke out with Spain, the second Earl of Warwick received a broadly drafted commission from King Charles I authorizing him 'to invade and possess any of the dominions of the King of Spain in Europe, Africa or America', sufficient excuse for three years of extensive privateering. In 1627 he had letters of marque for some eleven ships. He himself commanded a squadron off the Iberian coast in search of the Brazilian treasure fleet; unfortunately he became separated from his other ships, mistook the Spanish fleet for the treasure ships and, having sailed through the entire armada, only escaped by keeping his nerve in the confusion and a dense fog. He returned without booty but admired for his exploit. As a newsletter reported: 'He was never sick one hour at sea, and would as nimbly climb up to top and yard as any common mariner in the ship: and all the time of the fight was as active and as open to danger as any man there.'<br />
<br />
In these years, however, Warwick increasingly turned his attention to the West Indies, whose islands and bays provided shelter for vessels engaged in trade with local Spanish settlements for such essentials as salt, and were within striking distance of the rich Spanish merchantmen. As early as 1612 he had become a member of a company set up to settle the newly discovered Somers or Bermuda Island, and in 1618 his ship <em>Treasurer</em> under Captain Elfrith made a notorious marauding voyage in those seas. At length, in 1630, in order to establish a base for such operations, he with his brother and others organized a company to effect a permanent settlement on the island of Santa Catalina off the Mosquito Coast, to be renamed Providence. In this he had actually begun to transcend his role as admiral of privateers to become a principal influence in the English colonization of the North American littoral.<br />
<br />
When James I came to the throne in 1603 there had been no English colonies on the American mainland; when his son was executed in 1649 there were upwards of 50,000 colonists settled up and down the North American seaboard and in the Caribbean from an England whose population was little more than four million. This astonishing phenomenon was a result of a combination of economic, religious and political forces which combined to give the reigns of the first two Stuarts a dynamic thrust towards colonization. With the ending of the long years of war with Spain in 1604 came the release of commercial energies looking for new outlets, especially in overseas trade. The very war itself, restricting trade with the Low Countries, had impelled the merchants of London and the outports to look further afield, and over the Tudor decades great monopolist companies had been organized under the Crown to trade with Muscovy, the Baltic, the Levant and the East Indies. A country's wealth, ran orthodox mercantilist wisdom, depended on foreign trade, with a favorable balance of exports over imports to provide treasure for capital investment. With the Spanish menace in eclipse, it was time to turn westwards across the Atlantic and, in increasing competition with the Dutch, to stake claims on the Caribbean islands with their tropical crops and those hundreds of miles of North American coastline separating Spanish Florida from the French settlements in the region of the St. Lawrence. Here were abundant primary staple products, from fish to timber, naval stores and minerals (if not the elusive precious metals) - the raw materials of natural wealth; and there was still the hope that among those uncharted bays and estuaries to the north-west might still be found a passage through to the Pacific Ocean and the riches of the East Indies.<br />
<br />
The experience of Elizabethan explorers and freebooters, and especially Sir Walter Raleigh's tragic failure at Roanoke, had made clear that to establish trading settlements required the organization and resources enjoyed by the big regulated companies. In 1606, stimulated by Hakluyt's and other accounts of exploratory voyages, two groups of prominent seafaring knights and merchants, of London and West Country ports, obtained a charter from the Crown to establish twin companies to take that part of America 'commonly called Virginia' not in the possession of Spain or France, that is to say the middle Atlantic seaboard. Of these, the West Country (or Plymouth) Company quickly failed, but the London, now the Virginia Company, went ahead to establish settlements in the region about Chesapeake Bay. The first settlement did not prosper, suffering from the characteristic troubles of disease, inadequate planning of provisions, lack of accommodation and suitable colonists, and hostile Indians; but Virginia persisted and became England's first established mainland colony in North America.<br />
<br />
Other colonizing ventures were to profit from her experience. Successful colonizing demanded technical knowledge, entrepreneurship, capital and labour. The first had been gradually acquired by explorers whose knowledge of seamanship, climate and topography had, over the years, sifted fact from fancy in a veritable corpus of travel literature and charts. Even so, the know-how required to survive a hazardous voyage and the hostile circumstances of the New World was still being acquired through the trials and errors of painful experience. Knowledge of the climate, which turned out to be temperate and fever-free; understanding the logistics of getting supplies across the Atlantic; the realization that hopes of quick profits from precious minerals and other exotics must be abandoned in favour of concentrating on practical subsistence crops and staples for trade; acknowledgment of the importance of selecting suitable, working colonists - all this expertise was only learnt as a result of bitter and sometimes mortal failures.<br />
<br />
The necessary entrepreneurship was provided for the most part by that well-connected class, of which Warwick was so outstanding an example, of nobles, gentry and merchants with experience of mounting oceanic trading expeditions. Here the aristocratic element was vital. Such expeditions might have been privateering, but they were not private, and even the most buccaneering were undertaken with at least the tacit knowledge and interest of the Crown. When it came to establishing colonies, whether trading posts or settlements, it was assumed that these were English territory under the sovereignty of the monarch. They were political and territorial instruments and their promoters had to be such as had the ear and confidence of the king - for the most part grandees of standing at court and magnates in the country at large. As companies, they were in a sense an extension of the Privy Council and by their nature held a territorial and trading monopoly for which, incidentally, they usually paid a stiff price to the royal treasury. The granting of these monopolies to augment the royal revenues early became a contentious issue between James I and Parliament; but they were regarded as the natural device for colonization. For this purpose the organization of such companies had become more sophisticated since those Tudor times. The need to mobilize capital for expeditions involving squadrons of ships, continuous lines of communication and long lead-times before there was a return on the investment, led to the device of joint stock, whereby the company handled the subscribers' investment corporately, first for a single voyage and then for a number of years. Although not all colonizing companies functioned this way, the joint-stock company became the principal device for colonial settlement.<br />
<br />
The mobilization of capital on a considerable scale was therefore the third cardinal factor in colonizing. The grandees with their court connection contributed their shares and enjoyed their profits and their losses. But their wealth usually consisted of lands and rents and hardly provided capital liquid enough for ambitious ventures. Such capital had to come from the rich and powerful mercantile fraternity, successors to the 'merchant adventurers' of Bristol, York, Hull, Exeter and other 'outports', and especially from the City of London, whose great companies and connections had subscribed backing for the regulated companies, and now in the boom times of the first Stuarts were poised to provide the credit and financial expertise for this new transoceanic, mercantile world. The connection between courtiers with access to royal influence and patronage and City merchants, intimate even to the point of family intermarriages, generated the intelligence, influence, wealth and power impelling the English colonization of North America.<br />
<br />
To the south, the Spaniards had long before established an <em>imperium</em> of conquistadores and priests; the French, to the north, had their outposts for fishing and trapping and the Dutch were building trading factories in all the seven seas; but the English were the first to establish colonies of permanent settlement in the New World. This needed not only entrepreneurs and capital, but labour on some scale - ordinary people, men, women and children, prepared to till the soil and make homes for themselves in an unknown American wilderness. It so happened that in England at the turn of the 17th century there were the motives and means to take advantage of such an opportunity.<br />
<br />
An underlying motive for colonizing, then and for a long time to come, was a desire for land. In Elizabeth's day the population of England had grown apace and was outrunning the limited amount of good farmland. The enterprising were now converting moor, forest and waste and draining fenland at great expense and with limited results. This was also a time when the conditions of rural life were rapidly changing. A new generation of gentry and yeomen, concerned with growing crops for markets and investing profits, wherever possible raised rents to keep pace with the endemic inflation which underlay most aspects of Elizabethan life. In this period of economic and social turbulance some made fortunes but others, of all rural classes - gentry, yeomen, husbandmen and cottagers, landlords, tenants and day laborers - went under. In addition, the fluctuations of industry and trade, especially a depression in the textile industries under the early Stuarts, created unemployment in the small towns and villages where spinning and weaving were a vital supplementary income to farm wages. People drifted from their hamlets and villages in search of work, often into the towns which were overrun with the poor and indigent. There was a floating population, from younger sons of the gentry to cottagers, whose ties with the land and traditional habits had loosened and who were ripe for a more radical uprooting. As a result, there was a spirit of unease, of insecurity abroad and a conviction that England was becoming overpopulated; and this was at a time when news of the fertile lands of the New World, conveyed by propagandist pamphleteering, was the talk of the town and the village. There were many in circumstances sufficiently discouraging and of a temperament sufficiently adventurous to be lured from their habitual existence and tempted to chance their arms across the Atlantic to win those fifty acres of freehold which were beyond the dreams of cottagers and artisans in Somerset and Suffolk. Such were the colonists whom the Virginia Company recruited for the first ship's companies who settled Jamestown.<br />
<br />
It was through the Virginia Company that the young Sir Robert Rich first became seriously interested in colonization. In 1612 at the age of twenty-five he was made a member of it and its subsidiary, the Bermuda Company. Bermuda had been put on the map in 1609 when Sir George Somers was shipwrecked there and had returned to extol its beauties and fertility. Two years later the Bermuda Company had been given an independent charter with Rich as its principal shareholder and landowner. Thereafter, along with his privateering, Bermuda was a principal interest of his and he was responsible for importing the first negro slaves to work on his estate there. In due course he also came to be prominent in the affairs of the Virginia Company itself and deeply involved in its turbulent inner politics which, in 1623, led the King to revoke the company's charter and to take over Virginia as a royal colony. By this time, however, Warwick was beginning to shift his interests from Virginia to New England.<br />
<br />
Now thirty-six, Warwick was a powerful and influential figure in colonial affairs. Personally, he had charm and an engaging intelligence and was expansive and generous with his associates. His daughter-in-law wrote that 'he was one of the most best-natured and the cheerfullest persons I have in my time met with'; and even Clarendon who was hostile to his politics conceded that 'he was a man of a pleasant and companionable wit and conversations, of a universal jollity'. Dominant and cool in keeping with his aristocratic bearing, he was aggressive, hard-headed, courageous and versatile in business. Unlike his younger brother who, as Lord Kensington then Earl of Holland, committed himself to a career at court, Warwick had by now outgrown court lie and was probably out of sympathy with it. He would shortly emerge as one of the leaders of the Puritan party in Parliament in opposition to Charles I. For despite his worldly, swashbuckling, acquisitive style of life, Robert Warwick had grown up in a Puritan atmosphere and had been educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, which was at the forefront of the intellectually fashionable Puritan movement.<br />
<br />
The Puritan opposition to the early Stuarts, like so much else in this story, had Tudor origins. The Elizabethan Church Settlement was designed to end the conflicts caused by the ambiguities of Henry VIII's Reformation and the alternating Protestantism and Catholicism of his successors. Matthew Parker and his colleagues, with great political tact, ingenuity and artistry, constructed a Protestant church for and of England which managed to contain these disparate strands of doctrine and liturgy within a single allegiance. But in the latter years of the 16th century the radical Calvinist mentality of Geneva came to sit more and more uneasily with the liturgy of the Elizabethan settlement. For some strenuous souls only a spiritual conversion to a state of grace could be the test of true religion, and groups like the Brownists came together as gathered communities or sects, predecessors of the Separatists who at the turn of the 17th century felt they could no longer practice their faith in England and migrated to the more congenial Calvinist Netherlands. But most people of this persuasion remained content to worship loyally within the Church of England while striving to purge it of papistical practices and simplify and purify its doctrines and liturgy in the spirit of the early church of New Testament times. Both sectaries and reformers came to be described as 'Puritans', a generic term which went beyond immediate issues of church doctrine. It stood for all the intellectual, spiritual and indeed aesthetic values of a whole generation who regarded themselves as 'modern'. They sought to discipline themselves to the learning of the Renaissance, the spirit of the Reformation and the responsible social values of a more urban and outward-looking style of living than that of the post-feudal world which they had inherited. Puritanism was especially fashionable among the educated classes, including an important and powerful element of the aristocracy, bred at the universities and the Inns of Court, and especially at Cambridge which sent forth a whole cadre of intellectual, educated graduates to raise the often ignorant and slovenly standards of the clergy in parishes throughout the land.<br />
<br />
So long as Roman Catholic Spain remained the national enemy these fractures within the Church of England were contained; but with the waning of that menace and the growth of a High Anglican court party under Charles I and his Catholic queen the inherent opposition between Puritan and High Church parties became increasingly polarized. This especially concerned the position and authority of the bishops. The rise to power of the High Church William Laud, as Bishop of London and then Archbishop of Canterbury, signalled an outright drive against Puritan values in general and Puritan clergy in particular. Lines also became drawn in secular politics, between the court party upholding James I's notions of the divine right of kings and the aristocrats, knights of the shire and burgesses from the boroughs (especially the City of London) who constituted the Houses of Parliament.<br />
<br />
Prominent among the opposition leaders in the House of Lords was the Earl of Warwick. In attacking the King's personal rule this group of peers made common cause with like-minded friends in the Commons such as Sir John Eliot and John Pym. Warwick supported the Commons in their struggle for the Petition of Right, refused to subscribe to the forced loan and made an eloquent speech against the King's bid to imprison without due cause. He would subsequently become a prominent figure in the Parliamentary cause. True to his interests and talents he became president of the commission governing the colonies under the Long Parliament and later as Lord High Admiral between 1643 and 1645 he would successfully command the Parliamentary navy.<br />
<br />
More immediately relevant to this narrative was his active influence on behalf of Puritan ministers. One of the perks which his great-grandfather, along with others of his kind, had acquired at the Reformation was the right to present clergy to livings in the parishes of their extensive landholdings. Such livings, inherited or acquired by Warwick and other peers, like the Duke of Bedford and the Earl of Pembroke, were sufficiently extensive to block Laud's plan to achieve a fully Laudian parish clergy. Many of the great Puritan ministers survived as preachers because of this patronage. Perhaps the most powerful of them, Edmund Calamy, held one of Warwick's livings and described him as 'a great patron and Maecenas to the pios and religious ministry'. Even Clarendon, who thought Warwick a hypocrite, grudgingly admits it:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">He had great authority and credit with that people who,<br />
in the beginning of the trouble, did all the mischief; and<br />
by opening his doors and making his house the<br />
rendezvous of all the silenced ministers...and spending<br />
a good part of his estate...upon them, and by being<br />
present with them at their devotions...he became the<br />
head of that party and got the style of a godly man.</span></blockquote>Warwick's leanings towards Puritan clergy were not limited to the patronage of his own livings in England. During the thirty years that he was governor of the Bermuda Company he selected as ministers for those islands clergy who, although professedly Anglican, were at the heart non-conformists and set up a 'government of ministers' in Presbyterian fashion, eventually becoming schismatics. But this was only a minor aspect of the way he used his power and influence for the Puritan cause in the English colonizing of North America.<br />
<br />
For among the ingredients making for successful colonization was religion. The lure of a landed freehold was powerful enough to attract the labour which made it possible to settle Virginia. Bt the unhappy early experiences of that colony with its motley band of settlers whose only motive was material betterment left something seriously lacking. And, if the less fertile and less climatically friendly region of the American littoral north of Chesapeake Bay was to be exploited, a motive was needed to release deeper and more sustained energies. With a fortunate conjunction of circumstances, which to its participants seemed like divine intervention, this was provided by Puritanism. For over a decade, from his influential position on the governing bodies of colonizing companies, Warwick was in a position to give a helping hand to directing Puritan energies towards colonial settlement.<br />
<br />
After a failure in Maine the Plymouth Company remained inactive and indeed moribund. In 1620, however, it was reconstituted as the Council for New England with authority to develop the northern part of 'Virginia', that is to say all the territory between the Hudson River and the Gaspee Peninsula: that huge expanse stretching between 42 degrees and 48 degrees latitude which constitutes modern New England and Nova Scotia. Warwick was appointed to a seat on the new council. At this time those Separatists who twenty years before had left their native Lincolnshire for the religious freedom of the Netherlands were dissatisfied and restless with their life in Leyden and contemplating a more radical solution to their quest for a spiritual home. Like so many emigrants in the two centuries to come, having once uprooted themselves, they found it all the easier to contemplate uprooting themselves again, and the possibilities of America were being widely canvassed. At this time people were still thinking in terms of the Caribbean, and the year before a company had been formed to colonize Raleigh's old territory of Guiana. Warwick was the organizer and for some time had been in touch with the Leyden Separatists with a view to recruiting them for this venture. But it collapsed. Whereupon the Leyden people, with Warwick's help and backing from a group of London merchants, sailed in the <em>Mayflower</em> for their New World retreat, situated, they thought, to the north in the territory of the Virginia Company. However, the accidents of the voyage compelled them to land at what they called Plymouth in New England, outside the Virginia Company's patent but within the remit of the newly formed Council for New England. Once again it was Warwick, as a leading member of the latter, who came to their rescue and obtained for them a patent from the new council for the land on which they were squatting. 'It is a striking fact in Warwick's career', wrote Arthur Newton, the historian of this episode, 'that he was the only person of high rank and influence connected with all the bodies with whom the Leyden pilgrims negotiated before they could secure a home for themselves in the New World': that is to say, the Guiana Company, the Virginia Company and the Council for New England; and ten years later it would be Warwick again, as president of the Council for New England, who would obtain for Plymouth Colony its second, and definitive, grant.<br />
<br />
The fortuitous 'setting down', as the phrase went, of the Pilgrim Fathers in Massachusetts Bay rather than Virginia radically shifted the colonizing scene from its buccaneering, West Indian orientation to that of the north Atlantic fishing grounds. West Countrymen, along with French, Basques and Portuguese, had been fishing off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia for nearly a century, and in 1610 some Bristol merchants had even tried to settle a colony on Newfoundland. More recently West Country ships were being attracted to the waters off the coast of Maine and it was the experience of fishermen whose home port was Weymouth, Dorset, that led to the first deliberate attempt to settle on the shores of New England. Weymouth was the port for Dorchester, eight miles inland and a county town with important mercantile connections overseas. Dorchester had come increasingly under the influence of its principal clergyman, John White. This remarkable man, a former fellow of New College, Oxford, was an able divine and an outstanding example of that generation of moderate Puritan reforming clergy. Since he will be the principal subject of the next chapter, it is sufficient here to note that from 1606, when he was inducted as rector of Holy Trinity, he had effected a single-handed reformation of public morality in Dorchester which extended from church worship to schooling and care of the poor. He also developed a concern for the spiritual needs of those Weymouth fishermen who were away from their parishes and family ties for half the year on their perilous calling. He became aware, too, that the effectiveness of that fishery left much to be desired. Since the season's catches had to be dried or salted for the long voyage home, the ships had to be doubled crewed to provide labour for the curing process at staithes set up on the New England shore. This was inefficient. Why not, thought this highly practical rector, transform those staithes into permanent shore settlements which could be manned throughout the winter as a service base for the seasonal fishing fleet and obviate the necessity for double manning? Moreover, such settlements might in time support wives and families and, more to his point, a minister to care for their spiritual needs.<br />
<br />
After an exploratory voyage commissioned by prominent Dorchester merchant, he organized the granting of a patent from the Council for New England and in 1624, after a public meeting in Dorchester (called by a local wag the 'Planters' Parliament') he launched what came to be known as the Dorchester Company consisting of 109 members, mostly Dorset gentry and merchants and a strong element of Puritan clergy, the object of which was to establish a fishing 'plantation' in New England. Like so many pioneering efforts, this was a failure and in 1626 was wound up. White was not, however, a man to give up and leave in the lurch not only the company's creditors but a rump of settlers at Cape Ann on the north shore of Massachusetts Bay. By this time he had come to understand that his original idea of a fishing plantation was impracticable, if only because fishermen and 'landsmen' planters were fish and fowl; also the tide of governmental opinion was running so strongly against the Puritans that he and others were beginning to think seriously about extablishing a colony specifically as a retreat where Puritans could practise their religion unmolested.<br />
<br />
Realizing that such a project needed more ambitious organization and funding, he recruited a nucleus of West Country notables, including Sir Henry Rosewell, the Lord Lieutenant of Devon, and John Humphrey, Esquire, treasurer of the Dorchester Company, prominent enough to attract the interest of London merchants and to pursuade the Council for New England to grant a new and more comprehensive patent. In 1628 that council appears to have been in abeyance; but its president was now our Earl of Warwick. With the council's great seal in his possession at Warwick House, off Holborn in London, he granted a patent for the New England Company, with more specific conditions, and territorial bounds four miles north of the Merrimac, four miles south of the Charles River, and west to the 'South Sea'. Whether he did this in his personal capacity as recipient of part of the council's earlier territorial division, or as president of the council without consulting the other council members, will never be known because the patent itself was spirited away and has disappeared. The act was, however, typical, both of Warwick's sympathy for the Puritan cause and of the high-handed way in which he took it upon himself to act: and the result in the end was a characteristic row.<br />
<br />
The New England Company was constituted on a voluntary, unincorporated joint-stock basis with sufficient capital to start a plantation. Of its forty-one subscribers, twenty-five were merchants, most from the City of London and identified with other Puritan ventures, seven were gentry, mostly lawyers of the Inns of Court, and six belonged to the original Dorchester Company, including John White. They also included John Humphrey, who had been treasurer of that company. Humphrey, of Chaldon near Dorchester, was of the Dorset gentry and a Puritan friend of White. In 1630 he married Lady Susan, sister of the Earl of Lincoln who was of the same circle as the Earl of Warwick. Lady Lincoln was a daughter of Warwick's Puritan colleague in the House of Lords, Lord Saye and Sele. Lincoln's other sister, Arbella, was married to Isaac Johnson, also a member of the New England Company. John Humphrey succeeded in interesting his brother-in-law Lincoln in John White's colonizing venture; and it was Lincoln, together with his kinsman and steward Thomas Dudley, who was to provide, at Sempringham, a centre for that eastern counties group which, along with the London merchants, was to become so prominent in the New England Company and its successor, the Massachusetts Bay Company. It was owing to Humphrey that the Lincoln connection became associated with the enterprise.<br />
<br />
The New England Company, having taken over the assets of the old Dorchester group, promptly dispatched the <em>Abigail</em>, one of the latter's ships, from Weymouth under John Endicott, a member of the new company and designated governor of the old Dorchester Company settlement, now at Salem; and other ships followed. Unfortunately these happenings came to the ears of an opponent of Warwick, Sir Fernando Gorges, who learned, to his annoyance, that they lay within territory which had been earlier granted to his son and where a scattering of his own servants were already settled. Realizing that their patent must thus be flawed and scenting trouble from the Gorges family, the members of the New England Company decided to go over the head of the Council for New England, whose president had so accommodatingly granted their patent, and apply to the King for a charter under the great seal. This they did and on 4 March 1629 when the charter passed the seals the New England Company was successfully transformed into the Massachusetts Bay Company. The circumstances whereby this came about are still obscure. Suffice it to say that of possible objectors Gorges was busy elsewhere, and of the two principal petitioners in favour one was Warwick, friend of the company's Puritan promoters.<br />
<br />
With the granting of the charter, the company membership was revamped and extended to represent the rapidly growing Puritan interests of East Anglia and the Lincoln connection. In June, Warwick's Suffolk neighbour John Winthrop, squire and lawyer, like John Humphrey having been dismissed as attorney for the court of wards, was in a mood of profound depression about the state of the country. The passage by the Commons the year before of the Petition of Right had seemed at the time a triumph for the rights of the subject under the Common Law; but the King had responded by proroguing Parliament. In the new session that January matters had gone from bad to worse. The publication of a royal 'Declaration touching Public Worship', which seemed to Puritans to open the door to popish practices in religion, led to turbulent scenes in the Commons; and, when the King attempted to adjourn the House, the Speaker was forcibly held in his chair to enable defiant resolutions to be passed against Arminians and papists and the payment of tonnage and poundage. As a result, Parliament was dissolved and Eliot and eight other Members were arrested and sent to the Tower. It looked as if the King were preparing to rule the country personally. The appointment of Laud as Bishop of London and as president of the Court of High Commission was ominous news for Puritans. Abroad, the Protestant cause was everywhere on the run, from Denmark to La Rochelle, and absolutism and Catholicism seemed triumphant. It appeared only a matter of time before Laud and Charles's Catholic queen would bring England back to the Old Religion.<br />
<br />
In a mood of dispair, John Winthrop determined on the radical course and, with his brother-in-law Emmanuel Downing, rode up to Lord Lincoln's seat at Sempringham to identify himself with the project to emigrate to Massachusetts Bay. In July he was one of the twelve members of the company who met in Cambridge to pledge themselves to emigrate on the understanding that they should take the charter with them across the Atlantic. In other words, the government of the enterprise should be in the hands not of 'Adventurers' sitting as a court in the colony itself. The full implications of this would take us beyond the scope of this narrative; it may, however, be ventured that this momentous decision, taken in private if not secretly, had the tacit approval of the Earl of Warwick who had been so influential in seeing that charter through the seals, just as he had on an earlier occasion approved a scheme for the local self-government of Virginia. It is clear from correspondence that the Massachusetts settlers were given considerable support by Warwick, and his fellow colonizers then and later. Meanwhile Winthrop was elected Governor of the enlarged company to which he immediately gave a new and more radical thrust. John Humphrey was deputy governor, thus keeping the West Country connection; and on 29 March 1630, after a hectic winter of preparations and the expenditure of large sums of money, a fleet, with Winthrop on board the flagship <em>Arbella</em>, set sail for Massachusetts Bay.<br />
<br />
The voyage of the Winthrop fleet bearing over 700 people across the north Atlantic and the consequent settlement of Charleston, Boston, Dorchester and a half-dozen or more other townships on the shores and rivers of Massachusetts Bay was a colonizing venture of a new and different order of magnitude from anything that had gone before. It was a far cry from the early privateering ventures which had first tempted the young Sir Robert Rich into the Atlantic world; but it was not to mark the end of his interest or endeavours in the field of colonizing.<br />
<br />
The looming crisis in the affairs of England which caused John Winthrop to despair also induced a deep pessimism in the Earl of Warwick and his associates, who for the past few years had made so much of the running for the opposition in Parliament. Warwick himself and Saye and Lincoln in the Lords, and in the Commons its Leader Sir John Eliot, Warwick's cousin Sir Nathaniel Rich, and John Pym were part of the inner core of the party and through working together in the House and its communities had come to form a close-knit group whose activities extended beyond the politics of Westminster. The dissolution of Parliament and the clear determination of the King to rule on his own, the death in prison of Warwick's close friend Eliot which must have deeply affected them all, and the impressive example of Winthrop and company's expedition, turned the thoughts of Warwick and his friends towards establishing a colony of their own to which they might themselves emigrate should the worst ensue.<br />
<br />
Warwick was not yet, however, convinced by Winthrop's decision in favour of New England, and still hankered after his familiar warm and sunny waters of the West Indies, and in the December after the departure of the Winthrop fleet he launched the company we noted earlier, with the object of establishing a colony on what came to be called Providence Island on the Mosquito Coast. Of its twenty original subscribers, five were members of Warwick's own coterie, including his brother Lord Holland and his cousin and man of business, Sir Nathaniel Rich; nine were members of the inner core of opposition and Members of the Parliament of 1628-9; they included, besides Warwick himself, Lords Saye and Sele and Brooke, and, above all, John Pym, who was emerging as the ablest organizer of them all; and finally there was a small group of Puritan squires from East Anglia.<br />
<br />
However, this was not the only fall-back position envisaged by this group of disaffected Puritan notables who, perhaps influenced by Winthrop's example, turned their attention to New England. As Sir Fernando Gorges commented, these 'were so fearful what would follow [the dissolution of Parliament], some of the principal of those liberal speakers being committed to the Tower, others to other prisons - which took all hope of reformation of Church government...some of the discreeter sort...made use of their friends to procure from the Council for the affairs of New England to settle a colony within their limits.' Thus Warwick, whether as president of the Council for New England of under his own territorial share dating back to 1623, issued yet another patent, confirmed on 19 March 1632, for a grant of land stretching forty leagues west of the Narragansett River to a group of 'peers and gentlemen' who included the familiar names of Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Brooke, Lord Rich, the Hon. Charles Fiennes of the Lincoln connection, Sir Nathaniel Rich, Sir Richard Saltonstall, John Humphrey Esquire, deputy governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company, and John Pym. Once again Warwick, acting in his cavalier and lordly way, failed to consult the members of his council and there is doubt as to whether the patent was ever properly executed. There was another row with the Gorges faction who this time confronted Warwick and demanded that he deliver up the council's seal. Henceforward the court party, led by Gorges, took over the affairs of the council and Warwick played little part in its affairs.<br />
<br />
In the next two years these notables were increasingly harried by the King's men. Warwick and Brooke were attacked on their estates by the vindictive enforcement of the forest laws, Pym was twice sued by the attorney general for breaking virtual house arrest in the country, Warwick lost his undivided lord lieutenancy and the first writs of ship money were levied. The time had come for these peers and gentlemen to take up their option of emigrating. There is no evidence that Warwick himself intended to emigrate; and the story put about by Royalist writers that Pym, Hampden and Cromwell actually embarked but were stopped on the King's orders is discredited. But with Pym and his associates the intention is clear.<br />
<br />
Events crystallized with the return to England in the autum of 1634 of John Winthrop the younger who, somewhat disenchanted with the way things were going in Massachusetts Bay, was hoping to organize a settlement somewhere else in New England. Seeking out his father's friends Lord Saye and Sir Nathaniel Rich, he helped shape the plans of what came to be called, after its two principal peers, the Saybrook Colony. The following spring Sir Richard Saltonstall sent twenty of his servants to stake out an estate up the Connecticut River, and Winthrop was commissioned to lead an expedition to establish a settlement at the mouth of the same river, to build a fort and 'such houses as may receive men of quality'. He arrived back in New England in late autum and spent the winter at the mouth of the Connecticut where Lieutenant Lion Gardiner, an engineer officer who had served under Sir Edward Harwood in the Netherlands, supervised the construction of a fort.<br />
<br />
A small settlement was thus precariously established; but as a base for the enterprise conceived by those English peers and gentlemen it proved to be yet another pioneering failure. It had been too long delayed. By 1635 Laud had become inquisitive about the Puritan colonies, demanding to see the Massachusetts Company charter, and suspicious of further departures, so that it was difficult to recruit colonists. By this time, also, the parties were becoming sufficiently polarized for Puritans to sense their duty was to take a stand at home. There was also uneasiness about the flaws in the so-called Warwick patent; and there was a problem over Saybrook's constitution, which limited voting and other civil rights to freemen in full church membership. English notables and squires, brought up to govern in manors and villages where the parochial clergy knew their place, shied from the thought of control by such spiritual authority. In the event, only one of the peers and gentlemen actually turned up: George Fenwick, Esquire, who arrived in 1636 and later brought over his wife; after that poor lady sickened and died he returned to England, selling his land and other rights to Connecticut Colony. As for Saltonstall's 'estate' up the Connecticut River, his servants there were cold-shouldered by certain squatters who arrived overland from Massachusetts Bay, and were fobbed off with land on the upper frontier of the settlement and with a grant of 2000 acres on the east side of the river. The latter, grandiloquently entitled Saltonstall Park, was never developed. Saltonstall, to his bitter anger, was cheated of his investment. The time was already past when, in New England at any rate, patrician colonizers, however well intentioned, could establish a colony based on the English shire, with estates worked by servants or tenants and a parochial clergy. As for the Earl of Warwick, his future career lay at home, fighting for the Parliamentary cause in the English Civil War.<br />
<br />
That pioneer band of settlers who in 1635 forestalled Sir Richard Saltonstall's men by squatting on his lush Connecticut River meadows had trekked across the New England wilderness from Massachusetts. Five years before, they had been part of the hegira organized by the Massachusetts Bay Company and led by John Winthrop which had sailed from Southampton to settle in New England. But they were a special and discrete part of that great migration. Most of them had crossed the Atlantic in one great ship, the <em>Mary and John</em>, which had sailed not in company with the Winthrop fleet, but alone; and her passengers had established themselves in a settlement of their own. For, unlike most of the Winthrop emigrants, who were East Anglians, these were West Country people voyaging from Plymouth and hailing from particular parts of Dorset, Somerset and Devon. It is this ban of emigrants who are the subject of this narrative.<br />
<br />
The ship's company of the <em>Mary and John </em>named both their Massachusetts Bay and their Connecticut River settlements Dorchester (later they would rename the latter Windsor). There was a reason for this dedication. Dorchester was not only the county town of most of them; it was also the home and headquarters of the Rev. John White, who had recruited them and masterminded their whole enterprise. So its story begins, as did so much of the colonizing of New England itself, with the rector of Holy Trinity church, Dorchester. He will be the subject of the next chapter.<br />
<br />
<a name="john-white-and-west-countrys-atlantic-horizon"></a><b>John White and the West Country's Atlantic Horizon 1620-30</b><br />
<br />
This, the twentieth of March in the year of our Lord 1630 and the fifth year of the reign of King Charles I, had been dedicated to the merciful Providence of God; or so John White, rector of Dorchester, must have thought as he took leave of his departing flock of 'planters' and watched their <em>Mary and John </em>warping through the congested shipping of Plymouth Harbour, bound for the grey Atlantic and a remote New England landfall.<br />
<br />
The <em>Mary and John</em>, a great ship of 400 tons burden, Thomas Squibb master, must have tied up in Plymouth Harbour a day or two before, having sailed round the coast from her home port of Weymouth, Dorset. Many of her passengers had probably embarked at Weymouth after journeying with their belongings from homes in the villages and country towns of west Dorset and Somerset. John White had most likely travelled with them, together with other notables, including Mr Roger Ludlow, the new owner of the <em>Mary and John</em>, who was one of two assistants of the Massachusetts Bay Company travelling with the party and providing its official leadership. The other assistant, Mr Edward Rossiter, a landed gentleman of Combe St Nicholas, Somerset, appears to have missed the ship at Weymouth and to have had to travel overland to Plymouth where he and his family embarked with other recruits from Devon, especially nearby Exeter. At any rate, by that morning the entire ship's company had been assembled and her manifest was complete.<br />
<br />
It had been an emotional and spiritually charged day for these Puritans, mostly parents with young children, virtually the first families to entrust themselves to the unknown hazards of a north Atlantic voyage, and for John White, whose initiative and drive had conceived and launched the whole enterprise. As befitted such a Puritan occasion, it had been a solemn day of fasting, given over to preaching and prayer. In the morning, the ship's company had disembarked and walked up from the harbour through the thronged streets of the port to the barely completed Hospital of the Poor's Portion, a Puritan institution for indigent old people and 'for setting children to work'. Their host had been Matthias Nicholls, 'preacher of God's Word in the town of Plymouth', a Puritan colleague of White's from New College days and a family friend.<br />
<br />
The morning's proceedings had begun in Puritan fashion with a sermon preached by John White, 'that worthy man of God'. In the afternoon the ship's company formally confirmed the nomination of the two 'Reverend and Godly Ministers of the Word' who were to lead them on their errand into the New World wilderness. This was a variant of the normal ceremony for the appointment of a clergyman to a parish living; but in the unique circumstances, with an eclectic, Puritan congregation that was also a ship's company, no bishop was likely to have been prepared to act, so the office was undertaken by the Dorchester patriarch and ecclesiastical colonizer, John White. The other departure from Anglican practice was the ordination of two ministers, a preacher and a teacher. The preacher was John Warham, recently curate of St Sidwell's by Exeter, the teacher John Maverick, rector of Beaworthy, also in Devon. In the words of young Roger Clapp who was one of the ship's company: 'These godly people resolved to live together...and the people did solemnly make choice of, and call those godly ministers to be their officers, so also did the Reverend Mr Warham and Mr Maverick accept thereof and expressed the same.' This day of fasting and solemn exercises of humble testimony and dedication proved a fitting send-off for the forty or so families, 140 people in all, who constituted what would be known, in honour of John White, as the Dorchester migration and who were by now settling in on shipboard as best they might, no doubt in anxious anticipation of the ocean journey ahead. They were to sail down the English Channel on the tide perhaps that night or the following day.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, having said farewell to his intrepid company, John White made his way back on horseback from Plymouth through Exeter to his Dorchester home; but not to stay because he had to hurry on to the port of Southampton in order to catch the <em>Arbella</em>, flagship of the fleet of emigrant ships under John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company, which was also bound for New England and lay becalmed off Cowes. White's purpose, apart from saying farewell, was to present Winthrop with his own draft of a document entitled <em>A Humble Request</em> which he hoped would constitute a manifesto of the religious beliefs and purposes of the departing colonists and reassure the English ecclesiastical authorities that the departing Puritans remained loyal members of the Church of England and were not become subversive Separatists. For as we have seen, White had a principal hand not only in the venture of the <em>Mary and John </em>but in that whole great enterprise of the Massachusetts Bay Company and its predecessors which was to people New England.<br />
<br />
When the <em>Mary and John </em>sailed for Massachusetts Bay, John White was in his fifty-sixth year and had been rector of Holy Trinity, Dorchester for some twenty years; it had been his first charge after leaving Oxford. Born at Christmas 1575, he was the son of the tenant of the manor farm of Stanton St John, just outside Oxford. This belonged to New College, Oxford and it was through the influence of an uncle, at that time warden of the college, that his father acquired the 'fame' of it. Young John was sent to Winchester and thence, in 1593, to that school's sister, New College. After taking his degree he remained there as a fellow until 1606 when he was appointed to the Crown living of Dorchester. In his time at Oxford, New College was known for its Puritan tendencies, which Laud had attributed to the study of Calvin's Institutes; and it is hardly surprising that the young John White should have been influenced by that fashionable theological discipline. In 1604 James I had instructed the Hampton Court conference of scholars and divines to compile a new translation of the Bible, and two of the translators were fellows of New College, one of them having taught White at Winchester. He had friends and associates who became known for their Puritan opinions. One, John Burgess, a pupil of Thomas Cartwright the Puritan divine, became White's brother-in-law; another probable kinsman, John Ball, wrote a <em>Treatise on Faith</em> which White was to use as a catechism; a third, Richard Bernard, who would become rector of Batcombe, Somerset, drew up a system of instruction for his parishioners which White adopted in Dorchester. Bernard's intimate friend John Conant, subsequently rector of Lincoln College, Oxford, was of the same school of thought and was to be a colleague of White's in his New England ventures; there was Dr Twise, a contemporary of White's at both Winchester and Oxford, who was concerned with events in the Palatinate and in New England, especially with converting the Indians; and there were the Nicholls brothers of New College, one of whom as we have just seen became a Puritan lecturer in Plymouth; the other, Ferdinando, was to be one of White's assistants in Dorchester and a more extreme Puritan than any.<br />
<br />
These were heady times for young men about to take orders in the Church of England. For some, Puritan doctrines and practices were to take them further in the direction of the primitive church and against hierarchy, liturgy and ceremony, so that they sympathized with the Separatists who had fled episcopal persecution for Leyden and New England and, subsequently, with the more extreme sectaries of the Commonwealth. But not all were so extreme. John White, in particular, though Puritan, never parted from his identity with and loyalty to the Church of England or from his own sacramental dedication as a priest within it. This was fundamental to his role in the Puritan colonizing of New England. High-minded though he was, disciplined to a life of prayer, service and simplicity, he was no come-outer, and he assumed a role of dedicated leadership within the Church of England and to that West Country community of Dorchester to which he had been called. He remained a moderate Puritan, such as was congenial to his neighbour-to-be, the rector of Broadwindsor, Thomas Fuller, who was to write so vividly of the worthies of his generation and was a kindred spirit.<br />
<br />
When White was instituted in 1606 he became rector of two churches, Holy Trinity and St Peter's, prominently situated within a stone's throw of each other towards the upper end of Dorchester's sloping High Street. The combined parishes in his charge comprised most of the area within the Roman walls of what was then, as it is now, the attractive county town of Dorset. A generation earlier Camden had praised it as 'a pretty, large town, with very wide streets and delicately situated on a rising ground, opening at the south and west ends into sweet fields and spacious downs.' In 1613, to quote what may well be White's own words, 'Dorchester (as it is well known) is one of the principal places of traffic for western merchants, by which means it grew rich and populous, beautified with many stately buildings and fair streets, flourishing full of all sorts of tradesmen and artificers, plenty with abundance revealed in her bosom, with a wise and civil government.' And twenty years later Thomas Gerard, though as a Dorset man no doubt prejudiced, was to describe it as having 'flourished exceedingly, so that now it may justly challenge the superiority of all this share as well for quick markets and neat buildings as for the number of the inhabitants, many of which are men of great wealth.'<br />
<br />
Although only a young man fresh down from Oxford, White had standing as a university divine and he found himself at the centre of the town's affairs. With his energy and force of personality he established an ascendency, both moral and practical, which was to span the thirty-six years of his time there and earn him the affectionate title of 'patriarch of Dorchester'.<br />
<br />
In his young days Dorchester 'possessed anything but a pious and estimable reputation': but gradually he made his influence felt and a 'Puritanical or rather a "precise" tone' began to emanate from Holy Trinity and to pervade the town. Absences from church were inquired into and staying at home 'amending her stockings' was no longer a sufficient excuse. Coming late or leaving before the sermon could be punished by fine or even imprisonment. Holy Communion was celebrated more frequently and to larger congregations who were subjected to the Puritan discipline of exhortation and catechism the previous evening. The church itself was embellished with a new pulpit, communion plate, surplices and carpet for the communion table (an indication that White was no Puritan extremist). But his bent was eminently practical as well as moral, and within seven years of his incumbency he was vouchsafed an almost unique opportunity to exercise his talents for civil leadership.<br />
<br />
In the early afternoon of 6 August 1613 a tallow chandler's workshop caught fire and in the warm summer wind flames spread quickly through the town while the men and women were in the fields for the harvest. As a result the town was largely reduced to charred rubble. Some 170 houses were destroyed, as well as two of the three churches, including Holy Trinity, and most of the public buildings, shops and merchants' warehouses with their rich stores of merchandise: 'shops of silks and velvets on a flaming fire, multitudes of linen and woolen clothes burned to ashes, gold and silver melted, and brass, pewter and copper, trunks and chests of damasks and fine linens with all manner of stuffs'. Although, marvellously, no lives were lost, the town was a disaster area: 'Dorchester was a famous town, now a heap of ashes for travellers that pass by to sigh at', and the King advanced £1000 towards its rescue. This was John White's opportunity to invoke the help of Almighty God in galvanizing the Dorchester people into rebuilding their town and community. In this he, together with the bailiffs, burgesses and merchants, succeeded dramatically. Within a few years and despite another fire in 1622 Thomas Gerard could report that 'it is risen up fairer than before'.<br />
<br />
The fire was a purging experience and as the town rose from its ashes there was evident a new spirit of social responsibility which owed much to the patriarch's high-Puritan dedication to the urgent needs of the poor, the starved and famished, the homeless and the growing numbers of unemployed and feckless hangers-on which were characteristic of the times. As White later recalled, 'The whole Town consented to double their weekly rates for the relief of the poor, enlarged their churches and reduced the town into order by good government.' As a borough memorandum records: 'It is not unfit to be observed that before the former great fire...little or no money was given to any charitable uses...But when they saw by this sudden blast...the great miseries of many families that were in an instant harbourless, many men's bowels began to yearn in compassion towards them, studying how to do some good work for the relief of the poor...whereupon many of us, assisted by our faithful pastor, had many meetings.'<br />
<br />
In the year after the fire were built the first of three sets of almshouses. In 1617 after many meetings of 'well affected persons' a subscription was raised to establish a hospital or workhouse for 'setting to work the poor children of the borough' in spinning and burling wool and for their instruction in religion. The latter took the form of learning the catechism of White's friend John Ball. Later, with money left over from this project, a brewhouse was built on hospital land to improve the quality of the town beer. Also in 1617 the Free School was rebuilt and an under-school established with, as master, one Aquila Purchase whom White was to recruit for New England. In the upper room of the Free School a library was established, with a widely ranging catalogue of titles from Foxe's <em>Book of Martyrs to Purchase his Pilgrims</em> and Speed's <em>History and Maps of England</em>. For twenty years, on the anniversary of the great fire, Pastor White preached a sermon linked to the Gunpowder Plot and the collection went to the hospital.<br />
<br />
By 1630, when our emigrants took their leave of Dorset, the morale of their county town was riding high. In that year the borough purchased from the Crown a new corporation charter with a mayor and enhanced privileges and the trades organized themselves into livery companies: clothiers, ironmongers, fishmongers, shoemakers and skinners. More significant, White's Dorchester was becoming known for its Puritan character. 'No place in the west or indeed in any part of England was more deeply imbued with the rigid piety of the Puritans - a feeling which seems to have been strongly fostered by the ministry of the Patriarch of Dorchester'. Clarendon went on to describe the town as the most malignant in the country, the 'magazine whence the other places were supplied with principles of Rebellion'.<br />
<br />
This attitude was taking a more specifically political turn. Of the Members of Parliament imprisoned for resisting the King's order to adjourn the House in 1629, three were West Countrymen associated with White: Denzil Holles, the member for Dorchester and described as the patriarch's disciple, William Strode whose brother headed the list of New England promoters at the 'Planters' Parliament' in Dorchester in 1623, and Sir John Eliot who was probably influenced by White in preparing his <em>Project for New England</em>. At any rate, on 7 May, according to a Privy Council minute, 'one John White, Minister, preacher of Dorchester and Ferdinando Nicholls of Sherborne', one-time assistant to John White, attempted to speak to Holles from beneath his cell window in the Tower of London; they were discovered by the keeper and ejected. The episode spotlights John White as Puritan and as promoter of planting in New England.<br />
<br />
When a Dorchester citizen looked up or down the street he saw beyond the houses an open vista of green downland; and in John White's time that downland was dotted with white sheep. In 1659 Edward Leigh recorded that 'within six miles compass round about Dorchester' there were 300,000 sheep. The Dorset downs were a prime wool-rearing district providing the raw material for the woollen-cloth industry of Dorset's towns and villages. Since its great fire Dorchester itself was in decline as a weaving centre; but from the shuttles of nearby Beaminster, Lyme and Bere and from farther off Sherborne, Shaftesbury and Sturminister, Gillingham and Wareham pack-horses and waggons carried along the winding country roads to Dorchester the broadcloths, the kersies and Dorset dozens which were her mercantile staples. As we have seen, Dorchester's warehouses were stocked with merchandise, notably woollen cloths and linen from the flax grown in the little Brit Valley between Beaminster and Bridport. The same very local rich, damp soil also grew the finest hemp in England, made into sacking and cordage, ropes and tackle in the rope-walks of Bridport which had had an ancient monopoly and still enjoyed a thriving manufacture for the fishing fleets sailing to Newfoundland.<br />
<br />
Dorchester was no mere inland market town. She was an important entrepôt for 'western merchants' trading abroad. Only eight miles to the south lay the port of Weymouth whence Dorchester merchants exported their textiles and other wares across the Channel to France and Spain in exchange for wine and for 'rich stuffes' such as had been consumed in the great fire. Weymouth gave Dorchester a blue-water horizon. It was as much through her seaborne traffic out of Weymouth as by the carriers, wagoners and horsemen on their slow, dusty or muddy wayfaring up east over the downs to the Thames Valley and London that Dorchester kept in touch with the great world.<br />
<br />
William Whiteway, member of a prominent burgess family and a family connection of White's, kept a diary throughout the 1620s and 30s in which he recorded immediate events, such as poor harvests, outbreaks of smallpox, a great cold which froze people to death on the highway, and a high wind which 'tore a coach all in pieces upon Eggardon Hill and beat out the brains of a serving maid in it', cheek-by-jowl with matters of state: Raleigh's execution, the rise of Buckingham, the settlement of Ulster and the plight of the Protestants in the Palatinate. He recorded the abortive negotiations with Spain over the royal marriage. The fleet sent to fetch a Catholic bride for Prince Charles from Madrid touched at Weymouth in August 1623, and he described her flagship, the <em>Princess Royal</em>, as 'a vessel of wonderful bigness and beauty'. To local Puritans like John White the threat of a Catholic queen was of deep concern, as were the events in the Palatinate. As early as 1620 Dorchester raised the remarkable sum of £2000 for the relief of the Protestants there. The sufferings of the Thirty Years' War were brought home to Dorchester people by the arrival in 1626 of a party of German refugees who settled in their midst; and Protestant students from the Continent also appeared from time to time, attracted by John White's reputation. By this time the growing political crisis of Puritanism at home had turned John White's vision to seek a solution overseas.<br />
<br />
In 1633 our friend Thomas Gerard noted that the port of Weymouth and its twin borough, Melcombe Regis, 'gain well by traffic into Newfoundland where they have had 80 sail of ships and barques'. The traffic of Dorset across the north Atlantic to the shores of Newfoundland and its Grand Banks in search of cod and ling was an important industry for the county involving considerable resources of ships and men, from Weymouth, Poole and Lyme. It already had a long history. The Newfoundland fishery was firmly established as early as 1574 when a fleet of some thirty ships sailed thither for the season's fishing, and the number increased rapidly in subsequent years. The trade was profitable and the merchants of Lyme in the reign of James I, 'being engaged in trade to Newfoundland acquired large fortunes and raised the town considerably'. The fishery was not without its difficulties and dangers. As we noted earlier, the operation was seasonal and involved setting up drying frames for the catches on the Newfoundland shores. To cope with this processing, the ships were double manned and at the height of the season there grew to be a considerable fishing and curing population on the Newfoundland shores, not only of English but of French and Dutch. There were jurisdictional disputes and inevitable problems of maintaining order between landsmen and fishermen; in the end the Privy Council had to invest the mayors of Weymouth and neighbouring ports, together with the Vice-Admiral of Dorset, with the admiralty power to administer justice in cases of crime and other offences in Newfoundland and at sea.<br />
<br />
The Newfoundland fishery, based on Dorset home ports and involving nearly 3000 miles of hazardous navigation across the north Atlantic, was a remarkable business for the people of that small western county with a population of probably less than 60,000; and over the generations it bred in her men and women a knowledge and awareness of a wider, maritime world that was in striking contrast to their neighbourly parishes and rural, village occupations. By the 1620s the north Atlantic and the North American littoral were for them very much a part of an enlarged universe: dangerous, unfriendly no doubt, but already taken for granted; and the experience of it gave them understanding, skills and self-confidence to handle north Atlantic enterprise.<br />
<br />
John White became conscious of the needs of this fishing fleet and the maritime community which made their living by it. He regarded them as a kind of extension of his own parish and spiritual charge and he had a special concern for the souls of the fishermen on the Banks. As he wrote, 'Being usually upon their voyages nine or ten months in the year they were left all the while without means of instruction.' He meant, of course, instruction in spiritual matters and he considered how best to improve their lot. He knew about the double manning of the ships and it occurred to him, as it occurred to others, that if a proportion of each ship's company could be left on the Newfoundland shore at the close of the fishing season and through the winter there might be established firm supporting bases for the fishing fleet the following year, and ultimately a colony raising foodstuffs for the fleet and living a more settled and Christian way of life, with a minister to care for their souls.<br />
<br />
White wove this strand of thought with other strands into a rope of colonial policy strong enough for his purpose. Like other Puritan evangelists he had a concern for the souls, not only of Dorset fishermen in Newfoundland, but of the aborigines further west on the American main. Ever since the early Virginia settlements, the conversion of the Indians had been a strong colonial motive for the religious-minded. But the strongest strand of all was the idea of establishing a settlement on the American mainland dedicated to the living of a godly Puritan life. Although White strongly disapproved of Separatists, it was the example of the Leyden exiles and their settlement at New Plymouth in New England in 1621, together with the ever more legible writing on the Church of England wall threatening Puritanism at home, that impelled him to shape his own version of a Puritan colonial policy for New England. It took the best part of the 1620s for this remarkable West Country religious statesman to perfect his theory and practical plans but by 1630 both were maturing. The departure of the <em>Mary and John </em>was the culminating event of years of trial and error in colonial experiment under John White's leadership; it was also marked by the publication of his fully fledged treatise on Puritan colonial policy, <em>The Planters Plea</em>.<br />
<br />
This piece of apologetics for 'planting' is only part of a large literature on the subject; but as a distillation of the ideas and experience that lie behind the Dorchester emigration it is especially illuminating. It begins, as do others of its kind, by dwelling on the current problems of employment, and especially the distortions whereby many are drawn into serving in 'luxury and wantonness to the impoverishing and corrupting of the most' and many others, brought up to skilled and useful trades, are under-employed or reduced to 'such a low condition as is little better than beggary' and to idleness and sin. His general conclusion is that 'we have more men than we can employ to any profitable or useful labour', especially skilled people in 'our towns and cities'. He then calls attention to England's special opportunity, as a seafaring nation,<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">to transport our men and provisions by sea into those<br />
countries, without which advantage they cannot possibly<br />
be peopled from any part of the world...how useful a<br />
neighbour the sea is to the furthering of such a work...</span></blockquote>and contrasts the relative economics of sea and land transport, where in the latter 'Planters...must needs spend much time and endure much labour in passing their families and provisions over rivers and through woods and thickets by unbeaten paths.<br />
<br />
The English, being so well placed, have a religious duty to undertake the planting of colonies, for 'the most eminent and desirable end of planting is the propagation of religion'. Having established this proposition, he turns to the advantages of North America, especially New England, where we had recently been sending 'yearly forty or fifty sail of ships of reasonable good burthen' to trade in furs and fish; and he recounts its advantages: the climate, 'the dryness of the air and constant temper of it'; the corn of the country'; the fertility of the soil for grain and cattle rearing. As a Dorset man, he emphasizes that it is 'naturally apt for hemp and flax especially', and it is abundant in fish, fowl and venison. He is aware that because of 'a three years plague' over a decade before, the Indian inhabitants have been decimated, that their cleared lands are to be had for the asking and at the Indians' friendly invitation. Mercantilist as he was, he emphasizes the advantages that such a colony would bring to the mother country, for 'it is to be desired that the daughter may answer something back by way of retribution to the mother that gave her being'. There were not only the fisheries and the fur trade, but products for shipbuilding - 'planks, mats, oars, pitch, tar and iron' - and, of course, for 'hemp, sails and cordage'. At this point he gets carried away by his enthusiasm where he mentions the wines which New England will produce, 'some as good as any that are found in France by humane culture'; and he finally returns to the overriding duty to civilize the natives:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">Withall, commerce and example of our course of living<br />
cannot but in time breed civility among them and that by<br />
God's blessing may make way for religion consequently<br />
and for the saving of their souls.</span></blockquote>It already has a 19th-century ring about it.<br />
<br />
As in similar tracts he then sets out in dialogue form to answer the principal objections to planting: the winter cold (the snow is no worse than in parts of Germany and there is plenty of fuel); the serpents and other wild beasts (again no worse than Germany); the mosquitoes (no worse than in fenny parts of Essex and Lincolnshire). More seriously, he answers the charge that the English are not natural colonists: 'We are known too well to the world to love the smoke of our own chimneys so well that hopes of great advantages are not likely to draw many of us from home.' He recognizes there is truth in this, but believes that personal interests will prevail with some and that their example will induce others to follow. But he devotes the greatest space to rebutting a charge that those who would go overseas are seditious people and Separatist in religion, determined to subvert the state and to separate from the Church of England. He denies this, challenging his accusers to produce evidence that the Massachusetts Bay people have any such subversive intentions; and making the distinction, vital to his own position on theology and church order, between Separatism and a refusal to conform to Laudian liturgy within the existing Church of England:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">...there is great odds between peaceable men, who out<br />
of tenderness of heart forbear the use of some ceremonies<br />
of the Church (whom this State in some things thinks fit<br />
to wink at, and it may be would do more if it were<br />
assured of their temper) and men of fiery and turbulent<br />
spirits, that walk in a cross way out of distemper of mind.<br />
Now suppose some of those men that...consider...<br />
their contrary practice gives distaste to government, and<br />
occasions some disturbance unto the Church's peace,<br />
upon that ground withdraw themselves for quietness<br />
sake; Would not such dispositions be cherished with<br />
great tenderness?</span></blockquote>In conclusion, he summarizes the motives of 'our Planters in their voyage to New-England', making 'bold to manifest not only what I know, but what I guess concerning their purpose'. It is absurd to think that they are all of one mind. 'Necessity may press some; novelty draw on others; hopes of gain in time to come may prevail with a third sort; but that the most and most sincere and godly part have the advancement of the Gospel for their main scope I am confident.' And of these, he admits, 'some may entertain hope and expectation of enjoying greater liberty there than here in the use of some orders and ceremonies of our Church, it seems very probable.'<br />
<br />
All this was apologetics for a <em>fait accompli</em>: not only the <em>Mary and John </em>but a whole fleet of emigrant ships were about to transport across the Atlantic by far the most ambitious colonizing expedition yet to be launched for North America.<br />
<br />
In 1622 the recently formed Council for New England broadened its company terms to invite as subscribers not only 'persons of honour or gentlemen of blood' but 'western merchants', in order to attract capital and enterprise from those mercantile interests in Dorset and Devon engaged in trade with Newfoundland and New England. This came to White's notice and he seized the opportunity to interest one of his parishioners who was just one of these 'western merchants'. Richard Bushrod was a prosperous Dorchester mercer and merchant adventurer trading in furs and fish from New England, had been a Member of Parliament for the town and was to be so again. White prompted him to form a syndicate of local merchants and gentry. With Sir Walter Erle of Charborough, another local MP, as titular head, they obtained an indenture from the Privy Council to form a company to establish a settlement in New England. On 31 March 1624 they called the meeting at the Free School in Dorchester of interested people which became locally known as 'the New England Planters' Parliament'. Of the steering committee of sixteen there appointed, apart from three parsons, about half were local gentry and half Dorchester merchants. This was the nucleus of the Dorchester Company which before long numbered some 200 members. Of these fifty were Dorset gentry; a half-dozen gentry from Devon; more than thirty were merchants, mostly of Dorchester; at least twenty were clergy; there were four widows whose husbands had been gentry or merchants; there were a few Londoners and the rest were local men 'in a small way of business'.<br />
<br />
The company lost no time in organizing its first voyage to New England on White's principle of combining fishing with settlement. The <em>Fellowship</em>, a small ship of 50 tons, was brought and sent out from Weymouth that very season to fish off Cape Ann on the north shore of Massachusetts Bay; but she arrived too late for profitable fishing and sold her catch for a poor price in Spain. The next year, the company added a Flemish flyboat of 40 tons, probably renamed <em>Pilgrim</em>; but she was badly converted and had to be retrimmed; so again both ships arrived late at the fishing grounds and this voyage made a trading loss, all the worse because of the cost of maintaining the company of landsmen left at Cape Ann over the winter. The third year they tried again with an additional ship, <em>Amytie</em>; but one of the ships sprang a leak about 200 leagues out and had to return to Weymouth for repairs, and because of the war with Spain the market for fish collapsed. This voyage also failed. At this point the adventurers sold off their shipping and stocks and dissolved the company. John White himself ruefully analysed the reasons for the failure. Apart from mishaps and mismanagement in fitting out ships and in the fishing strategy, he blamed the collapse of the market and the badly led and ill-disciplined landsmen left at Cape Ann. They failed to grow provisions according to plan and remained a drain on the company's resources. Above all, White faced up to the fact that the theory behind the scheme, to combine settlement with fishing, was unsound:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">Two things withal may be intimated by the way, that the<br />
very project itself of planting by the help of a fishing<br />
voyage can never answer the success that it seems to<br />
promise. First that no sure fishing place in the land is fit<br />
for planting nor any good place for planting found fit for<br />
fishing at least near the shore. And secondly, rarely any<br />
fishermen will work at Land, neither are husbandmen fit<br />
for fishermen but with long use and experience.</span></blockquote>However, he consoles himself by the philisophical reflection that<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">experience taught us that as in building houses the first<br />
stones of the foundation are buried under ground and<br />
are not seen, so in planting Colonies, the first stocks<br />
employed that way are consumed, although they serve<br />
for a foundation to the work.</span></blockquote>But John White was not one to be easily defeated. And there was the problem of his moral responsibility for the people, the 'landsmen' who, as an essential element in the Dorchester Company project, had been landed on the desolate shore of Cape Ann. Fourteen had been left in 1623, thirty-two the following year and there may have been scores more: the grandson of one of them mentions a figure of 200 and cattle. Although the company had paid them off in full and offered transport home, many undoubtedly were still there Among them also was a significant group who were refugees from the uncompromising Separatism of Plymouth Colony. This group had established a temporary bivouac at Nantasket on the outer shore of what came to be called Boston Bay. They included a minister, John Lyford, a moderate Puritan, John Oldham, an experienced fur trader, and Roger Conant. Conant was one of three brothers of East Budleigh, Devon. He and his brother Christopher had made careers in London, the one as a salter, the other as a grocer, before joining the Plymouth Colony. The third brother, John, went to Oxford where, as we have seen, he was a contemporary and friend of John White, took orders and returned to the West Country as rector of Limington, Somerset. It was through John Conant that White had learned of the difficulties his brother Roger and the others had had with the Plymouth people. Wherepon White had taken the initiative on behalf of the Dorchester Company to write to Conant at Nantasket inviting him to settle at Cape Ann and to become the company's agent there. Conant had accepted. When, therefore, the company was wound up, Roger Conant was one of those who remained; and although he 'disliked the place' - i.e. Cape Ann - 'as much as the adventurers disliked the business' - i.e. the Dorchester Company - he clearly wished to stay and to establish a Puritan colony independent of the Plymouth influence. He looked about for a better place than Cape Ann and settled on Naumkeag, south-west of Cape Ann on the north shore of Massachusetts Bay. White encouraged him to found a new settlement there to be renamed Salem, and undertook to support this with a legal patent, men, provisions and trade goods for the Indians. To bring this about he recruited nine of the inner-core members of the old Dorchester Company under the old company articles, to be an instrument for the direct settlement of a Puritan colony. These were Dorchester merchants together with John Conant, Roger's brother. The new syndicate immediately set about organizing two small ships which were dispatched from Weymouth with cattle, fodder, beef, cheese and butter, soap and oil, beer and clothing for the infant colony.<br />
<br />
But the undertaking was now too ambitious for this small, local group of merchants. They required a new patent under the Council for New England. For this they needed figureheads from among the gentry and they recruited five West Country notables of Puritan persuasion, three from Devon including Sir Henry Rosewell of Ford Abbey who gave his name to the patent, Simon Whetcombe of Sherborne and John Humphrey of Dorchester, both members of the earlier company. They also needed more capital and for this had to go to the City of London where, to begin with, some forty men - half a dozen or so gentlemen, mainly from the Inns of Court, a couple of clergy, two officers of the London trainbands and the rest merchants - subscribed to stock in the new venture, called for short the New England Company. This appointed a governor for Namkeag, John Endicott, of unknown origins but a forceful personality, and dispatched him forthwith in the Abigail from Weymouth on 20 June 1628, with his commission and a cargo of supplies as befitted a governor including wines and spirits, arms and armour. Thereafter the operation transcended its West Country origins. Endecott's new commission was deemed a success and interest in the venture spread abroad 'in sundry parts of the kingdom', in White's words, and<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">began to awaken the spirits of some persons of<br />
competent estates, not formerly engaged, considering<br />
that they lived either without any useful employment at<br />
home and might be more serviceable in assisting the<br />
planting of a colony in New England, took at last a<br />
resolution to unite themselves for the prosecution of that<br />
work.</span></blockquote>These were the new men, gentry and merchants, 'the North Country men' from Lincolnshire and Suffolk, the Johnsons, Dudleys, Winthrops and the rest who during 1629 reshaped the New England Company into the Massachusetts Bay Company, the instrument under which the Winthrop fleet set sail in the spring of 1630.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile John White, as an original stockholder and one of the two Puritan ministers among the first adventurers, remained an influential and respected figure. His <em>Planters Plea </em>was already circulating in manuscript among the promoters of the Massachusetts Bay Company in the summer of 1629; he was on the committee appointed to make the first allotment of land in New England to stockholders and there are grounds for believing he was of the inner group of 'old adventurers' with control over a special joint stock fund; he was present at a momentous meeting of the company's court in London on 19 August 1629 which voted in favour of the revolutionary proposal that the patent and government of the plantation be transferred from London headquarters to New England; when the financial interests of the adventurers (investors) and the planters (settlers) had to be reconciled, White was one of the arbitrators; and he was a member of a committee with the invidious job of estimating the true value of the company's joint stock after a heated debate in which it had been necessary for our Puritan minister to remind 'these pious gentlemen and traders' that the purpose of their enterprise 'was chiefly the glory of God'. It was probably his hand which ensured a continuing West Country influence with the election of Roger Ludlow of Maiden Bradley, Wiltshire, John Humphrey of Dorchester and Edward Rossiter of Combe St Nicholas, Somerset, as Assistants of the company.<br />
<br />
It may be, however, that White felt himself increasingly crowded out by the personalities of the City magnates in London and the influx of new, radical men from eastern counties, keep to exert their authority in their new-found zeal for planting in New England and later given credit for the whole enterprise. He was also probably out of sympathy with the domineering personality of Governor Endicott and had a special concern for those 'old planters' like Roger Conant of Nantasket and Naumkeag who had to struggle to protect their rights.<br />
<br />
What must have given the parson special cause for concern was the way in which church government in Salem was moving towards Separatist beliefs and practices under the influence of the Plymouth neighbours. The matter was brought to a head by the expulsion, under the direction of the governor, of two brothers, John and Samuel Browne of Roxwell, Essex, known personally to White. These had withdrawn from the Separatist-tainted church to worship according to the Book of Common Prayer and had accused the ministers of departing from the orders of the Church of England. The Brownes returned to England in the autumn of 1629 complaining to the Council for New England of their treatment. This must have distressed White because of the subversion of his plans for Salem as a non-conformist, moderately Puritan colony within a purified Church of England, and because of the West Country element in Salem, such as Roger Conant who may have taken part in the Brownes' protest. Worse, White had already begun to recruit entire families for Salem from the West Country to join the old planters and those who had sailed with Endicott in <em>Abigail</em>. Some forty people sailed on the <em>Lyon's Whelp</em> a 'neat and nimble ship', in April 1629 from Dorset and Somerset and 'specially from Dorchester and other places thereabots', including the Sprage family of Fordington and of Upwey who were personal friends of White.<br />
<br />
It seems probable that the <em>Lyon's Whelp</em> contingent were in a special sense under White's patronage. When the old planters were threatened with victimization he had, indeed, contemplated using his own land allocation, as an investor, to establish a colony of his own but had abandoned the idea when Conant, Oldham and company had received compensation. But with Salem going sour on him he may have returned to it. At any rate in the autumn and winter of 1629-30, after the momentous events in Cambridge and London which established the Massachusetts Bay Company and firmed up the plan for a multiple emigration to Massachusetts Bay the following sailing season, White, though playing his part in these events, appears in a measure to have kept his own counsel and back in Dorchester to have reverted to the idea of organizing a colony according to his own way of thinking and believing. He was concerned on the one hand to take the opportunity of the Massachusetts Bay Company's emigration plan to organize a new and more ambitious band of emigrant families from the West Country, while on the other to preserve not only their West Country character but their moderate non-conformity against the Separatist tendencies of Plymouth and Salem and, he may well have suspected, of the Winthrop party itself. And so, as he perfected his plans during that autumn and winter for a new Puritan swarming to the New World, commissioning a ship and sounding out suitable recruits for a Puritan ship's company of settlers, he appears to have thought in terms of a separate, autonomous venture sailing out of Plymouth, though under the general umbrella of the Massachusetts Bay Company and in association with what came to be called the Winthrop fleet. It is significant that John Winthrop made no reference to the enterprise in his diary even though, as we saw, White visited him on the <em>Arbella</em> at Southampton after seeing off the <em>Mary and John </em>from Plymouth. White also took care to ensure the Puritan orthodoxy of his emigrant flock within the Church of England by recruiting for it two ministers, properly ordained and with beliefs consonant with White's own.<br />
<br />
He must also have thought his way through the problem of his emigrant band's destination in Massachusetts Bay. He had the choices of Salem, now from his point of view disaffected, of throwing in his lot with the eastern counties people or of keeping his distance from them. He appears to have chosen the third option. Among the planters of the <em>Lyon's Whelp</em> were some who, having fetched up at Salem, moved on to a new, infant settlement at the mouth of the Charles River (subsequently Charlestown) where the minister, Francis Bright, of the <em>Lyon's Whelp</em> contingent, was a moderate and congenial to the West Countrymen. Others, including the Sprague family, went from Salem further up the Charles River to what became Watertown. White determined that his chosen ship's company of the <em>Mary and John </em>should follow his friends the Spragues and should settle in Watertown.<br />
<br />
As John White, a striking figure in his black gown, flat cap and white bands, waved fond goodbyes to his flock on the <em>Mary and John </em>in Plymouth Harbour that March day in 1630 he must have been confident that, God willing, his long-dreamed-of venture in Puritan living would grow into reality on the Charles River. But this was not to be. When that ship's company finally reached landfall in Massachusetts Bay they were to disembark willy-nilly and settle, not on the Charles River, but on a less hospitable neck of land. This settlement, which was to become the principal West Country outpost in New England, they would christen Dorchester in honour of their revered patriarch.<br />
<br />
<a name="uprooting"></a><b>The Uprooting 1630-35</b><br />
<br />
It is time to retrace the steps of the <em>Mary and John</em> passengers from their embarkation at Weymouth in March 1630 and to make a journey of the imagination back in time to the spring of that year and by Dorset roads and lanes to the neighbourhoods from which these intrepid people were uprooting themselves. Apart from half a dozen families from Devon, they hailed from a restricted and well-defined part of west Dorset and south Somerset. The fifty or so heads of families in the Mary and John and in several later associated ships sailing from Weymouth to Dorchester on Massachusetts Bay came largely from a few clusters of towns and villages: Lyme Regis, Bridport and the Brit Valley in west Dorset, and Crewkerne, Chard and half a dozen satellite villages in south Somerset. Dorchester, which lay further to the east only eight miles inland up the well-travelled road from the port of Weymouth, provided its own quota, as might be expected of the county town which was John White's own headquarters; but even from Dorchester it was a mere twenty miles, a day's walk, up the Frome valley and over the downs to Crewkerne.<br />
<br />
Through the medium of their rector's pulpit and study, and the commitment of some of their own merchants, Dorchester people had for a long time been made conscious of New England's high purpose (indeed some may have become bored by it and one Dorchester dame went so far as to accuse her parson of funnelling away money to that project which ought by rights to have gone to the town poor). Only the previous spring, several families had joined a company of Dorset and Somerset people sailing from Weymouth in the <em>Lyon's Whelp </em>bound for Salem; and now in this spring of 1630 the town had lost six families and a couple of bachelors by the <em>Mary and John</em>, mostly important and interrelated merchant families, all recruited by the rector of Holy Trinity.<br />
<br />
Leaving Dorchester by the High Street at the top of the town, past the gaol which was new in 1630, and climbing west on the old Roman road over downs which in that year were dotted white with grazing sheep, braced against the weather from Eggarden Hill to the north and Chesil Beach and the Channel to the south, travellers made their way over the tops, down to the estuary of the little River Brit and Bridport. Bridport, 'more old than fair' in the view of Gerard the chronicler, was a royal borough and a port, though with the silting of the estuary it had become somewhat decayed. Its fame and prosperity rested on making 'cordage or ropes for the Navie of England' and nets and fishing tackle. Until lately the town had a monopoly and still enjoyed an important trade, particularly with the Newfoundland fishing fleet. Its raw materials, hemp for the rope-walks and flax for rough clothing and sailcloth, grew abundantly in Bridport's backyard, cultivated in lynchets of the rich, damp, sandy soil up the little valley of the Brit where, according to Thomas Fuller, 'England hath no better than what groweth here betwist Beaminster and Bridport'. Bridport itself provided four families for the <em>Mary and John </em>and her successor ships and another important family the Fords, derived from the pretty village of Simonsbury (now Symondsbury), only a mile and a half away on a miniscule tributary of the Brit called the Simene. Simonsbury, 'or as we now call it Symsbury', as Gerard wrote, would one day give its name to a settlement in Connecticut.<br />
<br />
Simonsbury is just off the high road which, through good dairy and cider country and the fishing hamlets of Chideok and Charmouth, reaches the port of Lyme rising up its cliff above the Cobb and Lyme Bay. Lyme was a deep-water port with Newfoundland connections. It provided one important mercantile family for the <em>Mary and John</em>, that of William Hill whose father had been mayor of the town and who himself had married into the important merchant community of Exeter. Lyme, on its salient thrusting into Devon, is the ultimate point of this coastal itinerary. Returning to Charmouth and then up the River Char past Whitchurch Canonicorum we pass on into Marshwood Vale. This was rough, steeply enclosed country on cold, heavy clay, remote and inaccessible in winter; it was largely pasture for dairying with plenty of game in the old forest and meandering roads linking ancient farmsteads. One of these was 'Coweleyes', the property of the Newberrys. Thomas Newberry was a younger son of a younger son of fairly prominent Dorset gentry. Like many a younger son he tried to make a living in London at the Bar but gave it up to return to live in the depths of the country in a house belonging to his father-in-law. In 1630 he was probably already contemplating a removal to New England, and with his family of seven children would sail from Weymouth in April 1634. Thomas himself, a stockholder in the Massachusetts Bay Company, would not long survive in Dorchester, Massachusetts, but his widow and their children would become one of the prominent first families of Windsor on the Connecticut.<br />
<br />
From Marshwood Vale we return to Bridport and then up into the secluded Brit Valley which, in 1630, was terraced with flax and hemp. This was arguably the best land in Dorset, very deep, rich mould, yielding abundant harvests of grains as well as hemp and flax. In the next century land rents in this valley were twice the average for this part of Dorset. Its cider orchards were outstanding and cottagers were busy spinning wool as well as flax. Four miles upstream from Bridport lies Netherbury, to Leland 'an Uplandisch Town' on a hill with a strikingly dominant church, of which Thomas Fuller would become prebend the next year. Netherbury was a prosperous village, spinning wool and flax, making sailcloth and brewing cider by the thousand hogsheads. It had a well-endowed free grammar school. The largest parish in Dorset, its register entries include many whose names will be encountered in New England.<br />
<br />
Only a little over a mile upstream from Netherbury, after skirting Parham, seat of the Strode family, we come at last to Beaminster itself, close to the source of the Brit which flows, as it did in Leland's day, 'under a little stone bridge of two pretty arches' and nestling under Beaminster Down. Beaminster is described by both Leland and Gerard as a pretty market town. In 1630 it had four main streets centring on an attractive square with a handsome pillared market house only recently built and much admired. The church had been enlarged in the Perpendicular style, with a fine tower built almost within living memory and an oak pulpit even more recent, carved with the fashionable Jacobean decoration. Beaminster was a place of importance in west Dorset. The justices met here for quarter sessions, staying at the White Hart, the principal inn and stopping place for carriers, higglers and an occasional coach. Apart from its market, Beaminster's chief activity was the cloth trade and its rows of weavers' houses were busy spinning wool from the renowned Dorset sheep on the nearby downs and weaving kersies and Dorset dozens for inland and overseas markets. Beaminster had close relations with Dorchester, fifteen miles away, and reflected something of Dorchester's reforming morality. Like Dorchester it boasted a new almshouse, endowed by a rich cloth merchant of the town. There were signs of a growing Puritan disposition, and by the outbreak of the Civil War the town would be reported as being violently opposed to the King and the church hierarchy. Four Beaminster families - Hosfords, Hoskins, Pomeroys and Samways - would find their way to Dorchester, Massachusetts and thence to Windsor on the Connecticut River.<br />
<br />
Leaving Beaminster to the north one climbs up over Horn Hill and down into the valley of the River Axe to the village of Mosterton, home of the Gallop family, passengers on the <em>Mary and John</em>, and thence, by a couple of roundabout miles, to South Perrott, home of the Gibbs and from which Giles Gibbs and family have probably left to join the same ship; and so, down and across the infant River Axe, to the county of Somerset and, two and a half miles further on, to Crewkerne.<br />
<br />
Crewkerne was a thriving market town which specialized in weaving sailcloth. According to Gerard, it had 'a fair, sightly built church built in a cross with a bell tower rising up in the middle' and Leland records that it had 'a pretty town house in the market place', a grammar school and, once again, an almshouse of recent foundation. Crewkerne was an important resource for John White's recruiting. John Warham, White's choice as minister for the gathered church of the <em>Mary and John's </em>ship's company, was born and bred there, though he came of gentle Dorset stock from nearby Maiden Newton. After coming down from Oxford he had apparently become a Puritan lecturer in the locality. He was clearly a considerable preacher. After he preached a farewell sermon in Crewkerne church the churchwardens were disciplined by the archdeacon's court for permitting it. At some point he was reputedly 'silenced or suspended' by his bishop for his subversive Puritan opinions but later given asylum by the more sympathetic Bishop of Exeter as curate of St Pedrock's. There he attracted to his congregation of Puritan-minded merchant families among others a young man, Roger Clap [later the family name was spelled "Clapp"], who 'took such a liking unto [him] that he did desire to live near him', having 'never so much as heard of New England until he heard of many a godly person that were going there and that Mr Warham was to go also'. Warham's influence in that part of Somerset was clearly still strong, reaching beyond Crewkerne into its neighbouring villages. Those of his new flock who came from that vicinity knew and liked him well and were attracted to the prospect of emigrating to New England with him as their pastor. Altogether, from Crewkerne itself, from Chard and from neighbouring villages, a score or so of families and individuals were recruited for the <em>Mary and John </em>and subsequent ships to join his church in Dorchester on Massachusetts Bay. They included some of the more notable people in the enterprise.<br />
<br />
Crewkerne contributed William Gaylord, whom Wharham chose as the first deacon of his shipboard church that day of departure in Plymouth, and William Phelps, who became constable at Dorchester and magistrate in Connecticut. Five miles away, in the smiling vale sheltering below Windwhistle Ridge, lies the village of Chaffcombe, whose rector William Gillett contributed two young bachelor sons. A short walk from Chaffcombe brings one to Chard, an important cloth-weaving town which exported coarse cottons and wollens to Brittany, Bordeaux and La Rochelle. The largest of these groups of recruits came from here. The Cogans, a prominent family of merchants and clothiers, provided Boston, Massachusetts with its first shopkeeper and two daughters who married respectively Roger Ludlow, Assistant and owner of the <em>Mary and John</em> and principal colonizer of Windsor on the Connecticut River, and John Endicott, Governor of Salem, Massachusetts. A couple of miles north-west of Chard is Combe St Nicholas with another fine church standing high in the village. Here, in Ilminster and hereabouts, was the country of the Rossiters, country gentry of whom Edward, 'a godly man of good estate', an Assistant of the Massachusetts Bay Company, and his son Bryan, who was to practise medicine, were <em>Mary and John </em>passengers; and also from Ilminster came John Branker, an Oxford graduate who became schoolmaster and ruling elder in Warham's church.<br />
<br />
Ten miles further still we come to the Vale of Taunton. Taunton Deane, with its rich, red earth which produces 'all fruits in great plenty', as Gerard put it, was renowned orchard and cider-making country. 'The paradise of England', John Norden called it. 'Where should I be born else than in Taunton Deane?' asked Thomas Fuller rhetorically. Its market town, Taunton, was a thriving and populous borough much praised by Gerard for the 'beauty of the streets and maketplace, having springs of most sweet water continually running through them', for its great church and its tower and ring of bells and, inevitably, for its almhouses. Taunton had a great market, especially for cattle; it was also an important cloth town. Some eight miles out of Taunton into the vale is the little village of Fitzhead, home of the Rockwell brothers, of whom William had been chosen by John Warham as deacon of his shipboard church, doubtless, like his fellow deacon Gaylord, in acknowledgment of his religious commitment and sterling qualities.<br />
<br />
After Fitzhead, we have a short walk of a couple of miles by a back lane to our final destination on this excursion: the tiny, sequestered village of Tolland, home of the Wolcott family. The Wolcotts were clothiers from nearby Wellington who during the previous century had acquired lands, mills and a quarry in the manor of Tolland. Henry Wolcott, a man of affluent means, though in middle age had made a reconnoitring voyage to New England in 1628 and had then determined to foresake Somerset for the New World. Having disposed of the greater part of his family inheritance, he embarked with his family on the <em>Mary and John</em>. With his talents and energy Wolcott, along with Roger Ludlow, Edward Rossiter and Israel Stoughton, provided the leadership for the Dorchester enterprise, and would, together with Ludlow and Newberry, put up most of the money to found Windsor on the Connecticut. He was to be a principal magistrate of Connecticut Colony, the most prominent member of the Windsor settlement throughout his long life, and its richest citizen.<br />
<br />
This journey through the highways and byways of the Dorset-Somerset border country on the track of New England planters has meandered through many villages and towns; but apart from a few outlying instances, the families concerned have been traced to a circumscribed area and this invites speculation. How did these families and individuals come to their Weymouth rendezvous in March 1630? To what extent were they in touch with one another beforehand as people with like motives? Did they come together spontaneously or were they organized from outside? We shall never have definite answers to such questions. We are dealing for the most part with people who left few, if any, family records beyond the register of their births, marriages and deaths, a few wills and inventories to illuminate their lives in England (their lives in New England are somewhat better documented), and a great deal has to be surmised.<br />
<br />
The propinquity of these families and their villages and towns, the extent to which young men married girls two or three villages away, the inter-family connections which resulted, and the business travel to towns and ports, would lead one to suppose that many of these people knew or knew of one another and, stimulated by intelligence from New England, took steps to get in touch and concert their departure plans. It is hard to believe that the Fords, Ways, Capens, Purchases and Terrys of Dorchester, that county town which by our standards was still only a large village, did not know one another, or that the Hoskins, Hosfords and Pomeroys of Beaminster and Netherbury, the Denslows, Randalls and Ways of Bridport or the Gilletts, Rossiters, Brankers, Cogans, Strongs and Pinneys of the Chard-Ilminster neighbourhood did not at least hear through the local gossip was was afoot. John White's statement in <em>The Planters Plea</em>, of the <em><em>Mary and John </em></em>ship's company, that of 'about 140 persons...there were not six known either by face or fame to any of the rest' must be discounted. It has been plausibly suggested that he wrote thus to support his denial that his emigrants were an organized band of Separatists conspiring to subvert the Church of England. Yet the circumstances surrounding the sailing of the <em>Mary and John </em>and related ventures presuppose an organizing, external agent; and that agent must have been the patriarch of Dorchester in whose honour the emigrants named the place they founded on Massachusetts Bay.<br />
<br />
John White was a man of energy and drive; and no doubt there came in and out of his rectory and vestry a daily stream of people who could be interested in and recruited for not only his good works in Dorchester but also his pious colonizing efforts. But although he masterminded the whole <em>Mary and John </em>expedition, he must have had agents to help him enlist his emigrants; and who better placed to act as such than his own professional colleagues, that network of parish clergy, many of whom shared White's convictions about theology, church order and the duty to save the souls of the heathen?<br />
<br />
It will be recalled that among the members of the Dorchester Company were a score or so of clergymen, mostly in West Country livings, and no doubt many recruited by White himself. Of these, about a dozen held livings in our catchment area. In addition, another seven, not members of the company, were known for their Puritan leanings, their connections with White, or both. There was William Benn, rector of All Hallows, and Robert Cheeke, rector of All Saints and schoolmaster, in Dorchester itself. Edward Clarke, once one of White's assistants, member of the committee of the Planters' Parliament and brother-in-law of Dorchester's John Humphrey, the deputy governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company, was vicar of Taunton and in a position to make contact with such people as the Strongs, Rockwells and Wolcotts. There was William Tilly, rector of Broadwindsor, two miles or so from Netherbury and Beaminster, and his neighbour George Bowden, minister of Mapperton, only a couple of miles from Beaminster, both strong Puritans. Walter Newburgh, rector of Simonsbury, was not only a member of the Dorchester Company but married successively daughters of two of its chief adventurers, Sir Richard Strode and Mr John Browne of Frampton. The latter, Jane, survived the squire of Framptonn to marry the Rev. John Stoughton, a prominent Puritan clergyman of Somerset and St Mary, Aldermanbury, London, brother of Israel and Thomas, both important settlers at Dorchester, Massachusetts. Walter Newburgh may well have prompted the emigration not only of his cousin Thomas Newburgh but of the Ways, Randalls and Denslows of nearby Bridport. William Gillett of Chaffcombe may not only have contributed his own two sons but influenced John Hill of his own parish and the people of nearby Combe St Nicholas, Ilminster and Broadway. We have already noted the likely importance of John Warham's incumbency of Crewkerne. Richard Bernard, the rector of Batcombe, was an important Puritan friend of White's, a writer of controversial tracts, two of which, critical of 'the manner of our gathering our churches', he was to send over to John Winthrop in Boston. It was his system for instructing parishoners that John White adopted in Dorchester, and Batcombe was not only a mere stone's throw from Roger Ludlow's home at Maiden Bradley, but the parish from which Joseph Hull recruited his own emigrant congregation.<br />
<br />
Joseph Hull was one of three clergymen apart from John White who deserve special attention as being all directly active in the colonizing movement. He lived at Crewkerne, and led a shipload of 106 persons to found Weymouth on Massachusetts Bay. The second was John Conant, rector of nearby Limington, Somerset; it was probably through him that White was put in touch with his brother Roger Conant who rescued the Cape Ann venture and virtually founded Salem. The third was Richard Eburne, vicar of Henstridge next door to Caundle Purse whence came William Hannum. Little is known of Eburne save the all-important fact that he was the author of A <em>Plain Pathway to Plantations </em>which he published in 1624, the year of the Planters' Parliament. This pamphlet is of the same genre as White's <em>Planters Plea</em> and others of the time. In the form of a dialogue between a thinly disquised Eburne and a merchant, it is vigorous and racy advocacy of planting in Newfoundland as a moral virtue in itself and as the only cure for the economic social and moral ills of the country. Together with <em>The Planters Plea </em>it provides a valuable insight into the attitude of mind of that particular clerical generation in Dorset and Somerset.<br />
<br />
Eburne was specific in his profile of the social composition for a successful colony in North America. First, there must be 'governors and rulers', people of 'better breeding and experience, gentlemen at the least'; but he qualified this by writing that if, as seems likely, not enough such come forward, then the organizers should go for 'others of a next degree unto gentlemen - that is, yeomen and yeomenlike men, that have in them some good knowledge and courage...who may in defect of better men be advanced to places of preferment and government there and haply prove not altogether unworthy thereof.' Men of substance were essential. Men 'better stored in money and means than the generality' - that is to say with working capital - were needed to 'employ the poorer sort and set them to work'. Above all, he stipulated that the colony, however primitive its circumstances, must have a learned ministry; but then again, 'if scholars, that is graduates and men of note for learning cannot be had, it may suffice sometimes that such be invited to the ministry as are of mean knowledge so that they have good utterance and be of sound and honest life and conversation.' Indeed not much more could be expected 'in the infancy of a church where neither schools nor other means for learned and able men are yet planted. Better such than none.' In other words, though the colony must be governed by degree, by position or class - and no one in that day would assume otherwise - there ws likely to be an element of levelling in which vigor and character would compensate for lack of breeding or position.<br />
<br />
This passage is a revealing introduction to a consideration of the actual composition of the people whom White and his collaborators recruited for their New England venture. They were a strikingly eclectic group. Few individuals are completely unknown to us, whose families, towns and villages cannot be identified and whose social position at least roughly estimated. Of the fifty or so heads of families with whom we are becoming familiar, hardly any have left no trace of themselves. Broadly speaking our New England emigrants did not come from any social stratum lower than husbandman or artisan or higher than the minor gentry. The largest group, twelve families in all, belonged to that very broad class called yeomen, described by our local rector of Broadwindsor, Thomas Fuller, as 'an estate of people almost peculiar to England, living in the temperate zone between greatness and want'.<br />
<br />
It was a large class, shading at the top into the gentry like the Hoskins of Beaminster and at the bottom into more humble husbandmen. Some of these were established families in their villages and towns, leaving land and chattels to their descendants and bequests to the poor with perhaps even a tomb in the parish church. Some were relatively poor. Others were younger sons who had to make their way in the world, like Humphrey Pinney of Broadway. A few, like Thomas Newberry of Marshwood Vale, were well off even by the standards of lesser gentry to which estate they might or might not aspire. Indeed, the line between yeomanry and gentry was shadowy and defined often as much by a man's 'port', his social ambition and style, as by a family listing in the Visitations of the Hearlds, and many a younger son of a younger son like John Hill of Chaffcombe must reconcile himself to sinking from Esquire or Mister to Goodman. A dozen or so might be classes as minor gentry, some tinged with yeoman, merchant or burgess; or vice versa. As for the smaller group of county families with notable estates who dominated their neighborhoods and provided the Crown with its justices and deputy lieutenants to govern the shrine, probably only one figured in our company: Roger Ludlow, the owner of the <em>Mary and John</em>, who came from a distinguished landed family with legal connections on the border of Wiltshire.<br />
<br />
However, even Ludlow did not think it was beneath him to marry the daughter of a merchant, Philobert Cogan of Chard, although it is true the Cogans were so well established that they were entitled to bear arms. The line between merchant and gentleman was as shadowy as that between gentleman and yeoman. It was common for daughters of rich merchants and burgesses like the Capens and the Hosfords of Dorchester to marry into the gentry; and the Wolcotts, clothiers who had acquired land, a grist mill and quarries in fee simple, were well on their way to becoming gentry.<br />
<br />
In our emigrant band, the urban, merchant class was the largest, most cohesive and forceful in the whole enterprise. It was represented by some twelve families, mostly John White's parishioners in Dorchester, like George Way, who had been an adventurer of the Dorchester Company, and the Capens and Purchases with links overseas through Weymouth, but also others, from Lyme Regis, Chard and Exeter. They were interrelated, as families and in business. William Hill of Lyme and Nathaniel Duncan married daughters of Ignatius Jourdain, a prominent Puritan mayor of Exeter and a successful overseas merchant, once of Guernsey, then of Lyme Regis and now of Exeter and the City of London. John Cogan, one of the Chard clan, was also established, like the Jourdains, in St Sidwell's, Exeter and it was no coincidence that this was John Warham's parish. Hill and Duncan sailed in the <em>Mary and John</em> and Cogan three years later, all three with their families. Young William Humphrey, of another Lyme merchant family kin to White's friend John Humphrey of Charldon, was to become an important merchant in Windsor, Connecticut.<br />
<br />
Equally significant were the professional people, the clerisy gentry by courtesy: the clergy proper, the two ministers Warham and Maverick, both Oxford graduates; three sons of parsons, the two Gillett boys and Stephen Terry, John White's nephew; the surveyor George Hull whose two brothers were beneficed clergymen; and two schoolmasters, John Branker the Oxford graduate, and Aquila Purchase, who also belonged to the inner group of Dorchester merchant families.<br />
<br />
Finally, there was a scattering of people with special skills - fullers, coopers, tanners and masons; and, not surprisingly for that Channel coast, there were six master mariners: John Gallop, Henry Way and John and Richard Rocket of the Bridport area, Elias Parkman of Sidmouth, and John Tilley, a black sheep of Chilthorne Dormer who had first gone to sea and learnt to rough it at Cape Ann in 1623. All were to pursue their calling off the New England coast.<br />
<br />
If our company were relatively homogeneous as a social class they were also essentially a community of families. Of the <em>Mary and John's </em>adult passengers, only about twelve were single men (there were no single adult women); the rest, fifty-four in number, were twenty-seven married couples; and of those whose ages we know, the husbands range from a few in their twenties to nine who are well over forty, that is to say well over middle age for the time. Even more striking is the number of offspring; in that ship's company there were no less than seventy-two children. This was no band of young, unattached, swashbuckling adventurers such as had characterized transatlantic ventures hitherto. It was a well-knit company among the very first, of emigrant families with children as hostages to their fortunes, sober in their commitment to a planting venture, hazardous as it might turn out to be. These gentry, merchants, yeomen, professionals, artisans, sea captains and their families formed an eclectic and yet cohesive group, significant for what it did not include - especially servants of both sexes - as for what it comprised. Its members were selected and, in a measure, self-selected for a very special purpose.<br />
<br />
What was that purpose? Why did they go? Why did they leave their English hearths? John White himself noted that the English loved the smoke of their own chimneys too well to leave home; and Richard Eburne quoted the Latin tag: 'Fumus patriae alieno inculentior' ('the smoke of a man's own country is dearer in his eyes than the fire of another'). For these West Country people we may echo Thomas Fuller's question: 'Where should I be born else than in Taunton Deane?' by adding parenthetically, 'and where should I wish to bring up my children but in the Vale of Taunton, or the Axe or Brit valleys, or the close country between, the high country behind or the downland east towards Dorchester?' For this was a rich landscape, nuturing a country people as well-found and as prosperous as any in England.<br />
<br />
In the 17th century, Somerset was the third or fourth most populous English shire and the people in its southern hundreds especially were sustained by a bountiful countryside. The valleys of Taunton, Wellington and the Axe sent barley, wheat and oats, orchard fruit and hops, beef and dairy products to commercial markets as far away as London. South and east, that district of Somerset and west Dorset within a radius of fifteen miles of Crewkerne whence came most of our emigrants was prosperous, mixed-farming country. Comfortable husbandmen living in small, enclosed farmsteads grew corn, reared cattle and sheep and kept dairy cows from whose milk their wives made renowned butter and cheeses for market. The coastal area between Lyme and Bridport was especially famous for its Dorset butter. Thomas Fuller's Broadwindsor and Netherbury were renowned for their cider and the Brit Valley for its hemp and flax. Although Dorset was less populous, its farm produce supported twenty-one market towns. Thomas Gerard wrote of the yeomen of nearby Martock of this time that they were<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">seated in the fattest place of the earth of this country...<br />
which makes the inhabitants so fat in their purses...<br />
[They were] wealthy and substantial men through none of<br />
the best bred, which is the cause their neighbours about<br />
them are apt enough to slander them with the titles of<br />
clowns; but they care not much for that, knowing they<br />
have money in their purses to make them gentlemen<br />
when they are fit for the degree.</span></blockquote>No doubt this was fair comment on neighbors of our Tilleys in the next village, Chilthorne Domer.<br />
<br />
The key element in this rural economy, however, was wool. The raising of sheep for their wool was the important item in the cash returns of many a small husbandman and the sheep runs of the Dorset downs were big business. It was boasted that there were 300,000 sheep within six miles of Dorchester. By the end of the century Dorset would be producing the highest number of packs of shorn wool of any county in England, grown on the backs of Dorset's own breed of white-faced, short-woolled sheep, unique for their early lambing and their combination of hardiness and medium-fine fleece. Most of the best spun wool was sent to the weaving centres of Somerset and Wiltshire; but the rougher wools were worked up locally in the cottages of Beaminster, Bere, Lyme, Sturminster and elsewhere, into kersies and Dorset dozens, coarse woollen cloths which the merchants of Dorchester exported from Weymouth to St Malo for the peasants of Normandy and Brittany, poor people, it was said 'of a base disposition', who would not 'go to the price of good cloth'.<br />
<br />
Across the River Axe the weavers of Chard, Ilminster, Taunton, Wellington and Wiveliscombe were at the same business; but in Somerset the cloth industry dominated the rural economy in a way that was not true of Dorset and its prosperity or decline affected critically the fortunes of its populous towns and villages. Since the 1620s that industry had fallen on hard times.<br />
<br />
The great expansion of the cloth trade in Tudor times had been followed by a slump beginning about 1620 which lasted on and off for a decade or more. Part of the problem was that the traditional English cloths were at a discount. The quality of the wool had declined and competition from abroad and changes in taste had lessened the demand for classic cloths woven from fine, short staple wool. The cloth industry of Wiltshire and Somerset, beautifully geared to the standard woollens had suffered most. New products were in demand. Worsten cloths, more loosely woven from long staple wools and from mixtures of foreign wool, silk and cotton warps, the so-called 'new draperies', were in fashion for apparel and furnishing. This was the market which, with its Low Country technicians, East Anglia had captured and which the West Country, with the exception of Taunton's fine serges, shalloons and druggets made from Welsh and Spanish wools, had failed to exploit. The export trade itself had declined; Continental markets were disturbed by the breakdown of relations with Spain, by the futile war with Richelieu's France in support of the Huguenots of La Rochelle, and by those operations in the Low Countries and in Bohemia and northern Germany which were the beginning of what historians would call the Thirty Years' War.<br />
<br />
The people of Somerset had been geared too closely to the woollen industry; and too many of her villages had become cluttered with cottages for weavers and their families who knew no other trade. With the slump, their masters the clothiers cut off wool supplies and orders, and they became a classic example of rural un- or under-employment. 'The glut of unsold worsteds and coarser stuffs in Blackhall Hall, London' spelled gloom and tension for the part of the West Country stretching in an arc from Ilminster, Chard and Taunton to Frome and the cloth-weaving areas of Wiltshire.<br />
<br />
This depression was exacerbated by severe fluctuations in the harvests. Several bumper crops producing gluts and ruinously low grain prices alternated with crop failures like that of 1621 recorded by William Whiteway from his Dorchester window: "This was a very cold and moist summer which ripened corn but slowly so that it began to rust at harvest which was very late, there being corn in the fields till the 10th of October.' It was followed by crop failures in 1622, 1629 and above all 1630 which brought famine prices 'half-filled stomachs' and starvation to unemployed weavers. Even those in work, wages lamentably failed to keep pace with prices so that 'the meaner sort of people...do live in great neediness and extremity'. Conditions were so bad that the Privy Council was concerned about industrial unrest by the unemployed who might 'raise Tumults and fall to uproars for their bellies' sake', like the uprising of 1621-22 when Whiteway wrote in his diary (June 1622): 'In this month was there a watch appointed in all highways...at every crossway, one by day and two by night perpetually to give notice if any tumult should arise for want of trade.' There were riots in protest against the export of corn to Bristol and magistrates acted to distribute corn equitably, prosecute corn hoarders and ration malsters and alehouses. This uneasiness was increased by the violent rising of two years before, still endemic, of the people of Gillingham in Dorset against the threat to their livelihood by the King's decision to enclose the royal forest there.<br />
<br />
Largely because of the cloth workers' plight, the pundits of the day were preoccupied with the fashionable diagnosis that the cause of the country's economic problems was over-population. When harvests failed, the landless poor took the brunt of the resulting poverty and famine, especially the cottagers in the clothing villages. Richard Eburne wrote his <em>Plain Pathway to Plantations </em>in Hendridge near Caundle Purse close to Sherborne and Yeovil at the centre of weavers' unemployment and distress. In his view, the region was no longer self-sufficient in food 'unless it be in an extraordinary year', the neighbourhood was over-populated and the only solution was emigration: 'Our land...swarmeth with multitude and plenty of people, it is time and high time that, like stalls that are overfull of bees or orchards overgrown with young sets, no small number of them should be transplanted into some other soild and removed hence into new hives and homes...The true and sure remedy is the diminution of the people.' This conclusion was echoed by his fellow colonial propagandist, John White: 'We have more men than we can employ to any profitable or useful labour...especially if there happen any interruption of trade.'<br />
<br />
In addition to unemployment, poverty, and starvation, these were recurrent years of plague and other moral sickness. Outbreaks of plague in London like that of 1625 led to the complete breakdown of markets and trade and there had been a particularly bad outbreak close to home, in Plymouth; and if not the plague there was always smallpox and sometimes typhus and 'famine fever'. In the parish of Martock where we have just noted fat farms and yeomen, forty-four people were carried off by these diseases in 1623, fifty-five the following year and as many as seventy-seven in 1625, the most severe plague year.<br />
<br />
To what extent did such circumstances persuade our emigrant families to take the drastic step of uprooting themselves to begin life again in New England? This impression of a time and place and of sunlit vistas streaked with ominous shadows of want, distress and unrest contrasts sharply with the image of that land across the Atlantic depicted by Eburne, White and their fellow propagandists, of a New England of plenty where the seasonal climate was familiar, where there was timber and fuel in abundance, where the forests teemed with game and rivers, lakes and ocean with fish, and where fifty acres of fertile land was to be had for the asking. In effect, here beckoned a land where transplanted English people might live in the social and economic circumstances they were used to but in much greater comfort and ease than in the more constricted circumstances of Dorset or Somerset.<br />
<br />
As we have seen, most of our families were of the middling classes, yeomen, merchants and clerisy with a few gentry; none belonged to that nameless, landless class of cottagers and day workers, the poor, the indigent and the vagrant, who were most at risk and had least to lose by taking ship for the unknown. Yet the climate of the time may well have exerted a kind of lunar influence on that generation of West Country people. The tone of Eburne's and White's rhetoric suggests that they were conscious of the growing sprawl of over-crowded and unkempt cottages in the countryside, of the need for charities and almshouses for the poor and aged in the towns, of beggars and vagrants who must be moved on, of Protestant refugees from the Continental wars of their own ragged troops returning from La Rochelle, billeted on the unwilling citizenry of Dorset towns. The shock of that catastrophic fire which consumed most of Dorchester and its wealth remained a vivid memory and a symbol of the transience of worldly possessions. The fat men of Martock might well be conscious that despite their rustic homespun they could buy themselves gentility should they have the mind for it; but the death of so many of their family and neighbours by typhus and the plague must have reminded them of their mortal state. This, the Jacobean scene, had a sombre hue, tinged with melodrama and tragedy like the plays of Thames-side, and, it could be, engendering an apocalyptic outlook, turning men's minds towards radical and final judgments. Perhaps we shall come nearer to answering our question of why they went by looking beyond the material to more deep-seated motives.<br />
<br />
To White and his fellow proselytizers, as we have seen, the principal motive for colonizing in North America was religious: 'the most eminent and desirable end of planting colonies is the propagation of Religion.' Moreover, it was a high duty to which England had been called: 'this Nation is in a sort singled out unto this work, being of all the States that enjoy the libertie of the Religion Reformed, and are able to spare people for such an employment, the most Orthodox in our profession.'<br />
<br />
In the 1620s the state of religions politics in England made that call ever more urgent. Discrimination against ministers of the reformed persuasion was not as marked in the West Country as in eastern England; but there was writing on the diocesan walls of Bristol, Exeter and Bath and Wells. John White's Puritan zeal had long been famous and to some people notorious, as to that widow Samays who accused him of robbing the Dorchester poor to further his cranky colonial enterprise. But he had so far kept out of the ecclesiastical line of fire, though events of the 1630s, especially when his papers were seized and he was called before the Court of High Commission, would ultimately drive him to a greater extreme. Although reformist in church doctrine he is still loyal to the Church of England and this would be a cardinal fact for the Dorchester settlement. He may have been protected in his Puritanism by his bishop, Arthur Lake, who had been his virtual contemporary at Winchester and New College and was an ardent supporter of his colonizing efforts. But Lake died in 1626 and was succeeded as Bishop of Bath and Wells by none other than William Laud, on his way to national eminence. It was Laud who had driven the Puritan-minded John Warham out of Crewkerne to seek temporary refuge under the more tolerant Bishop of Exeter before accepting his call to the New World. Warham himself had become sufficiently notorious to be lampooned in 'A Proper Ballad, called the Summons to New England, to the tune of the Townsman's cap', which began:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">Let all the Purisdian sect,<br />
I mean the counterfeit Elect</span></blockquote>and ended:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">The native people, though yet wild,<br />
Are all by nature kind and mild,<br />
And apt already (by report)<br />
To live in this religious sort,<br />
Soon to conversion they'll be brought<br />
When Warham's miracles are wrought,<br />
Who, being sanctified and pure,<br />
May by the Spirit them allure.</span></blockquote>By that time White's influence was pervasive and recognized as fostering the naturally Puritan temper of Dorchester and Dorset. It would not be long before Laud himself would complain that there were Puritans in nearly every parish in the county and Bishop Skinner of Bristol would feel impelled to exhort the clergy of Dorset to return to kneeling at prayers, using the cross at baptism and holding feasts and holidays, so Puritan had they become. No wonder Clarendon was to describe Dorchester as the most malignant place in the country.<br />
<br />
This soil nurtured the emigrants whom White and his colleagues recruited and it is strong circumstantial evidence of a powerful religious motive for their uprooting. This seems to have been popularly accepted. That November of 1630, in a deposition before the Dorchester magistrates, a Thomas Jarvis of Lyme Regis said that 'all the Projectors for New England business are Rebells and those that are gone over are Idolators, captivated and separatists'.<br />
<br />
It is possible to be certain of the religious convictions of only a minority of our ships' passengers. Apart from the two parsons, Warham and Maverick, their two deacons Rockwell and Gaylord, and Ludlow and Rossiter, Assistants of the company, there were only a few whose religious convictions are explicitly recorded. One was young Roger Clap who in his old age was to describe in a memoir how as a youth he persuaded his parents to let him live with a Huguenot family in Exeter so that he could sit at John Warham's feet; there was Henry Wolcott who underwent a marked conversion to Puritan beliefs and whose plan to shift his family and fortune to the New World implies a powerful Puritan commitment; and there are a number of others in similar circumstances, such as Stephen Terry, the Gillett brothers and George Hull, sons and brother respectively of Puritan parsons, and Thomas Newberry, cousin of Roger, rector of Simonsbury. For the rest, the evidence is more circumstantial. Not all who took part in those farewell services in Plymouth would pass the rigorous process of self-examination and public declaration which would come to be the test of full church membership in Dorchester or subsequently in Windsor; and there were clearly a few odd men out, like the reprobate John Tilley.<br />
<br />
Yet when all is said and especially bearing in mind the homogeneous character of those fifty or so families, their earnest commitment, their responsibilities for children, the hazardous nature of the enterprise, and also the high rate of success they would achieve in establishing themselves in New England, we can hardly doubt that a Puritan religious conviction was a dominant motive for most of them or that John White's own assessment, recorded at the very time of their departure, is sound:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">I should be very unwilling to hide any thing I think might be fit to discover the uttermost of the intentions of our planters in their voyage to New-England, and therefore shall make bold to manifest not only what I know, but what I guess concerning their purpose. As it were absurd to conceive that they have all one mind, so were it more ridiculous to imagine they have all one scope. Necessity may press some; novelty draw on others; hopes of gain in time to come may prevail with a third sort; but that the most sincere and godly part have the advancement of the Gospel for their main scope I am confident. That of them some may entertain hope and expectation of enjoying greater liberty there than here in the use of some orders and ceremonies of our Church it seems very probable.</span></blockquote><a name="voyage"></a><b>The Voyage</b><br />
<br />
We do not know how long it took the <em>Mary and John</em> to raise anchor and manoeuvre out of Plymouth Sound round Rame Head into open Channel. There exists no account of this voyage. However, there are diaries kept by passengers on other voyages bound for Massachusetts Bay, notably Francis Higginson's for the <em>Talbot</em> the pervious season, John Winthrop's for the <em>Arbella</em> three weeks after the <em>Mary and John</em>, Richard Mather's for the <em>James</em> in 1635 and John Josselyn's for the <em>New Supply </em>in 1638. These provide plausible evidence of the experience of the ship's company of the <em>Mary and John </em>and of the later sailings for Dorchester, Massachusetts.<br />
<br />
In 1630 the voyage from England across the north Atlantic might be perilous but was scarcely an unknown adventure. For a century or more West Country seamen had been navigating Atlantic waters, to Newfoundland to fish and latterly to New England both to fish and to plant. The masters, officers and seamen were professionals, for the most part committed to north Atlantic sailing, and during the season there was a fair amount of traffic. The previous spring at least six ships with a total of 350 passengers as well as cattle, armaments and provisions had sailed from the Thames alone and these were only the precursors of the great migration of the 1630s when some 200 ships transported more than 20,000 settlers to New England. The home ports of many of these ships were indeed on the Thames, or even further up the North Sea, at Ipswich or Yarmouth; but most hailded from the West Country, from Southampton round to Bristol. In 1634 William Whiteway noted in his Dorchester diary that 'this summer there went over to [New England] at least 20 sail of ships and in them 2,000 planters' from the ports of Weymouth and Plymouth alone. Sailing from western Channel ports could shorten the voyage considerably. It took <em>Talbot</em> and her sister ship <em>Lyon's Whelp </em>two weeks and <em>New Supply </em>ten days to make the complicated passage from Gravesend by way of anchorages in Margaret Bay and Dover Roads round to the Isle of Wight; and <em>James</em> hung about for over a month before sailing from Bristol, only to put in successively to Minehead, Lundy Island and Milford Haven before finally losing sight of land over five weeks later.<br />
<br />
Apart from problems of cargo loading and government clearances, such delays were caused by the limited sailing capacity of the ships of the time. A square-sail rigged ship was at its best with a following wind or at least on the quarter and could not normally sail nearer to the wind than seven points. Consequently she must wait, sometimes for weeks, for a favorable wind. <em>Mary and John </em>was fortunate in sailing from a port as far west as Plymouth and she may have got away quickly down Channel, though the ultimate length of her voyage, over ten weeks, does not suggest this.<br />
<br />
One cause of <em>James's</em> slow start was the reluctance of her crew to part company with <em>Angel Gabriel</em> who, though slower, was 'a strong ship furnished with fourteen or sixteen pieces of ordnance': for there was always a risk in coastal waters of attack from hostile privateers like those on the prowl from Spanish-held Dunkirk. <em>Talbot</em> 'saw six or seven sail of Dunkirkers wafting after us; but it seemed they saw our company was too strong for them', and the bark <em>Warwick</em>, 'a pretty ship of about eighty tons and ten pieces of ordnance', never made her rendezvous with Winthrop's squadron, having been, it was supposed, captured by a Dunkirker off the Downs. Four days out from the Scillies, <em>Talbot</em> was threatened by 'a Biskainer ship, a man-of-war ... but finding us too strong for him durst not venture to assult us'; and James had a similar scare from what was rumoured to be a Turkish pirate. <em>Arbella's</em> look-out saw eight sail astern which it was supposed were Dunkirkers, whereupon her captain 'caused the gunroom and gundeck to be cleared, hammocks taken down, ordnance loaded and powder chests and fireworks made ready, our landsmen quartered among the seamen and twenty five of them appointed for muskets ... [He also] took down some cabins which were in the way of our ordnance ... The Lady Arbella and the other women and children were removed into the lower deck ... All things being thus fitted, we went to prayer upon the upper deck.' But fortunately, 'when we came near we conceived them to be our friends'. Hostile interference had to be looked for not only from foreign vessels. The long arm of the English Crown was felt in the shape of officers on behalf of the Privy Council checking the papers of suspect passengers at the port of embarkation, and in officers of the king's navy who exercised their right to impress sailors from the fleet; Talbot lost two of her seamen that way and <em>New Supply </em>two of her trumpeters.<br />
<br />
Such dangers receded as the <em>Mary and John </em>sailed down the English Channel, past the Lizard and out towards the open Atlantic. Without a log we cannot plot the course of that ship's voyage but there is no reason to doubt that Captain Squibb followed the route to be taken three weeks later by <em>Arbella</em>. This was the northerly course, keeping roughly to between 46° and 48° latitude. It may be that <em>Mary and John's</em> passengers saw their last of England 'at the Land's End, in the utmost part of Cornwall', or as far west as the Scillies; but it must have been an emotional moment when, as one of them wrote, they 'so left our dear native soil of England behind us'. It must have been especially poignant for the Dorchester people because, unlike <em>Talbot</em> or <em>Arbella</em> which were sailing in company, <em>Mary and John</em> was sailing on her own.<br />
<br />
The Dorchester people were fortunate that their ship was relatively commodious. At 400 tons, she was large for her day, in the current phrase, 'a great ship'. Only a score or so of ships in the entire merchant fleet were over 400 tons. With only 140 passengers, <em>Mary and John</em> was, moreover, not unduly crowded, a less 'close' ship, as the phrase went, than many in the Winthrop fleet. She would have carried a crew of between forty and fifty seamen and, as a 'strong' ship, was probably armed with upwards of twenty guns. There is a hint in John White's <em>Planters Plea </em>that the organizers had originally envisaged a smaller ship but, presumably because more volunteers came forward than had been anticipated, Roger Ludlow had bought this 400-tonner. Her passengers were therefore not subjected to greater discomfort or hardship than was normal for the time.<br />
<br />
There were miseries enough, all the same. These small ships tossed and rolled or, as they said, 'daunced' in the waves even in sheltered water, and once in 'the tossing waves of the western sea' people unused to ocean sailing were quickly prostrate with seasickness. The misery experienced by the seasick between decks on <em>Mary and John</em> may be imagined, with the vomiting, primitive sanitation, lack of air and confined space. Some of the grander passengers like the Ludlows, Rossiters, Wolcotts and Warhams may have had separate cabins, but most made do dormitory-fashion. On <em>Arbella</em> for instance the single men 'were very nasty and slovenly, and the gundeck where they lodged was so beastly and noisesome with their victuals and beastliness as would much endanger the health of the ship', whereupon, 'after prayer', a rota was drawn up to keep the gun deck clean.<br />
<br />
But, although conditions were primitive, life at sea was disciplined, sociable and shipshape, especially once the passengers had found their sea legs and could be up on deck in fair weather. On <em>Arbella</em> the children and others 'that were sick and lay groaning in the cabins, were fetched out, and having stretched a rope from the steerage to the mainmast, we made them stand, some of one side and some of the other, and sway it up and down till they were warm, and by this means they soon grew well and merry.' The officers, like their successors down to this day, organized deck games: 'Our captain set our children and young men to some harmless exercises, which the seamen were very active in, and did our people much good, though they would sometimes play the wags with them.' Soon their minister was preparing a sermon 'sitting at his study on the ship's poop'; and observing the Mother Carey's chickens (storm petrels), 'a little bird like a swallow', following the ship. <br />
<br />
They were all fascinated by the fish and sea mammals. There were porpoises 'pursuing one another and leaping some of them a yard above the water'; there were carvel or Portuguese men o' war, like 'a ship with sails'; there were sunfish, flying fish, swordfish, 'having a long, strong and sharp fin like a sword blade'; there were shoals of mackerel, and bonitoes 'leaping and playing about the ship', and codfish, 'most of them very great fish, some a yard and a half long and a yard in compass', which the sailors assured them were good to eat. Even more exotic were the grampus, 'leaping and spewing up water abot the ship', a turtle, 'a great and large shellfish swimming above the water near the ship', and sharks, 'a great one, with his pilot fish or pilgrim upon his back'. Above all, there were whales, 'huffing up water as they go, their backs ... like a little island'. One passenger spotted 'two mighty whales ... the one spouted water through two great holes in her head into the air a great height and making a great noise with puffing and blowing; the seamen called her a soufler ... [The whale's spout makes] the sea to boil like a pot, and if any vessel be near it sucks it in.'<br />
<br />
The <em>Mary and John</em> passengers quickly settled to a shipboard routine. With such Puritan leadership the first matters to be organized were the religious exercises. She had sailed the day before Palm Sunday and no doubt seasickness prevented much in the way of devotions during Easter week; but by Easter Day, 28 March, they would have recovered enough for Masters Warham and Maverick to have celebrated fittingly. Thereafter, their ministers in turn 'preached and expounded the Word of God every day during the voyage'. The Sabbath was observed with prayers, psalms and sermons morning and afternoon, with catechisms on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; and 'solemn days of fasting'. Fasting at sea was a novelty for the crew, one of whom said 'that this was the first sea-fast that ever was kept and that they never heard of the like'; and one of the ministers noted with approval that the captain set the eight and twelve o'clock watches with a prayer and a psalm and that the prayer was 'not read out of a book' but improvised Puritan-fashion. He also took an unchristian satisfaction in the fate of 'a notorious wicked fellow' who 'mocked at our days of fast, railing and jesting against Puritans' and who 'fell sick of the pocks and died'.<br />
<br />
Not all the passengers were saints or postulants for saintliness, and <em>Mary and John</em>, like the other ships, must have had her delinquents, to be dealt with by summary nautical discipline. Men involved in fights were 'put in the bolts' or made to walk the deck with hands bound behind them. During a fast, which was presumably too much for them, two landsmen broached a rundlet of spirits, for which they were laid in the bolts all night, and next morning the chief culprit was whipped in the open and both were kept on bread and water for the day. For stealing lemons from the surgeon's cabin a young servant was whipped naked at the capstan with a cat o'nine tails, and another servant was ducked at the main yard-arm three times for being drunk on his master's stolen spirits. Drink seems to have been a problem, particularly with the young, for Winthrop 'observed it a common fault in our young people, that they have themselves to drink hot waters very immoderately' - even girls, like the maidservant who, 'being stomach sick, drank so much strong water that she was senseless'.<br />
<br />
There were severe punishments for a miscellany of offences: a man was put in bolts until he apologized for being rude to John Winthrop; a servant was strung from a bar for two hours with heavy basket of stones round his neck for bribing a child into letting him have the child's supply of biscuits. But such delinquency seems to have been exceptional, and Winthrop considered the <em>Arbella</em>, for one, had 'many young gentlemen...who behaved themselves well and are comformable to all good orders'. This was the small change of shipboard life which made day-to-day living vivid: there was the maid who fell down a grating by the galley and would have gone through into the hold but for the carpenter's mate who, 'with incredible nimbleness', managed to catch her; or the great dog which fell overboard and could not be recovered; or the birth of a child; or the flame called St Elmo's fire, 'the bigness of a great candle which settled on the main mast and was commonly thought to be a spirit'. More serious was real sickness and the threat of epidemic disease, above all smallpox or even the plague; but there is no evidence of any serious disease on <em>Mary and John</em>.<br />
<br />
There must have quickly developed an easy social life among her company. Captain Squibb invited passengers of note to supper, when they did themselves well on boilded and roast mutton and roast turkey washed down with good sack in the comparative luxury of the captain's quarters. For the most part the passengers shared memories of growing up in the same neighbourhoods, and many were families of similar ages, with small or teenaged children. Altogether there were seventy-two children on board: and for them especially this must have been a formative experience, thrown together as they were, at close quarters on deck and between decks, playing games and making their own amusements. For the rest of their lives, in Dorchester and then, for so many of them, in Windsor on the Connecticut River, they were to share the secret of freemasonry of children and young people who have gone through an enclosed universe of experience together. No wonder so many subsequently married one another. For example, the young bachelors Aaron Cooke, Roger Clap and John Strong were all to marry daughters of Thomas Ford of Simonsbury; and Humphrey Pinney would marry the daughter of his fellow passenger George Hull when they were settled in Dorchester. To have been youthful passengers on these ships must have forged a bond as intimate as any set of school or family relationships.<br />
<br />
Although the northern course may have been the most expeditious, it was not without its rough weather even in that favorable season of spring and early summer. <em>Arbella</em> suffered a storm only three days out from the Scillies which 'split her foresail and tore it in pieces' and a wave washed their fresh fish tub overboard. Thirteen days out <em>Talbot</em> was hit by a terrible storm when waves smashed over the deck and the crew had difficulty securing the long boat; it was fearfully dark and 'even the mariners' maid' (whoever she may have been) was afraid. As for the passengers, they were terrified by the wind and crashing waves and 'the noise [of the sailors] with their running here and there, loud crying one to another to pull at this and that rope'. However, it did not last many hours, 'after which it became a calmish day'; and one of the diarists recorded that his 'fear at this time was the less when I remembered [that]...it seldom falls out that a ship perisheth at storm if it have sea-room', which was sound reasoning. On 10 May when <em>Arbella</em> was in the meridian of the Azores, that is about half-way across the Atlantic, she was hit by another great storm with such high seas that they had to lower the mainsail. This was followed by heavy rain; the wind shifted and they tacked and 'stood into the head sea', making no headway but riding out the storm. Ten days later still <em>Arbella</em> breasted yet another head wind and sea and her tossing spritsail was plunged so deep into the waves that it split in pieces just at the moment when her captain emerged from his cabin to give orders to take it in. It was fortunate that the sail did split, because 'otherwise it had endangered the breaking of our bowsprit and topmasts at least', and then, 'unless the wind had shifted we had no other way but to have returned to England'.<br />
<br />
These were the times when passengers began to appreciate the qualities of their captains. Some of them were men of mark, well connected and with shares in ships and plantations. Authoritarian and perhaps overbearing, they were forceful and versatile in command. We have seen how they cleared the decks and manned the guns to fight an enemy privateer, dispensed summary justice, played host and concerned themselves with the ship's company morale. In stormy weather, the passengers became especially conscious of the captain's controlling authority. Once, <em>Arbella's</em> Captain Milborne, 'so soon as he had set the watch, at eight in the evening called his men and told them to be ready upon the deck, if occasion should be; and he himself was up and down the decks all times of the night.' On another occasion, in heavy and murky rain, the captain was on deck all night 'and was forced to come in, in the night, to shift his clothes'.<br />
<br />
A ship's captain on the north Atlantic run in the 17th century had to be both intrepid and skilled. He had to handle his clumsy vessel in high seas, driving winds, calm and fog; he had to be a master of navigation at a time when the science was little developed; instruments were primitive - observations were made and positions calculated by the 'cross-staff' or early quadrant. It is remarkable how the captains managed to keep such consistent courses. For example Milborne, after sailing south-west from the Scillies to about the 47° meridian for a week, kept to a course of between about 45° and 43° all the forty-five days' voyage to Cape Sable. Charts were inadequate, the English being a century behind Antwerp in the art of line-engraving, which was the means of reproducing them. In consequence the captains had to rely heavily on their own experience and memory, on trial and expensive error and on oral tradition. They cherished their own channels and courses as vital trade secrets and their dog-eared charts were the most highly prized of any shipmaster's possessions.<br />
<br />
North Atlantic storms were formidable; but given sea room, courage and good seamanship they could be handled. Most to be dreaded was fog. As <em>Mary and John</em> approached the waters off Newfoundland, the weather changed, the wind dropped and, although it was early summer, it became clammy and cold and the landsmen shivered and wished for warmer clothes. With the cold came fog. All the ships of which we have logs encountered 'very thick foggy weather'. Passengers had the eerie experience of sailing for days in deadening silence through a white misty wall. Ships sailing in consort beat drums to avoid collision and for all there was the nightmare of icebergs. For they were now off Newfoundland and in the path of drifting ice broken off the Greenland icecap; strange, white islands looming through the fog of which they were in part the cause. 'We saw a mountain of ice shining as white as snow like a great rock or cliff', wrote one diarist and another described 'an island of ice...three leagues in length, mountain high in form of land with bays and capes like high clift land and a river pouring off it into the sea. Here it was as cold as in the middle of January in England and so continued till we were some leagues beyond it.'<br />
<br />
However, the western ocean off Newfoundland had its compensations: the waters of the Grand Banks, those fabulous fishing grounds which had first tempted English seamen across the Atlantic. By this time the crew had begun to take soundings, first 40 fathoms, then 35, then 24 and then they were directly over the Banks. And so they cast their hooks and lines overboard and took in cod 'as fast as they could haul them up into the ship', sixty-seven cod with a few hooks in less then two hours. They were especially thankful for this at a time when, with 250 leagues still to sail, they were short of victuals, as they were probably also short of hay for the cattle and of water which had to be rationed.<br />
<br />
By now <em>Mary and John</em> had been sailing her solitary course for upwards of six weeks without sight of land or sail; but off Newfoundland there were signs that they were not too far from land. <em>Arbella</em> saw a ship but the unfriendly vessel would not respond to her signal and made off in a surly and suspicious manner, evidently a Frenchman, they thought, from off the Grand Banks; and <em>James</em> saw 'abundance of fowl...swimming in the sea as a token of nearness of land'. Eventually, they sighted land. <em>Arbella</em>, the mist breaking, suddenly saw the shore, as they supposed south-west of Cape Sable at the southern tip of Nova Scotia, latitude 431/4°. On <em>Talbot</em> they 'had all a clear and comfortable sight of America' on 24 June, dead on course, seven or eight leagues south of Cape Sable, and, as a further token for their thanksgiving, 'saw yellow gilliflowers on the sea'; and <em>James</em>, after being frustrated for several days 'with foggy mists and winds', sighted land at about eight o'clock on a Saturday morning, in this case further south-west, off Menhiggin Island, Maine. After forty-two days out from Land's End in the case of Talbot, fifty-six from the Scillies for Arbella, forty-seven from Milford Haven for <em>James</em> and fifty-four from the Lizard for <em>New Supply</em>, they had at last made a North American landfall. It must have been a moment charged with emotion.<br />
<br />
Cape Sable was, however, a long way from Massachusetts Bay and a deal of tricky sailing lay ahead off that New England coast notorious for its fogs and storms and treacherous shoals. Passengers might be beguilded by the distant sight of 'fine woods and green trees...and these yellow flowers painting the sea' into believing that they were already home and dry in their 'new paradise of New England', but, as one diarist exclaimed, 'how things may suddenly change'. Having tacked about to obtain sea room and in a vain attempt to make the harbour of Cape Ann, there came a 'fearful gust of wind and rain, thunder and lightning', heralding a furious storm which <em>Talbot</em> had to ride out as best she could with sails lowered. <em>James</em> had a similar experience. Having anchored overnight off the Isle of Shoals so as to reach Cape Ann next day, they, too, were hit by 'a most terrible storm of rain and easterly wind, whereby we were in as much danger as I think ever people were. For we lost in that morning three great anchors and cables and the sails were rent asunder and split in pieces as if they had been rotten rags'; they came within an ace of being driven on to the rocks. It was clearly a frightening experience, and 'when news was brought unto us into the gun room, that the danger was past, O how our hearts did then relent and melt within us and how we burst out into tears of joy amongst ourselves in love unto our gracious God'. <em>New Supply</em>, also within two leagues of Cape Ann, similarly ran into a storm, lost sight of land and 'fearing the lee-shore all night...bore out to sea'. However, for all three ships this proved to be the last kick of the Atlantic Ocean, a reminder of her savage power and a memory of perils overcome.<br />
<br />
Thereafter, it was plain sailing and no doubt a mounting excitement as familiar signs of land and human activity began to multiply. Off the Isle of Shoals <em>Arbella</em> saw a ship at anchor and 'five or six shallops [sloops] under sail up and down'. After her terrifying storm, <em>James</em> had a 'marvellous pleasant day, for a fresh gale of wind and clear sunshiny weather...and had delight all along the coast, as we went, in viewing Cape Ann, the Bay of Saugust, the Bay of Salem, Marvil Head, Pulling Point and other places'. <em>Arbella</em>, too, had 'now fair sunshine weather and so pleasant a sweet air as did much refresh us, and there came a smell off the shore like the smell of a garden' and 'there came a wild pigeon into our ship and another small bird'. At Cape Ann, some of the <em>Arbella</em> people went ashore and gathered 'store of fine strawberries'; four of the Talbot men 'went and brought back again ripe strawberries and gooseberries and sweet, single roses'; and Higginson continues to marvel at the many islands 'full of gay woods and high trees...and flowers in abundance, yellow flowers painting the sea'. On the Friday, <em>Arbella</em> was stood to, within sight of Cape Ann, and on the Saturday, 12 June, they arrived off Naumkeag (Salem). Here the Governor, Mr Endecott, came aboard to welcome them and took them ashore where they supped on good venison pasty and good beer. <em>Talbot</em>, even with a pilot, had found the entrance to Salem's spacious harbour 'curious and difficult' and <em>Arbella</em> failed altogether to sail up the narrow channel and had to be warped in. As her passengers disembarked, they were saluted by Captain Milborne with a parting volley of five guns.<br />
<br />
As the emigrants disembarked, lost the feel of the ocean swell and found their land legs, there was a general sense of thankfulness. <em>Talbot's</em> diarist the year before had noted that 'we rested that night with glad and thankful hearts that God had put an end to our long and tedious journey through the greatest sea in the world'; and he and his fellow passengers had congratulated themselves on a short and speedy voyage - 3000 English miles in six weeks and three days - 'comfortable and easy for the most part' and, though crowded, largely free of disease save for a few cases of scurvy towards the end. Six years later the <em>James's</em> voyage was thought to be 'very safe and healthful' with 100 passengers, 23 seamen, 23 heifers, three sucking calves and eight mares, 'yet not one of all these died by the way', an achievement which was attributed to good exercise and the excellence of the diet. This was in tragic contrast to her consort, <em>Angel Gabriel</em>, which was driven on to the rocks near Pemaquid, and was a total loss including her cargo; moreover, some of her passengers, having survived this disaster, were drowned on the same day in the wreck of the ship which had picked them up only a few hours before.<br />
<br />
In 1630 <em>Arbella</em> came through comparatively unscathed; but other ships of the Winthrop fleet fared less well; in one, fourteen passengers died from smallpox, another arrived with 'many of her passengers...near starved' and two lost most of their cattle as a result of heavy seas when the animals 'shut up in the narrow room of those wooden walls where the fierceness of the wind and waves would often fling or throw them on heaps to the mischiefing and destroying [of] one another'. As for <em>Mary and John</em>, she had arrived on Sunday 30 May, the first of that fleet, as John Winthrop was shortly to discover.<br />
<br />
Three days after landing in Salem harbour, Winthrop set out to prospect for somewhere to settle or, as he wrote, 'to find out a place for our sitting down', staying with a hospitable old planter on Noodle's Island at the mouth of the Mystic River. During the course of this reconnoitre, he learned that <em>Mary and John</em>, of whose departure from Plymouth John White had told him while <em>Arbella</em> was still lying off the Isle of Wight, had indeed already arrived in Massachusetts Bay and that her passengers were bivouacking at a place round a neck of land to the east of the Charles River. On Thursday 19 June, therefore, he made a detour across the Bay to pay them a call. He found the Dorchester people in some distress. They had arrived nearly three weeks before after a fairly comfortable but rather long voyage of seventy-one days; but they had been dumped down on a very bleak and inhospitable shore.<br />
<br />
When Roger Ludlow had bought and commissioned <em>Mary and John</em>, he and John White had instructed its master, Thomas Squibb, to transport the West Country emigrants not just to New England but to a specific place on the Charles River. This was the spot which those friends of White, the Sprague family, who had sailed in <em>Lyon's Whelp </em>the previous season, had identified as being suitable. However, Captain Squibb had had a long and, no doubt, difficult north Atlantic passage. Moreover, his had been the first ship to arrive in the Bay that season. <em>Mary and John</em>, at 400 tons, had a deep draught, his charts were no doubt sketchy and he had no pilot. He apparently decided, therefore, that to sail into Massachusetts Bay, with all its islands, sandbanks and shoals, would be to endanger his ship. So instead he anchored off Nantasket Point on the ocean shore and, after they had kept the Sabbath on board that last Sunday in May, he decanted his passengers there, presumably on the Monday morning. As a seaman Squibb may well have been right; but his passengers, expecting to be delivered into a sheltered haven on the Charles River where they could settle, found themselves instead, as one of them wrote, 'in a forelorn wilderness destitute of any habitation and most other comforts of life', and were bitterly aggrieved. They declared Squibb was false to his contract and some of them never forgave him.<br />
<br />
Left to shift for themselves, they decided that a group of ten able-bodied and armed men under the command of Captain Richard Southcott, one of the Devonians, a kinsman of an Assistant in the company and a veteran of the Low countries, should set off to prospect for a suitable place to settle; for clearly desolate Nantasket would not do. Fortunately, they found a boat belonging to 'some old planters' and in it they 'felt their way through the islands' in the Bay to Charlestown which consisted of a few Indian wigwams and some English people, including one old planter called Thomas Walfourd who could speak Indian and who fed them an austere meal of boiled bass without even bread to eat with it. Recruiting Walfourd as guide they rowed up the Charles River to where it 'grew narrow and shallow'. There 'with much labour' they landed their goods up a steep bank.<br />
<br />
That night they became aware of a large number of Indians whom Walfourd asked not to disturb the English. The next morning, however, 'the natives stand at a distance looking at us but come not near till they had been a while in view; and then one of 'em, holding out a bass towards us, we send a man with a bisket and are very friendly.' Then they built a shelter for their supplies, fully intending, as the advance party, to make this the place of settlement for the whole Dorchester contingent. But they had been there only a few days when they were ordered to rejoin the main group. So they reluctantly left their riverside spot (which was to become Watertown) and returned to their ship's company who, it transpired, anxious to find suitable grazing for their famished cattle, had somehow journeyed to a neck of land within Massachusetts Bay, 'a place called by the Indians Mattapan', which, because of its salt marshes, 'was a fit place to turn their cattle upon'. There, in desperation, they decided to stop.<br />
<br />
This was during the first days of June. They had been there upwards of a fortnight struggling to make a wilderness camp for themselves and their livestock when John Winthrop heard about them and made a detour on his way back to Salem. On seeing their sorry plight, he went over to Nantasket where <em>Mary and John </em>still lay and 'sent for Captain Squibb ashore'. What the new governor of Massachusetts Bay said to the master of the <em>Mary and John </em>is not recorded but Winthrop seemed to think he had 'ended [the] difference between him and the passengers', in token of which Captain Squibb gave the order for a salute of five guns in the governor's honour and it was said that Squibb later paid compensation to Ludlow.<br />
<br />
This it came about that the <em>Mary and John </em>was the first of that great company of ships to arrive in the Bay in the momentous summer of 1630 and that it was a West Country community which first settled themselves on its shores. Thus also was it that our Dorset and Somerset villagers found themselves in the desperate wilderness of Mattapan Neck and not the more protected Charles River which the Spragues had marked out for them.<br />
<br />
But stuck there they were; and despite their weakness after the long voyage they determined to make the best of it. For were they not religious men and women whose object was to establish a new Jerusalem in New England? As Roger Clap, who was one of them, later wrote: 'The discourse, not only of the aged but of the youth also, was not: "shall we go to England?" but "how shall we go to Heaven?" 'It was a dedicated mission and they would have said a hearty Amen to Francis Higginson's ultimate judgment on the experience of that Puritan voyage across the north Atlantic:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">Those that love their own chimney corner and fare not<br />
far beyond their own towns end shall never have the<br />
honour to see these wonderful works of Almighty God.</span></blockquote><a name="sojourn-at-dorchester-on-massachusetts-bay"></a><b>Sojourn at Dorchester On Massachusetts Bay 1630-35</b><br />
<br />
Captain Southcott was not pleased. No sooner had his exploring party set about the business of preparing a camp for the <em>Mary and John</em> community in that fertile place up the Charles River than along came this messenger with the order, no doubt from Mr Ludlow himself, to return to the main ship's company, now at Mattapan. There was nothing for it but to reload their unreliable boat, negotiate the long swan's neck of Shawmut and find, if they could, the bleak, remote bay fringed with salt marshes into which the <em>Mary and John's </em>company had chanced in their desperate search for grazing for their famished cattle.<br />
<br />
But find them they did, all 140 men, women and children huddled along the marshy shore, brown and green under the misty-bright sun of Massachusetts Bay. They must have been a forlorn sight, bivouacking in the long grass dressed in their heavy 'drab'-coloured English clothing of canvas and linen, leather and serge, so unsuited to the hot New England summer, and surrounded by the coffers, chests and bundles stuffed with apparel, tools, cookpots, firearms, drums of saltmeats, dried pulses and herbs, hard cheese and ship's biscuit, casks of beer and aqua vitae which they had been instructed to bring with them. They were exhausted and travel weary. The excitement of making landfall after those weeks of confinement at sea was wearing off in the desolation of this wild shore where muddy creeks and unwadable tidewater rivers hemmed them in; only the sound of waves, the cry of innumerable sea birds and in the warm night the strange chorus of tree frogs and cicadas broke the silence. However, pulling themselves together, they explored a little way from the shore to a beckoning rocky hill below which were fresh meadows for their cattle. Here they put up their sailcloth tents and camped. That Sunday Mr Warham summoned them to a divine service of thanksgiving in the open air.<br />
<br />
They remained in a pretty desperate condition, at a low ebb from the voyage and now exposed to the primitive conditions of camp life in this unknown country. They were bitten by mosquitoes, fearful of rattlesnakes, apprehensive of the Indians who watched them silently from a distance, and concerned to protect their cattle from marauding wolves. Worse, the unhealthy diet aboard ship took its expected toll; they became sick with that dread deficiency disease, scurvy. Fortunately, they managed to get in touch with the Plymouth plantation further along the coast, and Governor Bradford sent over their physician, Samuel Fuller, who administered remedies and let blood. Despite his efforts the disease became a scourge, for they were debilitated and short of food. The Bay as a whole was short of supplies that summer, the result of bad planning in England; a ship designed to provision Salem had arrived scandalously without its cargo and there were no reserve stocks for the new arrivals who had come too late in the season to sow the corn, and were too ignorant to catch the game, which would have seen them through the winter.<br />
<br />
By summer's end the Mattapan community realized that they were in no condition, physical or moral, to make exploratory plans for an ideal place of settlement and that <em>faute de mieux</em> they must stay and make the most of the place where they happened to come ashore, namely Mattapan. Having resigned themselves to this, they renamed their settlement after the home town of the man who had inspired their journey across the ocean, John White. The Indian Mattapan became an English Dorchester in New England.<br />
<br />
And so, as the summer heat cooled and the crisp frosts of autumn turned the leaves bright reds and yellows, the Dorchester people settled down as best they could to improvise a plan for surviving their first, and unprepared-for, winter. Shelter was the urgent need. Like nearby Boston, Mattapan lacked trees and probably only a few grandees like Rossiter and Ludlow commanded the resources and labour to build timber-frame houses; instead people upgraded their canvas tents to Indian-style wigwams or burrowed into the hillside to make dugouts of earth on timber frames with a hole for a smoky fire. All was higgledy-piggledy and makeshift. In H.R. Shurtleff's words, 'the shores of Boston Bay must have presented a motley and untidy appearance in 1630-31. A few "great houses" sticking up like sore thumbs were surrounded by a disorderly scattering of wigwams, tents and other shacks, pitched without any plan or symmetry'.<br />
<br />
These fair-weather shelters kept off showers but were poor protection against winter rains. As Winthrop wrote in his diary: 'the poorer sort of people [who] for want of houses...were compelled to live long in tents and lie upon, or too near, the cold moist earth...and having no fresh food to cherish them' succumbed to the scurvy. That autumn and winter many fell sick, though unlike Boston and Charlestown there was only one recorded death among the fifty or so heads of families or bachelors who had been passengers on <em>Mary and John</em>, and this was not one of 'the poorer sort of people' but Mr. Edward Rossiter who died on 23 October leaving his large landholding and company interest to his grown son, the physician and lawyer Brian or Bray. But the autumn was one of misery, affliction and growing disillusion for the settlers for whom this brutal reality contrasted starkly with the expectations engendered by the rhetorical prose of Eburne, White and their fellow enthusiasts for New England planting; and there was worse to come.<br />
<br />
All this time there was, for the most part, 'fair, open weather, with gentle frosts in the night'; but on Christmas Eve, remembered though not celebrated by Puritans, winter truly set in, with a nor'wester driving snow and so suddenly cold that fingers were frost-bitten. Two days later the rivers were frozen over and it was so 'very sharp and cold' that it 'made them all betake themselves to the fireside and contrive to keep themselves warm till the winter was over', leaving their cattle to fend for themselves in the open. Fire itself could be a problem. In January, one house burnt down in minutes, and others would suffer the same fate when their wooden chimneys caught fire and could not be put out because all water was frozen.<br />
<br />
By this time food was scarce. In Boston even Governor Winthrop had come to the last of the wheat store for his baking oven. Fortunately, the settlers' Indian neighbours helped with presents of their strange maize corn; but as February loomed the outlook was bleak. They survived mostly on fish, although they sometimes had to resort to collecting nuts and combing the frozen shore for clams and mussels. But then, when they must have been near to dispair, rescue came. John Winthrop may have been priviledged with frame house, servants and oven with its private grain store, but he was not Governor for nothing. As early as the previous July, taking stock of the lack of foodstuffs and fearful of winter, he had commissioned Captain Pierce of <em>Lion</em> to sail to Bristol for supplies. That had been over six months ago and even Winthrop must have begun to lose heart; but on 5 February <em>Lion</em> suddenly appeared off Nantasket, in good shape, with about 200 tons of goods, all in good condition. One may imagine the excitement and rejoicing. As the vessel made her way through the Bay the governor went out in his shallop to greet her and sailed in her to Boston 'where she rode very well despite a great drift of ice'. Her cargo of provisions was distributed to each of the little settlements dotted about the Bay; the siege condition was relieved and the governor ordered a day of thanksgiving. The cargo included barrels of lemon juice, the cure for scurvy, on a diet of which most of the sick speedily recovered. Not all of them, however; some, defeated by the winter's experience, yearned to return home to England; it was noted that such people were the most likely to succumb to the scurvy.<br />
<br />
A few days later, on 10 February, the cold weather relented, the ice melted and, though there were still to be sharp frosts and violent storms, the back of winter was broken. The Dorchester people were not to experience anything so grim again. They discovered that the New England climate was by no means so mild and temperate as that of their own dear Dorset and Somerset. The next two winters would be, if anything, more severe and the summers either hot, dry and liable to drought, or cold and wet, breeding mosquitoes and cornblight; but they quickly became acclimatized to its extremes. They noticed, too, that like their Plymouth neighbors and the old planter of Salem they were becoming less prone to scurvy and other diseases; and once accustomed to New England they declared it healthier, if anything, than their native clime.<br />
<br />
As the planters responded to the sun's warmth and the quickening of spring growth, they became conscious of the natural riches around them and set about to make the most of a hunting economy. There were fish from the Bay and from the spring spawing runs upriver. There were birds: flocks of passenger pigeons and doves so dense as to cloud the sun, geese and duck so thick on the marshes that a day's fowling would bring home fifty. There were deer to be stalked; and offshore there were lobsters, crabs and eels to be taken by the score on a single tide, as well as mussels and clams. Winthrop recorded 'great store of eels and lobsters in the bay. Two or three boys have brought in a bushel of great eels at a time and sixty great lobsters.' In the woods there were wild berries, grapes and herbs and the sassafras said to be a remedy against the pox. As they made the acquaintance of their Indian neighbors, they learned to plant their strange corn. All the while they were cutting timber, burning underbrush, planting garden patches and replacing wigwams and dugouts with carpentered huts and houses so that the little settlement began to look more like a village and less like an encampment.<br />
<br />
The rocky hill and adjacent flats to which they had struggled from the shore were situated south of Mattapan Neck proper which, being a peninsula and needing minimal fencing, proved best suited for grazing cattle. On the 'plain' where they had erected their wigwams was a pond which fed a brook flowing north. The village site was slightly elevated and dry, with fresh, clear springs. However, the bay where they had landed, later called Old Harbour, proved too shallow for shipping and the brook was not free running enough for fish, not, as they said, an 'alewife' river. So the planters turned their gaze southwards where there was another useful peninsula, Fox Point, and a sizeable river, the Naponset, with a channel, moorings for ships and extensive water-meadows.<br />
<br />
For the moment they were each occupied with building a house and clearing an acre or two round it for an allotment. They staked out their plots close together as in the West Country villages whence they came. This was instinctive, though it also conformed to a colonial rationale of defence and a Puritan imperative to gather round a future meeting house. Families who had been fellow passengers on shipboard and neighbours in Dorset or Somerset settled next to one another and worked together to clear their home lots and plant fields. Although most came from neighborhoods where land had long been enclosed, it is interesting that they cleared the wilderness communally as open fields. One field was as much as they could cope with this first season, but in the next couple of years they would clear four fields, north, south, east and west, and Dorchester would begin to look like an English open-field village. This practical response to necessity was rationalized in the formal land policy of the Massachusetts Bay Company, from which the Dorchester settlers derived their legitimacy.<br />
<br />
In theory, land was held of the English Crown through its nominated agent, the Massachusetts Bay Company (although the Dorchester people satisfied Puritan consciences by obtaining some form of land title from the local Indian sachem, one Chickabot). The company in turn granted land in accordance with its own land policy set out in resolutions of the Court of Assistants drawn up in London as early as May 1629. These laid down that land should be allocated as follows: each investment in the company of £50 was to carry a right to 200 acres and a half-acre house plot; an investor who emigrated and paid his own passage was to be entitled to an extra fifty acres for every member of his family; an emigrant, not an investor but paying his own passage, was to be entitled to fifty acres only although at the company's discretion he could be allotted extra land 'according to [his] charge and quality', i.e. his family responsibilities and his social status; and for each indentured servant transported, his master could claim another fifty acres. The settler had the right to choose his own home lot provided it was within the township.<br />
<br />
The Court of Assistants first allocated land to its own investors or adventurers. In Dorchester, the two Assistants, Ludlow and Rossiter, were granted farms of 100 acres apiece, large tracts of prime meadow and arable about the Naponset, in Ludlow's case most of the peninsula called Squantum Neck. Henry Wolcott, Thomas Newberry and Israel Stoughton were granted equivalent holdings. The first and principal settlers chose home lots on Rocky Hill: Ludlow built a substantial house on its south side. Newberry had an extensive home lot about the Rock, forty acres of adjacent upland, forty of marsh, and 100 acres of upland and another 100 of meadow on either side of the Naponset River, a large holding commensurate with the size of his investment, his social standing and his large family. Israel Stoughton was granted not only 150 acres of meadow marching with Newberry's eight or nine miles up the Naponset, but valuable milling and fishing monopolies. The holdings of these grandees were greater than those of ordinary settlers, matched only by similar grants to the other privileged group, the ministers; but it was in accordance with the same guidelines that the ordinary Dorchester settlers negotiated their own choices of home and great lots, meadow and marsh.<br />
<br />
The granting of land in this way by the Court of Assistants, meeting in Boston or New Town, quickly became impractical. The scattering, by force of circumstances, of what had been intended as a single unified plantation into half a dozen settlements led to land being allocated to individual townships and soon in Dorchester this function was taken over, first by the church elders and then by the townsmen who continued to grant land consistent with the company's guidelines. The basic house plot was about half an acre, but this became subsumed in a 'home lot' of roughly four acres, large enough for house and smallholding without being so large as to break up the village street neighbourhood. This standard lot could be varied depending on the size of a man's family and his social standing. The position of the home lot was determined, usually in relation to the family's squatter rights; then came the allocation of the 'great lot', that is, the family's principal holding, usually 16 acres, though sometimes half that and occasionally as much as 20. Finally, there was a separate allotment of 'fresh marsh', meadow for fodder crops and salt marsh for rough summer grazing. These grants tended to be between two and four acres each, often in packets of two or more, scattered about the plantation. There were, of course, exceptions and adjustments to round out a man's holdings: a slip of upland here, a parcel of marsh there, 'the hedgy ground in the bottom' for Mr Newberry, and the habit of swapping lots to make a more convenient holding, and of outright purchases, grew apace. But there were few marked differences in landholding and such as there were reflected family size as much as social position. In Dorchester there appear to have been fewer servants than in Boston, which militated against social distinctions being reflected in property ownership. At first, settlers tended to look to great lots and meadow south and east of the village plain towards Fox Point, Squantum Neck, the fertile water-meadows of the Naponset and south-west towards the Blue Hills and what was to become Dedham. Once the lands 'towards Naponset' had been allocated, the village fathers turned for great lots west towards the brook which marked the boundary with their Roxbury neighbors.<br />
<br />
Dorchester's domestic economy centred on the house and its home lot in the neighbourhood of the village street. Here the family cleard a plot for the kitchen garden, experimented with pumpkins and squashes and tended the cabbages, turnips, carrots and parsnips they had brought from England and the herbs so essential for seasoning and preserving. Here they began their first corn-patches, the maize planted in hillocks Indian-fashion with runner beans trained up the stalks. Here they planted the fruit trees they had also brought with them, especially apples for their hardiness and for the cider. Here they erected the outbuildings to shelter cows, oxen and eventually, maybe, a horse, and a pen for sheep; and the women kept hens and geese. Their pigs and goats ranged far afield rooting for themselves, eating anything and fierce enough to keep wolves and the occasional bear away from their prolific litters. The swine especially became animal 'weeds' of the countryside.<br />
<br />
Cattle, pigs, goats and sheep needed more grazing than the village street provided and were brought together in communal herds with their own herdsmen. Sheep needed extensive pasture and folding against wolves. In the first years cattle, brought across the Atlantic at great expense and with many losses, were precious. In the spring of 1633 Dorchester could still only boast forty-five milch cows, the ownership of which was some indication of relative affluence, and two years later, in order to increase the stock, the town resolved that four bulls should go 'with the drift of milch cows'. This was Stoughton's responsibility with William Rockwell of Fitzhead, Somerset and Thomas Ford of Simonsbury, Dorset, all three prominent citizens. Each morning about sunrise the cows were brought to assembly points in the village and driven by the herdsmen out to pasture for the day, returning for collection to their home lots at sunset. In Dorchester it was the custom for the cowman to herald his coming and going with blasts on his horn. Cows were milked twice a day and the settlers' wives and daughters made butter and cheese in their makeshift dairies. The beef cattle were herded further afield and in the summer months grazed freely, especially on the common land of Dorchester's Mattapan Neck which was reserved for them because there they could be protected with minimal fencing against wolves. Cattle presented the greatest demand on the domestic economy; they needed between two and ten times as much land as was needed for tillage. In summer the herd grazed freely on the two necks and on salt marshes and after harvest on the stubble of the cornfields; but in winter they had to be kept nearer home and, if possible, in cowsheds during the hard months. And they had to be fed: hence the importance of 'mowing land', the fresh meadow of which each settler had his four to six acres for haymaking, often on Roxbury Brook or Naponset River above tidewater. The English quickly found the native grasses, the broomstraw and rye and the spartinas of the salt marshes, though tall and prolific, less nutritious than those they were used to in the West Country and their cattle grew 'lousy with feeding upon it and are much out of heart and liking'. The provision of good fodder for winter was a worry for the first year or two until English strains such as bluegrass and white clover, sometimes brought over by chance in shipboard fodder and dung, took hold.<br />
<br />
Along with haymaking, the corn harvest was the most labor-intensive activity of the farming year. The settlers had a gentle introduction to tillage; they took over old Indian fields which, though partly worn out, they burnt over and cleared. English wheat, barley and rye were for the future. Instead they discovered the virtues of maize, cultivated Indian-fashion by hoe and mattock. To make the four great Dorchester fields meant felling trees and clearing brush. This must have been back breaking, even with the help of oxen; but cleared they were and to an unnecessary English standard before our settlers learned to girdle the trees and let them die. If clearing the fields was a communal effort, so, in a measure, was their planting. Each settler cultivated his own strips in these great fields, unenclosed save for external fences to protect them from cattle and wild animals. The crop to be planted and the dates for the sequence of cultivation - planting, hoeing, harvest and the opening of the stubble to the cattle - were communally determined.<br />
<br />
And so the Dorchester community began to settle to a life which, though hard and unaccustomed, developed its own diurnal and seasonal rhythms which were a variant of those they had known in the West Country. In New England spring came later and more suddenly than in Dorset so that, whereas at the beginning of April the ground was still frozen and little could be done, by the end of the month the snow had melted, the streams were running, the marshes were filled and the Naponset River was alive with runs of spawing smelt, alewives, bass, salmon, sturgeon and shad so dense, at times, as to strain the nets and provide a spring harvest for immediate eating, smoking or fish manure. This was the season for planting corn in the fields and vegetables in the garden; and so quickly did spring melt into summer's heat that by June shoots must be hoed and it was time to mow the fresh meadows and to load the hay on rough sledges or lighters for poling back to the home lots for stacking. It was also the season for seafood, lobsters and crabs, clams and oysters. By August it was time to harvest the corn, to pick the fruit, especially apples for cider, and in September to tap the sweet syrup from the maples, and to take the fowling piece to the shore for wildfowl and to the woods for hares, rabbits and deer for venison. Then came the time to slaughter the pigs and to smoke and salt the pork for ham and bacon against the winter. And always there was wood to be cut and brought in prodigious quantities from the family's upland wood lot, to be corded and stacked by the house against the time, early or late in December, when the New England winter would close in and the family withdraw to its fireside to make do and mend implements and clothing, to spin and weave the wool and flax; and outdoors to mend fences, feed the stock and perhaps make a dugout to bury blocks of ice as a store for the summer.<br />
<br />
Many activities took place at some distance from the home lot. Wood cutting, and haymaking on some far meadow or marsh, involved long treks by primitive paths and staying away from home; in summer the men, with their sons and servants if they had any, made a habit of camping, or even making shacks on some distant meadow, leaving the women to manage the more domestic chores back in the village, and the ministers and elders worried about the men's non-appearance at the meeting house on the Sabbath.<br />
<br />
Husbandry was not the only preoccupation. As we noted, Israel Stoughton was granted the exclusive right to build a weir across the Naponset River and a watermill for grinding corn, the first in the colony. To be the town miller was a lucrative franchise. He was also granted the monopoly of netting the alewives as they swarmed upstream, provided he sold them to the plantation for five shillings a thousand. These strategic rights no doubt contributed materially to the fortune which Stoughton was to leave to his son William. <br />
<br />
Dorchester people, some of whom came from the little ports of Dorset and Devon, took to fishing in the Bay, especially for cod, a staple food, and mackerel, chiefly for bait. The first fishing stages at Cape Ann and Salem had been manned by Dorset fishermen and, according to a contemporary, Dorchester men were 'the first that set upon the trade of fishing in the Bay'. Seafaring was in the blood and those West Country ships had master mariners among their passengers. John Gallop of Mosterton became a renowned sea captain; Henry Way and John Rocket of the Bridport neighbourhood, Elias Parkman of Sidmouth, John Tilley and William Lovell were all skippers of trading shallops, and chose neighbouring lots with a common landing place at the mouth of the Naponset where they could moor their ships. It was a hazardous occupation. Henry Way, who had lost his son overboard from a spritsail yard on the voyage over, was murdered by Indians on a trading voyage to Narragansett Bay in the winter of 1632; John Tilly was to be cruelly killed by Indians on the Connecticut River in 1626 on a trading voyage in search of beaver. <br />
<br />
These seafarers were a noted element in Dorchester's 'trading men' who intended their settlement should become a mercantile port. Among them was a group of Dorset merchant families. There was Bernard Capen and his family, prominent in Dorchester. Thomas Purchase, a Capen kinsman, and his brother-in-law George Way were both Dorchester merchants of standing and partners in a colonizing venture in Maine. Nicholas Upsall, another Dorset merchant, became the first tavern keeper in Dorchester on Massachusetts Bay; John Cogan, of the Chard merchant family and kinsman of Roger Ludlow's wife, had been an Exeter merchant; William Hill of Lyme Regis and Nathaniel Duncan of Exeter, who had married daughters of Ignatius Jourdain the Exeter merchant, both had mercantile interests.<br />
<br />
Dorchester proved a disappointment to some of them. The channel to Old Harbour was poor and the landing difficult and, although the Naponset estuary served them better, Dorchester in the end lost out as a port to Boston and Charlestown. John Cogan moved to Boston to open the town's first retail shop. George Way took one look at Dorchester and left for England on the first ship and old Bernard Capen soon died. But most came to terms with their situation, combining farming with trade. Early bartering with the Mattapan and Naponset Indians of butter and cheese for corn and other Indian products led to buying and selling with wampum, the Indian currency, and to a quickening of the latent interest of these Englishmen in the trade in furs, especially beaver. Tilly was not the only Dorchester man to compete with the men of Plymouth and the Dutchmen from Manhattan in opening up trade with the Connecticut River Indians. Within three years of their landing at Mattapan, Dorchester was handling quantities of furs, some from that unknown but beckoning river. <br />
<br />
Three years after the arrival of the settlers a visitor to Massachusetts Bay, one William Wood, described Dorchester as 'the greatest town in New England...well wooded and watered, very good arable grounds and hay ground, fair cornfields and pleasant gardens...In this plantation is a great many cattle, as kine, goats and swine. This plantation hath a reasonable harbour for ships.' Wood's <em>New England's Prospect</em> is as attractive a travel book as any promoter might wish, but what he wrote was confirmed by other croniclers of this 'frontier towne', who also singled out her fair orchards and gardens, two small rivers and pleasant situation facing the Bay and stretching inland. By 'greatest town' Wood meant the largest in area of any town on the Bay, with limits stretching six miles south from Boston Neck and three miles west to the Roxbury limits. Another cronicler described its shape as a serpent whose head was the Dorchester peninsula, body the village itself, and tail the meadow and marshlands from Squantum upstream on both sides of the Naponset River towards the Great Blue Hills and what will become Dedham. Travelling to sequestered parts of Dorchester could be tedious. One could go by boat round Fox Point to Naponset; but there was a spidery network of cart- and footways that reached out from the village street north and west with a trestle bridge over the brook to Roxbury and a branch up to Boston, and south to Stoughton's bridge over the Naponset with lanes into the grazing grounds of the necks.<br />
<br />
This was a straggling community of houses on the rising ground or 'knapp' south of Old Harbour and adjacent to Rock Hill, which the settlers singled out for their fort with drakes to command harbour and landing. Neighbouring the street was the pond which fed the brook, the burial ground so urgently needed with its bier, and the pound for stray cattle, more important than a gaol, though the stocks were already in use. There was also a wolf trap.<br />
<br />
The building round which all activity revolved was the meeting house, situated on the plain at the north end of the village near Old Harbour. It must have been erected before 1632 because in that year the minister, Mr Maverick, 'in drying a little powder...fired a small barrel' which singed his clothes and the thatch of the meeting house. It was not only a place of worship. The whole business of the plantation was transacted there. Surrounded by a palisade, it served as an arsenal for military stores and a refuge during Indian alerts. A sentry guarded it at night and every evening people carried in their plate and other valuables. It was a substantial building; an outside staircase and a loft were planned for it, and it was proposed to place a preservation order on all trees within 300 feet of the building. Here, every Sabbath and on lecture days during the week, the whole of Dorchester gathered to listen to the Scriptures expounded, to sermons and, once a month, to celebrate the Lord's Supper, in winter wrapped up against the cold and in summer shaded from the sun's heat. The meeting house was the only gracious experience in a week where life was hard and even those in authority had to compose their letters home, their instrospective diaries, their accounts and court papers with writing tablets on their knees for want of a table or desk in the two- or three-roomed cottages which were their New England homes.<br />
<br />
Two or three years after their landing, such was the rough but orderly life of Dorchester village. After the first brutal winters these Puritan families became attuned to the rhythms, pains and pleasures of their New England semi-wilderness. As Alice Earle wrote not too sentimentally:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">I see them walking along the little lanes and half-streets<br />
in which for many years bayberry and sweet-fern lingers<br />
in dusty fragrant clumps by the road side. I see [them] <br />
standing under the hot little cedar trees...not sober in<br />
sad color, but cherry in russet and scarlet; and sweetbrier <br />
and strawberries, bayberry and cedar smell sweetly and <br />
glow genially in that summer sunlight.</span></blockquote>The polity of this little community was governed by a trinity of institutions.<br />
<br />
The first was church. The Dorchester people never lost sight of the fact that their <em>fons et origo</em> was that church, gathered in the New Hospital in Plymouth on the eve of <em>Mary and John's</em> departure. Their overriding purpose was to establish in an uncorrupted wilderness the true Protestant Church of England after New Testament fashion. The church was paramount and, to begin with, church order was the order of the community. The first executive government of the plantation was the church, through its officers the two ministers, Warham and Maverick, and the two ruling elders, Rockwell and Gaylord, whose signatures, or two of them, were the authority for all town acts, from allocating home lots to watching and warding, imposing rates for maintaining roads and bridges and appointing citizens 'to view the pales'. The earliest records are lost but it seems likely that the ministers and elders had their decisions ratified by the freemen after Sunday meeting for worship or a weekday lecture as they had been wont to do in the vestry meetings of their West Country parishes. Such a practice was formalized on 8 October 1633 when it was agreed 'by the whole consent and vote of the Plantation' that there should be a general meeting of all the inhabitants on the Monday before the monthly meeting of the Massachusetts Court at eight o'clock in the morning in the meeting house summoned by the beating of a drum, 'there to settle (and set down) such orders as may tend to the general good...and every man to be bound thereby without gain-saying or resistence.' It was agreed this meeting should select twelve men to conduct the day-to-day business until the next monthly meeting of the town and that the principle of majority votes should prevail. In this, Dorchester was very nearly the first town to institute that famous New England instrument of government, the town meeting (New Town, later Cambridge, preceded them by a year). Thereafter, the new 'select' men took over from the church officers the day-to-day administration of the town's affairs. They held office for only half a year, but most were renewed and the selectmen or townsmen quickly came to be the effective government of the town. Thus did the civic government of the town develop out of the business meeting of the church and under the shelter of the meeting house. The town meeting, unlike the English vestry or court leet, was to develop a robust, populistic character; but it retained a symbiotic relation to the church. Church and towns, clerical and civic officers, were close, complementary authorities in a polity which came to be known as the New England Way.<br />
<br />
But Dorchester was not independent. Like the other Bay townships it had come into being as the result of an organized emigration and settlement under the authority of the Massachusetts Bay Company; its legitimacy derived from that company's charter which had become by sleight of hand the constitution of the Bay colony. It was the Court of Assistants of the company-colony which authorized its name, set its boundaries, delegated to it such powers as granting lands and taxation, saw to its magistracy and appointed its town constable. In addition to church and civic government there was a third sphere which preoccupied our first generation of Dorchester settlers, namely defence.<br />
<br />
The Puritans had no illusions about the paramount need to buckle on the sword as well as study the Bible, as they set about building their uncorrupted city on a hill. There was danger from Indians - memory of events like the Virginia massacre of 1622 was still vivid - and from European rivals Dutch and French, or just lawless pirates and freebooters. From the start these communities of Saints felt the need of support from professional soldiers, especially to provide the defensive works and artillery so fundamental to the warfare they knew. The Leyden Separatists first saw this and engaged Captain Miles Standish for the New Plymouth pilgrimage and each subsequent plantation followed suit by appointing such Low Country veterans as Captains Underhill, Patrick and Gardiner to be their seasoned professionals. Dorchester was fortunate in acquiring the services of Captain John Mason. Mason had arrived on the Bay as early as 1632 when he led a foray, which John Gallop as master of their shallop, against a nest of local pirates. He also had the principal hand in designing Boston's fortifications.<br />
<br />
From the beginning, the militia was a central institution of plantation life. It was assumed as a matter of course that the means of defence should be the traditional English trainband: citizen soldiers, compulsorily mustered under amateur officers and trained by professional mustermasters hired for the purpose, usually Low Contry veterans. The trainbands were organized at county level into regiments each commanded by a county grandee and consisting of six companies officered by a captain, a lieutenant, an ensign, two sergeants and three corporals. The companies were formed of three squadrons each and these were made up of files from adjacent villages and hamlets. Their officers were scions of the local gentry who exercised the same kind of authority in the militia as their families did as justices in local government, under the command of the lord lieutenant and his deputies. There were local training days for drill in weaponry and hand-to-hand fighting, and every summer a general muster of all regiments in the county. The traditional weapon was the pike, though 'trailing a pike' was by no means universal and musters saw a miscellany of weapons including the billhooks of husbandmen and cotters. For firepower, the bow had all but disappeared, giving place to the matchlock musket. The infantry company under the early Stuarts consisted of pikemen and musketeers; though muskets were cumbersome and indeed dangerous to deploy, the proportion of them increased as their fire power and range improved.<br />
<br />
One of the county units was usually a regiment of horse, the militia's elite, a tradition going back dimly to knight service. Recruited from the gentry and superior yeomanry, they provided their own horses, accoutrements and weapons. A gentleman's estate determined the number he was expected to contribute in terms of equipped horsemen. Originally cuirassiers, armed with long sword and pistols, corselet and helmet, whose function was to attack the enemy's horse, they were already being supplemented by arquebusiers, mounted infantry armed with a heavy bore gun but lightly armoured for fast movement. They were to be succeeded by the caribiniers, the light cavalry of Prince Rupert and Oliver Cromwell and predecessors of the dragoons.<br />
<br />
Within a year of their arrival, the Court of Assistants were already laying down the basis of a militia system for the whole colony on the English model. Dorchester, like the other towns, had its own company of trainbands consisting of all able-bodied men between sixteen and sixty, trained by its own professional mustermaster, Captain Mason, and officered on much the same lines as the militia companies they were used to in Somerset and Dorset by recruits from the local equivalent of gentry and yeomanry. The company captain was Israel Stoughton who had some military experience and was overseer of fort and ordnance. He would command a force against the Pequots and return to England to serve in the New Model Army. Officers were elected from among the freemen in their company, subject only to confirmation by the colony court. This innovation scandalized the old Low Country professionals and, for a time, was rescinded; but it became accepted practice in those pioneer communities of attenuated hierarchy. In time these town trainbands, each with its own colours, were grouped into three regiments. Dorchester, being the oldest town, was the senior company in the Suffolk County Regiment. The regimental officers, like those in the English shires, were grandeed; Governor Winthrop himself was Colonel and the deputy governor, Thomas Dudley, Lieutenant Colonel, of the Suffolk Regiment.<br />
<br />
There were training days once a month, for Dorchester of a Friday, with stiff fines for absence, though persons of consequence such as magistrate Ludlow, deacons Rockwell and Gaylord and sea captain Parkman were exempt. In military training as well as organization the settlers transplanted their English practices. They made few concessions to the exigencies of wilderness warfare. Although they did accept that the twelve-foot pike was hopelessly inappropriate to local circumstances they continued to rely on the whole paraphernalia of musketry. Each private soldier carried a heavy matchlock musket with a four-foot barrel and its forked rest, a bandolier of cartridges and powder horn, and wore a cotton-padded corselet as protection against arrows, the only concession to local conditions. Drill was in accordance with the copy books they had brought with them. Musketeers carried their length of slow-burning match in their hand, kept a few bullets in their mouth and a priming iron in case the bullet did not fit the barrel. They fired by ranks, wheeling off to reload. The Indian neighbours who observed them would have found their drilling ludicrous, had they not been in awe of their firepower. <br />
<br />
These duties were not necessarily as unpopular as they had been in the West Country. Where Indians were hostile, military training was seen to be relevant. For some, training days were a frustrating distraction from building and planting, but for others, a tonic diversion making for <em>bonhomie</em> and a literal <em>esprit de corps </em>which was an antidote to daily farm chores and soul-searching hours in the meeting house. It was also a useful secular occasion when private citizen soldiers could air informally matters which they might be inhibited from raising at town or church meeting, such as the level of the minister's salary for the coming year. The establishment recognized this. Ministers might disapprove of the rum or hard cider drunk on training days, but they thought it politic merely to open the exercises with a prayer. The elite quality of the militia was enhanced by the institution of a troop of horse on the English model, recruited from volunteers of standing, able to provide horses and accoutrements, and equivalent to London's Honourable Artillery Company, composed of 'divers gentlemen and others, out of their care for the public weal and safety by the advancement of the military art and exercise of arms'. They were given the privilege of choosing their officers, drawing up their own by-laws and levying fines, and received a grant of 1000 acres of land to provide an 'artillery garden', or exercise range, on the London model.<br />
<br />
The militia was a powerful third force, a counterpoise to the New England Way. More than a century later, a fourth generation Bostonian of note, John Adams, was to describe training day, along with meeting house, town meeting and school, as one of the four pillars of New England.<br />
<br />
Some thirty families and twenty bachelors, 140 men, women and children in all, had landed at Mattapan from the <em>Mary and John</em> in 1630. During the next five years an average of twenty ships a year arrived from England, each carrying up to 200 passengers; and by 1635 the population of Massachusetts Bay had swelled dramatically to upwards of 8000 while the number of heads of families and individuals who had been granted lands by the town of Dorchester had risen to just over 130. Although the origins of most of the later arrivals are not known, many were from the West Country, like the eighty passengers on the Weymouth ship of 1633 which brought those Dorchester merchant families; there was the ship which brought the Newberrys and Humphreys the following year, and the Weymouth ship of March 1635 which brought the Hull colony. Of those 130 heads of families and individuals of 1635, fifty-seven, or 43.5 per cent, are known to have been of West Country origin, a high proportion considering the number whose origins are unknown. Moreover, the West Country element provided the inner core of the community. Of eighty-four Dorchester citizens elected freemen, forty were from the West Country, four out of five of the constables were West Countrymen - three from Dorset, one from Somerset - as were a majority of the selectmen; and the landholdings of West Countrymen were more substantial than the average. Dorchester continued to be a predominantly West Country town, and John White's people remained a kind of oligarchy. They also clung to their own personal friendships and neighbourliness. West Country people seemed to cluster to the north of the village and, except for the seafarers, to have lots on the Roxbury bounds rather than Naponset. It was not fortuitous that neighbours from the Brit Valley, like the Hosfords and Denslows, or Dorchester merchants such as the Cogans, Duncans and Ways were granted both home lots and meadow next to one another.<br />
<br />
Thus, five years after that first landing, the population of Dorchester, despite deaths from disease and hardship and defections by the faint-hearted back to England, increased more than fourfold. The demand for foodstuffs exerted pressure on the land. Fertile land, even in a plantation as extensive as Dorchester, was not unlimited and successive divisions of lots were beginning to press on the remaining commons. At this time the town resolved that no home lots henceforth granted should carry rights of common and young Roger Clap was instructed to investigate 'what marsh or meadow ground is not yet alloted out'. It may be that the existing land cleared for tillage, often old Indian fields, was becoming exhausted.<br />
<br />
The increase in livestock was even greater. Those first few wasting cattle, the sustenance of which had been the chief motive for 'setting down' at Mattapan, had multiplied and with those four breeding bulls had become '450 cows and other cattle of that kind'. This was particularly worrying for a rural economy so dependent on cattle raising which demanded from two to ten times as much land as tillage; and raising cattle for the butcher, to feed the rapid immigrant influx and to ship out salted to the West Indies, had become profitable and more congenial than primitive subsistence farming to those West Country people. As early as 1634 the people of New Town were complaining of 'want of accommodation for their cattle' and no doubt Dorchester people felt the same. John Winthrop recorded that 'all towns in the Bay began to be much straightened' especially 'because of their cattle being so much increased'.<br />
<br />
As Winthrop also hinted, there was a general unease in all the Bay towns because of 'their own nearness to one another', an ironic comment from the man who had designed a single colony and had only reluctantly accepted the inevitability of a scattering of half a dozen townships on the Bay. According to another of his contemporaries, Edward Johnson, 'some took dislike to every little matter; the ploughable plains were too dry and sandy for them and the rocky places, although more fruitful, yet to eat their bread with toil of hand and hoe they deemed it insupportable.'<br />
<br />
About that time, however, the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay heard tell of a possible place to settle 100 miles or more to the west which might answer their need for space and pasture. It was, as Edward Johnson recorded, 'a very fertile plain upon the river of Conectico, low land and well stored with meadow...This people, seeing that tillage went but little on, resolved to remove and breed up store of cattle, which were then at 8 and 20 pound a cow or near upon'.<br />
<br />
Intelligence of the Connecticut or Great River had been filtering through to the Bay for some time. In 1631 a deputation of Indians had tried to interest Governor Winthrop and Governor Bradford of Plymouth in their river as a counterpoise to their threatening Pequot enemies. Meanwhile the Dutch had set up a trading post on the Connecticut's west bank about sixty miles upstream, forestalling the Plymouth people who sent their own expedition up the river in 1631. After a confrontation with the Dutch which just stopped short of shots being fired, the Plymouth party set up their own trading post a mile above, on a point of the river which was to become Dorchester, then Windsor. More arresting for the Dorchester people was intelligence learned from Governor Winthrop's barque <em>Blessing of the Bay</em> back from a trading voyage to the mouth of the Connecticut, and from a seasoned old Indian trader, John Oldham, who returned from an overland trek to the upper Connecticut with reports of lush meadows stretching for miles along the river's bank, with samples of black lead from an Indian mine and, specially intriguing to men of west Dorset, good quality hemp. Above all, there was evidence of valuable furs, especially beaver, which the Indians brought down river from its remote, uncharted headwaters, said to be a great and sacred lake far away in the northern wilderness.<br />
<br />
The idea of pulling up stumps and migrating to the Connecticut was much talked of in the Bay towns. It was highly controversial; and powerful voices were raised against it: the Indians were hostile, the Dutch menacing, Plymouth had pre-empted a trading post, the river was a white elephant because the sandbar at its mouth prevented ocean-going ships sailing upstream, the journey overland was treacherous with unknown paths and natural hazards, and droving cattle there would be foolhardy. But, more formidable, the whole establishment of Massachusetts Bay Colony was against it. The Governor and his Assistants had all the prudent instincts of a governing class. The Bay, though growing fast, was still small, weak and exposed. Winthrop had been unhappy about the original dispersal willy-nilly into distinct settlements; in the interests of the future health of the colony the people of Massachusetts Bay should stay together in order to face a potentially hostile world which included Indians, Dutch, possibly French, and the English Crown which could raise awkward questions about the legitimacy not only of an outlying settlement but of the Bay's charter itself. In short, dispersal would weaken Boston and stretch her resources. If there was need for Lebenstraum let land-hungry settlers move a mile or so up the Merrimac or Naponset to colonize a nearby village within Massachusetts Bay. The clergy were also uneasy. Puritan orthodoxy demanded that the pure mile of the Word be cherished and deviations stamped upon. Although each of the plantation churches was a separate congregation, they were intimately connected; their ministers met once a fortnight to concert matters of order and doctrine and some were apprehensive that dispersal would encourage deviation, a falling away and weakening of spiritual and moral discipline.<br />
<br />
So the argument went to and from in the townships and in the Court of Assistants during 1634 and early 1635. The bell-wether was New Town whose petition to the court for leave to depart was refused once; but in the end, and for reasons beyond this narrative and bound up with the powerful personality and standing of Thomas Hooker, resistance was overcome and permission was granted to emigrant goups first in New Town, then Watertown and Dorchester, to depart for the Connecticut in the summer of 1635.<br />
<br />
This second swarming was not lightly undertaken; but the result of much soul searching, and the practical problems were immense. In Dorchester's case the upheaval was phenomenal. Of the 170 or so male inhabitants in 1635, about fify-six sold out to newcomers and joined the exodus to the Connecticut. The process, which took two seasons, could not have taken place without the would-be migrant's ability to dispose of his property. Fortunately, 1635 proved a good season for new immigrants to the Bay and Dorchester people had little difficulty in selling their land and improvements to incomers, in particular to the <em>James's</em> company from Lancashire under the Rev. Richard Mather, who were to provide an essential blood transfusion to a Dorchester church weakened by the departure of its pastor and most of his flock. Thus occured perhaps the first example of that classic process so characteristic of America's shifting frontier.<br />
<br />
Beyond this, who went and who stayed depended on family circumstances, economic incentive and individual temperament, and on the influence of a few in positions of leadership. Four men stand out as leaders of the enterprise: Roger Ludlow, Thomas Newberry, Henry Wolcott and Captain John Mason. These were the chief notables of Dorchester. Apart from Mason the soldier, all were of the gentry, and substantial Dorchester landholders. Alas, Mr. Newberry, of Marshwood Vale, Dorset, like Mr. Rossiter before him, died before he could make the journey, leaving his large family to make it without him; but the others were the stalwart figures in the operation.<br />
<br />
Their principal was Roger Ludlow and the enterprise owed much to his leadership. He had been deputy to Thomas Dudley as Governor of the Bay; but his overbearing and headstrong conduct had so offended his peers that he was not re-elected to that office or indeed to the magistracy in 1635, and he became disaffected. Whereas in office he had been against the Connecticut enterprise, now he was a principal, and effective, advocate. As an early chronicler, J.G. Palfrey, wrote: 'If motives...of jealousy and envy of people in authority in Boston...had weight with any of the projectors they are more likely to have influenced Ludlow of Dorchester whose ambitious and uneasy temper was sufficiently evinced before and after his departure.' And another, William Hubbard, writing within living memory, probably had him in mind when he wrote: 'there was an impulsive cause that did more secretly and powerfully drive on the business. Some men do not well like, at least cannot well bear, to be opposed in their judgments and notions, and hence were they not unwilling to remove from under the power, as well as out of the bounds of the Massachusetts. Nature doth not allow two suns in one firmament, and some spirits can as ill bear an equal as others a superior.' He may have been wilful and cantankerous, but the man who had bought and commissioned <em>Mary and John</em> and had decided on Dorchester as the place of settlement was just the kind of forceful leader that such an enterprise required.<br />
<br />
More difficult to assess is the role of the minister, John Warham. His colleague John Maverick was against the move; but the old man died, much lamented, on 3 March 1636 and Warham, on his own, was thought to have been swayed by the majority of his congregation who were in favor. Warham was a deeply religious man, much respected and indeed revered. His leadership was an essential to the Dorchester exodus as that of Thomas Hooker was for that from New Town.<br />
<br />
All these notables, save Captain Mason whose origin is not known, were West Countrymen. Indeed the Dorchester exodus was largely a West Country affair. Of fifty-four heads of families who opted for Connecticut and who can be identified, forty were West Country folk and twenty-six of these, including Warham, Ludlow and Wolcott, had crossed the Atlantic in the <em>Mary and John </em>five years before. They were, indeed, the greater part of that ship's company. Dorchester, so predominantly West Country, stood out in that Massachusetts Bay community which was overwhelmingly East Anglian. Dorchester was different; softer in speech, slower in tempo, and distinct in her rural habits and allegiances and, also, in the temper of her religion. John White's recruits were nothing like as far along the road to Separatism as the keen Independents of Suffolk, Essex and Lincolnshire. Though Puritan, they still professed and were deeply committed to the Church of, and in, England; one suspects they felt no particular neighbourliness to Roxbury, Charlestown or especially to Winthrop's bossy Boston and for them swarming to the Connecticut may have come as a release.<br />
<br />
<a name="retrospect"></a><b>Retrospect</b><br />
<br />
To understand in retrospect the story of those West Country people who in the 1630s left their villages and country towns for Massachusetts Bay and thence to the Connecticut River, it is important to cleanse one's mind as far as possible of all knowledge of what was to come and specifically of the anachronistic assumption that theirs was just a first chapter in that odyssey which was to lead ultimately to the growth of the American nation.<br />
<br />
A useful exercise is to examine the language and discard the nomenclature which subsequent generations have used to describe the experiences of these 17th-century West Countrymen. For example it would be natural for us to describe them as 'emigrants'. However, emigrant is a concept they would not have understood; the word only entered the language a century later, in 1754 in relation to the Pennsylvania Germans. In the 1630s there was no word to convey the sense of a one-way voyager. The only term they would have used to describe themselves is 'planter', that is to say he who went abroad to plant, as opposed to the 'adventurer', who invested his money but stayed at home. They would not have recognized the term 'settler' which only dates from the 18th century. As for our planter's relationship with England, he may have become used to the term 'colony' but he did not yet see himself as a 'colonist' let alone a 'colonial' which was a term his old-country cousins were only to apply to him somewhat pejoratively just before the American Revolution. If he classed himself at all it was as a 'New-Englishman' or 'New Englander'. As for the word 'American', this was applied exclusively to the aborigines, more usually called 'the natives' in contradistinction to 'the English'. If one is searching for a word to describe our voyagers it would be 'pilgrims', that is, those who went on a journey in search of a land where the true principles of faith and morality could be practised as distinct from the corruptions of the old world. The fact that this word was much later hijacked for the founders of Plymouth Colony should not prevent our using it as an accurate description of the subjects of this narrative.<br />
<br />
Having undergone some such exercise let us try to interpret the minds of our West Country voyagers.<br />
<br />
To begin with there can be no denying their adventurousness. They were as much a part of that great age of discovery as the Earl of Warwick who surveyed and manipulated its potential rewards from his privileged position in Whitehall Palace. As those ships' companies of West Country people rounded Rame Head into the Channel towards the open Atlantic they carried mental maps of a shadowy New England littoral beyond the heaving ocean which was tinged with myth; but they sailed with a confidence based on generations of practical seamanship. 'How useful a neighbour is the sea', exclaimed John White and both he and John Higginson believed that those English who did not love their chimney corner too much could find honour and glory in the wonderful works of Almighty God beyond the sea. Such people were possessed of a high courage in facing that voyage into the unknown.<br />
<br />
But that was the extent of their adventurousness. They were impelled by mixed motives: some, in White's terms, by 'necessity' or home circumstances from which ocean flight was the only way out, others by what he called 'novelty' or a spirit of adventure and still others by 'hopes of gain' in a land which, if not flowing with milk and honey, promised a better life than people of small means could enjoy in England; but for most the motive was religious: to worship according to a more reformed and purified Church of England than was providing possible in the England of Charles I. For the moving spirits, especially the Puritan ministers who had been ejected from their livings for conscience's sake, there was little choice; it was a matter of seeking a refuge in flight from adverse discrimination if not actual persecution. But it would be anachronistic to attribute to those Dorchester people on their forlorn Massachusetts shore the immigrant frame of mind of later generations. The experience of uprooting from their ancestral West Country must have been traumatic and the decision to leave in varying degrees a radical commitment. Henry Wolcott had not only undergone a Puritan conversion but he and Thomas Newberry liquidated considerable properties for the expedition and many other family heads must also have sold up to finance their removal. Among the Dorchester people, even at their weakest and most exposed, 'the discource...was not, "Shall we go to England?" but "How shall we go to Heaven?"' Yet after experiencing those first winters a few did take ship home and more must have harboured an <i>arrière-pensée</i> that if circumstances in England altered, they would return to resume their lives in a purified religious and civil polity. Several later did so, not least Roger Ludlow.<br />
<br />
It would also be anachronistic to think of our pilgrims as contemplating an experimental future. Their 17th-century minds may have enjoyed a new and exhilarating global view of the world but they had no concept of 'progress' in a 19th-century sense. For our Puritans the key to utopia lay in continuing the work of an incomplete Reformation in a virgin wilderness insulated from corruption and looking, not forward to a temporal future of progress, but backwards to New Testament values. Everything they wrote testified to the singular providence of God under whom they were to establish a new way in the wilderness. In the words of William Bradford of Plymouth Colony, paraphrasing Scripture:<br />
<br />
Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness, but they cried unto the Lord and He heard their voice and looked on their adversity.<br />
<br />
They were agents for God's preordained plan. Such a world view renders unthinkable any concept of man-made progress.<br />
<br />
These were a special sort of English people voyaging abroad. New-Englishmen, New Englanders in a literal sense, taking with them their own values, institutions and social order. In Dorchester, Massachusetts and then in Windsor our people practised the forms of government and political habits they had known in Dorchester, Beaminster or Crewkerne. The Assistants of the General Court were equivalent to the gentry from whom Members of Parliament were drawn; and the same men, acting as magistrates in the Particular or County Court, governed the Connecticut River towns in much the same way as the justices of the peace governed Dorset and Somerset through the quorum or at quarter sessions. At the township level, there were the constable, the town clerk, the townsmen who were English burgesses and vestrymen writ large, and an array of petty officers such as the clerk of weights and measures, the leather sealers and the way wardens, those Dogberrys and Verges of the New World, all regulating the town's affairs in a familiar paternalistic and mercantilist way. The town's militia company, too, with its compulsory service, professional muster master, amateur officers, complex drills, field days and its volunteer troop of horse for the quality, was modelled on that of the English shires.<br />
<br />
Although Windsor church in its Puritan Congregational form followed the pattern of its neighbours, its founding father had been John White who had protested in the <i>Humble Request</i> that its congregation might be voyaging to the New World but were not separating from the Church of England; and it remained the church of John Warham who had so stubbornly asserted it to be the church of sinners as well as saints and who, until he lost his nerve, pioneered the half-way covenant.<br />
<br />
Windsor's social order was also recognizably that of provincial England. Its ring of interrelated families of property and social position, with disproportionate amounts of choice land in and about Windsor's Island, holding the principal public offices, connected with the clerisy, distinguished by formal modes of address and sumptuary privileges - these constituted a governing oligarchy the members of which were the New World equivalent of English squires and burgesses.<br />
<br />
The nexus of families was predominantly, though not exclusively, of that strain which had its origins in the West Country, its shared experiences of the <i>Mary and John</i> and the other ships and of that sojourn at Dorchester on the Bay. They held these loyalties in common with many less well-connected Windsor neighbours. Many of these, too, had settled both in Dorchester and then on Windor's Main Street with home lots and field strips next door to neighbours from the Brit Valley on the Crewkern district. Such common folk memories were an effective substitute for the customary communities they had left behind. Although only a few families such as the Wolcotts may have had the means to preserve and cultivate their family connections in Somerset, the way of life of most, with apple orchards and cider, Devon cattle rearing and dairying, hemp and flax, preserved a West Country flavour. If one reads aloud items from the inventories of Windsor planters, taken down and phonetically spelled by barely literate neighbours, one hears the echo of a West County burr.<br />
<br />
Yet, however much these pilgrims continued to regard themselves simply as West Country English in New England, influences were at work which subtly alter their attitudes, habits and ultimately their institutions.<br />
<br />
From the beginning they were never a characteristic sample of the English or even of West Country people in the rough and the round. They were a purposeful and highly eclectic version of English society, a self-selected group who, for a congeries of reasons connected with the need to worship God in their own way, deliberately chose to come together to live in a separate community in the New World. This set them apart and continued to define the perameters within which their own lives and those of their children were shaped. They were also singled out by the fact that they were predominantly a community of families with children and, largely, within a comparatively limited age range. Moreover, this character was enhanced by a second generation of large families which made Windsor a community of well-defined and interconnected family groupings. The social profile was also sharper and more limited than that of the west of England as a whole. There were relatively few servants and at the other end of the scale few, and only minor, gentry. The aristocratic or even the gentle strain did not transplant. Lords Saye and Brooke and Sir Richard Saltonstall never made their landing at the mouth of the Connecticut and even George Fenwick abandoned the place after poor Mistress Fenwick's death. Our pilgrims consisted, in fact, predominantly of that middling range from husbandman and master craftsman to substantial yeoman, merchant, seafarer and cleric which fitted Richard Eburne's prescription for a successful Puritan plantation. <br />
<br />
Politically speaking, also, the New England climate was different. Our planters were governed in Massachusetts under the authority of a royal charter; but this was the charter of a trading company which the Governor and Assistants had brought with them and these circumstances subtly altered the attitudes of governors and governed from those they had grown up with in the West Country. In the first place, the seat of government was not over a hundred miles away in a royal establishment at the Palace of Westminster, but at a very different kind of court a few miles down the road, in Boston and then in Hartford; and once Connecticut set up its own government it became one remove further still from an external authority which remained somewhat shadowy until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Government was a neighborly affair. Moreover, according to trading company rules, the Governor and Assistants were elected by the freemen whose status was based on that of the freeholder of an English shire or the freeman of an English borough but was in Connecticut achieved probably by many, if not most, substantial citizens. At the town level this sense of immediate participation was even more direct because the franchise for town offices and affairs in Windsor was in the hands of all 'inhabitants', that is, householders of good repute, exercised through the town meeting. It is anachronistic to think of this as in any sense 'democratic'. Government remained an oligarchic affair but these representational ground rules were psychologically charged for the future.<br />
<br />
If political affairs underwent a sea change, climate, and topography effected a kind of wilderness change. After the shock of the first winters and the heat and mosquitoes of summer our planters responded well to the New England climate and came to boast that it was healthier than that of the old country. But they had many adjustments to make before they settled to a viable domestic economy. The few mariners took easily to the albeit dangerous business of fishing and coastal trading but the great majority who must support themselves on the land underwent many trials and errors before adjusting their husbandry to the demands of the wilderness. They benefited immeasurably from taking over from the Indians their cleared lands and maize culture; but it was years before they could acclimatize English grains and find nourishing fodder for their livestock. They adjusted to the need to share scarce manpower, draft animals and ploughs to clear land for tillage by reverting to a form of the old English open-field system, and in other ways preserved a communal element in their village economy. They settled as a matter of course according to an English village plan within range of the meeting house; but the plentitude of land provided them with the luxury of home lots which were sizeable smallholdings so that the New England main street quickly took on the spacious character it preserves today. Similarly, though they built their houses according to English practice, the danger of fire forced them to build stone chimneys and to substitute wooden shingles for thatch, and they made other innovations like the lean-to kitchen as a result of which emerged the characteristic New England house as it still survives. Already in that first generation the English village became the New England township.<br />
<br />
Church affairs also went through a sequence of changes in these two generations after the gathering of Warham's church in Plymouth that March day of 1630. Its members may have continued to think of their church as being still in some sense in communion with the Church of England and one of their elders, William Hosford, eventually returned during the Commonwealth to take a parish living in Devon; but their gathered nature, their topographical separateness and their government by ministers and elders tended inevitably towards a Congregationalist frame of mind and away from that of an English parish church. The church's rigid, Puritan discipline was essential in sustaining its pilgrim community in the unpromising soil of Massachusetts Bay and in the weary work of renewal on the Connecticut frontier; but it was a discipline difficult to maintain beyond the first generation of church members who had undergone the full rigours of a spiritual conversion. In time, and especially after the death of its revered pastor, Windsor church failed to withstand the strains of an inevitable cooling of evangelism's white heat and the emergence of a prolific second generation of potential church members. However, such was the dominance of the idea of a gathered church that there could be no return to the old English concept of the parish, only the half-way covenant and a replication of churches beginning in Windsor with Woodbridge's second church. The English parish never took root and the state, in the form of the General Court, gave up trying to impose a single church for each township.<br />
<br />
Yet the disciplined Puritan way of life persisted. It would be a mistake to anticipate or over-emphasize the extent to which a diminution of the hardships of pioneering and the amenities of a more settled life induced the second generation a greater worldliness of outlook or liberality of values. Mistress Sarah Wolcott may have amassed a rich and varied wardrobe which even her husband's status as a magistrate and import merchant could hardly justify under the sumptuary law, but the only books she left were psalms, and catechisms for the instruction of her grandchildren. If the language had lost the earnest intensity of her Wolcott father-in-law's early, prayerful letters to his brother in Somerset, both rhetoric and content were Puritan still. Sermons were in the style of those Sarah's husband had taken down in shorthand as a young man and the habit of introspective diary keeping persisted; indeed, with Matthew Grant, it prompted a remarkable standard in the keeping of public records. Imbued as they were with a religion which enshrined 'the Word', literacy was paramount. Although it was a struggle to maintain a school, there were regular town subscriptions to support that college in Cambridge, Massachusetts to which they looked for their future ministers of that Word. Negative but telltale evidence of Windsor's continuing Puritan character is the absence of aspects of culture other than the literary. None of over a hundred inventories of the first two generations of Windsor people which itemize meticulous details from pewter plates to the last kitchen knife and farm tool record a single musical instrument, no recorder or fiddle, not even a fife, and there are no pictures, even portrait sketches. Could it have been that, over time, as with the English Quakers, music and the visual arts were, as it were, being bred out of this Puritan strain? At the outbreak of that new Indian revolt of 1675 which came to be called King Philip's War, the inhabitants of Windsor and the other river towns faced the crisis in true Puritan spirit. On a Solemn Day of Humiliation before the winter campaign of that year they were exhorted by the court to make diligent search for those evil amongst us which have stirred up the Lord's anger against us, that they, being discovered, may be repentance and reformation be thrown out of our camp and hearts.<br />
<br />
It was still a very Puritan society.<br />
<br />
The course of that campaign also proved that in the forty-eight years since the Pequot War they had learned a good deal about forest lore and about soldiering against the Indians in the wilderness. They had quickly made the militia a more serious military force than it had ever been in England. Training days might be cheerful masculine diversions from the drudgery of farm work or the exercises of the meeting house but over the years the foot came to be better armed and more sensibly drilled, more knowledgeable about the terrain and the enemy's methods and led by more experienced officers. And latterly the horse had come to be used, not as cavalry, but for scouting and intelligence and as mounted musketeers or dragoons. Yet when it came to the sticking point at the Great Swamp Fight in the December of 1675 the difference between defeat and victory lay not so much in the soldierly qualities of the English or their fire-power - the Indians had themselves acquired muskets - as in the decision, as in the Mystic Fort Fight all those years before, to smoke the enemy out by burning down his fort with all its inhabitants. And it was characteristic that they should justify such ruthless action to their consciences in the language and by the arguments of the Old Testament.<br />
<br />
So, too, in those four decades the English had learned to know the Indians better; but in doing so they had developed ambivalent attitudes towards them. When they first landed in Massachusetts Bay they had looked on the unknown savages with curiosity and a certain dread but not without those missionary thoughts which had been a strong motive for a Puritan colonizer like John White; and although a Christian conversion into 'praying Indians' was more a feature of Massachusetts than Connecticut, Windsor people came to know and appreciate the friendliness of their Indian neighbors and with Puritan consciences they scrupulously acquired legal titles for their lands. Yet is was probably inevitable that the tribes should become increasingly uneasy about the way in which the increasing numbers of English were encroaching on their hunting territories; and, on the other hand, the sudden eruption of the maverick Pequots in 1637 brought home to the English how small and vulnerable they were and how easily they could be wiped out. So far as the Pequots were concerned it was thought to be 'them or us', and the only solution, their virtual extermination. That example gave the English the best part of four decades of uneasy coexistence with the other tribes but the memory of it complicated English attitudes towards the Indians whom they came to regard, however affectionately, as primitive and inferior peoples in much the same way as their 19th-century successors in a latter day Empire were to regard African natives; and is it too far-fetched to think of Major Mason as one of the first of a long line of colonial administrations with responsibility for tribal policy? When a second and prolific generation of English planters grew up demanding land of their own to settle on, the interests of the Indians received scant shrift.<br />
<br />
In the settlement of New England, as we have seen, an antiphonal theme to the quest for a Puritan refuge was the appetite for land. John White had recognized this in <i>The Planters Plea</i>; dissatisfaction with the stony soil of Massachusetts Bay and the lure of those rich meadows along the Connecticut led to Dorchester's second swarming; and when the children of the Windsor planters grew up they, in turn, had to be accommodated, wither with land carved out of their parents' holdings, especially on the east bank of the Connecticut, or with new lands still further afield. Notable among such were those Indian-cleared meadows and upland some ten miles upstream at the Massaco falls of the Tunxis, which were settled by Ford and Cooke, and the younger Wolcott, Newberry and company, and called Simsbury. Simsbury, which survived King Philip's War, was only the most notable place to be colonized from Windsor. As the reader may have noticed, individual family groups had been leaving Windsor for supposedly greener pastures ever since Roger Ludlow led his little band to found Fairfield in 1639. Several went to other places on the sound or, as they put it, 'at the seaside', such as Hammonassett, Killingworth (a corruption of Kenilworth), or Bray Rossiter's Guilford; others were attracted to newer settlements up the Connecticut River like Thomas Ford and David Wilton to Northampton or George Phelps and Aaron Cooke to Westfied. And after the period of this narrative Windsor would colonize other settlements east of the river such as Hebron and Tolland. As with the founding generation's uprooting from the West Country, there was often a mixture of motives behind such departures. In addition to a desire for new and more fertile land such defectors often went for religious reasons like the folk who went to Northampton and those Anglican-minded people among the founders of Simsbury.<br />
<br />
It is difficult to distinguish between those who went and those who stayed save to note the obvious fact that among the first settlers those most likely to stay in Windsor were the well established in terms of property and position and many of these were of West Country origin. However, a significant number of notable West Country people, such as those instanced in the previous paragraph, did in fact choose to go and for them this was a third uprooting. Could it be that the experience of uprooting, first undergone in 1630 in Dorset or Somerset, had perhaps become progressively less traumatic with each move and that the children of our band of West Country pilgrims were on their way to becoming, geographically and psychologically, pioneers of America's moving frontier of settlement, bonded together more by the intimacies of a travelling neighbourhood than by ancestral folk origin?<br />
<br />
Thus the character of our West Country families was being altered in a variety of ways by their experience of migration. In their self-selection, their Puritanism, their political habits, their fortitude in voyaging and trekking, in bracing themselves for climate and wilderness, in their husbandry, in skills relearnt, in their soldiering and relations with the Indians and in their experience of rapid change, in all these respects they were no longer quite the West Country people they or their parents had been in 1630. England was still their old country but for the younger Henry Wolcott 'home' was Windsor in New England. They had become provincial English of a new kind. Were they becoming 'American' without knowing it?<br />
<br />
Frank Thistlethwaite</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-38283016795643142902021-10-16T07:56:00.001-07:002021-12-18T17:12:29.462-08:00"The Cause of Her Grief": The Rape of a Slave in Early New England<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="216" width="331" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVSbFZPvXqBHOnKMxdWOP7yZcFROXMQ4oc4e_8VCLtAx85Zbw8S7TQ_RWuG9gSggteAq4BamzWRBcdymu3EJDXsQ_SOgx1SdXKOJk5cR5Jv4OH5oJd2jDHa0ZD9fPo3v9MnXn62e5zQFPl/s400/massslaves.jpg"style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"/></div>
<div align="left"><blockquote>... the Second of <em>October</em>, about 9 of the clock in the morning, Mr. <em>Mavericks</em> Negro woman came to my chamber window, and in her own Countrey language and tune sang very loud and shrill, going out to her, she used a great deal of respect toward me, and willingly would have expressed her grief in <em>English</em>; but I apprehended it by her countenance and deportment, whereupon I repaired to my host, to learn of him the cause, and resolved to intreat him in her behalf, for that I understood before, that she had been a Queen in her own Countrey, and observed a very humble and dutiful garb used towards her by another Negro who was her maid. Mr. <em>Maverick</em> was desirous to have a breed of Negroes, and therefore seeing she would not yield by perswasions to company with a Negro young man he had in his house; he commanded him will'd she nill'd she to go to bed to her, which was no sooner done but she kickt him out again, this she took in high disdain beyond her slavery, and this was the cause of her grief.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">—John Josselyn, Two Voyages to New England, 1674</div></blockquote>
This is a story of a rape of a woman. <br />
<br />
Indefinite articles saturate that last sentence deliberately. They mean to say: this is not <em>the</em> story, not the <em>only</em> story—not the only story of rape, not the only story of this woman. This is a story of a person whose sole appearance in historical documentation occurs in one paragraph of a seventeenth-century colonial travelogue. Given such paltry evidence, perhaps only indefinite articles capture the indefinite nature of this narrative.<br />
<br />
The facts are few. The approximate date and location of the assault seem fairly certain: early fall 1638, not far from Boston, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The central characters are equally clear: the slave owner, Samuel Maverick, an English merchant; John Josselyn, an English traveler; two enslaved African women; and an enslaved African man. About the first two, at least, some evidence exists. Their sex, race, class, and literacy combined to ensure that some record of their lives survived their times. As for the other three, no written document other than the paragraph above mentions their existence. We know only what John Josselyn related: when he was a guest in Samuel Maverick's house, he encountered a slave woman anguished because another slave had raped her upon their owner's orders.<a href="#1"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>1</sup></span></a> <br />
<br />
But fortuitous timing, if anything about this story can be called fortuitous, helps. In 1638 very few African slaves lived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and a general scholarly consensus holds that they had all probably arrived that same year aboard the same ship, the Salem-based <em>Desire</em>.<a href="#2"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>2</sup></span></a> The arrival of those first Africans in 1638 was unusual enough to warrant a brief mention in Governor John Winthrop's journal; he noted that a trading voyage to the West Indies had brought back "some cotton and tobacco, and negroes, etc., from thence, and salt from Tertugos," thus describing the first known slaving voyage to New England.<a href="#3"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>3</sup></span></a> Had the woman arrived even ten years later, her journey would have been impossible to trace with any certainty at all, since the <em>Desire</em> was only the first ship to engage in what became a prolific New England slave trade. Instead, the woman's presence among the first Africans in New England makes possible a reconstruction of at least some of her life. <br />
<br />
It is a life in need of reconstruction. More than one thousand African slaves lived in New England by the end of the seventeenth century, and slave trading was a crucial part of the early modern market that joined Africa, the West Indies, and England (colonies and metropole) to make early New England prosper as the century progressed. But those captured Africans who lived and labored in the region during the seventeenth century have been, as one historian recently noted, "too often overlooked." A change is certainly afoot: scholars of the colonial North have certainly given attention to the region's African inhabitants, but they have tended to focus on the eighteenth century. The enslaved Africans of seventeenth-century New England have received almost no sustained attention; the last book to focus exclusively on the subject of Africans in colonial New England was published in 1942 and is now out of print.<a href="#4"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>4</sup></span></a> <br />
<br />
Certainly one reason for the relative lack of attention to Africans in early New England is the problematic state of surviving evidence. Recorded references to African slaves in seventeenth-century New England are often little more than a line or two, and multiple entries concerning the same slave are almost entirely lacking. Nameless Africans appear and then disappear in court testimonies, in deeds, in wills, in letters, in inventories, and in diaries; their anonymity makes it very difficult to trace their lives with any certainty. That means stories such as the one Josselyn related have gone largely unexplored; an insistence on quantifiable evidence and on demonstrable change over time, combined with an inherent distrust of sources that report otherwise unrecorded events, has limited what scholars can do with documents about slavery in early New England.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, many historians have demonstrated how to read documents against the grain, how to excavate "at the margins of monumental history in order that the ruins of the dismembered past be retrieved."<a href="#5"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>5</sup></span></a> In this case, at the margins of colonial New England's monumental history lies the life of an African woman whose presence there can be understood only by envisioning all the region's earliest inhabitants as active participants in the rollicking seventeenth-century Atlantic world. Telling the story of "Mr. <em>Mavericks</em> Negro woman" draws attention to the fact that African slaves and sexual abuse existed alongside Puritan fathers, Indian wars, and town meetings in colonial New England. It also deepens the narrative of early African American history, too long located almost exclusively in the South; this enslaved woman first set foot on North American soil, not in Charleston nor in Jamestown, but in the northern port of Boston.<a href="#6"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>6</sup></span></a> And race relations in early New England become tripartite—red, white, and black—when her story is included, complicating our understanding of early New England's racial categories. No matter how brutally Native Americans were treated in New England, we have no evidence that any Englishman ever considered forcibly <em>breeding</em> an Indian woman. <br />
<br />
One story of one rape opens a view into a larger world of Anglican-Puritan rivalries, of gritty colonial aspirations, of settlement and conquest in the early modern Atlantic world, of race and sexuality and how those two constructs combined to determine the shape of many lives. But there are more compelling and more human reasons to tell this story. This woman's life deserves to be reconstructed simply because too many factors have conspired to make that reconstruction nearly impossible. Brought against her will to a foreign continent populated by peoples speaking unfamiliar languages, sold as property, raped, and then ignored in the public record, her story mirrors that of millions. Still, her individual resistance touches me; violated but not beaten, she "in her own Countrey language and tune sang very loud and shrill" to a passing stranger and thus ensured her life would be remembered.<br />
<br />
That passing stranger was John Josselyn, an Anglican who came to New England in 1638 with two purposes: to visit his recently emigrated brother and to complete a fact-finding mission for potential investors and emigrants interested in the new colonies. His early presence reminds us that the synonymization of "Puritan" and "New England" did not occur in the minds of early modern settlers until much later—despite his arrival at the height of the famed great migration of Puritans, this was a young Anglican man, seeing what a still up-for-grabs New England had to offer. The son of an impoverished gentleman, Josselyn (like many other Englishmen of his class) may have seen North America as a place where he could regain the status his father, through lack of business acumen, had lost.<a href="#7"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>7</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
His brother Henry Josselyn was already in the region, trying to do just that. Henry had allied himself early in the seventeenth century with Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the earliest speculators in New England and an early supporter of the Virginia Company. The wealthy, Anglican Gorges had hoped to establish a quasi-feudal colony in New England, and he had obtained the rights to the entire region—from Philadelphia to Quebec—as early as 1622. But his inability to lure workers willing to labor in a feudal system, combined with the steady success of the Puritan-run Massachusetts Bay Colony, stymied his colonial ambitions. The latter obstacle earned most of Gorges's wrath; as his venture failed, he became an ardent and lifelong enemy of the Puritans. Henry Josselyn came to New England under Gorges's protection sometime around 1630, serving first as an agent and then as a commissioner, suffering through all of Gorges's defeats and sharing his disappointments. This Josselyn eventually gave up hope of claiming land in southern New England, deciding to avoid conflicts with Puritan authorities by moving north. He settled in Maine, but he had not gone far enough—soon after settling, the beleaguered Henry found himself fighting Massachusetts Bay Colony attempts to annex the region. Perhaps understandably, Henry Josselyn's stance toward Puritans soon mirrored that of his benefactor.<a href="#8"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>8</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
John Josselyn came to share his brother's antipathy to Puritans. Fraternal loyalty aside, Josselyn embarked on his voyage to America keenly aware that Puritans were gaining power and confidence in England and that the rank and privileges his father had once taken for granted were threatened. New England turned out to be no better. Puritans dominated the new settlements, and Josselyn found them less than cordial. He was undoubtedly relieved to stay with Samuel Maverick, a fellow Anglican and a staunch thorn in the side of Massachusetts Bay Colony leaders. Landing in Boston, July 20, 1638, Josselyn went immediately "ashore upon <em>Noddles Island</em> to Mr. <em>Samuel Maverick</em> ... the only hospitable man in all the Country, giving entertainment to all Comers gratis." The "only hospitable man?" Witness the words of a disgruntled Anglican wandering the wilds of the city on a hill.<a href="#9"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>9</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
John Josselyn was thirty years old when he met Maverick and the enslaved woman. He apparently spent the first part of his life attaining the education appropriate for an impoverished gentleman's son, which clearly included some scientific training. Such training may have led Josselyn to believe he approached Africans with a more objective eye than most. Certainly, Josselyn's dedication of his <em>Two Voyages to New England</em> to "the Right Honourable, and most Illustrious ... Fellows of the Royal Society" suggests he hoped to interest readers espousing the new scientific world view. The work is filled with asides regarding Josselyn's accumulated scientific knowledge. He noted, for example, that though "many men" believed "that the blackness of the Negroes proceeded from the curse upon Cham's posterity," he knew that Africans simply had an extra layer of skin, "like that of a snake." Josselyn had discovered this extra layer, before coming to New England, while conducting an experiment on a "Barbarie-moor" whose finger became infected from a puncture wound. Josselyn, in attempting to cure the man, lanced the finger, probed the wound, and discovered that "the Moor had one skin more than Englishmen." The fate of the patient's multiskinned finger remains unknown. Still, the story helps clarify what Jossleyn thought of the woman when she came crying to his window, visibly upset even within her snakelike skin.<a href="#10"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>10</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Josselyn made his transatlantic voyage on the well-armed "<em>New Supply, alias</em>, the <em>Nicholas</em> of <em>London</em>, a ship of good force, of 300 tuns ... man'd with 48 sailers, [carrying] 164 Passengers men, women, and children." The young traveler enjoyed his trip. Two days out of Gravesend, passengers dined on fresh flounder; Josselyn noted that he had "never tasted of a delicater Fish in all [his] life before." Six days later, the gastronome tasted "Porpice, called also a <em>Marsovious</em> or Sea-hogg," which sailors cut into pieces and fried. Josselyn thought it tasted "like rusty Bacon, or hung Beef, if not worse; but the Liver boiled and soused sometime in Vinegar is more grateful to the pallat." An innocent abroad, this Josselyn, delighted at the novelty of food and travel.<a href="#11"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>11</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
But delighted innocence is only part of his story, a part that masks Josselyn's origins in a class and a society deeply invested in the maintenance of a strictly stratified social order. When Martin Ivy, servant to one of Josselyn's companions and only a child, a "stripling," was "whipt naked at the Cap-stern, with a Cat with Nine tails, for filching 9 great lemons out of the Chirurgeons Cabin," Josselyn expressed no sympathy, only amazement that the boy had managed to eat the nine lemons, "rinds and all in less than an hours time." Similar indifference swathes his description of the violent ducking of another servant "for being drunk with his Masters strong waters which he stole." Josselyn was interested enough to note these occurrences, and gentleman enough to consider them normal. This same attitude greeted the enslaved woman when she chose to complain. His journal notes her complaint but then quickly moves on—the very next sentence describes his first encounter with North American wasps. Although at first "resolved to intreat [Maverick] on her behalf," Josselyn ultimately did nothing to help the woman.<a href="#12"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>12</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Samuel Maverick found his visitor an enjoyable guest. When Josselyn's ship suffered delays before embarking on a trip up the coast, Maverick refused to let his guest sleep on the boat: "when I was come to Mr. Mavericks," Josselyn noted, "he would not let me go aboard no more, until the Ship was ready to set sail." Perhaps Maverick enjoyed having a sympathetic soul around, someone who shared his religion and background. After all, the troubles Josselyn felt in touring New England were experienced daily by his host.<a href="#13"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>13</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Samuel Maverick, also the son of an English gentleman (and clergyman), had settled in New England sometime around 1623, loosely attached to the Gorges colonization plan; like Josselyn's brother, Maverick had title to lands in Maine. He and another Englishman, David Thompson, settled further south and built fortified houses around what would become Boston. They were the first Europeans to settle in the area, but their settlement was neither peaceful nor secure; Maverick's house was "fortified with a Pillizado [palisade] and fflankers and gunnes both belowe and above in them which awed the Indians who at that time had a mind to Cutt off the English." Indians did attack the fort, "but receiving a repulse never attempted it more although (as they now confesse) they repented it when about 2 yeares after they saw so many English come over." Thompson and Maverick were men determined to make money while perched on the edge of an unfriendly continent. We might admire their grit, were it not for the ruthlessness it engendered.<a href="#14"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>14</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Maverick had acquired a wife, more land, and a new house—probably equally fortified—by the time the enslaved woman arrived, for the death of David Thompson offered him opportunities he could ill afford to miss. Maverick's marriage to Thompson's widow sometime around 1628, when he would have been twenty-six, gained him control of Thompson's tracts of land, including the "very fruitful" Noddle's Island, more than one thousand acres in the middle of Boston Harbor and the site of the rape. The island was easier to defend than mainland settlements, since reaching it required crossing a long expanse of water in an exposed boat. Maverick built himself a fine house on the island he inherited from Thompson, even playing host to John Winthrop when the soon-to-be governor arrived in Boston to establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony.<a href="#15"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>15</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
European women, a scarce commodity, seldom stayed single long in early New England, so Amias Cole Thompson's quick remarriage was far from exceptional. She was a good match for Maverick; the English-born daughter of a shipwright, she brought to the marriage at least two children and a fair amount of pragmatism. A surviving letter, sent in 1635 from "Nottells Island" details an attempt to obtain an inheritance her father had promised to her children with Thompson, showing both determination and literacy. Both those attributes would have served her well. Life on Noddle's Island, or anywhere else in colonial New England, even given her husband's relative wealth, was labor-intensive. Perhaps this explains the felt need for slaves. With a sparse nearby population pool from which Maverick could hire servants to help his wife with household duties and their children (in addition to adopting Thompson's children, he fathered three of his own), chattel labor might have seemed an ideal solution.<a href="#16"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>16</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Even if there had been nearby families, it seems unlikely any of them would have sent their daughters to work in the Maverick household. Though the man was an early settler and wealthy, Massachusetts Bay Colony officials found him more annoying than respectful. From the beginning of the colony, Maverick insisted on being admitted as a freeman and having voting rights while he maintained ties to factions back in England who sought to overthrow the Puritan settlement and claim the colony's territory for less religious purposes. Although his wealth earned him admittance in the early years—before laws were passed limiting voting rights to church members—Massachusetts Bay Colony authorities grew increasingly impatient with Maverick's staunch Anglican and royalist leanings, occasionally banning him and more often censuring him. The treatment rankled. He later described the Puritan government as ruling "without the Knowledge or Consent of them that then lived there or of those which came with them."<a href="#17"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>17</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
But the restrictive measures had little effect on Maverick, an ambitious man used to going his own way. Born in 1602, he was only twenty-two years old when he came to North America, willing to settle in a part of New England where no European had settled before, willing to live in a house that required a fortified fence and cannons. He was a merchant through and through—he traded furs with Indians and seems to have chosen to live in Boston because it lay at the mouth of both the Mystic and the Charles rivers, making it an excellent trade post. Living in such an isolated post was no easy feat—he reminisced some years later that the "place in which Boston (the Metropolis) is [now] seated, I knew then for some years to be a Swamp and Pond." As for his wife, her courage and fortitude matched his. In 1635, the same year she wrote the letter mentioned above, Samuel Maverick was away in Virginia, buying corn and supplies for his land. Amias Maverick stayed without her husband for twelve months with her children and servants, running the household on an island three thousand miles away from her birthplace.<a href="#18"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>18</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
One wonders what Samuel Maverick saw and did in Virginia that year. Clearly, it was a business trip—he returned to Boston with "14: heifers & about 80 goates (havinge loste aboue 20: goates by the waye)." And we know he did some sight-seeing in the southern colony. He observed to an interested John Winthrop that eighteen hundred Virginians had died while he was there and that "he sawe the bone of a whale taken out of the earthe (where they digged for a well) 18: foote deepe." Ever the merchant with an eye for a deal, Maverick also bought two boats, one a forty-ton cedar pinnace "built in Barbathes" and "brought to Virginia by Capt. Powell, who there dyinge, she was sold for a small matter."<a href="#19"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>19</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
His trip also seems to have been educational. Virginia may have been one of the first places, if not the first, where Samuel Maverick saw African slavery in practice. Unlike New England, the southern colony had been settled by masses of single men determined to profit from the region's resources by growing the most profitable crop they could. That they found their solution in tobacco, a terribly labor-intensive crop, only meant that they needed to find cheap and plentiful labor. The first slave arrived in that colony in 1619, present from the beginning of the colonial experiment. They would have been scarce when Maverick visited, but it seems possible he saw African slaves, at least some of whom were legally enslaved for life, along with their children. Was all that in his mind when he returned to New England with his ships and cows and goats and corn?<a href="#20"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>20</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Or did other encounters give him the idea of breeding slaves? Perhaps we should wonder what Maverick might have talked about with the ship's crew from Barbados. That island already had some connections to New England; Henry Winthrop, John Winthrop's son, was one of the first colonizers of Barbados—he hoped to make his fortune by growing tobacco, the island's speciality during the 1630s. Though the elder Winthrop was unenthusiastic about his son's interest in acquiring a fortune (and about the poor quality of the tobacco young Henry grew, which his father considered "verye ill conditioned, fowle, full of stalkes and evil coloured"), they maintained a steady correspondence throughout Henry's stay on the island. Other writers shared similar news with friends and family in New England—through connections like those, Maverick might have already heard about the potential fertility of the soil, the economy, or the climate. We know that his beloved son Nathaniel settled early in Barbados, perhaps demonstrating by actions more than words what his father thought of the island's prospects.<a href="#21"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>21</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
They would not have been alone in believing Barbados an incipient boomtown. Others heard the same news and had the same ideas. The 1630s were a time of trial and error and burgeoning success for English planters determined to profit from the island. African slaves were along from the beginning, though they became essential only after the 1640s, when the planters switched definitively from tobacco to sugar. Still, the first planter on Barbados brought with him ten black slaves, a trend that grew during the next decades.<a href="#22"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>22</sup></span></a> During the seventeenth century, most slaves taken from Africa on English ships went to Barbados, though some found their way to other places in North America and the West Indies. So perhaps the West Indian crew told Maverick about the slowly increasing numbers of African slaves that were just arriving in Barbados, or how cheap they were to purchase, or that any offspring they produced were included in the original purchase price. Perhaps there were slaves on the ship; perhaps Maverick saw some.<br />
<br />
Or perhaps Maverick had already intended to use African slaves. He certainly knew about slavery before going to Virginia. Consider the relationship he had with Sir Ferdinando Gorges. Gorges had rights to Maine, but he was also a founding member of the Virginia Company and an investor in both the Bermuda and Guinea companies, organizations that showed no distaste for African slavery. Indeed, the Guinea Company was an early version of the Royal African Company, a slave-trading concern, and Bermuda had slaves long before Virginia did (interestingly, a "Captain Powells" was an active trader in Bermuda during the seventeenth century). Gorges's grandson, another Ferdinando Gorges, became a successful sugar planter in Barbados and also an active shareholder in the Royal African Company. Maverick knew at least one of these men—the first Gorges—and was probably acquainted with others of that ilk. He aspired to join their ranks, and he may have seen slaveholding as his means of doing so.<a href="#23"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>23</sup></span></a> <br />
<br />
Last, but far from least, we should also consider the influence of other European powers on a young man such as Samuel Maverick. Spain and Portugal had extensive and well-documented experience in the African slave trade by 1638; by one estimate, each of those empires had already transported 150,000 African slaves to their Atlantic colonies by the mid-seventeenth century.<a href="#24"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>24</sup></span></a> Maverick, as a savvy merchant, would have known this. He would also have known Dutch merchants active in the early seventeenth-century Atlantic world, including the early slave trade. In 1637, one year before the rape, they captured Elmina from the Portuguese, thus solidifying control of one of the most prominent slave forts in West Africa. They were also prominent actors in early New England, due to the proximity of the colony of New Netherlands. Samuel Maverick certainly encountered Dutch merchants while he lived in Boston, and certainly some of them would have had slaves on board their vessels. Slavery was everywhere in the early modern world, even in New England; just three years after the rape, Massachusetts wrote slavery into its Body of Liberties, ordering that "there shall never be any Bond-slavery, Villenage or Captivity amongst us, unless it be lawful Captives taken in just wars, [and such strangers] as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us." Far from exciting repugnance, Maverick's purchases and actions seem to have inspired codification.<a href="#25"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>25</sup></span></a> <br />
<br />
Still, Maverick's specific motivations and inspirations for buying slaves remain murky. We know only that by 1638, two years after his return to Boston from Virginia, he owned at least three Africans: two women and a man, of unknown age or ethnicity. Almost certainly the rape victim came from Africa, as her age (she was still young enough to reproduce, perhaps an adolescent) and her linguistic abilities (she could not speak English) combined to suggest a limited time in the Americas. The other female slave seems to have come from the same area, since the two women spoke the same language and apparently shared understandings of their relative status. Their exact point of origin is impossible to identify. In the early seventeenth century the majority of slaves left land from ports in West Africa's Slave Coast, Gold Coast, or the Bight of Biafra, but a point of departure was no indication of birthplace; forts served as points of consolidation for caravans that came from all over the continent.<a href="#26"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>26</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
When speaking of the origins of captured Africans, we are too often reduced to generalities. Slaves left the continent after spending, on average, about three months in the coastal forts. Their mortality rates were extremely high even while they were in Africa; one in five died either on the march or while waiting in the prisons, long before ever setting foot on a ship.<a href="#27"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>27</sup></span></a> Some scholars have posited this experience and the voyage that followed as the key factor creating a new cultural identity: African American. But to assume an automatic sense of community at this stage of captivity is perhaps premature; remember the words of Richard Ligon, an early visitor to Barbados, explaining why slaves did not revolt: "They are fetched from severall parts of Africa, who speake severall languages, and by that means, one of them understand not another." Shared experiences, but not shared histories.<a href="#28"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>28</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Solidarity of a sort was forced on slaves during the next stage of their trip. Mortality rates for the middle passage in the seventeenth century ranged from 10 to 30 percent during the seven- to eight-week journey across the open Atlantic Ocean, crammed into the holds of wooden ships, trapped in excrement, vomit, and sweat.<a href="#29"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>29</sup></span></a> Stuffed into the ship's steerage in temperatures sometimes rising to about 120 degrees, the slaves jostled for room and steeled themselves for the nightmarish weeks or months to come.<a href="#30"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>30</sup></span></a> Rather than face the unknown horrors ahead and the known terrors at hand, some opted for the only escape they could manage. Weighted by chains, unable to swim, they threw themselves into the swells—a last grim display of human independence. John Josselyn sampled flounder and porpoise during his transatlantic trip; Samuel Maverick's slave woman was almost certainly not so lucky.<br />
<br />
Her voyage must have ended in the Caribbean islands, the first stop for most seventeenth-century slave ships headed anywhere in the Americas except Brazil. Dehydrated, weakened, possibly abused, most slaves needed sprucing before going ashore. Brought on deck in the bright tropical sun, they saw their sores masked with a mixture of iron rust and gunpowder. We know that slavers hid the omnipresent diarrhea by inserting oakum—hemp treated with tar and used for caulking seams in wooden ships—far into an afflicted slave's anus, far enough to avoid detection during the invasive bodily inspections potential buyers inflicted on the human goods. Samuel Maverick's slave woman may have sat on the deck and experienced these practices, may have watched sailors throw overboard those too sick to be disguised. Did she consider herself lucky to have survived so long? Did she care? Did she know where she was? Did the Caribbean setting feel strange and new, or did the relief of seeing dry land, any dry land, make these unknown islands feel welcoming?<a href="#31"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>31</sup></span></a> <br />
<br />
Someone bought her from the slave ship, and probably at a bargain price; we know that slightly later in the century, a young woman brought only 80 to 85 percent of the price a young man might command in the Caribbean slave market. Ten years after the rape, Richard Ligon described sales of slaves in Barbados this way: "When they are come to us, the Planters buy them out of the Ship, where they find them stark naked, and therefore cannot be deceived in any outward infirmity. They choose them as they do Horses in a Market; the strongest, youthfullest, and most beautifull, yield the greatest prices. Thirty pound sterling is a price for the best man Negro; and twenty five, twenty six, or twenty seven pound for a Woman." This is an early version of a "scramble," a sales method in which prospective buyers rushed on board a ship, seizing and laying claim to all slaves they could reach. A terrifying experience, certainly, to be inspected and purchased by strangers. And for some it must have been emotionally draining to see shipmates carted off in different directions without any hope of seeing them again. And yet, the sale of "Mr. <em>Mavericks</em> Negro woman" may have involved at least one person from her ship: her companion, the woman Josselyn called "her maid," who used a "very humble and dutiful garb ... towards her," was apparently sold with her. Were they marketed as friends? Sisters? Or as a queen and her servant? Was it luck that they were grabbed together? Josselyn does not say. We do know that somehow, at some point, they were both bought and brought to isolated Providence Island. And it was from that small volcanic island located one hundred miles off the east coast of Nicaragua that the first group of African slaves embarked for New England aboard the <em>Desire</em>.<a href="#32"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>32</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
A surprising group controlled Providence Island: English Puritans. The colony was founded in 1630, the same year as the Massachusetts Bay Colony, by many of the same people. Although we too often forget that Puritans went to the West Indies, they did so, and with lofty ambitions; the Caribbean colony was expected to be the premier example of Puritan society, a city on a hill with good weather and fertile soil. In the valleys between the volcanic ridges that descended from the towering peak to the Caribbean shores, island proprietors hoped to use slave labor to grow goods destined for a European market. The two Puritan regions maintained frequent contact, comparing growth and progress. The biggest difference, of course, was slavery, a labor system for which these Puritans showed little distaste.<a href="#33"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>33</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
From the colony's inception, slaves were crucial, as the founders decided to grow cotton and tobacco on large plantations. Accordingly, Providence Island colonists—Puritans, remember—imported slaves in relatively large numbers; by the time "Mr. <em>Mavericks</em> Negro woman" left in 1638, captured Africans made up almost half the colony's population. That racial balance only exacerbated the insecurity felt by the English planters over their precarious position, alone in the western Caribbean, surrounded by Spanish territorial claims. As it happens, they were insecure for good reason. Slaves first took advantage of their numbers to flee into the island's hilly interior, a steady stream of black fugitives populating the hills above Providence Island's white settlements. And then they got bolder. On May 1, 1638, Providence Island slaves carried out the first slave rebellion in any English colony. Soon after, frightened colony authorities began selling slaves off the island. Despite the sales, when the Spanish conquered the island in 1641, they found 381 slaves and 350 English colonists; the previous year the governor of the colony had warned that the island's slaves threatened to "over-breed us," a phrasing that finds echoes in Josselyn's account.<a href="#34"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>34</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
But Samuel Maverick's slave woman had left long before that. She arrived in Boston in 1638, probably part of that cargo of "some negroes" aboard the <em>Desire</em>, commanded by Salem's William Pierce, also eventually a slaveholder; he later died on a return trip to Providence Island, shot dead by the Spanish soldiers who had recently captured the place. The <em>Desire</em> was large, one hundred and twenty tons of merchant ship, built and armed in Marblehead, Massachusetts. And it was fast: it once made the trip from Massachusetts to England in just twenty-three days.<a href="#35"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>35</sup></span></a> We do not know how fast it traveled to New England from the Caribbean—but we might imagine the dread the slave woman felt on reboarding a ship, and the memories it must have brought back of the horrendous Atlantic passage she had already endured. A reluctant world traveler. Did she believe she was going home, having paid her dues in sweat and blood? Did she board the ship believing she was about to repeat the middle passage? Can we imagine the courage it would take to believe that and yet keep moving forward?<br />
<br />
The trip to New England, on a far less crowded boat and for a far shorter time, may have alleviated some of her anxiety. But think how strange she must have found Boston, a marginal outpost of wooden homes, peripheral not only to the slave trade but also to most of the world. Noddle's Island, when she arrived, was a woodsy and isolated place—a 660-acre coastal island, hilly and marshy and so overgrown with trees that inhabitants of Boston went there to cut firewood. Boston in 1638 was scarcely more; growing rapidly (two years after the founding of Harvard College), as yet it was "rather a Village, than a Town," Josselyn noted, "there being not above Twenty or Thirty houses." But it seems safe to assume that the vegetation would have startled the woman less than the fact that other Africans (aside from the two in her household) were nonexistent, probably for the first time in her life. In the West Indies, she would probably have engaged in agricultural labor alongside other Africans. She had likely lived far enough from the overseers to understand that slaves were one group, the whites another. She might have felt some ease in the nights, sleeping among people who had shared the same horrible experiences. But in New England she probably slept near her owners, probably inside their house. And during the day she labored with them on domestic duties, perhaps side by side with Amias Maverick, certainly alongside white servants.<a href="#36"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>36</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Not that this common space bespoke familiarity or friendliness. Race set her apart in seventeenth-century Boston, where hers was one of only a handful (if that) of black faces. As she walked among the pale English, perhaps she heard comments in a language she could not understand and felt stares whose meaning was only too clear. Children might have thrown stones at her and laughed at her color. They would have done so in England, and this was, after all, only a new England.<a href="#37"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>37</sup></span></a> How can one assess the emotional toll of such isolation or the pain of that most debilitating of feelings: loneliness? In a world where kinship and connections meant everything, what did such solitude feel like?<br />
<br />
Race was not the only factor that could earn ostracism, but it mattered immensely. English children throwing stones in Boston would have had reason to fear people of a different hue, for New England in 1638 had just recently emerged from the violent and bloody Pequot War. The same colonization process that spurred wars and raids in Africa brought similar effects to North America, as Native Americans were threatened and dislocated by the arrival of English settlers—a reminder that Samuel Maverick's fortified house was a necessity, not a whim. The Pequot War began with a now-infamous surprise English attack on a native settlement near the Mystic River in present-day Connecticut, which saw between three hundred and seven hundred Indians shot or burned to death. As the fighting progressed, some of the Pequots were taken captive and sent into servitude among English settlers, while "fifteen boys and two women" were sent into Caribbean slavery on board the <em>Desire</em>. Captained by William Pierce, the <em>Desire</em> somehow missed its intended destination of Bermuda and headed instead to Providence Isle. Samuel Maverick's slave woman boarded the ship on the return leg of that same journey. She thus arrived less than a year after the war ended, with the conflict only barely muted, one-half of New England's first slave swap.<a href="#38"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>38</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Those Pequot captives who remained in New England might have viewed her arrival with some interest. A lack of female servants had plagued New England colonies since their settlement, and female captives were considered an ideal solution to the problem. Racial stereotypes characterized Indian women as submissive and industrious, making them seem ideal domestic labor in Puritan households, and many were placed into a labor situation something like slavery, even if it differed from the experience of Africans. But Indian women did not share English enthusiasm for the project. Many of the women had lost their families to English violence during the war, and they were understandably unwilling to provide their enemies with domestic labor; flight was common. English violence toward female servants did little to encourage Indian women. The rape of an Indian servant by a colonist named John Dawe was well known; one woman subsequently captured during the war asked John Winthrop to ensure that "the English would not abuse her body."<a href="#39"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>39</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Maverick's slave came to know rape and captivity; perhaps she felt some solidarity with the Native Americans she certainly encountered on Noddle's Island, a key trade post. In the eighteenth century, Africans and Indians in New England did indeed forge bonds—even marriage bonds—as they found themselves simultaneously pushed to the peripheries of Puritan culture.<a href="#40"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>40</sup></span></a> But the connections they forged in the seventeenth century are less clear. Native peoples held far more power during the initial years of encounter than they would after King Philip's War in the 1670s, and so they may not have seen any similarity between their own situation and the plight of the first African slaves in New England. It is equally unclear how a captured African would have viewed Native Americans. Would an African eye, for example, have immediately distinguished them from English colonists? Or would all the foreign garb and the language and the customs—English and Indian—have been equally strange to "Mr. <em>Mavericks</em> Negro woman?" A delicious irony if, despite the English settlers' obsession with differentiating themselves from Native American peoples, African eyes could not tell them apart.<br />
<br />
But eventually an English sense of superiority and aloofness must have been apparent to the woman. Race and religion were keys to this colonial experiment, and native New Englanders were neither white nor Christian. Surely, English attitudes toward them highlighted this fact. Consider the messages John Winthrop received concerning captive Pequots. A Captain Stoughton, who fought against the Pequots, sent some captives to Boston along with the following note: <br />
<br />
By this pinnace, you shall receive forty-eight or fifty women and children ... Concerning which, there is one, I formerly mentioned, that is the fairest and largest that I saw amongst them, to whom I have given a coate to cloathe her. It is my desire to have her for a servant, if it may stand with your good liking, else not. There is a little squaw that Steward Culacut desireth, to whom he hath given a coate. Lieut. Davenport also desireth one, to wit, a small one, that hath three strokes upon her stomach, thus: --|||+. He desireth her, if it will stand with your liking. Solomon, the Indian, desireth a young little squaw, which I know not.<a href="#41"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>41</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Intimate rhetoric, to be sure. Lieutenant Davenport knew the stomach markings of his desired servant so well, he drew them from memory. Steward Culacut gave his coat to another "little squaw" that he "desireth," a proprietary gesture. Even the most benign reading of these lines cannot avoid noting the obvious sense of ownership these men felt, while a less benign reading finds sexual overtones throughout. It seems impossible to imagine the men writing in the same way about European women. Samuel Maverick's sense of ownership was the same, only heightened by the fact that he did legally own the African woman, all of her, including her reproductive capabilities. And like any man on the move, he hoped to make quick use of his purchase.<br />
<br />
His actions underscore his hurry. He bought the first slaves off the first slave ship to arrive in New England, thinking like so many others that owning human property would help him on his path to riches. "Desirous to have a breed of Negroes," Maverick compelled his male slave to have sex with the female "will'd she nill'd she"—whether she wanted to or not. And the story is clear: Maverick knew she did not want to. He gave the orders to the slave man only after first "seeing she would not yield by perswasions." Clearly he felt no shame about forcing a woman to submit to rape, since he himself told the story to Josselyn, a man he knew to be writing a report of his trip. Anyway, even if she protested, she was his property—property that, if forced to breed, could make him money.<br />
<br />
Consider Samuel Maverick writing to John Winthrop only two years after the rape, concerned that a white, female servant of his had acted inappropriately. <br />
<br />
Worshipfull Sir,—My service beinge remembered, you may be pleased to understand that there is a difference betwene one Ralfe Greene and Jonathan Peirse, each challinginge a promise of mariage from a maide servant left with me by Mr. Babb, beinge daughter unto a friend of his. Either of them desired my consent within a weeke one of the other, but hearinge of the difference, I gave consent to neither of them, desiringe there might be an agreement first amongst themselves, or by order from your worship. The maide hath long tyme denied any promise made to Greene, neither can I learne that there was ever any contract made betwene them, yett I once herd her say shee would have the said Greene, and desired my consent thereunto; but it rather seems shee first promised Peirse, and still resolves to have him for her husband. For the better clearinge of it, I have sent all such of my peopell as can say any thinge to the premises, and leave it to your wise determination, conceivinge they all deserue a checke for theire manner of proceedinge, I take leave and rest<br />
Your Worships Servant at Commaund, <br />
Samuel Mavericke <br />
<br />
This is a different Samuel Maverick, concerned about the propriety of a servant's engagement, reluctant to let her commit to either man without a clearing of the matter. Such attention to details! Such obedience to custom! Did race make the difference in his consideration of sexual mores? Of course it did. If ever there was a reminder of the inextricable linkage of gender and race, here it is. The seeming illogic of his varying degrees of concern becomes utterly rational when Maverick's ideological assumptions replace our own.<a href="#42"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>42</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
His wife must have shared those beliefs. Responsible, like most New England women, for all domestic concerns, it seems likely that Mrs. Maverick would have had more contact than her husband with the slaves in their household. Had she ordered that the woman be raped? Had she suggested it? Did she know? Is it fair of me to wonder if she felt any sisterly bond with the woman under her roof? Her own quick, second marriage to Maverick suggests she may have seen relationships in practical terms. On a frontier, after all, relatively few have time for romance. That pragmatism may have expanded to include her slaves. She must have understood her own marriage and her own status in the world at least partly in contrast to the position held by her slave women. Amias Maverick could not be ordered to have sex with a man; she was something different, and so were her daughters, and everyone on the island knew it. Thus is race, a social construction, made real.<a href="#43"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>43</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
That reality was ugly. Imagine the first time the man came to "perswade" the woman to have sex with him. Perhaps he came under duress. Maverick, after all, held both their lives in his hands. Did the enslaved man understand his own safety to be contingent on his agreeing to harm the woman? Did they even speak the same language? We know from Josselyn's account that the woman refused, even as she may have known that refusal was not an option. So perhaps the man suffered, too. Having watched slavers abuse women in the same ways she had witnessed and experienced, the slave man now found himself obligated, perhaps against his conscience, to use his own body to enact the same violence on an acquaintance. Resistance would have been pointless; even had he run away, Maverick could have bought another slave to "breed" with the woman. An impossible situation.<br />
<br />
But maybe the man needed no threats and deserves no sympathy. Slavery could make men feel impotent, powerless—if not literally, certainly socially. Perhaps the man saw as irresistible the opportunity to reassert his masculinity. No matter how low his race placed him in New England's power structure, the woman's gender placed her a step lower still. Impregnating her may have seemed an excellent way to reassert the sense of self-worth and autonomy his environment consistently denied him. Or maybe he was simply a violent man, sold out of the West Indies for the very tendencies that made him willing to rape at his owner's request.<a href="#44"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>44</sup></span></a> Or maybe, just maybe, he thought making a child was resistance itself; a thumb in the eye of a system determined to use Africans until they died.<br />
<br />
Those questions can never be answered. But even certainty about the man's motives would not change the outcome.<br />
<br />
The woman was raped, and she knew it was coming; Josselyn tells us that she had had warning. She waited, perhaps for nights, knowing that a man she lived with had orders to impregnate her, by force. An extra form of torture, the psychological before the physical, enacting the future attack from memory in her mind before living it in reality. Even if she had been lucky enough to escape the experience herself, she had undoubtedly seen and heard rapes of other women. She <em>knew</em> what to expect, in graphic detail. Alone, scared, isolated by race, culture, even language from those around her, she had to wait.<br />
<br />
The attack itself remains shadowy. No amount of scholarship can uncover that encounter. I can only ask uncomfortable questions, verging on prurience, wondering how to reflect on the details of a rape without becoming what Saidya Hartman has cautioned us against, a "voyeur" of pain and terror. Speaking of nineteenth-century slave punishments, she reminded us that "only more obscene than the brutality unleashed at the whipping post is the demand that this suffering be materialized and evidenced by the display of the tortured body or endless recitations of the ghastly and terrible." And yet, describing a rape without inquiring into its circumstances seems to draw the same curtain over the act that one historian did in the early twentieth century; he omitted "Josselyn's story of his interview with Maverick's servant girl," finding it "perhaps a little questionable for discussion here, even in this supposedly modern age."<a href="#45"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>45</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
More than a little questionable, this rape. Professional and personal reticence aside, to me it calls out for inquiry; the woman's cries to Josselyn demanded an investigation. And so, four hundred years later, perhaps we should wonder what rape looked like on Noddle's Island. Did it happen at night? Did the man or Maverick feel enough shame about their actions to want it done in the dark, hidden? If so, where would he have found enough privacy for the attack? In the abundant woods? Or in the house, where no one could have avoided hearing the screams and cries? Eighteen years later, a bill of sale listed the following structures on the island: "the mansion howse. Mill howse and mill bake howses and all the other ... howses outhowses barnes [and] stables."<a href="#46"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>46</sup></span></a> Signs of prosperity for Maverick, and of multiple locations for an attack.<br />
<br />
How did the attack occur? When? Where? Did Samuel Maverick watch? Why didn't he do it himself? Did his skin crawl at the thought of racial mixing? Or at the thought of fathering children fated to be slaves? Did Amias Maverick refuse to allow another woman's blood to stain her marriage bed? Did the Maverick daughters know what was happening? Were they being raised by the woman now being attacked? Everyone in that house knew her name, a luxury we do not share. Did any of them question what was happening? What did her "maid" do?<br />
<br />
Did the woman fight back? Did she scream, this woman who "sang" so "loud and shrill" the next day? She must have struggled; a woman unwilling to "yield by perswasions" would not have given in easily to violence. Maybe the description of her troubled "countenance and deportment" the next morning referred to visible bruises, to blood, to tears. Or maybe she resigned herself to the attack, deciding not to make it worse for herself, terribly aware that no part of her body was safe from invasion. Resigned or not, afterward "she kickt him out," an indication that she was beaten but not conquered.<br />
<br />
Did she allow herself the luxury of tears afterward? Or was she too accustomed to life's brutality? Was there water available to clean herself? (Questions of seventeenth-century hygiene suddenly take on new importance.) What was recovery like, in a household shared with other slaves (including her attacker) and servants? Maybe the other female slave offered a shoulder to cry on, one familiar face in a crowd of pale strangers. Or maybe, just maybe, the rape meant little to a woman fully immersed in one of the most violent enterprises the world has ever known. Maybe the woman, a proven survivor, took the rape in stride, just as she had the invasive bodily inspections done at every slave sale, just as she might have handled the oakum forced up her anus by greedy slavers hoping to hide the effects of the starvation regimen they had forced on their transatlantic human cargo.<br />
<br />
She had the power to thwart Maverick's goals. She knew that getting pregnant could keep her from repeated attacks, knew that not conceiving essentially guaranteed them. She may have resisted to the end, refusing to conceive, denying Maverick and the slave man mastery over her reproductive labor. Did she conceive and then abort the child? By doing so often enough, she could have convinced her owner of her infertility, a bittersweet victory; abortion and infanticide were known and employed in the early modern world, sharp sticks having always been in abundance. The weapons of the weak are seldom pretty.<a href="#47"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>47</sup></span></a> <br />
<br />
No record reports whether or not she conceived. We know the assault grieved her enough to make her cry "loud and shrill" to a stranger, John Josselyn, a visiting white man. Desperate and frightened, but also obviously angry and perhaps hopeful of reprieve, she turned to someone from whom—because of his nationality and skin color—she had reason to expect only more abuse. Interestingly, her response fit exactly what English law called for a rape victim to do. The procedure a woman was supposed to follow in early modern England to report a rape was elaborate and relatively unchanged from medieval times: <br />
<br />
She ought to go straight way ... and with Hue and Cry complaine to the good men of the next towne, shewing her wrong, her garments torne ... and then she ought to go to the chief constable, to the Coroner and to the Viscount and at the next County to enter her appeale and have it enrolled in the Coroners roll: and Justices before whome she was again to reintreat her Appeale.<a href="#48"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>48</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
"Mr. <em>Mavericks</em> Negro woman" came with hue and cry to complain, but a language barrier prevented her from explaining the situation, and centuries of ideology apparently prevented Josselyn from caring enough to do anything more than note the story, just one more colorful anecdote in a colorful travelogue. In 1672 he published his first book, <em>New-Englands Rarities Discovered</em>, which ends by describing Native American women as having "very good Features; seldome without a <em>Come to me</em>, or <em>Cos Amoris</em>, in their Countenance, all of them black Eyes, having even short Teeth, and very white, their Hair black, thick and long, broad breasted, handsome straight Bodies, and slender." He ended with a poem containing these lines: <br />
<br />
Whether White or Black be best<br />
Call your Senses to the quest;<br />
And your touch shall quickly tell<br />
The Black in softness doth excel,<br />
And in smoothness; but the Ear,<br />
What, can that a Colour hear?<br />
No, but 'tis your Black ones Wit<br />
That does catch and captive it.<br />
And if Slut and Fair be one,<br />
Sweet and fair, there can be none:<br />
Nor can ought so please the tast<br />
As what's brown and lovely drest....<br />
<br />
Though the poem was, according to Josselyn, originally written about a "young and handsome gypsie" and then changed to describe "the Indian S Q U A, or Female <em>Indian</em>," the black-versus-white color rhetoric, along with the use of the word "captive," seems curiously relevant to his encounter with the slave woman.<a href="#49"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>49</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Josselyn lived until 1674. He died in England, having apparently decided New England's pleasures were not for him. He never wrote another word regarding the woman, and he published the account of his voyages, <em>Two Voyages to New England</em>, some thirty years after his encounter, leaving unchanged his written opinion of Maverick, "the only hospitable man in all the Country."<br />
<br />
Though his official writings are fairly numerous, Samuel Maverick's personal papers have long since disappeared; archives lack letters he wrote to his children, his diary, his personal accounts. We know that he died sometime between 1670 and 1676, probably in his early seventies, after a long and active life. He spent some years in New York, became a royal commissioner, and stayed an enemy to Puritan settlement. He also remained a part of the slave business; in 1652 he entered into an agreement with Adam Winthrop and John Parris (of Barbados) "for the delivery of a Negro in may next."<a href="#50"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>50</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
Noddle's Island also stayed in the business. Samuel Maverick sold the island to George Briggs of Barbados, who sold it to John Burch, also of Barbados, who sold it in 1664 to Sir Thomas Temple. The latter sold it in 1670 to Col. Samuel Shrimpton, a prominent Boston merchant whose portrait, which sometimes hangs in the Massachusetts Historical Society, also depicts, in the background, an African slave. All those men were connected to the slave trade.<a href="#51"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>51</sup></span></a> Lured by its ideal position in the harbor, slave traders and slave owners possessed the island continuously during the seventeenth century, and well into the eighteenth.<br />
<br />
In the twentieth century, landfill was added and Noddle's Island became East Boston, a working-class area just west of Logan airport. To get there today, take the blue subway line to the Maverick stop. Go, as I did, on a blustery midweek day in early October—the same time of year as the attack. Follow Maverick Street from Maverick Square right down to the docks, and look across the harbor to Boston's center, just as a scared African woman must once have done. Her story will stick in your mind; despite the omnipresence of her owner's name, it is "Mr. <em>Mavericks</em> Negro woman" who haunts the spot.<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point every historian decides how to frame her argument; I deliberately chose a method that makes visible the gaps in my evidence. As a result, perhaps this story is as much about the writing of history as about a rape. Researching in 2006, I am a beneficiary of historical schools that have called into question the validity of histories based on documents written by, and produced for, a minority of any given population. I have been taught to note that early New England's sources are largely written by and for white men, while remembering that before 1800, four-fifths of the females who crossed the Atlantic were African.<a href="#52"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>52</sup></span></a> Some of those women ended up in early New England, and their stories should be told.<br />
<br />
In <em>The Return of Martin Guerre</em>, Natalie Zemon Davis explained that when documents relating to her characters ran dry, she "did [her] best through other sources from the period and place to discover the world they would have seen and the reactions they might have had." Davis described the finished project as part "invention, but held tightly in check by the voices of the past." Davis had more evidence than I do, to be sure, but her comment seems relevant to my narrative. Without imagination, how can we tell such stories? We are not scientists; we cannot test our hypotheses; we cannot recall our subjects to life and ask them to verify our claims or to provide more information on the topics they fail to discuss. We make our way among flawed sources, overreliant on written texts, hopelessly entangled in our own biases and beliefs, doing the best we can with blurry evidence, sometimes forced to speculate despite our specialized knowledge. The very beauty of history lies in that messiness, the fact that "unless two versions of the same set of events can be imagined, there is no reason for the historian to take upon himself the authority of giving the true account of what really happened."<a href="#53"><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>53</sup></span></a><br />
<br />
I don't <em>know</em> anything about the woman who ended up on Noddle's Island in 1638—indeed, I suppose it is possible that Josselyn made up the whole story for reasons we cannot fathom, or that he misunderstood the situation, or that I have misunderstood the situation myself. But I have chosen to believe Josselyn's version. Someone else, infuriated by my methods, can tell a different story; I embrace that possibility. In the meantime, I offer this: We have known, for a long time, a story of New England's settlement in which "Mr. <em>Mavericks</em> Negro woman" does not appear; here is one in which she does.<br />
<br />
<b>Notes</b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;">Wendy Anne Warren is completing a dissertation about African slavery in seventeenth-century New England in the department of history at Yale University. This essay received the 2006 Louis Pelzer Memorial Award.<br />
<br />
She wishes to thank John Demos, Jon Butler, Laura Wexler, Aaron Sachs and the members of Yale's Writing History Working Group, Martha Saxton, Jennifer Baszile, Joseph Cullon, and especially Caitlin Love Crowell for comments and help. Ed Linenthal and Susan Armeny gave thoughtful feedback and graceful editing. The author is also grateful for critical audiences at the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Historical Society, the McNeil Center for Early American Studies, and the John Carter Brown Library.<br />
<br />
<a name="1">1</a> Paul J. Lindholdt, ed., <em>John Josselyn, Colonial Traveler: A Critical Edition of</em> Two Voyages to New England (Hanover, 1988), 24.<br />
<br />
<a name="2">2</a> See, for example, Lorenzo Greene, <em>The Negro in Colonial New England</em> (New York, 1942), 17–18; George F. Dow, Slave Ships and Slaving (Salem, 1927), 268; and Winthrop D. Jordan, <em>White over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro, 1550–1812</em> (Chapel Hill, 1968), 66–68.<br />
<br />
<a name="3">3</a> John Winthrop, <em>The Journal of John Winthrop, 1630–1649</em>, ed. Richard Dunn, James Savage, and Laetitia Yeandle (Cambridge, Mass., 1996), 246.<br />
<br />
<a name="4">4</a> Ann Marie Plane, <em>Colonial Intimacies: Indian Marriage in Early New England</em> (Ithaca, 2000), 119. On African Americans in the colonial North, see William D. Piersen, Black Yankees: <em>The Development of an Afro-American Subculture in Eighteenth-Century New England</em> (Amherst, 1988); and George Henry Moore, <em>Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts</em> (New York, 1866). This article joins a surge of interest in slavery in the North. Examples include John Wood Sweet, <em>Bodies Politic: Negotiating Race in the American North, 1730–1830</em> (Baltimore, 2003); Thelma Wills Foote, <em>Black and White Manhattan: The History of Racial Formation in New York City</em> (New York, 2004); and Jill Lepore, <em>New York Burning: Liberty, Slavery, and Conspiracy in Eighteenth-Century Manhattan</em> (New York, 2005). For helpful articles, see Robert C. Twombley and Robert H. Moore, "Black Puritan: The Negro in Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts," <em>William and Mary Quarterly</em>, 24 (April 1967), 224–42; Albert J. Von Frank, "John Saffin: Slavery and Racism in Colonial Massachusetts," <em>Early American Literature</em>, 29 (Dec. 1994), 254–72; and Melinde Lutz Sanborn, "Angola and Elizabeth: An African Family in the Massachusetts Bay Colony," <em>New England Quarterly</em>, 72 (March 1999), 119–29. See also the recent collection formed from the 2003 Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife: Peter Benes and Jane Montague Benes, eds., <em>Slavery/Antislavery in New England</em> (Boston, 2005). The 1942 book is Greene, <em>Negro in Colonial New England</em>.<br />
<br />
<a name="5">5</a> Saidya V. Hartman, <em>Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America</em> (New York, 1997), 11. See also Emma Perez, <em>The Decolonial Imaginary: Writing Chicanas into History</em> (Bloomington, 1999), xii–xvii.<br />
<br />
<a name="6">6</a> Rhode Island merchants dominated the African slave trade to North America for most of the eighteenth century. Jay Coughtry, <em>The Notorious Triangle: Rhode Island and the African Slave Trade, 1700–1807</em> (Philadelphia, 1981), 25.<br />
<br />
<a name="7">7</a> Lindholdt, ed., <em>John Josselyn, Colonial Traveler</em>, xiv–xv.<br />
<br />
<a name="8">8</a> Miller Christy, "Attempts toward Colonization: The Council for New England and the Merchant Venturers of Bristol, 1621–1623," <em>American Historical Review</em>, 4 (July 1899), 683–85; Bernard Bailyn, <em>The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century</em> (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), 5–9; Lindholdt, ed., <em>John Josselyn, Colonial Traveler</em>, xviii.<br />
<br />
<a name="9">9</a> Lindholdt, ed., <em>John Josselyn, Colonial Traveler</em>, 12.<br />
<br />
<a name="10">10</a> <em>Ibid</em>., 5, 3, 129–30.<br />
<br />
<a name="11">11</a> <em>Ibid</em>., 5–7.<br />
<br />
<a name="12">12</a> <em>Ibid</em>., 7–8.<br />
<br />
<a name="13">13</a> <em>Ibid</em>., 23.<br />
<br />
<a name="14">14</a> William Sumner, <em>A History of East Boston: With Biographical Sketches of its Early Proprietors</em> (Boston, 1858), 69–75; Samuel Maverick, A Briefe Discription of New England and the Severall Townes Therein together with the Present Government Thereof (1660; Boston, 1885), 13.<br />
<br />
<a name="15">15</a> Mellen Chamberlain, <em>A Documentary History of Chelsea, Including the Boston Precincts of Winnisimmett, Rumney Marsh, and Pullen Point, 1624–1824</em>, vol. I (Boston, 1908), 16; Sumner, <em>History of East Boston</em>, 9; Winthrop, <em>Journal of John Winthrop</em>, ed. Dunn, Savage, and Yeandle, 36.<br />
<br />
<a name="16">16</a> Elizabeth French, "Genealogical Research in England: Maverick," <em>New England Historical and Genealogical Register</em>, 69 (1915), 157–59; "Mrs. Amias Maverick to Trelawny," in <em>Documentary History of the State of Maine</em>, vol. III: <em>The Trelawny Papers</em>, ed. James P. Baxter (Portland, 1884), 76–78.<br />
<br />
<a name="17">17</a> Thomas Prince, <em>A Chronological History of New England in the Form of Annals</em> (Boston, 1826), 321; Thomas Hutchinson, <em>The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts-Bay</em> (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), 124–25; <em>Maverick, Briefe Description of New England</em>, 17.<br />
<br />
<a name="18">18</a> Chamberlain, <em>Documentary History of Chelsea</em>, 21; Prince, <em>Chronological History of New England</em>, 323; Maverick, <em>Briefe Description of New England</em>, 26. Samuel Maverick's brother Moses helped his sister-in-law; he is listed in colonial records as having paid taxes on Noddle's Island to the General Court in 1636. See French, "Genealogical Research in England."<br />
<br />
<a name="19">19</a> Winthrop, <em>Journal of John Winthrop</em>, ed. Dunn, Savage, and Yeandle, 182. The identity of Captain Powell remains elusive. He may have been John or Henry Powell, ship captains who worked for an influential Barbadian merchant. See Richard S. Dunn, <em>Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624–1713</em> (Chapel Hill, 1972), 49–50, 58.<br />
<br />
<a name="20">20</a> Edmund Morgan, <em>American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia</em> (New York, 1975), 297.<br />
<br />
<a name="21">21</a> A. B. Forbes, ed., <em>Winthrop Papers, 1498–1628</em> (5 vols., Boston, 1929–1947), I, 356–57, 361–62, and esp. II, 66–67; French, "Genealogical Research in England," 158–59.<br />
<br />
<a name="22">22</a> Dunn, <em>Sugar and Slaves</em>, 71.<br />
<br />
<a name="23">23</a> Madge Dresser, <em>Slavery Obscured: The Social History of the Slave Trade in an English Provincial Port</em> (New York, 2001), 10–20; Virginia Bernhard, "Beyond the Chesapeake: The Contrasting Status of Blacks in Bermuda, 1616–1663," <em>Journal of Southern History</em>, 54 (Nov. 1988), 546–49.<br />
<br />
<a name="24">24</a> Dunn, <em>Sugar and Slaves</em>, 71.<br />
<br />
<a name="25">25</a> Johannes M. Postma, <em>The Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1600–1815</em> (New York, 1990), 13–19; Pieter Emmer, <em>The Dutch in the Atlantic Economy, 1580–1880</em> (Brookfield, 1998), 17–20; "Body of Liberties, 1641," in <em>Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America</em>, vol. III, ed. Elizabeth Donnan (New York, 1969), 4.<br />
<br />
<a name="26">26</a> David Eltis, <em>The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas</em> (New York, 2000), 246–50.<br />
<br />
<a name="27">27</a> Herbert Klein, <em>The Atlantic Slave Trade</em> (Cambridge, Eng., 1999), 130; Paul E. Lovejoy, <em>Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa</em> (New York, 2000), 62–64.<br />
<br />
<a name="28">28</a> See Sidney Mintz and Richard Price, <em>The Birth of African-American Culture: An Anthropological Perspective</em> (Boston, 1976), 42–43; Richard Ligon, <em>A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados</em> (London, 1673), 46.<br />
<br />
<a name="29">29</a> It is difficult to estimate slaves' shipboard mortality in the early seventeenth century, since the slave trade was not professionalized until the later decades of the century. For a one-in-three estimate for 1663–1713, see Eltis, <em>Rise of African Slavery in the Americas</em>, 185. Other scholars suggest that earlier trips were less deadly, as market needs did not yet force maximum efficiency from each trip. A 5 to 10% mortality rate was more typical for early seventeenth-century slaving trips across the Atlantic Ocean, when the Dutch still controlled the trade, according to Carl Bridenbaugh and Roberta Bridenbaugh, <em>No Peace beyond the Line: The English in the Caribbean, 1624–1690</em> (New York, 1972), 245. A 20% mortality rate for the early seventeenth century is posited by Klein, <em>Atlantic Slave Trade</em>, 136–37.<br />
<br />
<a name="30">30</a> Kenneth F. Kiple and Brian T. Higgins, "Mortality Caused by Dehydration during the Middle Passage" in <em>The Atlantic Slave Trade: Effects on Economies, Societies, and Peoples in Africa, the Americas, and Europe</em>, ed. Joseph E. Inikori and Stanley L. Engerman (Durham, 1992), 321–25.<br />
<br />
<a name="31">31</a> Daniel Mannix, <em>Black Cargoes: A History of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1518–1865</em> (New York, 1962), 128–29.<br />
<br />
<a name="32">32</a> Eltis, <em>Rise of African Slavery in the Americas</em>, 111; Ligon, <em>True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados</em>, 46; Winthrop, <em>Journal of John Winthrop</em>, ed. Dunn, Savage, and Yeandle, 246.<br />
<br />
<a name="33">33</a> Karen O. Kupperman, <em>Providence Island, 1630–1641: The Other Puritan Colony</em> (New York, 1993), 26, 325–35. Kupperman notes that Providence Island colonists overcame Puritan unease over slavery through hubristic reasoning: an "inward turned logic allowed the company dedicated to Providence to assume that God had provided perfectly acclimated heathens to work in tropical fields. If God had not intended their use, why did he make Europeans ill-suited to such labor conditions, while Africans worked so well under the hot sun?" <em>Ibid</em>., 178.<br />
<br />
<a name="34">34</a> Karen O. Kupperman, "Errand to the Indies: Puritan Colonization from Providence Island through the Western Design," <em>William and Mary Quarterly</em>, 45 (Jan. 1988), 75–81; Kupperman, <em>Providence Island</em>, 170–72. For the quotation from Gov. Nathaniel Butler of Providence Island, see <em>ibid</em>., 172.<br />
<br />
<a name="35">35</a> Winthrop, <em>Journal of John Winthrop</em>, ed. Dunn, Savage, and Yeandle, 352–57. Pierce's slave, a woman, apparently attempted to burn down his house while he was away on a trip. See James Duncan Phillips, <em>Salem in the Seventeenth Century</em> (New York, 1933), 96–97.<br />
<br />
<a name="36">36</a> Nancy Seasholes, <em>Gaining Ground: A History of Landmaking in Boston</em> (Cambridge, Mass., 2003), 355; Chamberlain, <em>Documentary History of Chelsea</em>, 16; grant of Noddle's Island to Samuel Maverick, in records of a court held at Boston, April 1, 1633, oversize box 1, David S. Greenough Papers, 1631–1859 (Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston); Lindholdt, ed., <em>John Josselyn, Colonial Traveler</em>, 18.<br />
<br />
<a name="37">37</a> Jordan, <em>White over Black</em>, 6–15.<br />
<br />
<a name="38">38</a> Winthrop, <em>Journal of John Winthrop</em>, ed. Dunn, Savage, and Yeandle, 227; Michael L. Fickes, "'They Could Not Endure That Yoke': The Captivity of Pequot Women and Children after the War of 1637," <em>New England Quarterly</em>, 73 (March 2000), 58–61.<br />
<br />
<a name="39">39</a> See Margaret Ellen Newell, "The Changing Nature of Indian Slavery in New England, 1670–1720," in <em>Reinterpreting New England Indians and the Colonial Experience</em>, ed. Colin G. Calloway and Neal Salisbury (Boston, 2003), 106–36. Fickes, "'They Could Not Endure That Yoke,'" 67–70.<br />
<br />
<a name="40">40</a> Daniel Mandell, "Shifting Boundaries of Race and Ethnicity: Indian-Black Intermarriage in Southern New England, 1760–1880," <em>Journal of American History</em>, 85 (Sept. 1998), 468.<br />
<br />
<a name="41">41</a> George Henry Moore, <em>Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts</em> (New York, 1866), 7.<br />
<br />
<a name="42">42</a> Samuel Maverick, "Letters to John Winthrop," <em>Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society</em>, 7 (1865), 307. I am reminded of Else Barkley Brown's admonition to recognize that differences in class and race mean "that all women do not have the same gender." Elsa Barkley Brown, "'What Has Happened Here': The Politics of Difference in Women's History," <em>Feminist Studies</em>, 18 (Summer 1992), 300.<br />
<br />
<a name="43">43</a> A long-standing and well-developed European discourse on non-European sexuality was employed constantly in encounters with other peoples. See Jennifer Morgan, <em>Laboring Women: Reproduction and Gender in New World Slavery</em> (Philadelphia, 2004), esp. 12–49.<br />
<br />
<a name="44">44</a> On African men's reactions to their feminization in the New World, see Edward Pearson, "'A Countryside Full of Flames': A Reconsideration of the Stono Rebellion and Slave Rebelliousness in the Early Eighteenth-Century South Carolina Lowcountry," <em>Slavery and Abolition</em>, 17 (Aug. 1996), 22–50.<br />
<br />
<a name="45">45</a> Hartman, <em>Scenes of Subjection</em>, 3–4; Edward Rowe Snow, <em>The Islands of Boston Harbor: Their History and Romance, 1626–1935</em> (Andover, 1935), 237.<br />
<br />
<a name="46">46</a> "Indenture Between Samuell Mavericke and John Burch," in <em>Suffolk Deeds</em>, liber II (Boston, 1883), 325–27.<br />
<br />
<a name="47">47</a> On contraceptive and abortive techniques that may have been used by slave women, including herbs and "pointed sticks," see Barbara Bush, <em>Slave Women in Caribbean Society, 1650–1838</em> (Bloomington, 1990), 142. See also Morgan, <em>Laboring Women</em>, 114–15.<br />
<br />
<a name="48">48</a> <em>The Lawes Resolution of Women's Rights; or the Lawes Provision for Woemen: A Methodicall Collection of Such Statutes and Customes, with the Cases, Opinions, Arguments and Points of Learning in the Law, as doe properly concerne Women</em> (London, 1632), 392–93.<br />
<br />
<a name="49">49</a> John Josselyn, <em>New-Englands Rarities Discovered in Birds, Beasts, Fishes, Serpents, and Plants of that Country</em> (London, 1672), 101–2, 99.<br />
<br />
<a name="50">50</a> French, "Genealogical Research in England," 157; "Bond between Samuel Maverick and John Parris," in <em>Suffolk Deeds</em>, liber I (Boston, 1880), 262.<br />
<br />
<a name="51">51</a> "Notice of Sale from Maverick to Briggs," oversize box 1, Greenough Papers; "Petition of Samuel Shrimpton, 1682," Massachusetts Archives (microfilm), vol. 16, p. 309 (Massachusetts State Archives, Boston); Snow, <em>Islands of Boston Harbor</em>, 239–40; Andrew Oliver, Ann Millspaugh Huff, and Edward W. Hanson, <em>Portraits in the Massachusetts Historical Society: An Illustrated Catalog with Descriptive Matter</em> (Boston, 1988), 93.<br />
<br />
<a name="52">52</a> Eltis, <em>Rise of African Slavery in the Americas</em>, 97.<br />
<br />
<a name="53">53</a> Natalie Zemon Davis, <em>The Return of Martin Guerre</em> (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 5; Hayden White, <em>The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation</em> (Baltimore, 1987), 20.</span><br />
<br />
Samuel Maverick, of Boston, was found here on Noddles Island, in 1630, by the Massachusetts Company [having landed in Weymouth on the 180-ton <i>Katherine</i>, captained by Joseph Stratton, 1623/24, sent out by Ferdinando Gorges, and Rev. John White, St. Peter's Church, Dorchester, Dorset]. By his deposition, made Dec 9, 1665, we learn that he was born in 1602. He had fortified his island home with four small pieces of artillery prior to Mr. Winthrop's visit, in 1630. He became a freeman Oct 2, 1632. In 1635, being too much given to hospitality, he was required to change his residence and move to the peninsula; but the order was not strictly enforced. The same year he went to Virginia to buy corn, and arrived home with two vessels well laden, Aug. 3, 1636. In July, 1637, Samuel Maverick entertained Lord Ley and Mr. Vane. Mr. Josselyn says that July 10, 1638, he went on shore upon Noddles Island to Mr. Samuel Maverick who was “the only hospitable man in all the country giving entertainment to all comers gratis.” In 1641, he was prosecuted for receiving into his house persons who had escaped from prison in Boston; but in 1645 he made a loan to the town, that the fort on Castle Island might be rebuilt. He was again prosecuted in 1646, and fined fifty pounds for signing a petition of “a seditious character” to the General Court. In 1664, he was appointed by the King a commissioner, to perfect peace in the colonies. His name occurs repeatedly in the Records of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, but it does not appear that Mr. Maverick ever held any position in the colonial militia. [Oliver Ayer Roberts, <i>History of the Military company of the Massachusetts, now called the Ancient and honorable artillery company of Massachusetts. 1637-1888</i>]</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-19509478041299104012021-06-27T16:16:00.002-07:002021-12-18T17:12:41.267-08:00Palisade House of 1630<center><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkEHmT0RAvpbQFrbD130lJAnLOeHL9o-qTicDWxwIGBZXdLu8j6DIQe6jIwoJ97eBvcq9GfFcznOAw5qKjF86_vl0In2dnOVdHom0toyLY64SwF2DUYgiWWnp2BX7Q_2N3cleM-HLjQG0/s1600/Wall+Calendar.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="400" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkEHmT0RAvpbQFrbD130lJAnLOeHL9o-qTicDWxwIGBZXdLu8j6DIQe6jIwoJ97eBvcq9GfFcznOAw5qKjF86_vl0In2dnOVdHom0toyLY64SwF2DUYgiWWnp2BX7Q_2N3cleM-HLjQG0/s400/Wall+Calendar.JPG" style="filter: alpha(opacity=50);" width="294" /></a></div></center>
<br />
<div align="left">At a meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society, held Jan. 8, 1885, Judge Chamberlain made some observations respecting Samuel Maverick's palisade house of 1630, referred to in the Maverick Manuscript, recently discovered in the British Museum, said:—<br />
<br />
It has been generally supposed that Samuel Maverick, assisted by David Thompson, who gave his name to an island in Boston Bay, some time before 1628 erected on Noddle's Island a house protected by palisades and fortified by guns; and that it was in this house that Governor Winthrop and his party were entertained by Maverick when they first came to Boston Harbor from Salem, June 17, 1630.<br />
<br />
The sole authority for the erection of such a house on Noddle's Island, and for its existence when Winthrop arrived, is Edward Johnson, in Chap. XVII. of his "Wonder-Working Providence." There being nothing improbable in his account, it has been followed without question by Prince, Hutchinson, Savage, Young, Drake, Frothingham, and many others. But there are facts which seem to be inconsistent with Johnson's statement, though no one of them, nor perhaps all of them combined, is sufficient to overthrow it. Lately, however, additional evidence has come to light, and I now propose to state the whole case. Johnson's narrative is as follows:—<br />
<br />
"But to go on with the story, the 12 of July or thereabout 1630, the soldiers of Christ first set foot on this Western end of the World; where arriving in safety, both men, women and children. On the North side of the Charles River, they landed near a small island, called Noddel's Island, where one Mr. Samuel Maverick then living, a man of a very loving and curteous bahavior, very ready to entertain strangers, yet an enemy of 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 Indians. About one mile distant upon the River ran a small creek, taking its name from Major Gen. Edward Gibbons, who dwelt there for some years after. On the South side of the River on a point of land called Blackstone's point, planted Mr. William Blackstone, of whom we have formerly spoken. To the southeast of him, near an island called Thompson's Island lived some few planters more. These persons were the first planters of those parts, having some small trading with the Indians for beaver skins, which moved them to make their abode in those parts whom these first troops of Christ's army found as fit helps to further their work."<br />
<br />
This account of the coming of Winthrop's fleet, and of the topography of Boston and its vicinity, as well as of the persons he found there, is so incomplete and inaccurate that it raises at once a question as to the authority of Johnson's book on matters apart from his chief purpose—the history of the planting of churches in New England—or only incidental thereto. It was written between 1647 and 1651, and published in London in 1654. Savage's opinion of it as authority may be gathered from his notes to Winthrop's Journal, vol. i. pp. 8, 100, 112. I have looked through its pages, though not exhaustively, and noticed some errors not creditable to a historian who came in 1630, and was engaged in public affairs during his subsequent life. In Chap. VII. he misdescribes the bounds of the colony, and the reservation of mines to the king. In Chap. XVII. he errs by a month as to the date of Winthrop's arrival, and in Chap. XXV. by more than year as to the death of Sagamore John and his people by small-pox. In Chap. XVII. he tells us that the first court was held on board the "Arbella," which possibly may have been, though Savage doubts it; and that Winthrop and others were chosen officers for the remainder of the year 1630—a fact nowhere else mentioned, and contradicted negatively by the absence of any such statement in the place of all others where it would be looked for, the official records of the transactions of that court. In the same chapter he asserts that in 1630 about one hundred and ten persons were admitted freemen. The record says that in October of that year about the same number expressed a desire to be so admitted, but that their request was not granted until May of the next year.<br />
<br />
If Johnson were our sole authority respecting the voyage of Winthrop's fleet, his reader could confidently assert that after leaving Yarmouth in the Isle of Wight it came directly into Boston Harbor, and the company first landed about July 12, instead of disembarking at Salem on the 12th of June.<br />
<br />
And if we attempt to construct the topography of Boston and its vicinity according to Johnson's description of it, we have one river, the Charles, instead of two, the other being the Mystic; and into the Charles runs Gibbon's Creek, on which he resided many years. On the south side of the river, and opposite to Gibbon's plantation, we should look for Blackstone's Point in Boston. The utter confusion of Johnson's topography is apparent when we place Gibbons where he actually resided, up Mystic River, in the "Charlestown Fields," now Everett, and where his creek runs to this day. Johnson's account, quoted above, was written more than fifteen years after the time to which it relates; and its untrustworthiness is more clearly manifest when compared with Dudley's narrative covering the same period, addressed to the Countess of Lincoln; and its misleading character appears by observing that even the careful and accurate Young, following Johnson, makes Gibbon's Creek tributary to the Charles.<br />
<br />
In like manner he gives us an incomplete account of the old planters. He names Maverick, Gibbons, Blackstone, and Thompson, but says nothing of those found at Winnisimmet as early as 1626, nor of Walford and his palisadoed house at Charlestown, nor of the Spragues and the remnant of the hundred planters who Higginson says were there in 1629.<br />
<br />
A writer of this description can hardly be deemed an authority on any controverted point; and yet he is the sole authority, so far as I have observed, that places any residence whatsoever on Noddle's Island before 1635.<br />
<br />
I now bring together those facts which lead me to believe that Samuel Maverick's fortified house was at Winnisimmet, and not at Noddle's Island, as is asserted by Johnson; and that it was at Winnisimmet he entertained Winthrop and his party, June 17, on his first visit to Boston Bay.<br />
<br />
In the first place, Samuel Maverick and John Blackleach, joint-owners of that part of Winnisimmet which does not now belong to the United States, sold the same to Richard Bellingham, Feb. 27, 1635, as appears from "Suffolk Deeds," lib. i fol. 15, the fuller bounds of which will be found in the part now owned by the United States Maverick seems to have owned exclusively, as some years later he sold a portion of it to William Stitson. And inasmuch as there is no evidence of any conveyance or allotment of that plantation to them or to any other party, the presumption is that before the coming of Winthrop they had acquired a title to it, which was respected by the new government.<br />
<br />
In the second place, Samuel Maverick had a house at Winisimmet as early as Aug. 16, 1631, a little more than a year after he entertained Winthrop. This is clear from the following record:—<br />
<br />
"August 16, 1631. It is ordered, that Mr. Shepheard and Robert Coles shall be fined five marks apiece, and Edward Gibbons twenty shillings for abusing themselves disorderly with drinking too much strong drink aboard the Friendship, and at Mr. Maverick his house at Winnisimmet."<br />
<br />
He was living there in December, 1633.<br />
<br />
"John Sagamore died of the small pox, and almost all his people; above thirty buried by Mr. Maverick of Winnisimmet in one day,... Among others, Mr. Maverick of Winnisimmet is worthy of perpetual remembrance. Himself, his wife and servants, went daily to them, ministered to their necessities, and buried their dead, and took away many of their children."<br />
<br />
Who was "Mr. Maverick of Winnisimmet"? Besides the Rev. John Maverick, of Dorchester, there were three men of the name of Maverick—Samuel, Elias, and Moses, who were admitted freemen, respectively, in 1632, 1633, and 1634. Samuel and Elias, it is almost certain, were brothers; and both lived at Winnisimmet, and on the same estate—now the property of the United States. But there was only one "Mr. Maverick," and he was Mr. Samuel Maverick. In saying this, I exclude the Rev. Mr. John Maverick, of Dorchester.<br />
<br />
Uniformly and without exception, both in the Colony Records and in Winthrop's Journal, Samuel Maverick is called "Mr. Maverick;" nor is Elias or Moses ever so called until a much later period. At that time, "Mr." was not only a mark of rank, but of seniority as well; it was an absolute, as well as a relative term.<br />
<br />
There being, therefore, only one "Mr. Maverick," let us assume for a moment that he lived on Noddle's Island instead of at Winnisimmet, and then consider the likelihood of "himself, his wife and his servants going daily" in a skiff over the half-frozen bay between Noddle's Island and Winnisimmet in December weather to minister to the dying Indians.<br />
<br />
We are absolutely certain that there was a house at Winnisimmet in 1631; and there are some reasons which indicate that neither at that time nor for some time after was there any residence at Noddle's Island. If Maverick had a fortified house at Noddle's Island in 1630, as Johnson asserts, it must have been well known to all people, certainly to Winthrop and the members of his family; and yet within six months after Maverick is thought to have entertained the Governor there, "three of his servants coming in a shallop from Mistic—Dec. 24, 1630—were driven upon Noddle's Island, and forced to stay there all that night, without fire or food." The reader is ready to ask why they did not seek shelter and food in the hospitable house of Samuel Maverick.<br />
<br />
If Maverick before 1630 had built a house on Noddle's Island, under a claim of right, and was living there in April, 1632, the order of the General Court of that date is at least singular. Why should he be excluded, on his own estate, from "shooting at fowls," or from taking them with nets, and the exclusive privilege of those acts be given to one John Perkins?<br />
<br />
As we have seen, Maverick had a house at Winnisimmet as early as August, 1631. In the previous October, within four months after Winthrop's visit, he, Dudley, and Maverick sent out a pinnace to Narragansett for corn for the colonists; and the next year they went as far as Virginia on the same business; and on the return of the bark, "she came to Winysemett." Why should she go to Winnisimmet instead of Noddle's Island, if Maverick's residence was there?<br />
<br />
It is significant that though Wood's map, made not later than 1634, and the newly discovered Winthrop map of about the same date, both indicate a settlement at Winnisimmet, neither of them affords the slightest indication of any residence on Noddle's Island, which on the latter is represented as covered by forests. Nor does Wood, in his text, say more of Noddle's Island than to class it with woods, water, and meadow ground where the inhabitants pasture their cattle; but he states "that the last town in the still bay is Winnisimmet, a very sweet place for situation, and stands very commodiously, being fit to entertaine more planters than are yet seated."<br />
<br />
I have said that aside from Johnson there is absolutely no authority for saying that Maverick, or any one else, had a house on Noddle's Island in 1630. There are reasons for conjecture that such was the case until some time in 1634. Maverick sold part of his Winnisimmet estate to Bellingham in 1635, but he still had one hundred and fifteen acres left, now the United States Hospital grounds; and, as I conjecture, and as Wood's plan seems to indicate, his house was on that part. He acquired title to Noddle's Island in April, 1633, but, as we have seen, was at Winnisimmet as late as December of that year. He may have built on Noddle's Island in 1634. That is probable from the following facts: In July, 1637, Sir Harry Vane and Lord Ley dined with Maverick at Noddle's Island. He doubtless had a house there at that date. From May, 1635, to May, 1636, he was in Virginia; and that his house was built before he took that journey may be inferred from the fact that his wife, writing to Trelawny, dated her letter from "Nottell's Iland in Massachusetts Bay, the 20th November, 1635." Unless he built in the winter before going to Virginia, we are thrown back into the year 1634. And that it was built earlier than that date is probable from the circumstance, already stated, that he was living at Winnisimmet in December, 1633.<br />
<br />
But it is scarcely worth while to pursue the question further, when we have evidence which is clear and conclusive. The following extract from the newly found Maverick Manuscript settles the question:—<br />
<br />
"<em>Winnisime</em>.—Two miles Sowth from Rumney Marsh on the North side of Mistick River is Winnisime which though but a few houses on it, yet deserves to be mencond. One house yet standing there which is the Antientest house in the Massachusetts Government, a house which in the yeare 1625 I fortified with a Pillizado and fflankers and gunnes both belowe and above in them which awed the Indians who at that time had a mind to Cutt off the English. They once faced it but receiving a repulse never attempted it more although (as now they confesse) they repented it when about 2 yeares after they saw so many English come over."<br />
<br />
There is no ambiguity in the above statement. The house was fortified in 1625. Was it built then, or in 1623, when Thompson may have been in the Bay? If Maverick's statement, made May 30, 1669, that "it is forty-five years since I came into New England," is to be taken strictly, he was not in the country before May 30, 1624; but neither this nor his other assertion, that "I have been here from the very first settling of New England by the English," should be construed with literal exactness. Nor do I think we are to understand him as saying that temporary structures, such as must have sheltered the settlers at Wessagusset, were not erected before his palisade house at Winnisimmet. On the principal fact—that not later than 1625 he erected at Winnisimmet the first permanent house in the Bay Colony, and that the same was standing as late as 1660—I think we may safely rest. Maverick could not have been mistaken in respect to anything so important in his personal history, nor had he any reason for misstating it. He certainly knew the facts of his own life better than Johnson, on whose sole authority all opposing statements are based. And Johnson's statement in regard to this matter, as well as to many other matters which may be supposed to have fallen under his observation, is coupled with assertions which we know to be untrustworthy. The historian of East Boston [William H. Sumner] has discussed the question, Who was Mr. Maverick, of Winnisimmet? with considerable ingenuity; but the authority for his main assumption had not then been discredited by the Maverick Manuscript, nor does his discussion include the facts essential to the determination of the question. <br />
<br /><i>Proceedings</i>, June, 1885</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-14880518664299125652018-12-14T21:51:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:12:55.328-08:00Blaxton the Real Founder of Boston<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="319" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4K4HL1pb6CavPNIXw2YxPaqRiMDT2AaHqqhHP4NqhKjR6D6VssU7o7TdHhAOn-fpx8wvHePHnorGt12vhugi1nnIzoNqE4-45LmVmBzs3r7a14BueiESLhLp05DsdXit9d3dIY5uahqnN/s400/616FJ9KgDoL.jpg"style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"/></div>
<br><b>Church of England Services Held Here Years Before the Puritans Came</b>
<br><br><div align="left">Rev William Blaxton, who, in 1630, claimed ownership of all Boston by right of having lived here alone for the five or six preceding years, and who later sold the future metropolis for $150 in cash and moved away to avoid living among Puritans, was "actual founder of Boston and not nonconformist, as sometimes represented, but a Church of England clergyman who wore his garb of office here and had planned with others to make his own faith the established religion of New England."
<br><br>That is the conviction of Charles K. Bolton, expressed in his latest work on local history, "The Real Founders of New England," recently published by the F. W. Faxon Company, Boston.
<br><br>Mr Bolton maintains that Blaxton's associates during the 10 years he lived here were ardent Church-of-England men and that he was undoubtedly pledged to help carry out their plan of "a new government for all New England allied to the Church of England."
<br><br><b>Influenced by Capt John Smith</b>
<br><br>Mr Bolton shows that ritualistic services were held at various times in or about Massachusetts Bay or at Maine coast settlements during 10 years or more before the arrival here of the Puritans, and that there were discontented ritualists even in Plymouth.
<br><br>He accounts for New England's failure to become a Church of England colony on the ground that several of the leaders in the movement, lay and clerical, growing discouraged over the economic outlook, returned to England just in time to allow their struggling settlements here to fall into the possession of the more aggressive non-conformist followers of John Endicott and John Winthrop, who arrived soon afterward.
<br><br>Mr Bolton cites presumptive evidence that young Blaxton's emigration to Massachusetts Bay soon after his ordination was influenced by Capt John Smith, of Pocahontas fame, who had declared Boston Harbor to be "the garden spot of New England."
<br><br>Mr Bolton thinks it likely that Blaxton as a child had heard Smith's American explorations discussed by his father and mother, who, living close by Smith's native place, would have been familiar with his life story, either by means of his autobiography or perhaps through Smith's personal recital.
<br><br><b>Maverick Hospitality</b>
<br><br>Among Blaxton's nearest neighbors hereabouts while he was living alone on Beacon Hill, each of whom Mr Bolton includes in the Gorges group, aiming to get control of New England politically and ecclesiastically, were Samuel Maverick, living like a baron within a stockade defended by cannon from the Indians in Winnisimmet, now Chelsea; Thomas Walford, blacksmith, living near the foot of Bunker Hill, Charlestown, and David Thompson, trader, on the island of that name, with his wife, who, when widowed later, became Mrs Maverick.
<br><br>Blaxton is pictured conducting Sunday Church of England services in Maverick's rude but spacious domicile, where a congregation was reasonably assured at any time, owing to Maverick's hospitality, which for years spared many strangers the necessity of patronizing a tavern.
<br><br>An amusing episode is told of Rev Francis Bright, another ritualist, who, preaching one Sunday at Maverick's on the sins of covetousness and of trading on the Sabbath, observed with interest an Indian in his congregation clad in an attractive beaver robe.
<br><br>On the conclusion of his service he unobtrusively drew the Indian aside for a private conference, at the end of which the beaver garment had become the clergyman's, in exchange for something more highly prized by the redskin.
<br><br><b>Weather Records Lost</b>
<br><br>The four congenial spirits, Maverick, Blaxton, Thompson and Walford, are agreeably presented by Mr Bolton, on the strength of data from contemporary sources, some times with the company of a visiting mariner or two, brimful of news from London, or traders from Maine, Virginia or the West Indies, and possibly a friendly Indian whose trade was worth cultivating, gathered on Winter evenings about the convivial board at Maverick's, illumined by the glow of the great fireplace.
<br><br>And the sometime solitude-loving Blaxton is pictured in Spring, amid the blossoming fruit trees of his Beacon Hill orchard, still to be seen at the period of the Revolution, and in Summer picking his way reflectively through a tangle of wild rose, blueberry and blackberry bushes such as grew on the hill even within the memory of the late Wendell Phillips.
<br><br>Mr Bolton recalls an interesting hint in John Winthrop's diary that he had seen data from a daily weather record kept by Mr Blaxton during the seven years before the arrival of the Puritans.
<br><br>How eagerly would many Bostonians now scan that wilderness weather record, which unfortunately was undoubtedly burned by Indians in 1676, with Blackstone's home and library in Rhode Island, during King Philip's War.
<br><br>Of course, the Blaxton episode is only one of numerous chapters of Mr Bolton's book, but the coming Boston tercentenary seems to invest it with a special interest for the purpose of a review.
<br><br>There are accounts of the beginnings of a score or more of fishing or trading settlements between 1602 and 1628, and of their "real founders," Church of England people, sometimes accompanied by a ritualist clergyman.
<br><br>In one instance there was a Roman Catholic priest. Many of these settlements about Massachusetts Bay or the Maine coast were destined to be finally developed by Puritans.
<br><br>Character sketches of long-forgotten pioneers, based on narratives contemporary with them, revived by Mr Bolton, are illuminating or amusing, as in the case of the ritualist Rev John Rogers, for awhile at Weymouth, ambitious to become a sportsman, yet incapable of so guiding a canoe as to pick up geese brought down by his tutor in marksmanship among the islands of Boston Harbor.
<br><br>It is natural that Mr Bolton, being librarian of the Boston Athaeneum, should add to his book two valuable features, a list of nearly 200 colonists or sojourners in New England, exclusive of Mayflower passenger, who came before the Puritan advent of 1628, and a list of settlements and their "real founders" before that year.
<br><br>There are numerous illustrations, admirable pen and ink sketches by Mrs Charles K. Bolton, several of them from rare antique originals.</div>
<br><i>Daily Boston Globe</i>, Oct 27, 1929, p. A47Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-18945169360477923042018-12-14T18:52:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:13:11.356-08:00Who Were the Real Founders of Boston?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" height="379" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX5HyDI6jXPFMwSBQ7Z9HU0ZnTenyNhyDOeWSMtvTCucZrrpfoPnYn5gRsSqN9DlelSvqq23pVg2GSnwQjQofEY_VpXff0u0FKV-077CvSCacdDJMa86CywXMWjp0xFuKv7Ewi2_sjxhrN/s400/hon+nathan+matthews.jpg" style="filter: alpha(opacity=50);" width="227" /></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Hon Nathan Matthews Raises Question Whether They Were Not Samuel Maverick and His Associates, Rather Than John Winthrop and His Followers—Reasons for Changing Date on City Seal of Boston and Rewriting Early History of Massachusetts.</b>
<br />
<br />
<i>In the course of his very interesting talk at the recent annual banquet of the society of Colonial Wars in Massachusetts Hon Nathan Matthews raised the question whether Samuel Maverick and his associates and the Episcopalian Gorges, rather than the Puritan John Winthrop and his followers, should not be entitled to the distinction of having been the real founders of Boston. Mr. Matthews also suggested that the date on the city seal might properly be changed and that the early history of Massachusetts be rewritten. His remarks were as follows:</i>
<br />
<br />
The period of history to which the activities of this society are dedicated was an age of action rather than of words, and the trouble we have in understanding the course of events under the colony and the province is due to the absence of contemporary explanation.
<br />
<br />
The function of the society of Colonial Wars and similar organizations, is, I take it, to perpetuate the memory of the events of colonial history by ascertaining, collating and publishing the facts before it is too late, so that some day someone may be able to write the real history of New England. It has seemed to me that I might contribute to your entertainment this evening, as also to suggest a line of inquiry to the active workers in your society, by raising a question as to who were the real founders of Boston.
<br />
<br />
The universally accepted opinion is that Massachusetts was settled by from 20,000 to 30,000 Englishmen who came over here between 1630 and 1640, under the auspices of the governor and company of the Massachusetts bay and a charter given by Charles I to certain Puritan merchants, and the city seal states that the city was founded in 1630. The history of Massachusetts, as commonly written, begins in 1630.
<br />
<br />
I desire to raise the question whether this view of the case is correct, and whether it does full justice to the men who were here before the Puritans came under Endicott and Winthrop. The suggestion is not wholly new; Mr Charles Francis Adams and others have called attention to the presence of various Englishmen in peaceful occupation of the harbor prior to 1630; but recent litigation has brought to light many new facts, some of which I thought you might be interested to hear about this evening.
<br />
<br />
In legal theory all the soil within the present limits of Massachusetts was vested in the crown by right of discovery and occupation. The institution of private property in land did not exist among the Indians, and the courts did not recognize titles derived from them, at least when in conflict with others derived from the colony and crown.
<br />
<br />
This being so, the history of our land titles begins with the grant by James I in 1620 of New England to the council of Plymouth, or the council for New England, as it was also called. No permanent settlements were made directly by this body, but very soon after the grant an attempt was made to parcel out the land in severalty among the members of the company. One of these grants, covering the land where the Pilgrims had settled at New Plymouth, was bought in by Gov Bradford and transferred by him to Plymouth colony.
<br />
<br />
Some of the other grants gave rise to subsequent litigation; but the only one with which we are concerned in this part of Massachusetts is the grant from the council of Plymouth to Robert Gorges, the son of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, in 1623. Robert Gorges died, and his patent descended to his brother John as heir-at-law. John Gorges appears to have made various attempts to found a plantation; but the details of these efforts are missing, and about all that we know is that he made grants and leases to Sir William Brereton, afterward a general in the parliamentary army, and to other persons. The Gorges patent included practically all the territory then known as "the Massachusetts bay"—that is, Boston harbor and the land immediately surrounding it.
<br />
<br />
About the year 1624 or 1625 various persons appear to have settled on the mainland or on the islands in the harbor. Rev William Blaxton established himself on what is now called the city proper. David Thompson occupied Thompsons island. A man named Noddle appears to have had enough to do with what is now East Boston to have given his name to that island. There were also one or two settlers in what is now Charlestown, and at other places in the bay.
<br />
<br />
The most important of these early settlers was Samuel Maverick, who was at Winnisimmet, now Chelsea, as early as 1625. No information has survived indicating directly how or why these people came here; but from the fact that both Thompson and Maverick were interested in other grants obtained from the Gorges on the coast of Maine, from the fact that the whole territory was within the Robert Gorges patent and from the fact that both he and his lessee Brereton laid claim to the land included within this grant it would seem a fair presumption that all these settlements were made under the Gorges patent and in the interest either of John Gorges or his grantees.
<br />
<br />
The most important of these people was Samuel Maverick, a typical merchant, trader and adventurer of the period. He arrived here about the year 1624, established himself at Winnisimmet, where he built a fort, manned it with four guns and successfully defended himself against the Indians until the arrival of the Puritans in 1630.
<br />
<br />
In 1628 the council for New England issued a patent which included what is substantially the present territory of Massachusetts north of Plymouth county, to various gentlemen interested in the colonization of New England, and this patent was confirmed by the crown in the colony charter of March 4, 1629, to the governor and company of the Massachusetts bay. It was under this charter that Endicott and his party settled at Salem in 1629 and Winthrop and his associates the following year at Boston.
<br />
<br />
The Massachusetts patent included all the land covered by the Gorges patent, and this fact gave rise to controversies between the company on the one side and Gorges and his grantees, including Brereton, on the other side. Brereton was himself a stockholder in the company as well as a claimant under the earlier patent.
<br />
<br />
Winthrop and his followers on their arrival in 1630 found the earlier settlers whom I have already mentioned, including Maverick, who by reason of his fort and ships was of great assistance to the infant colony.
<br />
<br />
Winthrop's instructions from the company in London, were to make whatever terms could reasonably be made with the persons then living in the bay—the "old settlers," as they were called—and did so in most cases.
<br />
<br />
Maverick's right to Winnisimmet in particular was recognized and he was given additional grants of land from time to time, including Noddle's island, now East Boston. He became a freeman in 1632 and continued his occupation as a trader and merchant for many years. He was engaged upon the fortifications at Castle island in 1646, and either he or his son became a member of the artillery company in 1658. In the meantime, however, he had fallen out with the controlling element by reason of religious differences, and at the Restoration, having previously sold his lands, was appointed one of the royal commissioners and soon afterward left the colony for good.
<br />
<br />
His settlement at Winnisimmet is not only interesting as being the first fortified place within the limits of Massachusetts, but as being the only portion of the commonwealth where the present land titles can be traced back of the company of the Massachusetts bay.
<br />
<br />
The title to every other parcel of land within the limits of the state can be traced back—either to a direct grant from the court of assistants or the general court, or to the towns which themselves were established by the colony and to which lands were granted for the purpose of distribution among their inhabitants. The title to a large part of what is now the city of Chelsea, however, cannot be traced either to a grant by the colony or to a grant by any town, itself claiming under the colony.
<br />
<br />
The records of the general court and the court of assistants are quite complete for the period in question and contain no grant of Winnisimmet to Maverick or anybody else; and no town was established at this place until 1637, two years after Maverick had sold the premises to Richard Bellingham, afterward governor. All the present titles to land in this part of Chelsea are derived from Gov Bellingham and through him from Samuel Maverick, and cannot be traced to the colony itself. This is the only case of the sort, and it presents an interesting instance of the survival to the present day of titles dependent in fact, if not in theory, upon a grant, now lost, under a patent antecedent to the charter issued to the governor and company of the Massachusetts bay.
<br />
<br />
Samuel Maverick was here, and he and his family had established themselves as permanent settlers six years before the Puritans arrived. He lived here, first at Winnisimmet and then at Noddle's island for 25 or 30 years, leaving only after the colony had become populous and successful. He left but few records of his life and story, and most of these had been lost sight of for 250 years, only to be brought to light in the preparation of a 20th century lawsuit.
<br />
<br />
Now, if by the founder of a community we mean the man who first establishes a permanent settlement, if by the first settlement of a place we mean the first persistent, permanent occupation of the soil, why are not Samuel Maverick and his associates rather than John Winthrop and his followers entitled to the distinction of having been the founders of Boston? And why should not the initial credit of this undertaking be awarded to the Episcopalian Gorges rather than to the Puritan nobles and merchants who were instrumental in securing the colony charter? Should not the date on the city seal be changed and the early history of Massachusetts be rewritten?
<br />
<br />
I pass these suggestions over for further investigation by your society, in memoriam majorum.</div>
<br />
Hon. Nathan Matthews, <i>The Boston Globe</i>, March 22, 1908, p. 41Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-36039258495887781682018-12-14T17:32:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:13:24.555-08:00The Real Founders of New England<center>
<img border="0" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKKXgGwU5uHu9QyhN56bHddFEsC8jXtOFxREa-3Ok968SNcHZvpN59c5ebh1UABtbaJYAM2NxfYBwG-QlazS2dvyC8ps9aXO_txnjTLlTjFrqvKghSwIIlBbtfdBVul3QYPpomPetwy5ox/s320/noddlesisland.jpg" style="filter: alpha(opacity=50);" /></center>
<div align="left">
<br />
Samuel Maverick of Winnesimmet was the son of the Rev. John Maverick, who crossed the sea a non-conformist in 1630 and served as the minister of Dorchester until his death in 1635/6. The son, here in 1623, came up from Wessagusset and settled at Winnesimmet, now Chelsea, where on 17 June, 1630, he entertained Winthrop. In December, 1633, he, his wife and servants cared for Indians dying of the smallpox, and buried as many as thirty in a single day. In 1634 he moved over to Noddles Island, which had been granted to him in April, 1633. There he built a house and entertained hospitably, as John Josselyn recorded in July, 1638. He was a staunch churchman and loyal to the King. Charles II appointed him with others in 1664 to settle the affairs of New England and New Netherland. He had a house on the Broadway, New York, and died there between 1670 and 1676. In 1660 he wrote a Description of New England, in which he has this to say about the treatment of the Old Planters by the Puritans:
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 85%;">"This Governo<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> and his Councill, not long after their Aryvall made a law that no man should be admitted a Freeman, and soe Consequently have any voyce in Election of Officers Civill or Military, but such as were first entered into Church covenant and brought Certificate of it, let there Estates, and accordingly there portion of land be never soe great, and there taxes towards public Charges. Nor could any competency of Knowledge or inoffensiveness of liveing or conversation usher a man into there Church ffellowship, unless he would also acknowledge the discipline of the Church of England to be erroneous and to renounce it, which very many never condescended unto, so that on this account the far great Number of his Majesties loyall subjects there never injoyed those priviledges intended by his Royall ffather in his Grant. And upon this very accompt also, if not being Joyned in Church ffellowship many Thowzands have been debarred the Sacrament of the Lords Supper although of Competent knowledg , and of honest life and Godly Conversation, and a very great Number are unbaptized. . . .
<br /><br />"And whereas they went over thither to injoy liberty of Conscience, in how high a measure have they denyed it to others there, wittnesse theire debarring many from the Sacraments spoken of before meerly because they cannot Joyne with them in their Church-ffellowship; nor will they permitt any Lawfull Ministers that are or would come thither to administer them. Wittness also the Banishing so many to leave their habitations there, and seek places abroad elsewhere, meerly for differing in Judgment from them as the Hutchinsons and severall families with them, & that Honb<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">le</span></sup> Lady the Lady Deborah Moody and severalls with her meerly for declareing themselfes moderate Anabaptists, Who found more favour and respect amongst the Dutch, then she did amongst the English. Many others also upon the same account needless to be named. And how many for not comeing to theire assemblies have been compelled to pay 5<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">S</span></sup> a peece for every Sabbath day they misse, besides what they are forced to pay towards the mantenance of the Ministers. And very cruelly handled by whipping and imprissonment was M<sup><span style="font-size: 85%;">r</span></sup> Clark, Obadiah Holmes, and others for teaching and praying in a private house on the Lords day. These and many others such like proceedings, which would by them have been judged Cruelty had they been inflicted on them here, have they used towards others there; And for hanging the three Quakers last yeare I think few approved of it."</span>
<br />
<br />
In the spring of 1627 Captain John Fells, master of a shallop who had come in Captain Johnston's larger ship with Irish settlers for Virginia, was received with his maidservant by Samuel Maverick at Winnesimmet and no doubt found congenial companionship. The settlement at Winnesimmet was in those days as to its standard in morals and drinking mid-way between Plymouth and Merrymount. Maverick himself was a cultivated and able gentleman, but of a convivial nature. The men who served him at his fortified trading post were of the type familiar to readers of Bret Harte's mining town stories. The Indians who camped near the white men were not slow to practice European vices. That Maverick was not expelled is due no doubt to his social position, his father's prominence as a clergyman, and perhaps in some measure to his genial nature.
<br />
<br />
It is probable that religious services were held from time to time at all the coast settlements. Mr. Blaxton as a friend and neighbor of Mr. Maverick must have preached at Winnesimmet. In the winter of 1629-30 the Rev. Francis Bright officiated there. His views were in harmony with Maverick's, and his rough and ready principles must have pleased the Winnesimmet type of settler. Captain Edward Johnson's statement that Maverick was very ready to entertain strangers may suggest that Blaxton was not an entertainer. We do know that he was acquainted with David Thomson, who lived to the east of him, and on occasion listened to the account of his travels and speculations in land. Blaxton must have visited Maverick, "an enemy to the Reformation in hand," as he was called, whose views on non-conformity and the Separatist doctrine were never concealed from those with whom he came in contact. Walford would have visited him to exercise his skill as a mechanic. These men, together with an occasional sea captain bearing the latest news, a wandering Indian begging bread or having a turkey or hare for barter, and now and then a visitor from Wessagusset, Plymouth, or Piscataqua, must have made the winter days pass pleasantly enough.
<br />
<br />
It was in 1625 that Maverick built his house opposite the north end of Boston in what is now Chelsea, then called Winnesimmet. He says that it had a "Pillizado and fflankers and gunnes both belowe and above." This suggests a larger house than Blaxton's. A short distance up the Mystic River the third settler in the Bay to leave Wessagusset, Thomas Walford the blacksmith, built a palisaded and thatched house for his family. These men, bound together by the ties of a common experience, were members of the Church of England. Maverick and Blaxton were gentlemen to whom Walford's skill must have been invaluable in the repair of tools, weapons of defence, and domestic hardware. Maverick was a trader in furs and a successful man of business. Blaxton, fond of flowers and fruit, a lover of woodland and sea, surely found these experiences of the summer of 1625 very enjoyable.
<br />
<br />
During the year 1626, perhaps in the autumn, David Thomson came from Piscataqua with his wife and son to settle on an island opposite the mouth of the Neponset River and east of the Dorchester peninsula. He had been a merchant at Plymouth in Devon, and had come in the spring of 1623 to "Little Harbor" on the west side of and near the mouth of the Piscataqua River. There he had built a "strong and large house," enclosed by a high palisade and protected by guns. ["Little Harbor," Thomson's settlement, is now Odiorne's Point in the town of Rye.] After three years of life at Little Harbor he came to the Bay to end his days.
<br />
<br />
If "Caribdis underneath the mould" of Morton's poem in the "New English Canaan", written for the May pole revels in 1627, represents David Thomson, and "Scilla sollitary on the ground" is Amias, his widow, then Thomson was dead before May, 1627. The new husband lacking "vertue masculine" is of course Samuel Maverick, said to have been as strong as Samson and as patient as Job. And she was, according to Morton, a difficult "Dallila"; but she was an heiress after Thomson's death, and suitors came by water from all about the Bay to pay their court to her. Mrs. Thomson was the daughter of William Cole of Plymouth, England. Perhaps her second marriage which prevented her return to England caused her father to threaten to deprive her of her property.
<br />
<br />
As one looks back upon the careers of the Old Planters of New England they seem to shine out against the background of intolerance and cruelty. The Rev. Mr. Morrell had ecclesiastical powers that could have been a menace to New Plymouth, but he never tried to exercise them. Mr. Maverick and Mr. Walford, Mr. Lyford and Mr. Oldham suffered slander and did not resort to violence. Roger Conant, the governor of the Dorchester Company settlements, suffered rebuffs without number and bore every affront with meekness. He deserves to be remembered. And Mr. Blaxton's Boston should more generously reverence their first inhabitant.</div>
<br />
Charles Knowles Bolton, 1929Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-46932853614654877942013-01-22T20:23:00.004-08:002021-12-18T17:13:36.632-08:00Noddle Island.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWDmQzyxQopJJmqHSB4TU42aHlFPlArLGE3UrJKq9GLer4Kbjhz6AB-Wtz7QrwuSHVy5ApkN867iEazJvrSHMK5R6ShfED0GQ-Mc867iuveKdq65gfvsT4Bh067czGGZ5_6Q7foeL9m9kp/s1600/noddles.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="290" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWDmQzyxQopJJmqHSB4TU42aHlFPlArLGE3UrJKq9GLer4Kbjhz6AB-Wtz7QrwuSHVy5ApkN867iEazJvrSHMK5R6ShfED0GQ-Mc867iuveKdq65gfvsT4Bh067czGGZ5_6Q7foeL9m9kp/s400/noddles.jpg" style="filter: alpha(opacity=50);" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /><b>Anecdotes About Samuel Maverick . . .</b>
<div align="left"><br />The island took the name by which is was so long known from William Noddle, designated as "an honest man from Salem" by old writers. It seems that he occupied it previous to 1630, about which time Samuel Maverick, with the alleged help of David Thompson—owner of Thompson island—came into possession. The fee of this property did not rest exclusively in Maverick apparently, for in 1631 an order was passed by the court restraining persons from "putting on Cattell, felling wood or raseing slate" on this island. Like all the islands in the harbor, there appeared to be forests growing upon Noddle's island in former times, and apparently a similar fate befell them all to be bereft of this growth.
In 1632 the following order was passed:
<br /><br />"Noe'p'son wt'soever shall shoot att fowle upon Pullen Poynte or Noddle's Ileland, but the sd places shalbe reserved for John Perkins, to take fowle with nets."
<br /><br />The following is a copy of the order passed in favor of Mr. Maverick:
<br /><br />"Noddle's Ileland is granted to Mr. Sam'l Mavack to enjoy to him and his heires for ever. Yielding & payeing yearly att ye Generall Court, to ye Gov'n'r for the time being, either a fatt weather, a fatt hogg, or XLs in money, & shalle give leave to Boston & Charles Towne to fetch woode . . . as theire neede requires, from ye southerne p'ts of sd ilsland."
<br /><br />It appears that the "neede" of Boston and Charlestown required all the wood growing, for when the East Boston Company took possession in 1833 there were but two trees standing on the entire territory.
<br /><br />This island, as well as Breed's island, were very early claimed by Sir William Brereton, and this name did sometimes appear in the connection formerly, as the name of Susanna (his daughter) was likewise applied to Breed's island, but no confirmation of title to either ever resulted.
<br /><br />Noddle's island was "layd to Boston," as it was termed, in 1636. It originally contained about 663 acres, together with the contiguous flats to low water mark. Its nearest approach to Boston proper is by ship channel ferry about 1800 feet . . . .
<br /><br />Samuel Maverick appears to have been a man of considerable importance, exercising great hospitality at his island home, where he often received Governor Winthrop and other notabilities. In 1636 he made a visit to Virginia and stopped there a year. On the return he brought with him 14 heifers and 80 goats, losing 20 of the latter on the voyage. Mt. Wollaston in Quincy was then a portion of Trimount, or Boston, and was used for pasturing cattle, Mr. Maverick being allowed 500 acres for his use.
<br /><br />In 1641 he gave succor at Noddle's island to Thomas Owen and Mrs. Sarah Hale, who had escaped from durance under a charge of illicit conduct. For this offense Maverick was fined £100. It was not presumed that he was aware of the circumstances, so the sum was partially remitted afterwards. In 1645 he made a loan to the town towards fortifying Castle island which the town guaranteed should be refunded "in case said garrison be defeated or demolished, except by adversary power, within three years." John Josselyn, who visited this country in 1638 on a tour of observation,
<br /><br /><b>Paid Maverick a Visit.</b>
<br /><br />He avowed that Maverick was the "only hospitable man in the country, giving entertainments to all comers gratis." Having refreshed himself there by a stay of several days, Josselyn crossed over in a small boat to look at Boston, which he compared to a small village. At night he returned to the island. Some years later he made another visit to the country, and again called on Mr. Maverick, who gave him a warm welcome and kept him until his ship was ready for returning to England.
<br /><br />In one of Josselyn's rambles in the forest which then covered the island he discovered something which he mistook for a fruit similar to a pineapple. "It was plated with scales and as big as the crown of a woman's hat." No sooner had he touched it, however, than out swarmed a cloud of insects which went for him. These hornets stung his face, and made it swell so badly that when he returned to the house his friend would not have known him save for his clothing.
<br /><br />Mr. Maverick was so persecuted later, on account of his religious tenets—Episcopalian—that he gave up his residence. In 1661 Mr. Thomas Clarke was in occupation, though the property had been previously claimed—1652—by John Burch. About 1675 Colonel Shrimpton appeared to have considerable to do with the island. In 1689 Mrs. Mary Hooke of Kittery, Me., made claim to the property, as being daughter of Samuel Maverick, but there is no record that her claim was allowed.</div>
<br /><i>Boston Daily Globe</i>, Jan 6, 1889, p. 20<div><br /></div><div><b>The Hunt for Dixey Bull</b><br /><div><br /><div><div align="justify" style="caret-color: rgb(68, 68, 68); color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.84000015258789px;">Dixey Bull, having turned from peaceful trader to pirate, and encouraged by his successful raid upon the settlement of Pemaquid, continued his attacks upon the settlements; but in order not to arouse too great feeling concerning his acts he caused a written message to be sent to the Governors of the various colonies. He signified his intention of doing no bodily harm to any of his fellow countrymen if his band was not resisted in its plunderings, and that he would soon sail to the southward. He gave warning, however, that in case vessels were sent to capture him he was resolved to sink his ship with all hands, rather than be taken. <br /><br />Men returning from the Penobscot spread abroad the news of the pirate's attacks, which threatened the very existence of the trading posts of that region, of the "Perils that did abound as thick as thought could make them." The pirates almost cleared the waters of coasting craft, for what they did not capture they drove to cover. <br /><br />This state of affairs alarmed and aroused the authorities of Massachusetts Bay. Late in November, they decided to take steps to end the situation. They arranged with Samuel Maverick of Noddles Island, now East Boston, to outfit a pinnace to go in pursuit of Dixey Bull and his gang. Twenty armed men were recruited to compose the crew, and they sailed to the eastward to unite with a force which was being organized at Piscataqua for the same purpose. This party consisted of 40 men and four small pinnaces and shallops. <br /><br />The united fleet set sail, laying a course along the coast. Their progress was slow, for they searched each cove and bay, looking in behind the islands, questioning all they met for news of the pirates. Rumors and wild tales were poured into their ears, but nothing authentic was learned concerning Bull and his movements. Finally they reached the village of Pemaquid, and there gained first hand knowledge of his assault. <br /><br />Winter had now set in in earnest, and it was not a season to be taken lightly with only small open boats to go to sea in. Strong easterly gales, with angry seas and snow, made it impossible to continue the search in their little craft and they were glad to lie safe in the Pemaquid's snug harbor. For three weeks they were storm bound here before there came a break in the weather. <br /><br />The gales finally abated, and the little fleet sailed again. On to the eastward they went, questioning all they met. The Muscongus was searched, Monhegan and the outlying islands visited, and yet no word of Bull was received. They came finally into the Penobscot, where the pirates had begun their activities, but they met with no better luck here. <br /><br />Storms again hindered their search, and after enduring the rigors of the bitter Winter weather and the perils of the angry seas they decided to give over the attempt and return. Turning back, they returned home to report their lack of success. <br /><br />Finally, news of Bull came from three members of his crew, who had deserted and returned to their homes. They claimed that the pirates had sailed to the eastward and joined the French. <br /><br />Two years later Gov Winthrop of Massachusetts, repeated this statement as accounting for the disappearance of Dixey Bull. Capt Roger Clap, however, records that Bull finally returned to England. This, as far as New England was concerned, ended the forays of the first pirate to cruise these waters, but there is an additional report that Bull was arrested in England. This was apparently done at the suggestion of the Earl of Bellomont. Bull was brought to trial and found guilty. He was hanged at Tyburn, ending his career in true pirate fashion.</div><br style="caret-color: rgb(68, 68, 68); color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 15.84000015258789px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(68, 68, 68); color: #444444; font-size: 15.84000015258789px;">Arthur Cornwell Knapp, Daily Boston Globe, Aug 10, 1928, p. 14</span></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-80554805165908968082013-01-21T20:21:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:13:48.365-08:00East Boston Worth $3500<br><br><center><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8bcSQ0uA4RBss-159jZxK67kveJJ54FzNfIBa5rd77UKLaocbwHCYeS-1iBhUFG1gPvOBo8Tfeoc3yu3-4jwCJ17IEoZaRkzsSb2Qh17q4N-JHyOXvXl_vY5sMnFG711viLzzjvL8zA2-/s1600/ThomsonScottishSeal.jpg" target="_blank" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8bcSQ0uA4RBss-159jZxK67kveJJ54FzNfIBa5rd77UKLaocbwHCYeS-1iBhUFG1gPvOBo8Tfeoc3yu3-4jwCJ17IEoZaRkzsSb2Qh17q4N-JHyOXvXl_vY5sMnFG711viLzzjvL8zA2-/s320/ThomsonScottishSeal.jpg" style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"></a></center>
<div align="left"><br><b>That Was the Price Paid for the Whole Island 270 [360] Years Ago—The Globe Gets the Ancient Deed of Sale</b>
<br><br>They actually sold the whole of East Boston for $3500 worth of brown sugar.
<br><br>Not lately, but 270 [360] years ago, when that now thriving district was known as Noddles Island, and its only riches were one comfortable dwelling, a small grist mill, a few huts and a plentiful supply of woods and grass.
<br><br>The sale is recorded in a deed recently brought to the Globe office by someone who believed "there might be a story in it." In spite of its great antiquity, the document is without a crack or a tear, the paper is still white and the ink as black as though used yesterday. The text, written too finely to be comfortably perused without magnifying, is in script practically of Shakespeare's period.
<br><br>What is virtually a printed duplicate of it is on file in the Suffolk Registry of Deeds as are also records of six subsequent sales of Noddles Island before 1833, when the island ceased to be the property of any individual or family and was christened East Boston.
<br><br><b>As Big as Boston Proper</b>
<br><br>The Globe's ancient deed shows that Samuel Maverick, the earliest known owner of the future East Boston, then as great in area as Boston proper, confirmed the sale of it to Col Burch on the above-mentioned terms and date.
<br><br>The sale by Maverick to Burch had actually been made seven years earlier than the date of the deed, but continuous litigation between seller and buyer had followed, Maverick continuing to occupy the island on the pretext that the purchaser had failed to fulfill conditions of sale.
<br><br>The long litigation ended in 1656 by a decree of the Massachusetts General Court that Noddles Island should be Burch's as soon as he had deposited for Maverick in a certain seaside warehouse in Barbadoes, "muscovadoes" sugar to the value of 700 pounds sterling. Muscovado was the Spanish term for brown or unrefined sugar.
<br><br>This designation of sugar as a legal tender, in the opinion of W. T. A. Fitzgerald, Registrar of deeds, explains the use in past generations of the word sugar for money, as dough is now used.
<br><br>Maverick, being a shipping merchant and trader, probably found a profitable market for his sugar anywhere between Virginia and the coast of Maine. In the Globe's deed he and his son, Nathaniel, who was joint grantor, acknowledge complete satisfaction as to delivery of the sugar.
<br><br><b>Here Before Winthrop Came</b>
<br><br>Authenticity of the deed seems proven by the wax seal which Maverick affixed to his own signature, for it is the seal of David Thompson, who lived and traded with the Indians on Thompson Island in the harbor before Boston existed, when Maverick on Noddles Island, William Blaxton on Beacon Hill and one Walford in the Future Charlestown were the only settlers hereabouts.
<br><br>Maverick acquired the seal by marrying Mrs Thompson six months after her husband's death in 1628. The defunct, by the way, had always spelled his name "Thomson." Maverick spelled his name "Mavericke." A second seal on the deed, affixed to Nathaniel Maverick's name, has not been identified.
<br><br>Samuel Maverick seems to have occupied Noddles Island as a squatter for about three years previous to the arrival of Winthrop's colony, who settled in Boston in 1630 and claimed Noddles Island as belonging to their grant.
<br><br>In 1633, however, they gave the island in perpetuity to Maverick and his heirs, probably in consideration of his being an extensive raiser of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, much in demand for immigrants and arriving and departing ships.
<br><br>It is a historic fact that supplying ships with fresh meat remained the chief activity of the tenants of Noddles Island during the 200 years it was privately owned.
<br><br><b>Fatt Hogg or $10</b>
<br><br>The only obligations the General Court placed on Maverick in making him proprietor of the island were that he should annually furnish the Governor "a fatt wether, a fatt hogg" or the equivalent of $10 in cash, and should allow the people of Charlestown and Boston to cut all the wood they wanted for fuel from the southern part of his island. It is well know there never was a stick of timber in Boston, and this indicates there was probably none in Charlestown.
<br><br>The name of the island is supposed to indicate that before Maverick's time it had been occupied for a while by William Noddle, a much respected pioneer, who was drowned at Salem in 1632.
<br><br>Maverick's house, thought to have stood on the site of Maverick sq. may have been destroyed by the Revolution, when Colonial military authorities burned everything on the island that might possibly benefit British troops during the siege of Boston.
<br><br>Maverick was probably something of an Indian trader, for he had a rude fort on the island defended by four small cannon of the kind called "murderers," because of the bloody work effected by the volleys of old nails, scraps of iron and brass and other miscellaneous junk with which they were loaded. Their reputation probably obviated the necessity of ever firing one of them.
<br><br>Maverick had the "distinction" of inaugurating negro slavery in New England on Noddles Island about 1638, and he boasted of breeding "blooded stock, both slaves and cattle."<br><br><b>Nearly Ruined Innkeepers</b>
<br><br>To all strangers visiting Boston he extended hospitality like that of a baron of old, bidding them forsake the tavern for his own festive board, bountifully supplied with wines and liquors, with fine beef and mutton, game birds from his own marshes and oysters, clams, lobsters and fish taken almost in front of his door, till the General Court forbade him to usurp the prerogatives of the tavern keepers.
<br><br>Although son of a Puritan minister, Samuel Maverick was an enthusiastic Church of England man. With others of the same faith he petitioned the General Court about 1646 that they be allowed the rights of citizenship denied those not of the Congregationalist church.
<br><br>Their petition being denied, they complained to the British Parliament, were then imprisoned and fined by the General Court. Refusing to pay his fine and fearing that Noddles Island would be appropriated in lieu of it, Maverick, according to his daughter, disposed of it himself in order to forestal the authorities.
<br><br>She declared her father first transferred the island to his son by means of what was intended to be a make-believe sale, but which to his chagrin, his son, for awhile at least, insisted on regarding as a bonafide one.
<br><br><b>Made Enemies Tremble</b>
<br><br>The Globe's deed recites that seven years earlier, in 1649, Maverick, his wife Amias and his son Nathaniel had sold Noddles Island to George Briggs of Barbados, that Briggs had reconvened it soon afterward to Nathaniel Maverick and that the same Nathaniel sold it to Col John Burch, after which followed the long litigation culminating in the Globe's deed, which finally confirmed the sale.
<br><br>After leaving Noddles Island in 1656, Maverick moved from place to place, Virginia, West Indies, London, Eng. and New York, wherever he went denouncing New Englanders as traitors to the English Church and institutions.
<br><br>He probably paid tribute largely to his own enterprise when, in 1658, he wrote that while in 1624, when he came here from England at the age of 21, "there was not a single cow, horse or sheep in New England, and very few goats or hogs"; 30 years later, when he left here, "it is a wonder to see great herds of cattle and the great number of horses belonging to every town, as well as to thousands of cattle and hogs slaughtered each year for years past and sent to New Foundland and the West Indies or sold to provision ships."
<br><br>Probably the happiest period of his life was when, by appointment of King Charles II in 1664, he returned here a member of a royal commission to investigate and correct as they saw fit all alleged New England shortcomings. He caused a lot of worry to those who had earlier denied him the privileges of citizenship, but accomplished little to their disadvantage, after all.
<br><br>He died about 1670, age about 68, in New York, in a house given him by King Charles II and under such obscure circumstances that the date of his passing away has not been preserved.
<br><br>Two of Samuel Maverick's descendants, both Samuels, became historical characters. One, who lived on State st in 1770, was a victim of the so-called Boston Massacre on the night of March 5, that year, when the British troops fired a volley into a belligerent crowd at the east end of the Old State House.
<br><br>A later Samuel, a San Antonio, Tex. lawyer, and a cattle raiser like his Noddles Island ancestor, owing to having his ranch on an island, omitted to brand his cattle, as other owners did, with the result that in time all unbranded cattle, particularly young ones, came to be known as "mavericks," and finally either cattle or property unlawfully obtained were said to have been "mavericked."
Following the destiny of Noddles Island after its transfer to Col John Burch of the Barbados in 1656, Burch sold it the same year to Thomas Broughton of Boston, who immediately turned it over to a number of his creditors.
<br><br><b>Called North Boston Then</b>
<br><br>One of them got sole possession of it in 1662, and two years later he sold it to Sir Thomas Temple, to whom Temple st, West End, is still a memorial. Temple sold it in 1670 to Samuel Shrimpton, for whom Exchange st was once called Shrimptons lane.
<br><br>Shrimpton bequeathed the island to his widow, who in turn left it to her granddaughter, Mrs John Yeamans, who bequeathed it to her son, Shute Shrimpton Yeamans.
<br><br>Shute in 1768 bequeathed it to three of his aunts, Mrs Chauncy, wife of the minister of First Church; the wife of Gov Increase Sumner, for whom Sumner st was named, and the mother of David Grenough, later to be an extensive real estate developer.</div>
<br>Alexander Corbett, <i>Boston Daily Globe</i>, Aug 29, 1926, p. C9Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-62781954128337835622013-01-20T23:00:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:13:59.842-08:00Pilgrims and Puritans Were Not Original New England Settlers<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" height="257" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKz_Pqz1QWkeSnS5TNKM-DnoUipt3vx2_sRWvScNmsbP-xTADap6B2iSNPHrsO3TiH5xmOJVpN7td6NkkZ3gWsONSoHhtPL-fEvvR7aCHy6kov9Cq_aVJSrW2Agq5DnS_XhM161dBzEJsk/s400/Charles-K-Bolton.jpg" style="filter: alpha(opacity=50);" width="400" /></div>
<br />
<b>Charles K. Bolton Says Undue Emphasis Given Plymouth and Boston Colonies by Early Historians</b>
<br />
<br />
<div align="left">
"New England history did not begin with either the Pilgrims at Plymouth or the Puritan settlement of Boston, both of which were preceded by a number of successive English settlements and trading posts about Massachusetts Bay."
<br />
<br />
That statement was made by Charles K. Bolton, librarian of the Boston Atheneum, in a paper entitled: "Comers to New England in the 1620s," read at the monthly luncheon of the Society of Colonial Wars, at the Parker House, yesterday afternoon.
<br />
<br />
Mr Bolton claimed that undue emphasis had been laid on the experience of the Plymouth and the Boston Colonists owing to the fact that there were no historians or diarists among the earliest settlers and because most later local historians were Pilgrim or Puritan ministers.
<br />
<br />
Mr Bolton gave a brief account of several settlements between 1623 and 1630 in connection with which unsuccessful attempts were made to establish the Episcopal Church in Massachusetts Bay.
<br />
<br />
The first attempt referred to by the speaker was by the colony of Capt Robert Gorges, near what is now Weymouth, in 1623. With that group were said to have come from England, among other Episcopalians, Rev William Blaxton, earliest inhabitant of the future Boston; Roger Conant, first owner of Governor's Island in Boston Harbor; Samuel Maverick, whose ownership of Noddle's Island, later East Boston, was coupled with the obligation to allow Bostonians to cut and remove from there all the firewood they wanted, and Rev William Morrell, on whose return to England in 1625, the infant English church expired.
<br />
<br />
The next attempt to launch episcopacy here was credited to Rev John Lyford, who landed at Plymouth, whence he was soon banished to a settlement on the west side of the present Gloucester Harbor. He was driven from there to Salem, where John Endicott and his fellow Puritans in 1628 put an end to all Episcopal ceremonies.
<br />
<br />
The last survivor of the earliest Episcopal group here, the speaker concluded, was Roger Conant, who died in Lynn in 1679, nine years before the organization in Boston of the first permanent Episcopal Church, that which later founded King's Chapel.</div>
<br />
<i>Daily Boston Globe</i>, Apr. 19, 1929, p. 8Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-44793487876885526942013-01-16T17:44:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:14:10.221-08:00Introduction to Empire<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0fnAzHIDUMH5muzttWWzzYClUcEsTA2tZjeVJeFFWMtEgncJYv03YwDwzdPJfA6qVJE2A7rFXO55o3FzpW04jmvFkUZEUKCQMCxc7zpSGZQNM6ahOP_m0FI_j_41r4IjNaGSWVqqtyX0a/s1600/map.jpg"target="_blank" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="251" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0fnAzHIDUMH5muzttWWzzYClUcEsTA2tZjeVJeFFWMtEgncJYv03YwDwzdPJfA6qVJE2A7rFXO55o3FzpW04jmvFkUZEUKCQMCxc7zpSGZQNM6ahOP_m0FI_j_41r4IjNaGSWVqqtyX0a/s400/map.jpg"style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" /></a></div>
<div align="left"><blockquote>The first known exchange of goods for the wine of Spain and the eastern Atlantic islands was undertaken not by the Puritans but by one of their predecessors in the New World, that stubbornly independent Anglican of Noddles Island in Massachusetts Bay, Samuel Maverick. In 1641, when the Puritan fishing merchants were first being contacted by the Londoners, he was engaged in a triangular trade by which he paid for purchases in Bristol by sending whale oil to Anthony Swymmer, his agent in that west-country port, and clapboards to one William Lewis in Málaga on the Mediterranean coast of Spain, who remitted to Swymmer credits for Maverick's account in the form of Spanish money and fruit.
<br><div align="right">'Legacy of the First Generation'</div></blockquote>
When it became evident that the New England leaders were suspect in Whitehall, a number of disaffected New Englanders who had long nursed grievances against the Puritan regime trooped to the council tables seeking revenge. Among them were merchants hoping to find in England levers of influence by which to arrange circumstances in New England to fit their desires. They were the first to take advantage of the fact that political affiliation with people in official London society, especially with those in circles close to the king, could be the key to commercial success in New England.
<br><br>Foremost was Samuel Maverick, the ancient settler of Boston, still smarting from the indignities conferred on him by the Puritans. Between 1660 and 1663, appearing before the Council for Foreign Plantations, conferring with the Lord Privy Seal, and writing to Clarendon frequently and at length, he managed to keep up a steady drumbeat of charges against the New England Puritans. The Massachusetts magistrates, he argued, fancied themselves independent of England, kept most of the population in subjection to their will by limiting the franchise to church members ("noe Church member noe freeman, Noe freeman no ovate"), deprived them of liberties due all Englishmen, and had no regard whatever for the interests of the home country. They were, surely, tyrants and traitors. Yet it would take little effort to set things right. At least "3 quarter parts of the inhabitants in the whole Country are loyal subjects to his Majeste in their harts," and, at the first sign of royal authority, would throw off the Puritan yoke and bring New England with its wealth in land and trade as well as its military power safely into the hands of the king. And in case the rulers were stubborn and refused to hand over the reins of government, "debarring them from trade a few months, will force them to it."
<br><br>Maverick's purpose was not merely to revenge himself on his enemies but to advance England's fortunes and with them his own by influencing policies then being worked out to reduce the power of the Dutch at sea and in the colonies. He urged the appointment of a royal commission to investigate the situation in the northern American colonies, to put an end to the evils being committed daily in New England, and to arrange for the conquest of New Amsterdam. Hoping to have a share "(as a servant) in that work," he mustered what support he could to have himself appointed a member of the commission.
<br><br>While responding to immediate pressures with <i>ad hoc</i> decisions, the Plantation Board and Privy Council also considered more permanent policies. As petitions, claims, and accusations continued to flow in, it became clear that an extensive investigation would have to be made, and the king in council instructed a royal commission to visit New England. Its purpose was to draw the colonies closely under English rule by insisting that the obligations and the liberties, secular and religious, of Englishmen be maintained. The commission was told not to sit in judgement on any matter within the jurisdiction of the colonies "except those proceedings be expressly contrary to the rules prescribed by the Charter, or ... arise from some expressions or clauses contained in some grant under our Great Seale of England." This was a wise consideration, especially as a guard against the excessive zeal of one of the four commissioners — Samuel Maverick, "Esquire."
<br><br>In its efforts to come to terms with the Massachusetts authorities the commissioners met with a type of obstinacy for which not even the warnings of Thomas Breedon could have prepared them. Excited rumors of Maverick's presence on the commission had brought Puritan hostility to a pitch. By the spring of 1665, when the commissioners presented their credentials to the General Court, they had become devil figures, incarnations of evil to the inflamed Puritans. The General Court declared their commission invalid on the ground that the authority it conveyed conflicted with that of the Massachusetts charter, and refused to authorize their activities within its jurisdiction.
<br><br>Though the commissioners had been instructed to maintain an impartial position among "the great factions and animosityes" in New England, they soon discovered that if they were to proceed at all it would be necessary for them to rally the support of some part of the population. Maverick took special delight in seeking out and organizing the dissident elements in Massachusetts. On the very afternoon of his arrival in America he wrote to Breedon in Boston, on whose sympathy he could surely rely, ordering him to reprimand the General Court for its action in an admiralty matter. He attempted to lay the groundwork for the success of the commission's efforts in Massachusetts by making a three-week tour of the port towns, renewing old friendships, managing, he later boasted, to "undeceive both Majestrates, Ministers and other considerable persons."</div>
<br>Bernard Bailyn, <i>The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century</i>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-3250251933507988712013-01-15T08:08:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:14:22.418-08:00The Restoration and the Royal Commission of 1664<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIIlDPQmHfOWRB_2ivSZAs5WHU7vwLovE9G7is9i24c37q9INe2leRL1meVL-j3IXWtt_B7iThaxk23weQrBPlGDougQCCh4Mer4qnmbikA85z86LkhzhWI4IIfgaOg2FTntG1CR6sz0r0/s1600/royal+commissioners.jpg" target="_blank"imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="229" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIIlDPQmHfOWRB_2ivSZAs5WHU7vwLovE9G7is9i24c37q9INe2leRL1meVL-j3IXWtt_B7iThaxk23weQrBPlGDougQCCh4Mer4qnmbikA85z86LkhzhWI4IIfgaOg2FTntG1CR6sz0r0/s400/royal+commissioners.jpg"style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" /></a></div>
<br />
<div align="left">B<span style="font-size: 85%;">Y</span> the year 1660 the results of earlier colonial enterprises had become so considerable as to appear in clear relief, while they were extended and reënforced in such fashion by the Restoration government itself as to give both unity and breadth to the movement. The return of the king gave again to the English executive its old form. National life had gained in vigor in consequence of the period of revolution, while its energies were no longer absorbed in domestic troubles. They found vent beyond the seas and proved their strength by the multiplication of colonies, the extension of trade, and the development of a more clearly defined colonial policy. Intense and successful rivalry with the Dutch was continued, resulting again in war. To this were added the beginnings of what before the end of the century was to prove a much larger and more prolonged struggle with France. This gave a world-wide significance to the navy, trade, and the colonies.<br />
<br />
On the American continent the event of first importance during the period of the Restoration was the occupation of New Netherland and the subjection of the Dutch in that province to English rule. By this means the middle region which had been left unoccupied when Jamestown and Sagadahoc were settled came into the possession of the English. The middle Atlantic coast was thus closed to alien colonists, and a region of great strategic and commercial importance was acquired. By its acquisition a fatal blow was at the same time struck at the interests of the Dutch in North American commerce. Within this territory four provinces were founded, two of which were destined to be almost imperial in extent and resources. They gave unity to the colonial area, made possible a continuous coast line under English control on the east and a corresponding frontier line on the west. They gave a territorial basis from which the advance of the French on the north and west could be successfully met. As the Earl of Clarendon and the Duke of York, with a group of men who surrounded them, were chiefly responsible for this event, so this same group will be found for a generation to be closely connected with every act which had as its object the strengthening of imperial control over the colonies. In many ways the trend in that direction was powerfully strengthened by the establishment of the province of New York.<br />
<br />
Next in importance to the acquisition of New Netherland was the settlement of the Carolinas. This gave a large and much-needed extension to the colonial area on the south. Not only did this extend the English coast line and frontier, but it partly filled in the gap between the continental and the island colonies; it helped to make the vast Newfoundland-Trinidad arc continuous. It therefore had an important influence on the relations between the English and Spanish in North America. The personal relations also between the founders of the Carolinas and Barbadoes are suggestive. As the result of the occupation of New Netherland by the English and the settlement of the Carolinas, the New England colonies, with Virginia and Maryland, cease to be mere isolated outposts and take their places in a group of dependencies. The rudiments of a system of colonies begin to appear, and that suggested to the merchants and officials at home a colonial policy which should embrace them all and apply to them common principles of administration.<br />
<br />
Next in importance to the acquisition of the colonies was the development of the policy by which their relations with one another, with other states, and with the parent state should be guided. Historically the processes of acquisition and government went on together and mutually conditioned one another. We may say that by 1675 the colonial territory had been definitely acquired; but at that date the principles upon which it was to be governed were just being developed. Not the least notable achievement of the period was the formulation which was then given to those principles and the effort that was made to enforce them on a large scale. The policy was set forth in part in the acts of trade, but it also concerned the problem of defence by sea and land, and touched more or less directly every question that lay within the sphere of government. Its object may be comprehensively stated to have been the maintenance of the maximum of advantage for both, but especially for the realm, might be secured. It differed from the policy of the early Stuarts in this respect, that greater emphasis was laid on questions of trade and defence, while in ecclesiastical relations the colonies were allowed a large degree of freedom. In this connection it is worthy of note that the reference to the dominions which was contained in the Elizabethan act of uniformity was omitted in the act of uniformity of Charles II. This affords conclusive proof that the Restoration government declined to revive, so far as the colonies were concerned, the ecclesiastical issues upon which Archbishop Laud and his associates had laid such emphasis. The internal religious development of the colonies during the period of the Restoration proves that the government consistently adhered to this principle of action.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most direct line of connection which it is possible to establish between the ideals and policy of the Commonwealth and those of the ministries of Charles II may be found in the papers of Thomas Povey, to which reference was made at the close of the previous chapter. Povey and Noell appear to have renewed their overtures after Restoration, and that in very much the same form which was given to them while Cromwell was still living. They urged the establishment of a council for foreign plantations, to be appointed by the privy council, which should give directions in ordinary cases and in extraordinary should report to the king. In 1660 Povey was appointed treasurer to the Duke of York, a post which he held until 1668. In 1661 he was made receiver general of rents and revenues of the plantations. He was also one of the masters of requests, and from 1662 to 1665 he was treasurer for Tangier and surveyor general of the victualling department. In both these posts he was succeeded by Samuel Pepys. Several of his kinsmen were also in office in Ireland and the plantations. He was on intimate relations with Temple and Crown, the claimants of Nova Scotia. These facts, together with others which will be mentioned later, suffice to prove that Povey was a typical office holder of the Restoration, and that he was brought into connection with a large group of men who, like himself, surrounded the statesmen of the time. His friend, Martin Noell, was knighted after the Restoration and died a wealthy merchant. The fortune of Noell appears to have been made in part in the slave trade, but he thought it not inconsistent with his calling to be also a charter member of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England.<br />
<br />
Tobias Bridges, another friend of Povey, was also knighted by Charles II, and during the Dutch War, in 1667, commanded two regiments of the king's troops who, from Barbadoes as a centre, served in an expedition against Saint Christophers and the French islands of the neighborhood. Major Edmund Andros was an officer in one of these regiments. Captain John Berry, whom we shall meet as a member of the royal commission of 1677 to Virginia, commanded a part of the vessels with which the land force coöperated in this expedition. Captain James Carteret, afterward notorious in New Jersey, served at the same time; while Captain John Scott, whose activity as an agitator and intriguer against the Dutch before the occupation of New Netherland was conspicuous, shared even more prominently in these doings in the West Indies. The fact that M. De la Barre, as governor of Martinique and viceroy of the Caribbean islands, held a leading position on the side of the enemy, establishes a line of connection between these events and later ones of equal importance in Canada. Closely connected with these men and with all others who were engaged in the plantation service, was Joseph Williamson, who was at first secretary to Lord Arlington and later (1674-1680) secretary of state. His note-books were filled with abundant information concerning all the colonies, their officials and systems of government. For twenty years, as clerk, expert, or responsible official, Williamson's influence is traceable in every event of importance which affected the northern colonies, none apparently grasped the situation more fully or urged his views more persistently than did Samuel Maverick, a man whom we have already met and whose activity at this time will receive further attention.<br />
<br />
If we add to the individuals who have just been mentioned, Nicolls, Werden, Randolph, Cranfield, Blathwayt, Southwell, Sawyer, and rise from them to courtiers and statesmen of higher rank,—Berkeley, Culpeper, Arlington, Carteret, Shaftesbury, Clarendon, and the Duke of York himself,—we shall enumerate in part the group of leaders from whom proceeded the colonial policy of the Restoration. The policy which they applied to the colonies was the same general character as that which they supported at home. For their prominence and influence in colonial affairs they are comparable with Raleigh, Gilbert, and their associates in the Elizabethan age and with Gorges, Smith, Sandys, and other colonizers of the early Stuart reigns.<br />
<br />
But whether or not the suggestions to which reference has been made were precisely the ones that were adopted, they fitted in perfectly with the tendencies of the times and resemble to a marked degree the plan which soon took form. They also agreed well with the committee system, which to a large extent was perpetuated after the restoration. The growth in the volume of business which occurred after 1660 promoted this tendency. By orders in council or by direct act of the king committees of council were created for a variety of purposes and were utilized as long as the need for them existed; then they disappeared and others took their places. Thus, by a free adaption of means to ends, of which the gradual development of the cabinet furnishes the classical example, the executive business of the English government was done. During the years immediately following the Restoration we hear of a committee for the plantations or for the foreign plantations; and this was perpetuated, though with changes from time to time in its personnel. A standing committee for trade and commerce was appointed. We also hear of a committee for Jamaica and Algiers, of one for Jamaica alone, of one for the Guinea trade, of one for the royal company of adventurers, of one for the Newfoundland fisheries. Occasionally the entire council sat as a committee of plantations.<br />
<br />
On July 4, 1660, a little more than a month after the return of the king, under an order in council a committee was appointed to deliberate on petitions which had been presented by various merchants who were trading to the plantations in America. This committee was to receive further petitions or proposals relating to the plantations and report to the privy council. Among the members of this body were the lord chamberlain (Earl of Manchester), the lord treasurer (Earl of Southampton), Lord Say and Sele, Denzill Hollis, Secretaries Nicholas and Morrice, and Anthony Ashley Cooper. References appear for this group during the next few months under the name of the committee for foreign plantations or for plantations in America.<br />
<br />
When it was desired to create a body somewhat more permanent than a committee, but one which should work in connection with the privy council and subordinate to it, a formal commission was issued, accompanied, if thought needful, by instructions; and by this means a standing council or board of commissioners was brought into existence. But after the committee system developed, it is not necessary to suppose that the council or boards of commissioners, when they were created, supplanted the committees. The evidence apparently warrants the conclusion that the two continued to exist together and were used, the council for the permanent and general work of administration, and the committees for specific purposes. After the Restoration, moreover, the domestic and foreign trade of England was, so far as possible, administered separately from the trade and other affairs of the plantations. The plantations were treated as a group or unit by themselves. Still, all English interests, however distinct in location or in character, were superintended by the leading ministers and privy councillors, aided by such experts as they called to their assistance. Therefore all interests and policies came to a common clearing-house in the end, and there was a similarity of procedure among all the bodies concerned.<br />
<br />
When, therefore, on November 7, 1660, just two months after the passage of the navigation act, a patent was issued for the establishment of a council for trade, and on the first of the following December another patent establishing a council for foreign plantations, it did not imply that these bodies superseded all existing committees within their field. Their existence did not have this result, for evidence is abundant to the effect that many committees were later formed within the privy council to act or report on a great variety of matters connected with trade and colonization. The patents of November 7 and December 1 created standing councils, consisting largely of ministers and privy councilors, but also containing merchants and other experts, whose duty it was during a considerable period of time to consider and promote English interests at large within the entire field of trade and colonization. Committees in the meantime dealt with a variety of special and temporary interests.<br />
<br />
The membership of the council for trade and of the council for foreign plantations was much the same. Lord Chancellor Hyde was at the head of both, and associated with him were the principal officers of state, especially the lord treasurer and Sir Edward Nicholas, secretary of state. Among the merchants whose names appear in both lists were Thomas Povey and Martin Noell, while the name of John Lymbery also appears on the council for foreign plantations. The council of trade was empowered to consider how the navigation, trade, and manufactures of the kingdom might be improved and to report its views to the king. In the commission and instructions to the council for foreign plantations the emphasis was laid on colonial trade, and the policy of the crown in reference to the colonies was outlined. "We have judged it meet and necessary," the commission states, "that so many remote colonies and governments, so many ways considerable to our crown and dignity, should now no longer remain in a loose and scattered condition, but should be collected and brought under such a uniform inspection and conduct that we may the better apply our royal councells to their future regulation, securitie and improvement." In view of the growing trade and population of the colonies, it was also declared that, "in all treaties and leagues with foreign princes and allies, the security and prosperity of trade and commerce shall be tenderly considered and provided for." It was thus clearly announced that the extension of trade and colonization was thenceforth to be a leading object of English foreign policy.<br />
<br />
The new council was instructed to secure and keep copies of all grants from the crown; to obtain from the governors all possible information concerning the way in which the colonies were governed, their laws, and the state of their defences. As often as necessary, the council was required to inform the king of the complaints of the colonists, of the nature and amount of the commodities which they produced, with full details respecting their commerce. It was to seek information from merchants, planters, seamen, and any others who could give it. It was also instructed to study the colonial systems of other states and to adopt such of their methods as seemed wise or ward off dangers which seemed to come from them. The idea was repeatedly enforced that the administration of the colonies must be made more certain and uniform, and that they should be treated as a whole rather than singly. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England was at this time rechartered, and the council was instructed to care for the maintenance of orthodox ministers in the colonies and for the extension of Christianity among the natives. The instructions closed with a clause of general import, requiring the council to dispose of all matters relating to the good government and improvement of the colonies, using its utmost skill and prudence. In cases where its members should judge that further powers were necessary, they should apply to the king or the privy council.<br />
<br />
Before the council for foreign plantations was formed the affairs of the West Indies had been prominently before the government. So had the conflicting claims of Elliot, Temple, and Crown to Nova Scotia, while the former doings of the Kirkes in Canada and other northern regions were an object of inquiry. In Virginia Governor Samuel Mathews had died, in January, 1660. The assembly, being already aware that the kingship was likely to be restored, had turned at once to Berkeley, who was still a resident of the province. He was restored to the governorship in March, though as the servant of the "grand assembly," the supremacy of which within the province was for the time being fully acknowledged. To the acts of the session which was held when Berkeley was elected, the assembly declared itself supreme and required that all writs should issue in its name. But at the close of July the restored king issued a commission to Berkeley as royal governor. In the autumn of 1660, when the fact of the Restoration was known and had been duly announced, the assembly met in the king's name and the forms of royal government were fully restored within Virginia.<br />
<br />
If one is to judge from the records which it has left, the activity of the council for foreign plantations was quite marked for about a year after its creation; then it diminished and wholly ceased with the year 1668. The chief activity of the board preceded the Dutch war of 1665 to 1667, and seems to have been lessened by that event. Thomas Povey was especially prominent in all its early transactions. The business of the council began with an inquiry into the affairs of Jamaica and of New England. This revealed the fact that it was not so easy to secure information about New England as it was about the island colonies, and delay ensued. The affairs of Barbadoes also came prominently before it. It inquired into the conflicting claims respecting Nova Scotia. The necessity of limiting the tobacco culture and of diversifying the industry of Virginia came under consideration. It deliberated on the method of supplying servants to the plantations, and on the status of Jews in the colonies. Through the petitions of various parties who had grievances against Massachusetts it presently obtained some insight into New England affairs, and those continued for some time to occupy its attention. But in one report it expressed itself as convinced that Jamaica was capable of being made "the most eminent plantation of all his Majesty's distant dominions." In order to facilitate its efforts the council, which was nearly as large as the privy council, created several subordinate committees. References appear to committees on New England, on Maine, on Nova Scotia, on the Quakers, and on Barbadoes. Its procedure was evidently an imitation of that of the privy council, a fact which may be assumed to have been true of all the commissions of the period.<br />
<br />
One of the first duties of the new plantation board was to draft a letter which, with certain variations, could be sent to Barbadoes, Virginia, and New England. In this letter, which was despatched to Virginia in the spring of 1661, the fact of the appointment of the plantation council was announced, and the governors were directed to send to it an account of their system of government, of their militia and other means of defence, of their revenue and expenditures. A statement of the population of their colonies, arranged according to social classes, was also required, with an account of the products raised and full statistics as to trade. They were particularly warned to enforce the act of trade, to suppress immorality, and to maintain worship according to the forms of the Church of England. Virginia was told to send over a list of its parishes and to encourage the settlement of Anglican pastors. With the letters went the king's declaration from Breda and the act of indemnity which had recently been passed by parliament.<br />
<br />
In the case of Virginia, however, the information thus called for was probably given by the governor in person, for, owing to rumors that an effort would be made to revive the old company, the assembly, at its session of March, 1661, resolved to send Berkeley to England as agent, and voted to raise 200,000 pounds of tobacco to meet his expenses. Berkeley was absent on this errand till the fall of 1662, Francis Moryson serving in the interval as deputy governor. Of the details of his doings as agent we have no knowledge, but nothing more was heard of the proposal for the reëstablishment of the company. It is certain that Berkeley, during his residence in England, was thrown into connection with the group of merchants, officials, and courtiers who, from various motives, were interested in schemes of colonization. His brother, Lord John Berkeley, was a member of both the council for trade and the council for foreign plantations. In 1663, besides becoming a charter member of the Royal African company, Lord John was one of the eight to receive the patent of Carolina, while two years later, jointly with Sir George Carteret, he received from the Duke of York the grant of New Jersey. For a time he was also lord lieutenant of Ireland. At an earlier date, during the period of the Stuart exile, he had also been interested in a plan for the establishment of a proprietorship in Virginia. He was a typical courtier of the early period of Charles II, loose in morals, an autocrat in his notions of government, and a high churchman in religion. In the last two qualities the governor of Virginia fully shared, while for a period he too was an active member of the board of proprietors of Carolina.<br />
<br />
Berkeley returned to his province fully sharing in its spirit of loyalty and of Anglican orthodoxy, and entered upon a second administration which was to continue for more than fifteen years. The first half and more of this term was, with a few exceptions, a period of quiet prosperity and growth in Virginia. Through the avenues of trade and personal intercourse, as well as by the ordinary process of administration, intimate connection with England was maintained. The devotion of Virginia to the restored monarchy was shown by an act passed in 1661 which provided that the anniversary of the execution of Charles I should be perpetually kept as a fast, and the anniversary of the restoration a day of thanksgiving. Probably in no other colony would such legislation as this have been possible. But the cavalier, Berkeley, was eminently fitted to be the leader of a society which was animated by this spirit, and for more than a decade he enjoyed in Virginia a degree of respect amounting almost to reverence. In Maryland, likewise, the proprietary régime was fully reëstablished, and for a considerable time it continued undisturbed by internal strife or by conflict with any outside power.<br />
<br />
So far, therefore, as the continental colonies were concerned, the questions which demanded immediate attention were the settlement of disputes within New England, the determining of the relations between that group of colonies and the home government, and the reoccupation of New Netherland. The Clarendon ministry regarded these questions as interdependent and treated them collectively, as distinct but not unconnected aspects of the same colonial policy. The reoccupation of New Netherland was an incident of the struggle with the Dutch for commercial supremacy, while at the same time it involved a resumption of active administration in the southern part of the old territory of Northern Virginia, or more exactly in the middle region which under the grant of 1606 had been left free to the two companies for joint settlement. The view systematically advocated by the English government implied that, owing to the failure of the Plymouth patentees, and later of the New England council, to successfully prosecute their plans of colonization, that region had been left open, and Dutch adventurers had forced their way in and taken possession. They had secured the best part of the beaver trade and had become carriers of much of the tobacco and other products of the English colonies, as well as of their European imports, on the ocean. Their subjection or removal was therefore regarded as an incident both of the territorial and trade policy of England. Partisans even went so far as to affirm that the Dutch government had never acknowledged the work of these squatters or made itself responsible for the defence of the territory which they had occupied. Therefore should England resume possession of its own, it would not be a <i>casus belli</i>. This view, of course, was extreme and inconclusive, for it ignored a whole series of facts which have been elsewhere set forth. But it suited well the imperialistic ambitions of George Downing, of the New England colonists, and of the English merchants and officials. After the Restoration events both in England and America tended steadily toward this consummation, until, in March, 1664, the decisive step was taken by the issue of the charter to the Duke of York. By that patent the province of New Netherland, though still in the possession of the Dutch, was bestowed on the heir of the English throne. This insured not only that New York would be a special object of interest to the king and the English government itself, but that on the accession of James it would become a royal province. The grant, as originally made, was vast in extent, and had the duke at the time been as fully conscious of his opportunities in America as was Nicolls, his governor, it would not have been diminished by sub-grants. But even as it was, it set up an obstacle to the westward expansion of New England, while Long Island and the two dependencies which were joined with it—Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket and the district between Pemaquid and Nova Scotia—were suggestive of the old grant of Northern Virginia, or of that of 1620 to the New England council. It is possible, even in the Duke of York's patent of 1664, to see the faint sketch of a vast royal province which should envelop the New England colonies and by its growth realize the dreams which Sir Ferdinando Gorges had cherished throughout his life. The project originated among those who were the political heirs of Gorges and his supporters under the early Stuarts, and it was the first stroke after the Restoration which had as its object the revival of the ideals and policy which had led to the resignation of the charter of the New England council. It appears in history as a most important landmark in the development of that type of colonization of which Gorges was one of the earliest exponents.<br />
<br />
When viewed in this light, it becomes evident that the establishment of the English province of New York was an event of profound significance, not only in itself, but in its relations to New England. English statesmen of the period, and those among their advisers who were most alive to American issues, were aware of this, and events as they progressed brought out the fact in ever clearer relief.<br />
<br />
If we view colonial affairs chiefly in their political and ecclesiastical relations, and look at them from the standpoint of the Anglicans who controlled English policy during the years which immediately followed the Restoration, our judgment must be that New England, and especially Massachusetts, needed regulating. Even one who cared little for religious conformity or for Anglican predominance, but who was ready to insist upon the necessity of a genuine recognition by the colonists of English sovereignty, would also be ready to join in the demand that some steps be taken to bring Massachusetts into greater harmony with tendencies that were operative in the colonies generally. A due regard also to private rights would lead to a similar conclusion. Finally, there was even less probability of obedience to the acts of trade in New England than elsewhere. The attempt of Gorges and his friends, in the reign of Charles I, to force New England into the mould of the royal province had failed. During the period of the Commonwealth and Protectorate that section had been left almost to itself. With the restoration of the kingship, therefore, it was inevitable that some steps should be taken to establish relations between the English government and the New England colonies which would better facilitate the exercise of imperial control.<br />
<br />
Early in 1661 petitions in considerable number from those who had grievances against Massachusetts were presented before the English government. They came chiefly from Edward Godfrey, Captain Thomas Breedon, Samuel Maverick, Archibald Henderson, John Gifford and associates who had been concerned in iron works, young Ferdinando Gorges, Robert Mason, and last of all from the Quakers. The burden of Godfrey's complaint, and of that of Gorges, was the encroachment of Massachusetts on Maine. Godfrey in particular stated how for years he had vainly labored both in the colonies and in England to secure justice, but had failed. His defence of the rights of Gorges, which he claimed were coincident with the rights of the king and the true liberties of Englishmen, had occasioned the loss of much of his property. He now demanded justice. He charged that Massachusetts was aiming at independence, while as an inducement for interference in the interest of the crown he called attention to the fact that for purposes of trade the mouth of the Piscataqua was more valuable than all New England beside. Gorges dwelt upon the services of his grandfather in the cause of English colonization, on the patent which he had obtained from Charles I, and on the act of usurpation by which, when weakened through civil war at home, he and his heirs had been robbed of that grant. Robert Mason made similar representations concerning New Hampshire.<br />
<br />
Captain Breedon submitted the book of laws of Massachusetts, called attention to the religious test, to the failure of the magistrates to take or administer the oath of allegiance. He found that many were opposed to acknowledging the king or owning any dependence on England. Yet, according to his exaggerated claim, two thirds of the soldiers were non-freemen and would be glad to have officers who bore the king's commission. Breedon dwelt with special emphasis on the fact that the regicides, Whalley and Goffe, had been sheltered in New England. Of this he was one of the first to give information in England.<br />
<br />
In 1653, or thereabouts, John Gifford, agent of William Beck and other English undertakers in the iron works at Lynn, had been sued in the county court by his principals for the sum of £13,000, the loss of which they claimed to have sustained because of errors and fraud in Gifford's accounting. In 1654 the case came on appeal before the general court, and several hearings were held. The case had gone against Gifford, and he had been held for brief periods as a prisoner and put under heavy bail. Maverick and others had furnished bail for him. Beck and his English associates now petitioned the home government for redress, alleging that for supposed debts their estates in Massachusetts had been seized, their agent had been imprisoned, and they had not yet been able to find a remedy.<br />
<br />
The petitioners to whom reference has been made, with all their associates, joined in the request that a general governor should be sent to New England. The petitions from Quakers were signed by Nicholas Upshall, Samuel Shattuck, and others, and after describing the laws which had been passed against them and the sufferings which they and many members of their sect had endured, urged that their grievances be heard and redressed. In the political projects to which the other petitions were committed, the Quakers of course took no interest.<br />
<br />
The only petition which was presented against any colony except Massachusetts, was that of Giles Sylvester, of Shelter island. He complained that the government of New Haven, because he refused to acknowledge its right of jurisdiction, had confiscated some three thousand acres of land which he had bought from the Indians.<br />
<br />
Samuel Maverick was in England at the time of the Restoration and remained there during the four years that immediately followed it. His long residence in New England and large acquaintance with its affairs, combined as they were with a sober judgment, made valuable both the information he was able to give and the advice which accompanied it. A correspondence was early begun between him and the Earl of Clarendon, which was continued till about a year before the fall of that minister, and of the important practical effect which followed this exchange of views there can be no doubt. During or about 1660 Maverick also prepared in manuscript an <i>Account of New England</i> which we may suppose was intended for the use of officials and that it also had an influence. In his letters Maverick refers to the leading episodes in the early dealings between the home government and Massachusetts, and in such way as to show that his ideas were to an extent reflected in the missives which were sent from the king to that colony. During the period of the Restoration nothing comparable with this relationship arose except in the case of Edward Randolph; while in personal qualities and balance of judgment the comparison shows results decidedly favorable to Maverick.<br />
<br />
The ideas and course of policy which were urged by Maverick upon Clarendon were an elaboration of those set forth in the "Child Memorial" of 1646, with the addition that, in connection with the needed regulation of New England affairs, the power of the Dutch on the Hudson and Delaware should be overthrown and that the two enterprises should be undertaken together. In sketches of the past doings of Massachusetts which he repeatedly submitted to the minister he referred to all the instances of its harshness and intolerance from the beginning, not omitting any important events which indicated a dislike of the kingship in England or a disposition to oppose it. As in 1646, so now, he insisted on the necessity of changing the conditions of citizenship so as to admit all freeholders to active political rights, and thus broadening the religious system so as to secure equal privileges to Protestants generally. In reference to the question of admission to baptism he defended the principle of the half-way covenant, which Massachusetts, by the way, was just adopting. The necessity of enforcing the right of appeal he never forgot, while he called attention to the inconsistency between the oath of fidelity and the obligations of allegiance. Going further, he urged a general reform of the laws of Massachusetts, the rectifying of her boundaries, and the assumption of immediate control over her militia by the king. As the means by which to carry all those measures into execution, he urged the appointment of a royal governor or the sending of a commission, and that the royal governor or the sending of a commission, and that the royal appointees should be accompanies by a small armed force for the reduction of New Netherland. He did no look for resistance of consequence in either colony, for in the one the hold of the Dutch was too weak to make it possible, and in the other the numerical superiority of the non-freemen was so great that the supporters of the magistrates and elders would be forced to yield. As a result of the regulation of New England affairs, a way, he believed, would be opened through which the crown could secure a revenue from those colonies in the form of quit rents, while its influence would be enhanced in every way. The policy which the home government was now to follow could hardly have been pointed out more aptly, while the share which Maverick was to bear in its execution not only rounded out his career, but curiously illustrates the persistence of many of the earliest tendencies in New England history. <br />
<br />
A comparison of these petitions and memorials makes it clear that, however much the complainants might exaggerate their hardships and slur over or conceal the motives which gave apparent justification to the conduct of Massachusetts there was need of inquiry and possibly of interference by a sovereign power. The presumption was raised that private rights had been violated. The charge was made that certain public duties were being neglected. But for the satisfactory treatment of these delicate questions both intelligence and a sense of fairness were necessary. And it must be admitted that it was doubtful whether English officials of the type which controlled affairs after the Restoration would possess both these qualities to the requisite degree.<br />
<br />
When the king returned and monarchy was again set up in England, John Leverett was still resident there as agent for Massachusetts. Endicott was governor at Boston. In September, 1660, Leverett wrote to Endicott stating that complaints against Massachusetts had been submitted to the king by Godfrey and others, and there was talk about sending over a royal governor. In the absence of express orders, Leverett did not feel authorized to appear at court sent its first addresses to the king and parliament and resolved to associate Richard Saltonstall and Henry Ashurst with Leverett in the agency. The address to the king, which was prepared with the assistance of the clergy, was notable as the first of a series of such papers which emanated at this period from the general court. Its biblical phrases and its exaltation of the royal dignity, its almost fawning humility, might well have befitted a petition from the chosen people, when in exile, to their Persian monarch. But behind the expressions of humility appeared the proud consciousness that the Puritan was able to justify, not only his removal from England, but his course of policy since that event.<br />
<br />
The limits beyond which the colony would not voluntarily go in its submission to the king, were stated in the instructions which were now sent to the agents, and to this position it adhered throughout the twenty years of controversy which were to follow. It insisted that the Massachusetts system of government, both in church and commonwealth, was consistent with charter. If that system were changed, as it necessarily must be if any other power was imposed upon them, the object which had been sought by the removal into New England would be defeated. To this they would never consent. Furthermore, they insisted that appeals to English tribunals, whether in civil or criminal cases, should never be permitted. The reason assigned for this were that the expense attending such process would be intolerable, and the practice would bring authority within the colony into contempt. Behind this assertion lay doubtless the feeling that a concession on this point would also imperil the church-state system. That system was the citadel ever approach to which should be strongly guarded.<br />
<br />
After asserting their readiness to defend the colony against the specific charges which had been made, and expressing the desire that the ordinance of 1642 exempting the colony from English customs duties might be renewed, the court closed with an injunction concerning the practical management of its case by the agents. "It is our meaning," they say, "that if in publick you or either of you be called to answer to these or to any other particulars, that you give them to understand that we would not impower any agent to act for or answer in our behalfe, because wee could not foresee the particulars wherewith wee should be charged, but these are only private intimations to yourselves, which wee desire you to make use of for our indemnitie as you best may in a more private way and personall capacitie." This instruction to agents was repeated on many another occasion during the later controversy, and its effect always was to block proceedings and cause indefinite delay. It indicated that Massachusetts was again pursuing the tactics of passive resistance, and that it chose to define the relations which existed between itself and the home government as essentially diplomatic. Nothing was more irritating to the officers of the crown than the discovery of this fact. It clearly revealed the truth of Clarendon's statement, that the New England colonies were hardening into republics.<br />
<br />
There were, however, one or two minor matters in which an immediate show of submission might serve a good purpose, and of these the magistrates at once availed themselves. One was the suppression of the Rev. John Eliot's book, the <i>Christian Commonwealth</i>, which was supposed to contain the Fifth Monarchy heresy, for which the fanatic Venner had lately suffered in London. A similar opportunity was offered by the presence of the regicides, Whalley and Goffe, in New England. The statements of Breedon and Crown concerning the favorable reception which was given these officers in Boston and vicinity was correct. The knowledge of this made the officials of Massachusetts anxious to relieve themselves and the colony of this new cause of suspicion. Therefore, when a royal warrant for the arrest of the regicides arrived, Endicott commissioned Kirke and Kellond—one a merchant and the other a shipmaster, and both recently arrived from England—to search for them. Whalley and Goffe had already withdrawn into the jurisdiction of New Haven. There they received protection, and Governor Leete was able so to delay the proceedings of Kirke and Kellond, that the regicides made good their escape into the wilderness. When the danger was past, Secretary Rawson wrote to Governor Leete warning him of the peril of disobeying the king's warrant for the arrest of the regicides.<br />
<br />
Early in February, 1661, as soon as the first address from Massachusetts had been received, the king sent a gracious letter assuring the people of his high regard for the colony, and of his determination that it should share equally with the rest of his dominions in his moderate ecclesiastical policy, and in the measures for the encouragement of trade which he intended to undertake. When this letter was received in Massachusetts, a day was specially set apart for thanksgiving. But at the same time a committee of four magistrates, four deputies, and four elders was appointed to meet during the recess of the court and consider "such matter or thing of public concernment touching our patent, laws, privileges and duty to his Majesty, as they in their wisdom shall judge most expedient," and report at the next session. This action showed that the Massachusetts leaders considered themselves at the beginning rather than at the end of a struggle. This committee was asked by the court to define the liberties of Massachusetts and also the duties which were imposed upon its people by their obligation of allegiance to the king.<br />
<br />
Only a brief period elapsed before the general court met again in special session. The committee then submitted its replies to the questions which it had been asked to consider. In accordance with many precedents they appealed to the royal charter and claimed for the colony the right to the institutions of government for which it provided. Massachusetts, they said, was a body politic, and was vested with power to make freemen. After describing in outline the institutions for which the charter provided, though without stating that they had come into existence in Massachusetts in their present form as the result largely of removal and not of royal grant, the committee declared that any imposition which was prejudicial to the colony and inconsistent with any just law of the colony that was not repugnant to that of England, was an infringement of its rights. Coming to the subject of allegiance, they interpreted it somewhat more carefully than was done in 1646. Not only did they consider the colonists bound to defend the territory which had been granted them from foreign attack, but to endeavor as they were able the preservation of the king's person, his realm and other dominions, and to reveal and thwart all conspiracies against them. It also included, they said, the obligation to seek the peace of king and nation by punishing crimes and propagating the gospel within the colony, "our dread sovereign being styled 'defender of the faith.'" Those who were flying from justice in England might not find shelter in Massachusetts, while the colony would plead with the king against all who should attempt the violation of its privileges. With this carefully guarded explanation of the rights and obligations of the colonists, the accession of the king was proclaimed in August. The law of Massachusetts permitting free access to her harbors of ships which came for trade from other countries was repealed. And order was issued instead that such bonds should be taken from all shipmasters and returns made as were required by the navigation act of 1660, but as no custom house was established the order was without practical result.<br />
<br />
It was during the month which immediately followed the despatch of the kings' missive, that the petitions to which reference has been made were presented to the English government. They made a strong impression on the council for foreign plantations, though its members realized that only one side had yet been heard. An attempt, however, had been made to get some information from Leverett, but he had said that his agency was at an end. Neither he nor those who had been appointed with him appear to have acted. Leverett, indeed, returned to Boston in the summer of 1662. He was reported in England to have declared that, before they would admit of appeals the colonists would deliver New England up to the Spaniard. His usefulness as an agent could scarcely have survived such a statement as that. This the council interpreted as meaning that Massachusetts had purposely withdrawn from communication. They therefore presented a report to the privy council which was decidedly unfavorable to Massachusetts and prepared a sharply worded letter to be sent to the colony. They also suggested that Captain Breedon would be a good agent to intrust with its delivery. But Breedon was soon discredited by a revelation of the fact that under false pretences he had just obtained a commission as governor of Nova Scotia. The privy council, however, without regard to the suggestion about Breedon, took the business into its own hands, as one which demanded further investigation and more patient handling. For a considerable time no further action was taken. Then, in September, the royal order, to which reference has been made in a previous volume, was issued, that the Quakers who were in prison under sentence of death or other corporal punishment should be sent to England for trial. This message was delivered by the Quaker, Samuel Shattuck; but, though the execution of the laws was for a time suspended, no Quakers were sent to England for the purpose mentioned. Such a course would have implied the existence of a right of appeal, which Massachusetts was resolved never to recognize.<br />
<br />
Late in 1661 the general court resolved, though contrary to the urgent protest of Endicott and Bellingham, the governor and deputy governor, to send agents to England. Simon Bradstreet and the Rev. John Norton were selected. Two committees were appointed, one to raise by subscription the necessary funds, and the other to prepare an address to the king, letters to friends of the colony in England, and additional instructions for the agents. Both met with difficulties. The funds were raised, though after considerable effort. The other committee found both the agents averse to going. Besides the perils of a winter voyage, and the delicate health of Norton, the task was considered a difficult, if not a hopeless, one. As both had been prominent actors in recent events—Norton the leading clerical antagonist of the Quakers—they not unreasonably feared detention, or even imprisonment, in England. Whatever occurred, the agents could scarcely avoid incurring odium in Massachusetts. The discussions by which they sought, so far as possible, to secure themselves against loss or disaster continued for nearly two months. When finally Bradstreet and Norton sailed, they took with them instructions to answer all arguments made in England against the colony, to refute all scandals, to represent its people as loyal subjects, and to ascertain, as far as possible, the king's intentions respecting them. But, added the general court, "you shall not engage us by any act of yours to anything which may be prejudicial to our present standing according to patent." Captain Thomas Hull, the mint master, accompanied the agents to answer complaints which had been made respecting the coining of money in Massachusetts. But as soon as the agents had gone, the court ordered the first bullion that came to hand to be coined into twopenny pieces of silver.<br />
<br />
The mission did not prove so disastrous as was feared. The agents were politely received, and, though confronted by some of the leading Quakers, their cause suffered no important injury. They were able to return after an absence of little more than six months, bringing with them a letter from the king. The opening sentences of this missive contained a gracious pardon for all possible deviations from the patent in the past, as due rather "to the iniquity of the times than the evil intentions" of those who bore authority in the colony. The king also expressed his confirmation of the patent and of all the privileges which existed under it. But when he came to speak of the future, the royal utterances were not so welcome to the colonial authorities. The king commanded that the oath of allegiance should be taken and observed, and that justice should be administered in his name. As the principal object of the colonists in securing their charter was to obtain freedom of worship, they were directed to guaranty the same to any Anglicans who might reside within the colony. No one should be excluded from office because of the opinions he held, and all freeholders of competent estates, who were orthodox in religion and not vicious in conversation, should be entitled to vote in the election of all officers, civil and military. If the number of assistants required by the charter was found too great, it might be reduced to ten. As it had been necessary to make a sharp law against Quakers in England, no objection would be made if the like were done in Massachusetts. The requirement that all laws and ordinances, made during the late troubles, which were derogatory to the king's government should be repealed would also cause little difficulty, for none which came expressly under that designation had been found.<br />
<br />
Notwithstanding the mild tone which characterized much of the royal missive, it was evident that the crown insisted upon some changes which would ultimately curb the independence of Massachusetts and make a breach in her system of uniformity. The struggle was in reality just beginning, and as it proceeded the royal letter of 1662 was frequently referred to as an authoritative statement of the purposes of the English government relative to Massachusetts. For this reason the work of the agents appeared to the strict Puritans of the colony to be a failure. Those who at the outset had opposed the mission considered their views to have been justified. The agents, it is true, were not well qualified for their task; but, whoever they may have been, they would have found themselves almost powerless at the English court. No one could have accomplished what the Puritan oligarchy really desired.<br />
<br />
The general court at its next session, in obedience to the express command of the king, ordered the publication of the royal letter. It also ordered that all processes should issue in the name of the king. Somewhat later it was enacted that the returns of shipmasters entering the colony should be taken before they were allowed to depart, as required by the navigation act. After a special order from the privy council officers were appointed to see that the navigation act was enforced and the necessary bonds taken. The court also felt justified in reviving the laws against Quakers.<br />
<br />
The case set forth in the petitions of the Mason and Gorges heirs made absolutely necessary an inquiry into the doings of Massachusetts in northern New England. In the petitions, especially of Robert Tufton Mason, not only was the encroachment of Massachusetts on their territory described, but new currency was given to the notion which Sir Ferdinando Gorges held, that the Massachusetts charter had been procured through fraud and was therefore void from the beginning. Some false statements were made concerning the means which were used by Massachusetts in order to get possession of the territory. A committee of reference, of which Mason himself was a member, presented the king an <i>ex parte</i> report in which they, of course, fully supported the territorial claims of Mason and Godfrey. The attorney general, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, also reported in favor of Mason's claims.<br />
<br />
While the cause of the proprietors was being thus urged in England, in May, 1661, Ferdinando Gorges appointed his relative, Francis Champernowne, with Henry Josselyn,—who had defended the Gorges claims in times past,—Nicholas Shapleigh, Robert Jordan, and others, commissioners to proclaim the king and reëstablish proprietary government in Maine. A public meeting was held at Wells in December and resolutions in accordance with the commands of Gorges were adopted. A representative assembly, called a general court, was summoned to meet at the same place the following May. This roused Massachusetts to action. Her commissioners, Denison, Hathorne, and Waldron, were ordered to reduce Maine again to submission. When, in May, 1662, a general court which was called under Gorges' authority and attended by chosen "trustees" met at Wells, the Massachusetts commissioners interfered. They summoned the inhabitants before them. They wrote many times in an imperious tone to the commissioners and traders to cease from their disorderly acts and submit. The representatives of Gorges refused to submit. Then a conference was held and a compromise was reached. According to this a court was to be held at York the following July by Henry Josselyn and Major Shapleigh, representing Gorges, and Captain Waldron and Captain Pike, representing Massachusetts. Writs were to be issued in the king's name. Massachusetts, however, did not resign her jurisdiction, but continued her commissioners and issued her orders as usual for the holding of county courts. In June, 1663, her commissioners were ordered to arrest any one whom they found in Yorkshire acting under authority other than that of the king and Massachusetts. In Norfolk county, which included the New Hampshire settlements, no attempt was made at this time to oppose the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.<br />
<br />
The political and religious exclusiveness of Massachusetts and the encroachment of that colony upon the territory of the Mason and Gorges heirs furnished the chief reason for the interference of the king in New England affairs. But there were also other conditions and questions which needed attention. In internal organization and to a very large extent also in spirit and purposes, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven were one with Massachusetts. None of these colonies proclaimed the king until the middle or latter half of 1661. The Narragansett Settlements stood apart, and their many controversies with neighboring colonies inclined them to take shelter under English protection. They proclaimed the king's accession in October, 1660. It is true that the type of thought and feeling among the settlers of Providence and Rhode Island was Puritan. The tendency among them toward local independence was as strong as that shown elsewhere in New England. Their institutions were taking a form which was similar to that of the other New England colonies. But the controlling idea of the inhabitants was the desire for perfect religious liberty. This was a condition which both Charles II and James II would feel inclined to cherish. The Narragansett Plantations offered one of the avenues through which royal influence could gain a foothold in New England. That was clearly perceived, and furnished a strong reason, not only for the grant of the Rhode Island charter, but for royal interference in the boundary disputes by which the very existence of that colony was threatened. Still other boundary questions were raised by the grant of the New York charter, which seriously affected Connecticut, and by the issue of the Connecticut charter, which similarly affected New York.<br />
<br />
As all the colonies of southern New England had been founded by private initiative and that in part since the withdrawal of royal influence, it was reasonable that some inquiry should be made concerning the attitude which they held toward the crown. The entertainment of the regicides within New Haven and their final escape made such a course seem all the more necessary. The passage of the acts of trade and the adoption by the home government of a well-defined commercial policy made it necessary to inquire closely into the means which the colonies were taking for its enforcement.<br />
<br />
Since the crown had no officials of its own appointment resident in New England, nor any who were under the king's instructions or who were bound to report the condition of the colonies to him, the information could be obtained only through a royal agent or commission. A decade before commissioners had been sent by parliament to "reduce" disobedient colonies. The diplomatic attitude which Massachusetts had assumed now made another resort to a device of this kind especially necessary. Resort to a measure like this was an easy first step in the application of royal pressure which was intended to force the New England colonies, and especially Massachusetts, out of a position which was anomalous, and to bring them into line with colonial development in general. As early as September, 1662, the lord chancellor declared in the committee for plantations that the king would speedily send commissioners to regulate the affairs of the colonies. The Duke of York would consider the choice of fit men. The following April the king declared in an order in council that he intended to preserve the charter of Massachusetts, and would send commissioners thither to see how the charter was maintained and to reconcile differences which existed among them.<br />
<br />
The men who, in 1664, were selected for the delicate task were Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr, George Cartwright, and Samuel Maverick. Nicoll's qualifications were of a high order, and have been sufficiently indicated in another connection. The selection of Maverick as a member of the commission was a natural result of his services and of the friendly relations in which he stood toward Clarendon. His knowledge of the case was such as to make him expert; he was also a colonist as well as and Englishman. But his lifelong opposition to Massachusetts Puritanism had made him a partisan and to that extent unfitted him for the task to which he was now appointed. Carr was one of those adventurers, undistinguished by principle or ability, whom the home government was too ready to appoint to posts in the colonial service. Cartwright apparently possessed ability and honorable intentions, but he lacked qualifications in point of knowledge and tact. Taken as a whole, the appointments were as wise as under the circumstances could reasonably be expected.<br />
<br />
Two sets of instructions were given to the commissioners, one relating to Massachusetts and the other to the rest of the colonies. Both were elaborate and were drawn with ability. The former was the more minute, because in Massachusetts lay the most difficult part of the task. The commissioners were ordered, as soon as they arrived, to deliver to the governor of Massachusetts the letter which they brought from the king; also their commission and such instructions as it seemed wise to make known. Attention was repeatedly called to the fact that the chief object of the English government in sending the commissioners was, if possible, to induce Massachusetts to obey the commands of the king as expressed in his letter of June, 1662. The commission, however, seemed to imply something beyond this; for it was said that full authority was given the commissioners "to hear . . . 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 discretion and instructions. In the instructions, however, they were warned against hearing any cases except those which seemed to involve an evident violation of the charter. They were not to interrupt the ordinary course of justice. In reference to boundary disputes, they were to make only temporary adjustments, reserving final judgment to the king. They were specially cautioned also to conciliate the people and leaders, to assure them that the king had no intention of diminishing any right to which they were entitled under the charter. Religious freedom was in no way to be infringed, but it must be guarantied to Anglicans. Permanent residents of good and honest conversation must also be admitted to full political rights. In short, inquiry should be made to ascertain whether or not the requirements of the king's letter of June, 1662, had been complied with.<br />
<br />
Other objects of the commission were to learn if the regicides were still protected in the country; to secure, as was contemplated in 1654, the help of New England in the conquest of the Dutch; to ascertain as fully as possible the religious, political, and economic condition of the colonies, also the state of their defences, so that this information might be used as a guide to further steps of policy; to see if the acts of trade were enforced, though the colonists were to be made to understand that loyalty, rather than gain, was for the present desired. Massachusetts was to be induced, if possible, to submit to a renewal of her charter, so that in certain respects it might be improved. It was the desire of the king, revealed by the instructions, that he might have the appointment of the governor and the control of the militia. In the commission provision was made that, when business was transacted, Nicolls should always be present and have a casting vote in the case of a tie.<br />
<br />
The commissioners, accompanied by the armament which was to be used in the reduction of New Netherland, arrived at Piscataqua and Boston in July, 1664. When all the members had reached Boston, the king's letter—which was very conciliatory in tone—and the commission were delivered to the governor and council. That part only of the instructions which related to the attack on New Amsterdam was then made known. The magistrates promised to call a session of the general court early in August and submit to it the question of raising troops to aid in the contemplated expedition. The troops were raised, though their help was not needed. The court at this session also made that formal change in the religious test to which reference has been made in the discussion of the relations between church and commonwealth in Massachusetts. After completing these preliminaries the commissioners departed for the Hudson and the Delaware.<br />
<br />
The spirit of violent distrust with which the commission was regarded in Massachusetts is shown by the address which was sent to the king by the general court of October, 1664. After dwelling, as was always the case, on the services and privations of the fathers in founding the colony, and stating that the court had already done all to satisfy the king which could be done consistently with conscience and their liberties under the patent, they continued: "But what affliction of heart must it needs be unto us, that our sins have provoked God to permit our adversaries to set themselves against us by their . . . complaints and solicitations, . . . and thereby to procure a commission under the great seal, wherein four persons (one of them our knowne and professed enemy) are empowered to heare, receive, examine and determine all complaints and appeals . . . and to proceed in all things, for settling this country according to their good and sound discretions, &c. Whereby, instead of being governed by rulers of our own choosing (which is the fundamental privilege of our patent) and by lawes of our owne, wee are like to be subjected to the arbitrary power of strangers, proceeding not by any established law, but by their own discretions. And whereas our patent gives a sufficient royal warrant and discharge to all officers and persons for executing the lawes here made and published, . . . wee shall not now be discharged and at rest . . ., when we have so far executed and observed our lawes, but be liable to complaints and appeales, and to the determinations of new judges, whereby our government and administrations will be made void and of none effect. And tho wee have yet had but a little taste of the words or actings of these gentlemen, that are come over hither in this capacity of commissioners, yet we have had enough to confirme us in our feares, that their improvement of this power . . . will end in the subversion of our all." "If these things go on," they continue, at once anticipating the worst, "your subjects here will either be forced to seeke new dwellings, or sinke and faint under burdens that will be to them intollerable." Enterprises of all kinds will be discouraged, the inhabitants driven to extremities, and the plantation ruined. But the king in the end will be the greatest loser of all. "It is indeed a grief to our hearts, to see your majesty put to this extraordinary charge and cost about a business, the product whereof can never reimburse the one halfe of what will be expended upon it." Not only had erroneous representations been made about dissensions which were alleged to exist in the colony, but the amount of wealth which was to be had there had also been greatly exaggerated. "Imposed rulers and officers will have occasion to expend more than can be raised here," and far less will be obtained than would be accounted by one of these gentlemen as a considerable accommodation. It is little wonder that these protests and insinuations, gratuitous as they were at this stage of the business, should have drawn reproof even from the king and severe replies from the ministers. It stamped the errand of the commissioners in New England as almost hopeless from the beginning.<br />
<br />
Until late in the autumn the commissioners were occupied with the conquest and pacification of New Netherland. They then undertook the difficult task of fixing the boundary between Connecticut and New York. Questions of boundary had been left unsettled when the royal charter was granted to Connecticut in 1662. The document had been allowed at that time to pass the seals, because Winthrop promised submission "to any alteration" in the boundaries of the colony which might later be made by commissioners whome the king even then was intending to send "into those parts." The question of the limits of Connecticut on the south and west had been made more complicated by the issue of the charter to the Duke of York in 1664. Connecticut claimed Long Island because in her charter it was stated that her southern boundary should be the sea. But in the charter of the Duke of York it was expressly stated that Long Island should form a part of his province. By the charter of 1662 Connecticut had been given a westward extension to the South Sea. The Connecticut river, on the other hand, had been specified as the eastern boundary of the Duke of York's grant. Nearly all of the settlements in Connecticut, together with the whole of New Haven colony, lay west of the river. The historical connection of both New Haven and Connecticut with eastern Long Island had also been intimate. On the other hand, if Connecticut was allowed unlimited western extension, the development of New York would be forever crippled. Overlapping claims like these could be adjusted only by the crown or its representatives—the same power which by its carelessness or connivance had permitted them to originate.<br />
<br />
Governor Winthrop, with four agents appointed by the general court of Connecticut, and two invited representatives from the town of eastern Long Island met the commissioners at New York in November, 1664, for the settlement of the boundary question. That part of it which related to Long Island was soon adjusted, for it was impossible to dispute the positive declaration of the Duke of York's charter. But the question of the western boundary of Connecticut was full of difficulties. New Haven had not yet submitted to Connecticut. But in view of the location of that colony, it was impossible for the commissioners to insist upon the provision of the Duke of York's patent. Had they done so, the prospect of success in later negotiations in New England would have been destroyed. Nicolls at least was clear on this point, and an agreement was reached according to which the boundary was to run north-northwest from Mamaroneck creek to the Massachusetts line, approaching at no point nearer to Hudson's river than a distance of twenty miles. But Nicolls and his associates were deceived, for the starting point was only about ten miles from the Hudson, and if the line were extended north-northwest, it would cross the Hudson near Peekskill and reach the latitude of the southern boundary of Massachusetts near the northwest corner of Ulster county. Because of this error the agreement was never ratified by the Duke of York or by the king, and many years of controversy followed before a final settlement was reached. But at the same time this conference, taken in connection with the grant of New York to the duke, had an important bearing on the history of the sea-to-sea patents, so far as such existed in New England. The commissioners, in their report to the king, declared that a line drawn twenty miles east of Hudson river was the western limit of both Connecticut and Massachusetts.<br />
<br />
In January, 1665, after the consideration of the Connecticut boundary was ended, Cartwright and Maverick repaired to Boston. Later they were joined by Carr, though he lingered on the Delaware until the patience of his colleagues was nearly exhausted. Nicolls was unable to visit New England until the beginning of May, when he shared in the important negotiations of that month with the magistrates and general court of Massachusetts. During the interval the three commissioners were forced to live among a population the majority of which viewed them with suspicion or open hostility. "This day," writes Cartwright, "a Quaker (my country woman) told me before Capt. Breedon, she had heard severall say yt I was a papist and yt Sr Rb. Carr kept a naughty woman, and examined her if I had not kept one too, or if she knew me not to be a papist. Mr. Maverick they declare to be their profest enemy. Many factions speeches fly up and down. This day (they say) here is a secret council and that all the ministers within 20 miles are called to it. . . . I am sure you know in what condition I am in; though you seem to deny me your assistance, yet let me have your pity, and I will doe my utmost." With a sure instinct for the probability that in some way money would be levied upon the colony, if the royal policy was executed with thoroughness, the rumor was circulated among the people that a quit rent of a shilling an acre was to be collected on the land and about £5000 annually taken besides. It was also reported that the discipline of the churches would be infringed and the processes of government interfered with by the hearing of appeals. Complaints were uttered of the expense which the entertainment of the commissioners was imposing on the colony, while the commissioners themselves were trying to eke out their stipend from the king so as to make it last during their prolonged stay. Cartwright wrote that he had not gone to dinner with a townsman since he came to Boston, "suspecting them to be as I fear they are," but he treated all who visited him as civilly as he could. Maverick declared that Cartwright had been "too retired." He himself had spent three weeks visiting friends in the chief Massachusetts towns and he believed he had removed the prejudices of many. He hoped he had not been "over sociable."<br />
<br />
Finding the spirit of opposition in Massachusetts so strong, the commissioners thought it best to begin with the adjustment of affairs in Plymouth, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, so as to return to Boston, if possible, with the prestige of success. In February they went to Plymouth. Thence, early in March, they passed through Rhode Island to Connecticut, returning by the Narragansett country and reaching Boston again about the middle of April. To the magistrates of each of these colonies substantially the same propositions were submitted which were contained in the king's letter of 1662. They were, that all householders should take the oath of allegiance and that justice should be administered in the king's name; that all who were of "competent estates and civil conversation" should be admitted to the rights of freemen; that all persons of orthodox faith and upright lives should be allowed freedom of worship and of organizing congregations of their own; and that all laws derogatory to the king, which might have been passed during the "late troublesome times," should be repealed. Rhode Island was also asked to provide suitably for its own defence.<br />
<br />
As those requirements in nearly all respects conformed with the practice of the colonies of southern New England, they were accepted without opposition. At the suggestion of Plymouth the demand that the privilege of forming new congregations should be granted was confined to those who had secured a minister of their own. In Rhode Island an "engagement" was accepted in lieu of the oath. To the additional suggestion that Plymouth should seek to obtain a new charter, that colony demurred. Closer connection with the home government, even through an agent, was not then desired.<br />
<br />
Rhode Island was very compliant, and while there the commissioners freely heard appeals. They had been fully instructed to inquire into the conflicting claims to the Narragansett country, and this part of their duty they fulfilled to the letter, both Samuel Gorton and Massachusetts presenting long statements full of mutual recriminations. The claim of the Atherton company was examined and found invalid. In order to save the Narragansett country to Rhode Island, the commissioners at first commanded the various squatters who had come in from Massachusetts and Connecticut to remove. Later, however, this command was revoked and the question of their rights was referred to the king. From one of the Indian sachems who had participated in the surrender of the country to Charles I, twenty years before, the commissioners obtained an acknowledgement of the deed. Relying on this, they took the Indians and their country into the king's protection, naming the district the King's Province. The magistrates of Rhode Island were empowered to administer justice in the region until the king's pleasure could be further known. In this business, and especially in efforts to dispossess Pumham, that ancient and wily protégé of Massachusetts, Sir Robert Carr showed unusual activity, and incidentally came into relations for the moment both with the Apostle Eliot and with Roger Williams. Though the settlement of the bounds of Rhode Island involved questions of too great complexity for the commissioners to determine, they performed an invaluable service for that colony by giving final notice to Massachusetts that encroachments toward the south would no longer be permitted. They recognized the fact that the possession of the Narragansett country was necessary, one might almost say, to the continued existence of Rhode Island as a distinct colony; and by placing its magistrates in charge of the district under the king's protection the commissioners aptly served both the interests of the crown and those of Rhode Island. The settlement of Massachusetts people in the Pequot country, under claims said to have originated in conquest, the commissioners looked on with equal disfavor; but they did not give any express recognition to the Hamilton claim against Connecticut, because it was not confirmed by actual settlement. When they returned to Boston the commissioners, with reason, congratulated themselves on the success which had attended their efforts in southern New England. Opposition they had met with nowhere, while in Rhode Island they had found an interest sufficiently strong, they hoped, to furnish a leverage against Massachusetts. Their doings in the south would add no recommendation to them in the eyes of the Bay Colony, for it suggested too clearly what was likely to be attempted on the Piscataqua and even in Massachusetts itself.<br />
<br />
Before the departure of the commissioners from Boston to visit Plymouth and the other colonies, in obedience to instructions and in order the better to meet exaggerated reports concerning the king's intentions and their own, they asked the magistrates to call all the inhabitants together on the day of the court of election, early in the following May. There they might learn directly and without mistake "his Majesty's grace and favor to them." Attempts, like this, to appeal over the heads of the magistrates and general court to the people at large were naturally offensive, though in their reply the governor and assistants did not refer to this aspect of the case. They said that they could see no reason for this proposal, while to draw the people away from their houses would leave the colony exposed to Indian attacks; "all could come if they would—there was no prohibition." Cartwright, in one of his characteristic statements, declared the proposal to be so reasonable that he who would not attend was a traitor. And before they left the commissioners sent a letter to some of the non-freemen advising them and their neighbors to be present at the next court of election and hear a message direct from the king, as "the best way to prevent all slandering of his Majesty and all misapprehensions in his good subjects and all prejudices from us."<br />
<br />
On the eve of the election the commissioners returned, Nicolls now at last appearing with them. Endicott had just died; Bellingham was the acting governor. Letters had lately been received from Secretary Morrice and the lord chancellor, in reply to the last communication from the general court. It was said that it had been unfavorably received by the king, as "the contrivance of a few persons who had been too long in power"; that they were unreasonably jealous of the king, who had no intention of infringing their charter, but who must institute an inquiry because of the complaints which had come from various quarters. Clarendon wrote in much the same strain, declaring "it will be absolutely necessary that you perform and pay all that reverence and obedience which is due from subjects to their king and which his Majesty will exact from you." The commissioners also, as they began the negotiation, delivered a statement of their own, protesting language of needless irritation against the alleged slanders which had been circulated about the object of their mission.<br />
<br />
These expressions both from the home government and its agents, we must believe, made an unfavorable impression at the outset, though in view of the past history and present attitude of Massachusetts utterances in that style were most natural. When taken in connection with the known attitude of at least all the commissioners except Nicolls toward the colony, and with what was partly known and partly surmised about the real object of their coming, they strengthened the resolution of the Massachusetts leaders to stand by their charter. They would not allow the rights which they had enjoyed under it to be diminished in any essential particular. This augured ill for the hopes of the king, through the commission, to secure the right of appointing a governor, or of controlling the militia, or of hearing appeals from the colony.<br />
<br />
During the first week of the negotiation the commissioners delivered to the magistrates all their instructions of a public nature which concerned Massachusetts. In the meantime the election was held and Bellingham was chosen governor. He was less violent in his temper than Endicott had been, and in times past had occasionally opposed the dominant clique of magistrates and elders. But on questions like those which were now at issue Bellingham was in no way inclined to yield. To the instructions which merely called for information a ready assent was given. It was stated that a map showing the bounds of the colony was in preparation; that the records showing what the relations of Massachusetts and of the United Colonies had been with the Indians would be submitted; an account of the schools and especially of the college at Cambridge was furnished; statistics concerning government, industry, and the population were prepared; such explanation of the Whalley and Goffe episode as was possible was given; while they were not conscious of having "greatly violated" the navigation act and they were sure they had no law against it. The Massachusetts book of laws was submitted, and various changes in it were suggested by the commissioners.<br />
<br />
The task of explaining or justifying their treatment of the king's letter of 1662 the magistrates found more difficult. Of its commands the only one which had been promptly obeyed was that to administer justice in the king's name. On the arrival of the royal commissioners in 1664 the law relating to the admission of freemen had been so changed as to technically, though not really, comply with the king's command. Of the remaining orders, those to administer the oath of allegiance and to permit the use of the Book of Common Prayer had not been carried into effect. As to the oath of allegiance, it was now said that many who were in office had taken it before they left England, while it had been administered to Matthew Cradock, the first governor of the company. Their oaths of fidelity and of office were also cited as the equivalent of the oath of allegiance, though they were worded quite differently, and both contained the clause, "considering how I stand obliged to the king's majesty, his heirs and successors by our charter and the government established thereby." This clearly withdrew from his obligation to the king the entire content of the subject's obligation to Massachusetts, and in view of this fact Nicolls told the court that he did not see how it could be acceptable to his Majesty. As to the position of Anglicans in the colony the commissioners expressed themselves as wholly dissatisfied, while they could not understand the wording of the new law respecting the admission of freemen.<br />
<br />
But the discussions between the commissioners and the magistrates came to a crisis when the former announced their purpose to hear appeals and to sit as a court of justice for that purpose in the colony. As we have seen, they were authorized by their commission to do this, though the mild tone of their instructions had seemed to preclude such action. The right had been exercised by them in Rhode Island, and in two cases they proposed to try their power in Massachusetts. One of these arose from a complaint of Thomas Deane concerning the failure of the Massachusetts government to aid him and others in the prosecution of the ship <i>Charles</i>, from the French island of Oleron, which had in 1661 entered the port of Boston in violation of the navigation act. The magistrates, on the other hand, claimed to have done full justice by Deane and other parties involved. The other case concerned one John Porter, said to have been a worthless fellow who, having been imprisoned on the charge of wilful disobedience to parents, had either been banished or had broken jail. The commissioners had met him in Warwick, Rhode Island, and, on hearing his complaint, had granted him the king's protection and ordered him to appear at Boston for a hearing before them.<br />
<br />
When it was announced that these cases were being heard, the one concerning Porter being peculiarly irritating to the Massachusetts authorities, the general court protested against the action as an infringement of their patent. The commissioners in reply desired a conference with a committee of the court. A committee of eight was appointed to meet them. At the conference which followed, in reply to the claim of the commissioners that their instruction to hear appeals was not an infringement of the grant, but was implied in the very nature of the colony and its patent, the committee of the court pleaded that full and absolute authority to govern the colony had been given by the charter. They also argued that submission to appeals, especially in criminal cases, would prove an insufferable burden to individuals and make endless trouble for the government. The effect of remoteness, as compared with corporations located in England, Scotland, or Ireland, was emphasized. When the commissioners stated that they would try cases without a jury and according to the law of England, the committee sought to apply in an exclusive sense to Massachusetts the principle that subjects should be tried by the law of the land. They also regarded it as intolerable to submit to a tribunal whose law was its own discretion. With this notable utterance on the subject of appeals the conference ended.<br />
<br />
The commissioners next asked the court to name a place where they might sit and hear complaints. The court declared itself ready, if the commissioners would name specific cases, to submit copies of their proceedings therein; but beyond that it would not go. The commissioners closed the discussion with a warm protest against the attitude of suspicion and disobedience assumed by the court, and with the announcement that the next morning they would sit at the house of Captain Thomas Breedon and hear the case of Deane. The court then stated that it did not consent to or approve of the proceedings of the commissioners, nor did it consist with their allegiance so to do.<br />
<br />
The next morning, an hour before the commissioners were to meet, a herald was sent to Breedon's house, and afterwards through the town, proclaiming the fact with sound of trumpet that the court was forbidden. This action was decisive; the hearing did not occur. The commissioners then abruptly closed negotiations, declaring that, "since you will needs misconstrue all these letters and endeavors, and that you will make use of that authority he [he king] hath given you to oppose that sovereignty which he hath over you, we shall not lose more of our labors upon you, but refer it to his Majesty's wisdom, who is of power enough to make himself to be obeyed in all his dominions, and do assure you that we shall not represent your denying of his commission in any other words than you yourselves have expressed it in your several papers under your secretary's hand." In another communication they used this suggestive language, "The king did not grant away his Soveraigntie over you when he made you a Corporation. When His Majestie gave you power to make wholesome laws and administer Justice by them, he parted not with his right of judging whether those laws were wholesome, or whether justice was administered accordingly or no. When His Majesty gave you authority over such of his subjects as lived within the limits of your jurisdiction, he made them not your subjects nor you their supream authority." The issue between Massachusetts and the crown was essentially one of sovereignty, and it was never more clearly stated than in these sentences. The court submitted later a detailed and vigorous defense of its position in all its bearings, and upon the matter of appeals and the ecclesiastical system it stood firm to the last. The case of Deane was also reopened by the colony and the commissioners were invited to the hearing. They, of course, refused to attend. Nicolls now returned to New York, and the other commissioners went to the Piscataqua to undertake the settlement of controversies in that region. By so doing, as well as by their express utterances, they confessed that the attempt to bring Massachusetts into submission through a royal commission had failed. Nearly a month had been spent in the effort and nothing decisive had been accomplished. The charter stood in the way, and, as events still further ripened, it became evident that the obstacle must be removed before the plans of the home government could attain success.<br />
<br />
When the commissioners were about leaving England for the colonies, a royal letter was written commanding Massachusetts to surrender the Province of Maine to Ferdinando Gorges. Another letter was written to the inhabitants of Maine, commanding them to submit to Gorges. Nicolls was also appointed by Mason as his attorney, a suggestion of the fact that all those who were assailing Massachusetts stood near to the Duke of York and that his enterprise on the Hudson was more closely connected with the attack on New England and on the charters than has generally been supposed. But the war with the Dutch was just beginning and the fear that De Ruyter might make a descent on New York forced the immediate return of Nicolls to his own province, and prevented active participation on his part in the doings of the commissioners among the eastern settlements. But the region beyond Sagadahoc, later to be organized as the county of Cornwall, had been granted to the Duke of York, and any settlement which might favor the king's interest on the Piscataqua and in Maine could hardly fail to affect the remote outposts also.<br />
<br />
John Archdale—probably the same man who later became a proprietor and governor of South Carolina—came over with the commissioners in 1664 as agent for Gorges. His influence was later felt in Martha's Vineyard, as well as in the region farther north. By him the royal letters in favor of Gorges which have just been referred to were delivered, the one to the magistrates of Massachusetts, and the other to Henry Josselyn and Edward Rushworth, who were acting on behalf of Gorges in Maine. These men, with Archdale, obtained from some of the inhabitants of the region an acknowledgment of their submission to the claims of Gorges. They also wrote to the magistrates of Massachusetts, demanding the withdrawal of its authority. On November 30, 1664, while the royal commissioners were occupied with the reduction of New Netherland, the magistrates at Boston replied to this letter, claiming Maine as within the bounds of their patent and insisting that agents of Gorges should not attempt to exercise powers of government there. The king, they said, had promised that they should be heard in England, and until a decision had been reached there no other authority than their own should be recognized. The general court, at its session in May, 1665, issued a proclamation declaring the government of Massachusetts still in force in Yorkshire; courts were to be held as usual and all officers were commanded to perform their duties. The map which was prepared for the commissioners included, as within Massachusetts, all the territory as far north as Casco bay; while a detailed statement of this claim, supported by documents, was prepared.<br />
<br />
Meantime, however, an assembly of Gorges' supporters was held at Wells and some orders for the government of the region were issued. Archdale was made colonel of the militia, and "several private trainings" were held. Such was the situation when, in June, 1665, Carr, Cartwright, and Maverick appeared among the eastern settlements. They assumed that Massachusetts could not rightfully claim authority north of the bound house,"3 large miles north from the Merrimac River." They therefore attempted to organize government there in the king's name. With the assistance of one Abraham Corbett and a few other discontented persons, chiefly at Portsmouth, they sought to make it appear that there was a general demand for a change. We hear suggestions of a resort to intimidation, while it is quite probable that Carr and Cartwright used threats and made imposing claims.<br />
<br />
At Portsmouth, relying on a letter from the king that the forts should be strengthened as a defence against the Dutch, an assembly was called by the royal commissioners. But an appeal of John Cutt and others, of the board of selectmen, to the governor and council at Boston, drew from them an order forbidding the inhabitants to obey any of the commands of the commissioners. The meeting, however, was held, and a number of names were signed to a petition asking the king to set them free from the government of Massachusetts. The inhabitants of Portsmith and Dover, who were loyal to Massachusetts, transmitted to the general court a signed statement of the fact. Finally, the appearance of Danforth, Lasher and Leverett, as commissioners from Massachusetts, proved decisive. Corbett was arrested and taken to Boston as a prisoner. The royal commissioners were unable to secure a following which possessed strength at all sufficient to overcome the influence of Massachusetts and its reputation for efficient government.<br />
<br />
In Maine the way had been better prepared for them, and more men of standing could be counted among their supporters. Those settlements they formally received into the king's protection, and some of their leading inhabitants were empowered to act as justices of the peace. From Maine they passed for a brief visit to the Duke of York's grant east of the Kennebec, which they erected as a county and named Cornwall. Thence the three commissioners returned to Massachusetts. A report to the king was then prepared, which related their doings in all the colonies they had visited, and drew sharply the contrast between the opposition shown in Massachusetts and the spirit of submission which seemed to exist elsewhere. It was a frank confession of the failure of the commission to bring about any change in the attitude of Massachusetts toward the crown. Cartwright sailed with the report for England, but on the voyage was captured by a Dutch cruiser; some of the papers of the commission were lost, but after long delay the report reached England.<br />
<br />
Before the commissioners finally separated, the general court of Massachusetts had sent another address to the king, complaining of the partisan spirit which had been shown by all the members of the board except Nicolls, of their attempts to undermine the government of the colony and to arouse enemies against it within and without. The court begged that the unfavorable representations which it was probable the commissioners would make on their return to England might not be received as the truth.<br />
<br />
The commissioners, on their part, enlarged upon the futility of more correspondence and expressly referred to be the revocation of the correspondence and expressly referred to be the revocation of the charter of Massachusetts as likely to the only effective remedy. Maverick wrote to Clarendon, suggesting, as means to bring Massachusetts to terms, that only persons specially licensed should be permitted to trade with New England, and that this measure should be enforced by two vessels stationed off the coast. Boston merchants who proved refractory might be punished by seizing their estates in England, and a few of the most disloyal inhabitants might be sent to England. He suggested Bellingham, Hathorne, Gookin, Waldron, and Oliver as fit persons to be dealt with in this manner. Nicolls in later communications to Arlington and Morrice at first expressed the hope that the transfer of trade by natural process from Boston to New York would induce a change of spirit. Later, he thought that an embargo on the trade of Massachusetts might be resorted to with good results, for he believed it would soon induce a change of spirit. Later, he thought that an embargo on the trade of Massachusetts might be resorted to with good results, for he believed it would soon induce the well affected to give up the ringleaders.<br />
<br />
In April, 1666, the king issued a circular letter to the colonies of New England, in which satisfaction was expressed with the attitude of all except Massachusetts. In that colony, he declared, the opinion seemed to be that the commission was a violation of its charter, that the king had no jurisdiction over them, and that there was no right of appeal. The king therefore had recalled his commissioners, and ordered that the general court should send to England four or five agents, of whom Bellingham and Hathorne should be two, that a full inquiry into the points at issue might be had. In the meantime affairs in the Province of Maine should remain as the commissioners had left them. A letter was at the same time sent to Rhode Island contrasting its dutiful conduct with the deportment of Massachusetts.<br />
<br />
When this command was received, a division began to appear among the people and was reflected in the general court of Massachusetts. A petition signed by more than one hundred inhabitants of Boston, Salem, Newbury, and Ipswich, was presented to the general court, urging a reasonable acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of the king and submission to his will. "The receiving of a character from his Majesty's royal predecessor for the planting of this colony," said the petitioners, "with a confirmation of the same from his royal person, . . . sufficiently declares this place to be a part of his dominions, and ourselves his subjects." They asked that nothing further be done which should tend to provoke the resentment of the king. Among the magistrates also a debate occurred in which Bradstreet urged that agents be sent to England, for though the king might not be able to reach the colony by legal process, his prerogative gave him power to command their appearance. Willoughby, the deputy governor, met this with the argument that they must obey God rather than man. On the one side it was urged that the relations between Massachusetts and the crown and Calais. On the other side it was said to be "too hard to put us in the same condition with Calais." Thus the representatives of the trade centres in the colony and of those whose ardor for the Puritan ecclesiastical system had cooled, or had never been strong, sought to make their interests felt and to bring Massachusetts more fully into harmony with the conditions of the growing colonial system. The colony had never wholly lacked testimonies of this character, but they were henceforth to increase in volume and importance. Maverick had rightly perceived that the wise course for the home government would be to encourage this division of sentiment.<br />
<br />
The general court vented the irritation which the petition had caused by ordering its foremost signers to appear, but no record of further action has been preserved. In a letter to Secretary Morrice the general court declined to send the agents whom the king had ordered and committed their cause to God and the clemency of their prince.<br />
<br />
France had now allied itself with the Dutch in their war with the English, and in an earlier letter from the king Massachusetts had been authorized to confer with Sir Thomas Temple, the proprietor of Nova Scotia, about a joint attack on Canada. Temple visited Boston for the purpose of promoting this plan. But Massachusetts replied that it was not possible for her to undertake so distant an enterprise and one of such doubtful issue. The only step which was taken to conciliate the English government was the sending of a present of masts to the king. But the war, resulting as it did in the downfall of the Clarendon ministry, diverted attention from New England affairs, and gave Massachusetts a respite for ten years. The heirs of Gorges and Mason took no further steps to establish their rights among the eastern settlement. Massachusetts, through her commissioners, fully restored her control in 1668, and maintained it without further opposition till the question was again opened in England.<br />
<br />
Herbert L. Osgood, <i>The American Colonies In the Seventeenth Century</i>, 1907</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-40816713742949435622013-01-14T08:07:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:14:33.681-08:00The English In New York, 1664-1689<center><img border="0" height="400" width="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyJZg-1yNBo2586gM7tm7sgMnVSiOb0dlKUoLsOj6Dgp5VpL3t4qW7DMvhxP0aLDfWkfWZE_ICMCXyMpCF_bNoZs-sDnrZivhLkBhL0D1IdVDtzBDNWzo-ckjG4zJ6RB3xIcLd1V3INA-T/s400/1664.JPG"style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" /></center>
<br />
<div align="left">The trading spirit is not of itself sufficient to establish successful settlement, and monopolies cannot safely be entrusted with the government of colonies. The experience of the Dutch in the New Netherland established this truth, which later experience has fully confirmed.<br />
<br />
Toward the middle of the seventeenth century Holland controlled the carrying trade of the world. Nearly one half of the tonnage of Europe was under her flag. Java was the centre of her East Indian enterprise, Brazil the seat of her West Indian possessions; and the seas between, over which were wafted her fleets, freighted with the rich products of these tropical lands, were patrolled by a navy hardy and brave. Yet it was at the very zenith of her power that her North American colony, which proudly bore the name of the Fatherland, was stripped from the home government at one trenchant blow.<br />
<br />
The cause of this misfortune may be found in the weakness of the Dutch settlement compared with the more populous New England communities, which pressed, threatening and aggressive, on its eastern borders. Under the Dutch rule, New Netherland was never in a true sense a colony. Begun as a trading-post in 1621, and managed by the Dutch West India Company, it cannot be said ever to have got beyond leading-strings, and at the time when it fell into the hands of the English its entire population did not exceed seven thousand souls, while the English on its borders numbered not less than fifteen times as many.<br />
<br />
Nor did the West India Company seem ever to comprehend that their hold upon the new continent could be maintained only by well-ordered and continuous colonization. Rapidly enriched by their intercourse with the natives of the sunny climes in which they established their strong posts for trade, they seem to have looked for no more from their posts on the North American coast, or to have had further ambition than to secure their share of the trade in furs, in which they were met by the active rivalry and greater enterprise of the French settlers on the Canadian frontier.<br />
<br />
Yet the territory of New Netherland was by natural configuration the key of the northern frontier of the American colonies, and indeed, it may be said, of the continent. The courses of the Hudson and Mohawk form the sides of a natural strategic triangle, and with the system of northern lakes and streams connect the several parts of the broad surface which stretches from the mouth of the St. Lawrence on the Atlantic to the headwaters of the Columbia at the continental divide. This vantage-ground at the head of the great valleys through which water-ways give access to the regions on the slope below, was the chosen site of the formidable confederacy of the Iroquois, the acknowledged masters of the native tribes.<br />
<br />
The English jealousy of the Dutch did not spring from national antipathy, but from the rivalry of trade. The insular position of England forced her to protect herself abroad, and when Protestant Holland, by enterprise and skill, drew to herself the commerce of both the Indies, her success aroused in England the same spirit of opposition, the same animosity, which had, the century before, been awakened by the aggrandizement of Catholic Spain. It was the Protestant Commonwealth of England which passed the Navigation Act of 1660, especially directed against the foreign trade of her growing rival of the same religious faith. In this act may be found the germ of the policy of England not only toward her neighbors, but also toward her colonies. This act was maintained in active force after the restoration of Charles II. to the throne. Strictly enforced at home, it was openly or secretly evaded only in the British American colonies and plantations. The arm of England was long, but her hand lay lightly on the American continent. The extent of coast and frontier was too great to be successfully watched, and the necessities of the colonies too many and imperious for them to resist the temptation to a trade which, though illicit, was hardly held immoral except by the strictest constructionists of statute law; and it was with the Dutch that this trade was actively continued by their English neighbors of Maryland and Virginia, as well as by those of New England. In 1663 the losses to the revenue were so extensive that the farmers of the customs, who, after the fashion of the period, enjoyed a monopoly from the King at a large annual personal cost, complained of the great abuses which, they claimed, defrauded the revenue of ten thousand pounds a year. The interest of the kingdom was at stake, and the conquest of the New Netherland was resolved upon.<br />
<br />
This was no new policy. It had been that of Cromwell, the most sagacious of English rulers, and was only abandoned by him because of the more immediate advantages secured by his treaty with the Grand Pensionary, a statesman only second to Oliver himself. The expedition which Cromwell had ordered was countermanded, and the Dutch title to the New Netherland was formally recognized by the treaty of 1654. It seems rational to suppose that the English Protector foresaw the inevitable future fall of the Dutch-American settlement, hemmed in by growing English colonies fostered by religious zeal, and that he was willing to wait till the fruit was ripe and of easy grasp to England.<br />
<br />
It is the fashion of historians to ascribe the seizure of the New Netherland to the perfidy of Charles; but the policy of kingdoms through successive administrations is more homogeneous than appears on the surface. The diplomacy of ministers is usually traditional; the opportunity which seems to mark a change is often but an incident in the chain. That which presented itself to Clarendon, Charles’s Lord Chancellor, was the demand made by the States-General that the boundary line should be established between the Dutch and English possessions in America. Consent on the part of Charles would have been a ratification of Cromwell’s recognition of 1654. This demand of the Dutch Government, made in January, 1664, close upon the petition of the farmers of the customs of December, 1663, precipitated the crisis. The seizure of New Amsterdam and the reduction of New Netherland was resolved upon. Three Americans who happened to be in London,—Scott, Baker, and Maverick,—were summoned before the Council Board, when they presented a statement of the title of the King, the intrusion of the Dutch, and of the condition of the settlement. The Chancellor held their arguments to be well grounded, and on the 29th of February an expedition was ordered “against the Dutch in America.” The demand of the Holland Government was no doubt stimulated by the intrigues of Sir George Downing, who had been Cromwell’s ambassador at the Hague, and was retained by Charles as an adroit servant. A nephew of the elder Winthrop and a graduate from Harvard, Downing appears to have determined upon the acquisition by England of the Dutch provinces, which were held by the New England party to be a thorn in the side of English American colonization. The expedition determined upon, Scott was sent back to New England with a royal commission to enforce the Navigation Laws. The next concern of the Chancellor was to secure to the Crown the full benefit of the proposed conquest. He was as little satisfied with the self-rule of the New England colonies as with the presence of Dutch sovereignty on American soil; and in the conquest of the foreigner he found the means to bring the English subject into closer dependence on the King.<br />
<br />
James Duke of York, Grand Admiral, was the heir to the crown. He had married the daughter of Edward Hyde, the Chancellor of the kingdom, who now controlled its foreign policy. A patent to James as presumptive heir to the crown, from the King his brother, would merge in the crown; and a central authority strongly established over the territory covered by it might well, under favorable circumstances, be extended over the colonies on either side which were governed under limitations and with privileges directly secured by charter from the King. In this adroit scheme may be found the beginning in America of that policy of personal rule, which, begun under the Catholic Stuart, culminated under the Protestant Hanoverian, a century later, in the oppression which aroused the American Revolution. The first step taken by Clarendon was the purchase of the title conveyed to the Earl of Stirling in 1635 by the grantees of the New England patent. This covered the territory of Pemaquid, between the Saint Croix and the Kennebec, in Maine, and the Island of Matowack, or Long Island. The Stirling claim had been opposed and resisted by the Dutch; but Stuyvesant, the Director of New Netherland, had in 1650 formally surrendered to the English all the territory south of Oyster Bay on Long Island and east of Greenwich on the continent. A title being thus acquired by the adroitness of Clarendon, a patent was, on the 12th of March, 1664, issued by Charles II. to the Duke of York, granting him the Maine territory of Pemaquid, all the islands between Cape Cod and the Narrows, the Hudson River, and all the lands from the west side of the Connecticut to the east side of Delaware Bay, together with the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. The inland boundary was “a line from the head of Connecticut River to the source of Hudson River, thence to the head of the Mohawk branch of Hudson River, and thence to the east side of Delaware Bay.” The patent gave to the Duke of York, his heirs, deputies, and assigns, “absolute power to govern within this domain according to his own rules and discretions consistent with the statutes of England.” In this patent the charter granted by the King to the younger John Winthrop in 1662 for Connecticut, in which it was stipulated that commissioners should be sent to New England to settle the boundaries of each colony, was entirely disregarded. The idea of commissioners for boundaries now developed with larger scope, and the King established a royal commission, consisting of four persons recommended by the Duke of York, whose private instructions were to reduce the Dutch to submission and to increase the prerogatives of the Crown in the New England colonies, which Clarendon considered to be “already wellnigh ripened to a commonwealth.”<br />
<br />
Three of these commissioners were officers in the Royal army,—Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr, Colonel George Cartwright. The fourth was Samuel Maverick, an earnest adherent of the Church of England and a bitter enemy of Massachusetts, in which colony he had passed his early manhood. These commissioners, or any three or two of them,—Nicolls always included,—were invested with full power in all matters, military and civil, in the New England colonies. To Colonel Nicolls the Duke of York entrusted the charge of taking possession of and governing the vast territory covered by the King’s patent. To one more capable and worthy the delicate trust could not have been confided. He was in the fortieth year of a life full of experience, of a good Bedfordshire family, his father a barrister of the Middle Temple. He had received an excellent education. When, at the age of nineteen, the Civil War broke out, he at once joined the King’s forces, and, obtaining command of a troop of horse, clung persistently to the Royal cause. Later, he served on the Continent with the Duke of York in the army of Turenne. At the Restoration he was rewarded for his fidelity with the post of Groom of the Bedchamber to the Duke, to whose interests he devoted himself with loyalty, prudence, and untiring energy. His title under the new commission was that of Deputy-Governor; the tenure of his office, the Duke’s pleasure.<br />
<br />
The English Government has never been scrupulous as to method in the attainment of its purposes, justification being a secondary matter. When the news of the gathering of the fleet reached the Hague, and explanation was demanded of Downing as to the truth of the reports that it was intended for the reduction of the New Netherland, he boldly insisted on the English right to the territory by first possession. To a claim so flimsy and impudent only one response was possible,—a declaration of war. But the Dutch people at large had little interest in the remote settlement, which was held to be a trading-post rather than a colony, and not a profitable post at best. The West India Company saw the danger of the situation, but its appeals for assistance were disregarded. Its own resources and credit were unequal to the task of defense. Meanwhile the English fleet, composed of one ship of thirty-six, one of thirty, a third of sixteen, and a transport of ten guns, with three full companies of the King’s veterans,—in all four hundred and fifty men, commanded by Colonels Nicolls, Carr, and Cartwright,—sailed from Portsmouth for Gardiner’s Bay on the 15th of May. On the 23d of July Nicolls and Cartwright reached Boston, where they demanded military aid from the Governor and Council of the Colony. Calling upon Winthrop for the assistance of Connecticut, and appointing a rendezvous at the west end of Long Island, Nicolls set sail with his ships and anchored in New Utrecht Bay, just outside of Coney Island, a spot since historical as the landing-place of Lord Howe’s troops in 1776. Here Nicolls was joined by militia from New Haven and Long Island. The city of New Amsterdam was at once cut off from all communication with the shores opposite, and a proclamation was issued by the commissioners guaranteeing the inhabitants in their possessions on condition of submission. The Hudson being in the control of the English vessels, the little city was defenseless. The Director, Stuyvesant, heard of the approach of the English at Fort Orange (Albany), whither he had gone to quell disturbances with the Indians. Returning in haste, he summoned his council together. The folly of resistance was apparent to all, and after delays, by which the Director-General sought to save something of his dignity, a commission for a surrender was agreed upon between the Dutch authorities and Colonel Nicolls. The capitulation confirmed the inhabitants in the possession of their property, the exercise of their religion, and their freedom as citizens. The municipal officers were continued in their rule. On the 29th of August, 1664, the articles were ratified, and Stuyvesant marched out from Fort Amsterdam, at the head of his little band with the honors of war, and embarked the troops on one of the West India Company’s ships for Holland. Stuyvesant himself remained for a time in the city. The English entered the fort, the Dutch flag was hauled down, the English colors hoisted in its place, and the city passed under English rule. The first act of Nicolls on taking possession of the fort, in which he was welcomed by the civic authorities, was to order that the city of New Amsterdam be thereafter known as New York, and the fort as Fort James, in honor of the title and name of his lord and patron.<br />
<br />
At the time of the surrender the city gave small promise of its magnificent future. Its entire population, which did not exceed 1,500 souls, was housed within the triangle at the point of the island, the easterly and westerly sides of which were the East and North Rivers, and the northern boundary a wall stretching across the entire island from river to river. Beyond this limit was an occasional plantation and a small hamlet known as New Haarlem. The seat of government was in the fort. Nicolls now established a new government for the province. A force was sent up the Hudson under Captain Cartwright, which took possession of Fort Orange, the name of which was changed to Albany, in honor of a title of the Duke of York. On his return, Cartwright took possession of Esopus in the same manner (the name of this settlement was later changed to Kingston). The privileges granted to the inhabitants of New Amsterdam were extended to these towns. The volunteers from Long Island and New England were now discharged to their homes.<br />
<br />
The effect of the prudent and conciliatory measures of Nicolls, which in the beginning had averted the shedding of a single drop of blood, and now appealed directly to the good sense of the inhabitants, was soon apparent. The fears of the Dutch were entirely allayed, and as no inequality was imposed upon them, they had no reason to regret the change of rule. Their pride was conciliated by the continuance of their municipal authorities, and by the cordial manner in which the new-comers arranged that the Dutch and English religious service should be held consecutively under the same roof,—that of the Dutch church in the fort. Hence when Nicolls, alive to the interests of his master, which could be served only by maintaining the prosperity of the colony, proposed to the chief citizens that instead of returning to Holland, as had been arranged for in the capitulation, they should take the oath of allegiance to the King of Great Britain and of obedience to the Duke of York, they almost without exception, Stuyvesant himself included, accepted the conditions. The King’s authority was thus peaceably and firmly established in the metropolis and in the outlying posts of the province of New York proper, which, by the King’s patent to the Duke, included all the territory east of the Delaware. The commissioners next proceeded to reduce the Dutch settlements on the Delaware, and established their colleague, Carr, in command, always however in subordination to the government of New York. The necessities of their condition, dependent upon trade, brought the Dutch inhabitants into easy subjection. Indeed it seems that though their attachment to the mother country, its laws and its customs, was unabated, the long neglect of their interests by the Holland Government had greatly weakened if not destroyed any active sentiment of loyalty.<br />
<br />
The southern boundary established, the commissioners turned to the more difficult task of establishing that to the eastward. The Duke of York’s patent covered all the territory claimed alike by the Dutch and by the Connecticut colony under its charter of 1662,—involving an unsettled controversy. A joint commission finally determined the matter by assigning Long Island to New York, and establishing a dividing line between New York and Connecticut, to run about twenty miles distant eastwardly from the Hudson River. The superior topographical information of the Connecticut commissioners secured the establishment of this line in a manner not intended by the Board at large. The boundary was not ratified by the royal authorities, and was later the source of continual dispute and of endless bad feeling between the two colonies.<br />
<br />
Nicolls next settled the rules of the customs, which were to be paid in beaver skins at fixed valuations. Courts were now established,—an English modification of those already existing among the Dutch. These new organizations consisted of a court of assizes, or high court of law and equity. Long Island was divided, after the English manner, into three districts or ridings, in which courts of sessions were held at stated intervals. The justices, sitting with the Governor and his Council once in each year in the Court of Assizes, formed the supreme law-making power, wholly subordinate to the will of the Governor, and, after him, to the approval of the Duke. To this body fell the duty of establishing a code of laws for such parts of the province as still remained under the Dutch forms of government. Carefully examining the statutes of the New England colonies, Nicolls prepared from them a code of laws, and summoning a convention of delegates of towns to meet at Hempstead on Long Island, he submitted it for their approval. These laws, though liberal in matters of conscience and religion, did not permit of the election of magistrates. To this restriction many of the delegates demurred; but Nicolls fell back upon the terms of his commission, and the delegates submitted with good grace. The code thus established is known in jurisprudence as the “Duke’s Laws.” Its significant features were trial by jury; equal taxation; tenure of lands from the Duke of York; no religious establishment, but requirement of some church form; freedom of religion to all professing Christianity; obligatory service in each parish every Sunday; recognition of negro slavery under certain restrictions; and general liability to military duty.<br />
<br />
Next in order came the conforming of the style and manner of the city governments to the custom of England. The Dutch form was abolished, and a mayor, aldermen, and sheriff appointed. The Dutch citizens objected to this change from the habit of their forefathers, but as the preponderance of numbers was given to citizens of their nationality, the objection was not pressed, and the new authorities were quietly inaugurated, if not with acquiescence, at least without opposition or protest. These changes occurred in June, 1665. Thus in less than a single year, in a population the Dutch element of which outnumbered the English as three to one, by the moderation, tact, energy, and remarkable administrative ability of Nicolls, was the conquered settlement assimilated to the English body politic to which it was henceforth to belong, and from the hour of its transmutation it was accustomed to look to Great Britain itself for government and protection. Such was the first step in the transition of the seat of the “armed commercial monopoly” of New Amsterdam, through various modifications and changes, to the cosmopolitan city of the present day.<br />
<br />
The war which the violent seizure of New Netherland precipitated upon Europe was little felt on the western shores of the Atlantic. There was nothing in New York itself, independently of its territorial situation, to tempt a coup de mains. There were “no ships to lose, no goods to plunder.” For nearly a year after the capture no vessel arrived from England with supplies. In the interval the King’s troops slept upon canvas and straw. The entire cost of maintaining the garrison fell upon the faithful Nicolls, who nevertheless continued to build up and strengthen his government, personally disposing of the disputes between the soldiers and settlers at the posts, encouraging settlement by liberal offers to planters, and cultivating friendly relations with the powerful Indian confederacy on the western frontier. While thus engaged in the great work of organizing into a harmonious whole the imperial domain confided to his charge,—which, extending from the Delaware to the Connecticut, with the Hudson as its central artery, was of itself a well-rounded and perfect kingdom,—he received the disagreeable intelligence that his work of consolidation had been broken by the Duke of York himself. James, deceived as to the gravity of the transaction, influenced by friendship, or because of more immediate personal considerations, granted to Carteret and Berkeley the entire territory between the Hudson River on the east, Cape May on the southward, and the northern branch of the Delaware on the west, to which was given the name of Nova Cæsarea, or New Jersey. In this grant, however, the Duke of York did not convey the right of jurisdiction; but the reservation not being expressed in the document, the grantees claimed that it also passed to them,—an interpretation which received no definitive settlement for a long period.<br />
<br />
While the Dutch Government showed no disposition to attempt the recovery of their late American territory by immediate attack, they did not tamely submit to the humiliation put upon them, but strained every nerve to maintain the honor of their flag by sea and land. For them as for the English race, the sea was the natural scene of strife. The first successes were to the English fleet, which, under the command of the Duke of York in person, defeated the Dutch at Lowestoffe, and compelled them to withdraw to the cover of their forts. Alarmed at the triumph of England and at the prospect of a general war, Louis XIV. urged peace upon the States-General, and proposed to the English King an exchange of the territory of New Netherland for the island of Poleron, one of the Banda or Nutmeg Islands, recently taken from the English,—a kingdom for a mess of pottage. But Clarendon rejected the mediation, declining either exchange or restitution in a manner that forced upon the French King a declaration of war. This declaration, issued Jan. 29, 1666, was immediately replied to by England, and the American colonies were directed to reduce the French possessions to the English crown. Here was the beginning of the strife on the American continent which culminated a century later in the conquest of Canada and the final supremacy of the English race on the Western continent.<br />
<br />
While the settlers of New England, cut off from the Western country by the Hudson River and the Dutch settlements along its course, and alike from Canada by pathless forests, and in a manner enclosed by races whose foreign tongues rendered intercourse difficult, were rapidly multiplying in number, redeeming and cultivating the soil and laying the foundations of a compact and powerful commonwealth, divided perhaps in form, but one in spirit and purpose, their northern neighbors were no less active under totally different forms of polity. The primary idea of French as of Spanish colonization was the conversion of the heathen tribes. The first empire sought was that of the soul; the priests were the pioneers of exploration. The natives of the soil were to be first converted, then brought, if possible, through this subtle influence into alliance with the home government. This peaceful scheme failing, military posts were to be established at strategic points to control the lakes and streams and places of portage, the highways of Indian travel, and to hold the country subject to the King of France. Unfortunately for the success of this comprehensive plan, there was discord among the French themselves. The French military authorities and the priests were not harmonious either in purpose or in conduct. The Society of Jesus would not subordinate itself to the royal authority. Moreover the Iroquois confederacy of the Five Nations, which held the valley of the Mohawk and the lakes south of Ontario, were not friendly at heart to the Europeans. They had not forgotten nor forgiven the invasion by Champlain; yet, recognizing the value of friendly relations with a power which could supply them with firearms for their contests with the fierce tribes with whom they were at perpetual war, they welcomed the French to dwell among them. French policy had declared itself, even before England made of the King of France. Yet such was the independent spirit of this proud tribe, that it required the threat of another expedition to bring them to submission. A treaty was made by which they consented to receive missionaries. This completed the title of possession of the Western territory which the French Government was preparing against a day of need.<br />
<br />
The war in Europe was closed by the treaty of Breda, which allowed the retention by each of the conflicting parties of the places it occupied. This provision confirmed the English in peaceful and rightful possession of their conquest of New Netherland. The intelligence was proclaimed New Year’s Day, 1668. It enabled the Duke of York to accede at last to the repeated requests of his faithful and able deputy, and permission was granted to Nicolls to return to England. His successor, Colonel Francis Lovelace, relieved him in his charge in August following.<br />
<br />
Francis Lovelace, the successor of Nicolls, continued his policy with prudence and moderation. To him the merchants of the city owed the establishment of the first exchange or meeting-place for transaction of business at fixed hours. He encouraged the fisheries and whaling, promoted domestic trade with Virginia, Massachusetts, and the West India Islands, and took personal interest in shipbuilding. By his encouragement the first attempt toward a post-road or king’s highway was made. During his administration the first seal was secured for the province, and one also for the city. He appears to have concerned himself also in the conversion to Christianity of the Indian tribes,—a policy which Nicolls initiated; but as yet there was no printing press in the province to second his efforts. Of more practical benefit was his interference to arrest the sale of intoxicating liquors to the savage tribes from the trading-post at Albany.<br />
<br />
In 1668 the policy of the English Government again veered. A treaty, known as the Triple Alliance, was signed between Great Britain, the United Provinces, and Sweden, to arrest the growing power and ambitious designs of France. Popular in the mother country, the alliance gave peculiar satisfaction to the New York province, and somewhat allayed the disappointment with which the cancellation of the order permitting the Dutch freely to trade with New York was received by its citizens of Holland descent. Throughout the Duke’s province there was entire religious toleration. None were disturbed in the exercise of their worship. At Albany the parochial Dutch church was maintained under his authority, and in New York, he authorized the establishment of a branch of the Dutch Reformed Church, and directed the payment of a sufficient salary to the minister invited from Holland to undertake its charge.<br />
<br />
The efforts begun by Nicolls and continued by Lovelace, to bring into harmonious subjection the diverse elements of the Duke’s government were not wholly successful. The inhabitants of eastern Long Island clung tenaciously to the traditions of the Connecticut colony, and petitioned the King directly for representation in the Government; but the Council for Plantations denied the claim, on the ground that the territory was in the limits of the Duke of York’s patent and government. The unsettled boundaries again gave trouble, Massachusetts renewing her claim to the navigation of the Hudson, which the Dutch had, during their rule, successfully resisted. Massachusetts further claimed the territory to the Pacific westward of the line of the Duke of York’s patent. The contiguous territory was however held by the Mohawks, who had never acknowledged other sovereignty than their own. In 1672 this tribe made a considerable sale of lands on the Mohawk River to the inhabitants of Schenectady, by which New York practically acquired title to the soil as well as sovereignty.<br />
<br />
In 1672 English politics again underwent a change. The Triple Alliance was dissolved, and a secret treaty entered into with France. War was declared against the Dutch. In a severe action at Solebay, the Dutch won an advantage over the allied fleets of England and France. In the engagement Nicolls, the late governor of the New York province, fell, killed by a cannon ball, at the feet of his master, the Duke of York, Lord High Admiral of England, who commanded the British fleet. But while the Dutch maintained an equality at sea with the combined fleets of the powers, their fortune on land was not as favorable. Turenne and Condé led the armies of France to the soil of the Dutch Republic, and to mark his advantage, Louis XIV. brought his court to Utrecht. A revolution in Holland was the immediate consequence. The Grand Pensionary, who in his alarm sought peace, lost the favor of the people, resigned his office, and was quickly murdered by the excited followers of William of Orange. William, having demanded and obtained appointment as Stadtholder, at once placed himself at the head of the war party, and active hostilities were prosecuted by sea and land, both far and near. Among the rumors which reached the inhabitants of the New York province, whose kinsmen were again at war with each other, was one to the effect that a Dutch squadron which had been despatched against the West India colonies was on its way along the Atlantic coast. Lovelace discredited the information, and seems to have made no immediate efforts to strengthen the forts. Troops were called in, however, from the river garrisons and the posts on the Delaware; but their number, with the volunteers, reached only three hundred and thirty men. The alarm soon subsiding, the new-comers were dismissed, and the garrison left in Fort James did not exceed eighty men. Lovelace himself, in entire serenity of mind, left the city on a visit to Governor Winthrop in Connecticut. The rumor, however, proved true. The Dutch squadron, after capturing or destroying the Virginia fleet of tobacco ships in the Chesapeake, sailed northward, and on Aug. 7, 1673, anchored off Staten Island. Informed of the precise state of the New York defences by the captain of a prize captured at the mouth of James River, the Dutch commander made an immediate demand for the surrender of the city. The Dutch fleet, commanded by Evertsen, originally consisting of fifteen ships, had been reinforced in its course by seven men-of-war, and with its prizes now numbered twenty-seven sail, which carried sixteen hundred men. Against this force no resistance was possible. On the morning of the 8th the fleet moved up the bay, exchanged shots with the fort, and landed six hundred men on the shore of the Hudson just above the city, where they were joined by a body of the Dutch burghers. A storming party was advanced, under command of Captain Anthony Colve, to whom Captain Manning, who commanded in the Governor’s absence, surrendered the fort, the garrison being permitted to march out with the honors of war. Thus New York was again surrendered without the shedding of a drop of blood.<br />
<br />
A few days later Lovelace, entrapped into a visit to the city, was first courteously entertained, then arrested on a civil suit for debt and detained. The river settlements of Esopus and Albany surrendered without opposition; and those in the immediate neighborhood of the city, where the Dutch population was in ascendency, made submission. The eastern towns of Long Island, of English descent, came in with reluctance. The commodores Evertsen and Binckes, who acted as council of war of New Netherland, after confiscating the property of the Duke of York and of his agent, by proclamation commissioned Captain Anthony Colve Governor-General of the country, and set sail for Holland,—Binckes taking Lovelace with him on his ship at his request.<br />
<br />
New York had greatly changed in nine years of English rule. From a sleepy Dutch settlement it had become the capital of a well-ordered province. Colve, the new Dutch governor, went through the form of a return to the old order of city government of the home pattern, and prepared a provincial Instruction to which the outlying towns were to conform. Massachusetts again asserted her old claim to run her southern line to the Hudson, and Connecticut hankered once more after the fertile towns of Long Island, settled by her sons. But Massachusetts had no disposition to take up arms to restore the Duke of York to his possessions. The refusal of the Duke to take the test oath of conformity to the Protestant religion of the Established Church, and the leaning of Charles to the French alliance, alarmed the Puritans, and Connecticut was content, by volunteer reinforcements, to strengthen the eastern towns in their resistance to Colve’s authority.<br />
<br />
The news of the recapture of New York reached Holland in October, when Joris Andringa was by the States-General appointed governor of New Netherland under the instructions of the Board of Admiralty. Notwithstanding the earnest request of the Dutch inhabitants of the reconquered province and the petition of persons interested in its trade in the mother country, the States-General recognized the impossibility of holding their American possessions on the mainland, surrounded as they were by a growing and aggressive English population. The Prince of Orange, with true statesmanship, saw that the only safety of the Republic was in a concentration of resources in order to oppose the power of France. The offer of a restitution of New Netherland was directly made to Charles II. as an evidence of the desire for peace and a good understanding. Charles referred the subject to Parliament, which instantly recommended acceptance, and within three days a treaty was drawn up and signed at Westminster, which once more and finally transferred the province of New York to the King of Great Britain. Proclamation of the treaty was made at the City Hall early in July, 1674. The news came by way of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Connecticut determined to make one more push for the control on Long Island of Southampton, Easthampton, and Southold, and petitions were addressed to the King. At the same time she sought again to include the territory between the boundary line established in 1664 and the Hudson. And it may be stated as a curious instance of the politics of the time, that some friend of Massachusetts, urged by her agent in London, actually contemplated the purchase of the entire province of New York in her interest.<br />
<br />
The new governor appointed by the King to receive the surrender of the New Netherland was one Edmund Andros, major in a dragoon regiment. In continuance of the liberal policy of 1664, all the inhabitants were by his instructions confirmed in their rights and privileges, and in the undisturbed possession of their property. By the treaty of Westminster, the New Netherland, the rightful possession of which by the Dutch was implied by its tenor, was ceded to the King. Although termed a restitution, it was held that the rights of the Duke of York had been extinguished by the conquest, and that restitution to the sovereign did not convey restoration to the subject. The Duke of York, now better informed as to the nature and value of the territory, on June 29, 1674, obtained from his royal brother a new patent with enlarged authority. To Andros, who bore the King’s authority to receive submission, the Duke now conferred his commission to govern the province in his name. Lieutenant Anthony Brockholls was named his successor in case of death. Andros was a man of high character, well suited by nature and experience to carry out the policy of his master,—the policy skilfully inaugurated by Nicolls and loyally pursued by Lovelace, -the institution of an autocratic government of the most arbitrary nature in form, but of extreme mildness in practice; one which, insuring peace and happiness to the subject, would best contribute to the authority and revenue of the master. Colonization was encouraged, the customs burdens lightened, the laws equally administered, and freedom of conscience secured. Although the Duke of York, in his refusal to take the test oath prescribed by the Act of 1673, had proclaimed himself an adherent of the Church of Rome, and Brockholls was a professed Papist, and neither master nor servant could hold office in England under that Act, and although the British American colonies were not within its provisions, yet it does not appear that any effort was made by the Church of Rome to exercise its religion under the guarantee of the King and of the Duke. There were doubtless few of that faith in the Protestant colony of New York to claim the privilege. It was left to the wise men who laid the foundations of the Empire State in 1777 to put in practice the freedom of religion to all, which, strangely enough, was first guaranteed in word by the Catholic prince.<br />
<br />
The new patent of 1674 restored to the Duke his full authority over the entire domain covered by the original grant, and brought New Jersey again within his rule; yet he was persuaded to divest himself of this proprietorship by a new release to Carteret. No grant of power to govern being named in either the first or the second instrument, this authority was held as reserved by the Duke. The cession was nevertheless of extreme and lasting injury to the New York province, as it impaired its control over the west bank of the mouth of the Hudson and the waters of the bay. On the other hand, the Duke’s title to Long Island and Pemaquid was strengthened by a release obtained from Lord Stirling; and the assumption of Connecticut to govern the eastern towns in the former territory was summarily disposed of. The Duke’s authority in Pemaquid, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, though disturbed by some of the inhabitants who sought to bring them under the government of Massachusetts, had been maintained during the period of Colve’s administration. They had not been named in the commission of the Dutch commanders to Colve. The claim of Connecticut to the strip of land between the Mamaroneck line and the Hudson River was disallowed by the Duke, and possession of the territory entered by Connecticut was demanded by Andros. Connecticut held to the letter of her charter; Andros to the letters-patent of the King. The rising of the Narragansett tribes under King Philip afforded Andros an opportunity to assert the Duke’s authority. Sailing with three sloops and a body of soldiers, he landed at Saybrook, and read the Duke’s patent and his own commission. The Connecticut officers replied by reading the protest of the Hartford authorities. It is reasonable to suppose that had Andros found the Saybrook fort unoccupied, he would have put in a garrison to protect from the Indians the territory which he claimed to be within his commission. Had he intended a surprise, he would not have given notice to Winthrop that the object of his journey was “the Connecticut River, his Royal Highness’s bounds there.” Neither Andros nor the Connecticut authorities desired an armed collision. Andros, content with the assertion of his claim, crossed the Sound, despatched aid to his dependencies of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, and returned, after reviewing the militia and disarming the Indians. The course of Andros was approved by the Duke, who, while insisting on his claim to all the territory west of the Connecticut River, ordered that the distance of twenty miles from the Hudson be observed for the dividing line.<br />
<br />
The northern frontier was also watched with jealous solicitude. The increase of French influence through their missionaries now became the occasion of an English policy- of far-reaching significance, - a policy felt throughout the American Revolution and in the later contest of the States of the Union for Western territory. The friendship of the Mohawks, the only tribe which did not acknowledge French supremacy, was encouraged. Andros personally visited the stronghold of the Mohawks, and on his return to Albany confirmed a close alliance with the Iroquois and organized a board of Indian Commissioners. This sagacious plan served in the future as an effectual check to the encroachments of the French. The ministers of Louis XIV. were quick to feel the blow, and in 1677 the counter claim was set up that the reception of the Jesuit missionaries had given sovereignty to France over the Iroquois. The future contest which was to shake the two continents was already foreshadowed. The same year the supremacy of New York over the Iroquois was tacitly admitted by Massachusetts in the treaty made with them “under the advice” of Andros.<br />
<br />
In the details of his administration Andros showed the same firmness. The old contraband trade with the Dutch was arrested; no European goods were admitted from any port that had not paid duties in England. This strict enforcement of the Navigation Laws diminished the coastwise trade with Massachusetts and promoted a direct intercourse with England, which gradually brought the province into close relation with the English com mercial towns. Social and political alliance was the natural result, and New York grew gradually to be the most English in sentiment of the American colonies, notwithstanding the cosmopolitan character of her population.<br />
<br />
Increasing commerce requiring greater accommodation, a great mole or dock was built on the East River, which afforded protection to vessels in the rapid tide, and for a long period was the centre of the traffic of the city of New York. The answer of Governor Andros to the inquiries of the Council of Plantations as to the condition of the province gives the best existing account of it in 1678. The following are the principal points:—<br />
<blockquote>“Boundaries,—South, the Sea; West, Delaware; North, to ye Lakes or ffrench; East, Connecticut river, but most usurped and yett posse’d by s’d Connecticut: Some Islands Eastward and a Tract beyond Kennebeck River called Pemaquid.. . . Principall places of Trade are New Yorke and South’ton except Albany for the Indyans; our buildings most wood, some lately stone and brick; good country houses, and strong of their severall kindes. About twenty-four towns, villages, or parishes in six precincts, divisions, Rydeings, or Courts of Sessions. Produce is land provisions of all sorts, as of wheate exported yearly about sixty thousand bushells, pease, beefe, pork, and some Refuse fish, Tobacco, beavers’ peltry or furs from the Indians, Deale and oake timber, plankes, pipestavves, lumber, horses, and pitch and tarr lately begunn to be made. Comodityes imported are all sorts of English manufacture for Christians, and blanketts, Duffells, etc., for Indians, about 50,000 pounds yearly. Pemaquid affords merchantable fish and masts. Our merchants are not many, but most inhabitants and planters, about two thousand able to beare armes, old inhabitants of the place or of England, Except in and neere New Yorke of Dutch Extraction, and some few of all nations, but few serv’ts much wanted, and but very few slaves. A merchant worth one thousand pounds or five hundred pounds is accompted a good substantiall merchant, and a planter worthe half that in moveables accompted [rich?]. With all the Estates may be valued at about £150,000 There may lately have trade to ye Colony in a yeare from ten to fifteen ships or vessels, of which togeather 100 turns each, English, New England, and our own built, of which 5 small ships and a Ketch now belonging to New York, four of them built there. No privateers on the coast. Religions of all sorts,—one Church of England, several Presbyterians and Independents, Quakers and Anabaptists of severall sects, some Jews, but Presbyterians and Independents most numerous and substantial. There are about 20 churches or meeting-places, of which about half vacant. Noe beggars, but all poor cared for.”</blockquote>In 1678, the affairs of the province being everywhere in order, Andros availed himself of the permission given him by the Duke to pay a visit to England. He sailed from New York on the 12th of November, leaving Brockholls to administer the government in his absence, with the commission of commander-in-chief. On reaching London Andros was knighted by the King. His administration was examined into by the Privy Council and approved. In May he sailed for New York with the new commission of vice-admiral throughout the government of the Duke of York. He found the province in the same quiet as when he left it.<br />
<br />
The marriage of William of Orange with Mary, daughter of the Duke of York and heiress to the throne of England, in the autumn of 1677, was of happy augury to the New York colony. It gave earnest of a restoration of the natural alliance of the Protestant powers against France, the common enemy. To the Dutch of New York it was peculiarly grateful, allaying the last remains, of the bitterness of submission to alien rule. Andros wisely promoted this good feeling by interesting himself in the formal establishment of their religion. Under his direction a classis of the Reformed Church of Holland met in New York for purposes of ordination, and its proceedings were approved by the supreme ecclesiastical authority at Amsterdam. New points in law were now decided and settled; strikes or combinations to raise the price of labor were declared illegal; all Indians were declared to be free.<br />
<br />
But Andros was on occasion as energetic and determined as he was prudent and moderate. He dallied with no invasion of his master’s rights or privileges, as he evinced when, in 1680, he arrested Carteret in New Jersey and dragged him to trials for having presumed to exercise jurisdiction and collect duties within the limits of the Duke’s patent.<br />
<br />
The position of the Duke of York now became daily more difficult, indeed almost untenable in his increasing divergence from the policy of the kingdom. The elements of that personal opposition which was later to drive him from the throne were rapidly concentrating. His adherents and those who favored a Protestant succession were forming the historic parties of Tories and of Whigs. To avoid angry controversy the Duke ordered the question of his right to collect customs dues in New Jersey to be submitted to Sir William Jones. Upon his adverse decision so far as related to West Jersey, the Duke directed the necessary transfer to be made; and when the widow of Carteret made complaint of his dispossession from authority, the action of Andros was wholly disavowed by the Duke, and his authority over East Jersey was relinquished in the same form. Andros himself, against whom complaints of favoring the Dutch trade had been made by his enemies, was ordered to return to England, leaving Brockholls in charge of the government; at the same time a special agent was sent over to examine into the administration. Conscious of the integrity of his service, Andros obeyed the summons with alacrity, proclaimed the agent’s commission, called Brockholls down from Albany to take charge of the government, and took ship for England. The absence of his firm hand was soon felt. The term for the levy of the customs rates under the Duke’s authority had expired just before his sailing, and had not been renewed. Immediately after his departure the merchants refused to pay duties, and the collector who attempted the levy was held for high treason in the exercise of regal authority without warrant. He pleaded his commission from the Duke, and the case was referred to England. The resistance of the merchants was stimulated by the free condition of the charter just granted to Pennsylvania, which required that all laws should be assented to by the freemen of the province, and that no taxes should be laid or revenue raised except by provincial assembly. The Grand Jury of New York presented the want of a provincial assembly as a grievance; a petition was drafted to the Duke praying for a change in the form of government, and calling for a governor, council, and assembly, the last to be elected by the freeholders of the colony. On the arrival of the Duke’s agent in London with his report upon the late administration, Andros was examined by the Duke’s commissioners, whereupon he was fully exonerated, his administration was complimented, and he was made a gentleman of the King’s Privy Chamber. The Duke’s collector, after waiting in vain for his prosecutors to appear, was discharged from his bond, and soon after appointed surveyor-general of customs in the American Plantations.<br />
<br />
Notwithstanding his dislike to popular assemblies, the Duke of York saw the need of some concession, and gave notice of his intention to Brockholls. Thus by the accident of the non-renewal of the customs’ term, the people of New York were enabled, in the absence of the governor, to assert the doctrine of no taxation without representation, to which the Duke in his necessity was compelled to submit.<br />
<br />
Great changes had taken place in the neighboring territory of New Jersey, which the Duke had alienated from his original magnificent domain, to its mutilation and lasting injury. Pennsylvania was formally organized as a province, and Philadelphia was planned. East New Jersey passed into the hands of twelve proprietors, who increased their number by sale to twenty-four, selected a governor, summoned a legislature, and organized the State.<br />
<br />
While the English race, true to its instincts and traditions, was thus organizing its settlements, bringing its population into homogeneity, and preparing for a gradual but sure extension of its colonization from a firm, well-ordered base, the more adventurous French were pushing their voyages and posts along the lakes and down the Western streams, until the discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi by La Salle completed the chain and added to the nominal domain of the sovereign of France the vast territory from the Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico, to which he gave the name of Louisiana.<br />
<br />
The governor selected by the Duke of York to succeed Andros and to inaugurate the new order of government in his province was Colonel Thomas Dongan, an Irish officer who had commanded a regiment in the French service. Though a Roman Catholic, an Irishman, and a soldier, he proved himself an excellent and prudent magistrate. The instructions of the Duke required the appointment of a council of ten eminent citizens and the issue of writs for a general assembly, not to exceed eighteen, to consult with the Governor and Council with regard to the laws to be established, such laws to be subject to his approval,—the general tenor of laws as to life and property to be in conformity with the common law of England. No duties were to be levied except by the Assembly. No allusion was made to religion. No more democratic form of government existed in America, or was possible under kingly authority.<br />
<br />
Dongan reached the city of New York, Aug. 28, 1683, and assumed the government. Installing his secretary and providing occupation for Brockholls, he summoned an assembly, and then hastened to Albany to check the attempt of Penn to extend the bounds of the territory of Pennsylvania by a purchase of the valley of the Upper Susquehanna from the Iroquois, who claimed the country by right of conquest from the Andastes. In this Dongan was successful; the Cayugas settling the question by a formal conveyance of the coveted territory to the New York Government, a cession which was later confirmed by the Mohawks. At the same time this tribe was instructed as to their behavior toward the French. The claim of New York to all the land on the south side of the lake was again renewed and assented to by the Mohawks. The astute Iroquois already recognized that only through the friendship of the English could their independence be maintained.<br />
<br />
The New York Assembly met in October. Its first act bore the title of “The Charter of Liberties and Privileges granted by his Royal Highness to the Inhabitants of New York and its dependencies.” The supreme legislative authority, under the King and the Duke, was vested in a governor, council, and “the people met in general assembly;” the sessions, triennial as in England; franchise, free to every freeholder; the law, that of England in its most liberal provisions; freedom of conscience and religion to all peaceable persons “which profess faith in God by Jesus Christ.” In the words of the petition of right of 1628, no tax or imposition was to be laid except by act of Assembly,—in consideration of which privileges the Assembly was to grant the Duke or his heirs certain specified impost duties. The province was divided into twelve counties. Four tribunals of justice were established; namely, town courts with monthly sessions for the trial of petty cases; county or courts of sessions; a general court of oyer and terminer, to meet twice in each year; and a court of chancery or supreme court of the province, composed of the Governor and Council. An appeal to the King was reserved in every case. In addition to these there was a clause unusual in American statutes, naturalizing the foreign born residents and those who should come to reside within the limits of the province, which had already assumed the cosmopolitan character which has never since ceased to mark the city of New York, The liberal provisions of the statute gave security to all, and invited immigration from Europe, where religious intoleration was again unsettling the bases of society. It was not until the 4th of October, 1684, that the Duke signed and sealed the amended instrument, “The Charter of Franchises and Privileges to New Yorke in America,” and ordered it to be registered and sent across sea.<br />
<br />
Connecticut making complaint of the extension of New York law over the territory within the contested boundary lines, Dongan brought the long dispute to a summary close by giving notice to the Hartford authorities that unless they withdrew their claims to territory within twenty miles of the Hudson he should renew the old New York claim to the Connecticut River as the eastern limit of the Duke’s patent, and refer the subject directly to his Highness. In reply to an invitation from Dongan, commissioners proceeded from Hartford to New York, who abandoned the pretensions set up, and accepted the line proposed by Dongan, thus finally closing the controversy.<br />
<br />
The city of New York was now divided into six wards, certain jurisdiction conferred upon its officers, and a recorder was appointed.<br />
<br />
Dongan with the vision of a statesman recognized the value of the friendship of the Indians. The Iroquois tribes he described as the bulwark of New York against Canada. The policy of the Duke’s governors from the time of Nicolls was unchanged. It consisted in a claim to all the territory south and southwest of the Lake of Canada (Ontario), and the confining of the French to the territory to the northward by the help of Indian allies. The French officers by negotiation and threat endeavored first to impose their authority on the several tribes of the Iroquois confederacy, and failing in this to divide them. But Dongan, carefully observing their mano=euvres, obtained from a council of chiefs a written submission to the King of England, which was recorded on two white dressed deer-skins. The presence on the occasion at Albany of Lord Howard of Effingham, the Governor of Virginia, added greatly in the eyes of the Indians to this solemn engagement. Four nations bound themselves to the covenant, and asked that the arms of the Duke of York should be put upon their castles; and Dongan gave notice of the same to the Canadian Government, in witness that they were within his jurisdiction and under his protection. But in this submission the Indians recognized no subjection. The Iroquois still claimed his perfect freedom.<br />
<br />
The claim of Massachusetts to territory westward of the Hudson was another perplexing element in the Indian question. In answer to a renewal of this demand, Dongan set up his claim as the Duke’s governor to jurisdiction over the towns which Massachusetts had organized on land covered by the Duke’s patent on the west side of the Connecticut River; but the matter being soon disposed of by the cancelling, for various offences, of the Massachusetts patent by the King, through the operation of a writ of quo warranto, the Duke had no further contestant to his claims. The New Jersey boundary was also matter of dispute, but Dongan, at first of his own motion, and later by specific instruction from the Duke, took care to prevent Penn from acquiring any part of New Jersey or from interfering with the Indian trade.<br />
<br />
The controversy with Canada as to the country south of the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario now drew to a head. Dongan clung persistently to the claim asserted by Andros in 1677. Against this the Canadians set up the sovereignty of France, acquired by war and treaties and the planting of missionaries among the tribes. The question turned upon the independence of the Iroquois, parts of which tribes had never made submission, or had repudiated the interpretation set upon their engagements. The new French governor, De la Barre, made ineffectual menace, but not supporting his threat with arms, lost the respect of the savages. The prestige of the English was increased, and the coveted trade passed into their hands to such an extent that in 1684 the Senecas alone brought into Albany more than ten thousand beaver skins. Nor was Denonville, who succeeded De la Barre in the government of Canada, more fortunate in enforcing his policy. His wily effort to engage the sympathies of his co-religionist Dongan in a support of the French missionaries among the tribes, was foiled by the New York governor, who at the same time secured the approbation of his Roman Catholic master by proposing to replace them with English priests.<br />
<br />
The death of Charles II., early in the year 1685, and the accession to the throne of the Duke of York as James II., were of momentous influence upon European politics. They at once changed the political position of New York. The condition of proprietorship or nominal duchy altered with that of its master and proprietor. The Duke became a King; the duchy a royal province. The change involved a change in the New York charter, and afforded opportunity for a reconsideration and rejection of the entire instrument. The words “the people” were particularly objected to by the new King as unusual. The revocation of the Massachusetts charter by the late King, the government of which colony had not yet been settled, presented a favorable occasion for an assimilation of all the constitutions of the American colonies as preliminary to that consolidation of government and power at which James aimed as his ideal of government. Nevertheless the existing New York charter remained,—not confirmed, not repealed, but continued. The Scotch risings and the Monmouth rebellion interfered with any immediate action by the Government in American affairs. Yet the New York province hailed with joy the accession of their Duke and Lord proprietor to the throne. His rule had been just and temperate; his agents prudent and discreet. The immediate Governor, Dongan, was thoroughly identified with the interests of the province confided to his care, and aimed to make of its capital the centre of English influence in America. In 1686 the city received a new charter, with a grant of all the vacant land in and about the city. Albany, also, under an arrangement with the landed proprietors, was incorporated and intrusted with the management of the Indian trade. The suppression of the Monmouth rebellion enabling James to turn his attention to America, he directed proceedings to be instituted in the English courts to cancel the charters of the Connecticut, Rhode Island, West Jersey, and Delaware colonies. In the interim a temporary government was established for Massachusetts, Plymouth, Maine, and New Hampshire, in accordance with the order of Charles made in 1684. A board of councillors was appointed, of whom Joseph Dudley was named president.<br />
<br />
Weary of the trouble and expense of maintaining authority in distant Pemaquid, Dongan urged the King to annex this dependency to Massachusetts, and to add Connecticut to New York. Dudley pleaded the claim of Massachusetts with the Connecticut authorities. They held an even balance between the two demands, however, and resolved to maintain the autonomy of the colony, if possible, against either the machinations of her neighbors or the warrant of the King.<br />
<br />
It has been seen that as Duke of York the policy of James in the government of his American province was, with the exception of the weakness shown in the case of Carteret and New Jersey, the consolidation of power. His accession to the throne enabled him to carry out this policy on a broader field. He determined to put an end to the temporary charge by commissioners of the New England colonies, and to unite them all under one government, the better to defend themselves against invasion. The assigned reason was the policy of aggression of the French on the frontiers. The person selected for the delicate duty of harmonizing the colonies into one province was Sir Edmund Andros, who, as the Duke’s deputy, had first suggested that a strong royal government should be established in New England, and of whose character and administrative abilities there was no question. He was accordingly commissioned by the King “Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief over his territory and dominions of New England in America.” By the terms of his instructions, liberty of conscience was granted to all, countenance promised to the Church of England, and power conferred on the Assembly to make laws and levy taxes. Pemaquid was annexed to the new government.<br />
<br />
To assimilate the New York government to that of the new dominion a new commission was issued to Dongan as King’s captain-general and governor-in-chief over the province of New York. The charter of liberties and privileges recently signed was repealed; the existing laws, however, were to continue in force until others should be framed and promulgated by the Governor and Council. The liberty of conscience granted in 1674 and limited in 1683 to Christians, was now extended to all persons without restriction. A censorship of the press was established. The trade of the Hudson River was to be kept free from intrusion by any.<br />
<br />
While the King was thus strengthening his power and gathering into one grasp the entire force of the colonies, his ministers allowed themselves to be outwitted by the French in negotiation. A treaty of neutrality inspired by France engaged non-interference by either Government in the wars of the other against the savage tribes in America, and struck a severe blow at the policy of the New York governors. The announcement of the treaty was accompanied by the arrival of reinforcements in Canada and the organization of an expedition against the Iroquois. The treacherous seizure and despatch to France of a number of chiefs, who had been invited to a conference at Quebec, opened the campaign, at once ended the French missions among the Five Nations, and consolidated their alliance with the English. The expedition of Denonville was partially successful. The Seneca country was occupied, sovereignty proclaimed, and a fort built on the old site of La Salle’s Fort de Conty. But the power of the Iroquois was not touched. Hampered by his instructions, Dongan could only lay the situation before the King and suggest a comprehensive plan for the fortification of the country and assistance of the friendly tribes. Alarmed at the news from the frontier, he resolved to winter in Albany, and ordered the Five Nations to send their old women and children to Catskill, where they could be protected and cared for. A draft was also made of every tenth militia man to strengthen the Albany post. Denonville, despairing of conquering the fierce Iroquois, though they were supported only by the tacit aid of the English, now urged upon Louis XIV. the acquisition of the coveted territory by exchange or by purchase, even of the entire province of New York, with the harbor of the city.<br />
<br />
Dongan’s messenger to James easily satisfied the King that the treaty of neutrality was not for the interest of England, and that if the independence of the Five Nations were not maintained, the sovereignty over them must be English. Orders were sent to Dongan to defend and protect them, and to Andros and the other governors to give them aid. To the complaints of Louis, James opposed the submission made at Albany in 1684 by the chiefs in the presence of the Governor of Virginia. As a compromise between the Governments it was agreed by treaty that until January, 1689, no act of hostility should be committed or either territory invaded. The warlike defensive operations against the French put the New York Government to extraordinary charges, amounting to more than £8,000, to which the neighboring colonies were invited to contribute under authority of the King’s letter of November, 1687. The occasion to urge the importance of New York as the bulwark of the colonies, and of strengthening her by the annexation of Connecticut and New Jersey, was not forgotten by the sagacious Dongan. Now that the Dutch pretension to rule in America was definitively set at rest, it was evident to statesmen that a struggle for the American continent would sooner or later arise between the powers of France and England,—indeed the rivalry had already begun. To James, who thoroughly understood the practice as well as the theory of administration, and was as diligent in his cabinet as any of his ministers, it was equally evident that the consolidated power of New France in the single hand of a viceroy was more serviceable than the discordant action of provinces so much at variance with each other in principle and feeling as the American colonies. To the viceregal government of New France he resolved to oppose a viceregal government of British America. To New England he now determined to annex New York. Dongan was recalled, gratified with military promotion and personal honor, and Sir Edmund Andros was commissioned governor-general of the entire territory. His commission gave him authority over<br />
<br />
”All that tract of land, circuit, continent, precincts, and limits in America lying and being in breadth from forty degrees of northern latitude from the equinoctial line to the River St. Croix eastward, and from thence directly northward to the River of Canada, and in length and longitude by all the breadth aforesaid throughout the main land, from the Atlantic or Western Sea or Ocean on the east part to the South Sea on the west part, with all the islands, seas, rivers, waters, rights, members, and appurtenances thereunto belonging (our province of Pennsylvania and country of Delaware only excepted), to be called and known, as formerly, by the name and title of our territory and dominion of New England in America.”<br />
On the 11th of August, 1688, Andros assumed his viceregal authority at Fort James in New York. A few days later the news arrived of the birth of a son to King James. A proclamation of the viceroy ordered a day of thanksgiving to be observed within the city of New York and dependencies. Thus New York was formally recognized as the metropolis and the seat of government in the Dominion of New England. By the King’s instructions the seal of New York was broken in council, and the great seal of New England thereafter used.<br />
<br />
The Governor of Canada was notified that the Five Nations were the subjects of the King of England, and would be protected as such. The new governor visited Albany, and held a conference with the delegates from the Five Nations, and renewed the old covenant of Corlaer. The Indians showing signs of restlessness all along the frontier as far as Casco Bay, the viceroy endeavored to settle the difficulties between Canada and the New York tribes, and engaged his good offices to secure the return of the prisoners from France. On his return to Boston Andros left the affairs of the New York government in the charge of Nicholson. Dongan retired to his farm at Hempstead on Long Island. Though peaceful, the new dominion was not at rest. The liberty of conscience declared by the King was not precisely that which each dissenting denomination desired. Gradually men of each grew to believe that James was indifferent to all religions that were not of the true faith; and regarding the simple manner in which by legal form he had stripped them of their chartered rights, began to fear that by an act as legal he might strip them of their liberty of worship. The test Act which he had refused to obey, to the loss of his dignities and honors as Duke, might be altered to the ruin of its authors. A Roman Catholic test might take the place of the Protestant form. The King reigned, and a son was born to him, who doubtless would be educated in the papist faith of the Stuarts. William of Orange was only near the throne.<br />
<br />
While the colonies were thus agitated, a spirit of quiet resistance was spreading in England, where alarm was great at the arbitrary manner in which charters were stricken down. Property was threatened. In the American colonies the agitation was chiefly religious. Among their inhabitants were Huguenot families whom the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 had ruthlessly driven from their homes to a shelter on the distant continent. The crisis was at hand. Strangely enough, it was precipitated by the declaration of liberty of conscience and the abrogation of the test oath against Dissenters which King James had commissioned Andros to proclaim in America. This liberty of conscience included liberty to Catholics, which the Protestants would have none of. The abrogation of the test oath opened the way to preferment and honor to Catholics, which the Protestants were equally averse to. Ordered to read the proclamation in the churches, seven bishops, headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, refused to obey the command. The prelates were committed, tried, and acquitted. Encouraged by this victory, the great Whig houses of England now addressed an invitation to William of Orange, who was already, with naval and military force, secretly prepared to cross the sea. On the 5th of November the great Stadtholder landed on the shores of Devon, and proclaimed himself the maintainer of English liberties. Thus a declaration of liberty of conscience brought about the fall of a Catholic king. The news caused great excitement in the colonies. Andros, who had but lately returned to Boston from an expedition to the northeastern frontier of Maine, where he had established posts for protection against the tribes who were threatening a second Indian war, was seized and imprisoned by a popular uprising. In New York the agitation was as intense. Nicholson, the lieutenant-governor, unequal to the emergency, let slip the grasp of power from his hand; and on the open revolt of Leisler, one of the militia captains, who seized the fort, he determined to sail for England, and the control of the province passed to a committee of safety. The revolt of Leisler forms the opening of a new chapter in the story of the New York province.<br />
<br />
John Austin Stevens, <i>Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol III</i>, 1889</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-7738451348414859322013-01-13T16:14:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:14:46.334-08:00The Disunited Colonies<center><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUt2T8qI7Zcmxkapmql3MZMJQfw7Il36V8wo0t8DqsIeJBP9TNTaxiL7bCo2fEapDWxe2iROOx45p8VYJl7f4QyXA-nnB9xYmvK5ErsyXPqJSkh2xKM2mUZ8lwij0jEQWIt1o9N8i0NZw/s1600/southern+new+england.jpg"target="_blank"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 269px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUt2T8qI7Zcmxkapmql3MZMJQfw7Il36V8wo0t8DqsIeJBP9TNTaxiL7bCo2fEapDWxe2iROOx45p8VYJl7f4QyXA-nnB9xYmvK5ErsyXPqJSkh2xKM2mUZ8lwij0jEQWIt1o9N8i0NZw/s400/southern+new+england.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5608204929819535202" style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"/></a></center><br>
<div align="left">The arrival of the royal commissioners inaugurate a brief new era in New England. Although they were but four persons without any of the paraphernalia of power except the royal seal on their commissions, they spoke and acted with the confidence of men who can summon power at need. The voices were those of Colonel Richard Nicolls, Colonel George Cartwright, Sir Robert Carr, and Samuel Maverick, but the words were those of the king of England. These were not men to shiver at a frown from Boston's magistrates or despair at the trainbands' advance. They strode into the presence of the colonial great and made demands and gave orders. They stopped the Puritan juggernaut in its tracks.<br /><br />But the limit of their authority was precisely marked at the point where power ceased to be available. While New England contemplated how quickly an English fleet had conquered New Netherland, the royal commissioners were deferred to as men who might be able to summon another fleet to chastise rebellious English colonies. Stubborn Puritans dragged their heels, equivocated, evaded, quibbled, misinformed, debated, and appealed, but they pretended to be loyal, obedient subjects acting only within their rights. Others saw new opportunity opening up and hastened to ingratiate themselves with the commissioners. But when soundings indicated that the crown was indecisive and not at all willing to act forcefully—that, in short, it was bluffing—resistance firmed up, and the commissioners were recalled with their tasks unfinished.<br /><br />Nevertheless they had made a difference. The "church fellowship" of the United Colonies shattered under their impact, and every colony struggled frantically on its own to stabilize its boundaries against the claims of all the others. Effects on the Indians varied. Under the crown's protection the Narragansetts got a decade of reprieve from Puritan conquest, but the Wampanoags and the inland Nipmucks, whose band and lands straddled disputed frontiers, came under intense pressure from many sides. The Wampanoags came under severe harassment from Plymouth as the leaders of that charterless colony desperately sought to extract from their client's "natural rights" every possible bit of validation for the colony's territorial claims. Ironically it was Plymouth, the weakest and least aggressive member of the Puritan confederation, whose thrashing struggles for political survival precipitated the Second Puritan Conquest.<br /><br /><br />Almost from the instant of the Restoration of Charles II, complaints had been lodged with his Privy Council against the conduct of Puritan New England. Two themes ran through these charges: that Massachusetts was denying its proper subordination to the crown and that the Puritan governments were trampling upon the rights and liberties of non-Puritans in other colonies as well as in their own. In the eyes of the crown both sorts of accusation evidenced that the Puritans had acquired too much independent power, and the crown's commissioners were instructed to whittle away at that power as much as possible without precipitating outright rebellion. In the nature of the case the royal commissioners became champions not only of royal authority but also of the rights of the multitudes, both English and Indian, whom the Puritan oligarchy had attacked and repressed. Royal concern for popular right need not be interpreted as a sudden accession of democratic humanism in the Stuart dynasty; its motivation, quite clearly, was to achieve enough popular support for the sovereign to break the power of the colonial lords with a minimum of financial and political cost. Regardless of motives, however, the immediate aims of the royal commissioners—and, to some degree, their achievements—including strengthening the "rights of Englishmen" in the colonies because, by so doing, they would strengthen the crown.<br /><br />New England's historians have tended, by and large, to invert the reality. The commissioners, they have charged, were sent to destroy self-government; indeed, some have been so foolish as to equate the independent Puritan oligarchies with democracy. Especial animosity has been visited upon one commissioner, Samuel Maverick, who is portrayed as a man filled with venom against New England and eager to revenge himself upon it. It is true that Maverick had a score to pay off, for the Massachusetts oligarchy had made him one of their many victims and had driven him away in spite of his status as an Old Planter who had been established before the arrival of the Massachusetts Bay Company. But Maverick's venom is not easy to see in the actual policies he recommended when he got the attention of the crown. Here is his program as he presented it to Lord Chancellor Clarendon at the minister's request:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">That all freeholders may have voats in Election of officers civill and Military.<br />That all persons inoffencive in life and conversation may be admitted to the sacrament of the Lords supper, and theire childeren to Baptism.<br />That such lawes as are now in force there, derrogatinge from the lawes of England, may be repealed.<br />That the oath of Allegance [to the crown] may be administered in steade of that which they tearme the oath of fidelitie [to the colonial government].<br />That they goe not beyond their just bounds, even those which for neare twentie years they were content withall.<br />That they admitt of Appeales [to the crown] on just and reasonable grounds.<br />That they permitt such as desire it, to use the Common prayer [of the Church of England].<br />That all writts etc. may be issewed out in his Majesties name.</span><br /><br />When Massachusetts later refused to concede a single one of these measures, Maverick proposed coercive pressures directed against the more obstreperous members of the oligarchy, but the acts he suggested do not begin to compare in severity with the sentences inflicted by the oligarchy upon its own opponents.<br /><br />The crown officially instructed its commissioners to establish royal authority to the extent possible, to secure liberty of conscience in all colonies as had already been guaranteed in Rhode Island, to hear appeals to the king's justice insofar as the issues involved abuse or exceeding of chartered powers, and to treat with Indian "princes." The commissioners were also emphatically instructed to disturb existing institutions and arrangements as little as possible.<br /><br />Boston met the royal commissioners with adamant refusal in substance, fully visible behind a halfhearted disguise of shuffling evasion in form. As Commissioner Cartwright reported, the magistrates took the position "that they are not obliged to the King, but by civilitie," adding, "they hope to tyre the king, the lord chancelor, and the Secretary too with writing. They can esily spinne 7 yeares out with writing at that distance and before that a change may come." The other colonies distinguished themselves from Massachusett's intransigence by making haste to submit in due public form, however many reservations they kept in private. Winthrop, Jr., in Connecticut was all smiles, indirection, and amiable pleasantness. Wholly charterless Plymouth humbled itself grudgingly. But Rhode Island jubilated its subjection, and it was there among heretics, democrats, and royalists that the royal commissioners achieved solid accomplishments through unfeigned local cooperation—enough to use as a basis for pregnant constitutional propositions.<br /><br />At the heart of the issues before the royal commissioners were the powers and status of the United Colonies of New England, and the hearings of inquiry opened to the king's agents a picture much different from the stories that John Winthrop, Jr., had told in London. Winthrop had there cozened the crown into recognizing the Atherton title, even to entrusting the United Colonies with authority to protect Atherton (and his silent partner Winthrop) against "certaine unreasonable and turbulent speritts of Providence Collonie." After an investigation of the whole situation in Rhode Island, the commissioners ordered otherwise. When they called sachem Pessicus to testify, he confirmed the Narragansett's deed of submission to King Charles I, which had been preserved so long by Samuel Gorton, whereupon the commissioners, as instructed, erected the Narragansett country into "The King's Province" and put it under the administration of the government of Rhode Island.<br /><br />They discovered the fraud of the Atherton mortgage so incontrovertibly that John Winthrop, Jr., did not even attempt to defend it. As the commissioners reported, "Mr. Winthrop governor of Conecticot, Major Wenslo [Winslow] of New Plymoth colony were joyned together with these of the Massachusets" in "a combination (as it was afterwards confesst to be) that the Commissioners of the United Colonies, being always the cheife men of those 3 colonies, and Newhaven (for Rode island was excluded) might alwayes make orders in favour of the purchasers against Rode-island, and so they did." Winthrop, standing by, was so confounded that he could think of nothing but to pretend that his name had been used by the Atherton Company without his consent. This excuse had been disproved by a modern student who concluded that the royal commissioners were "perfectly justified" in their finding.<br /><br />The commissioners struck down without equivocation the assumed authority of the Puritan confederation to warrant and conduct conquest. "No colony hath any just right to dispose of any lands conquered from the natives, unles both the cause of the conquest be just and the land lye within the bounds which the king by his charter hath given it, nor yet to exercise any authority beyond those bounds." They declared void all grants made by "the usurped authority called the United Colonyes." and Commissioner Cartwright explained to the ministry in London that by means of the confederation the Puritan colonies "took more power then was ever given, or entended them."<br /><br />This was the authentic voice of the national state suppressing all powers save such as derived from itself. The royal commissioners even stepped so far out of their era as to lay down the principle of equality of right among subjects. They tackled Massachusett's Indian tenure law, with its theological distinctions of superior right for Christians justified by biblical verses. Psalms 115:16 was cited therein: "The heaven, even the heavens, are the <span style="font-size:85%;">LORD'S</span>: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." For a brief moment the royal commissioners' comment sounded like a Leveler's. "'Children of men' comprehends Indians as well as English; and no doubt the country is theirs till they give it or sell it, though it be not improoved." (Suddenly the town of Hingham remembered to purchase from its Indian landlord.)<br /><br />Although the benefit to the Indians was short-lived, New England began to emerge, kicking and screaming, from the politics of feudalism to the modern age. Massachusetts found ways of prolonging the transition and of thwarting the work of Charles's commissioners, and Mr. Winthrop in Connecticut obeyed royal directives by interpreting them to mean what he wanted to do; but the process of implanting royal authority had begun, and its growth was nourished in Rhode Island and in the New York that had been made from New Netherland.<br /><br />The United Colonies ceased attempts at overt conquest, but it apparently launched an effort at covert conquest with some of the money that it continued to receive from England for distribution to the missions. Arms and ammunition were bought and entrusted to "the care and prudence of Mr. Eliot" for the praying Indians "upon any occasion." An occasion arose in 1669 when a large force of Indians marched from Massachusetts to attack the Mohawks, by whom they were badly beaten. John Eliot and Daniel Gookin disclaimed responsibility for the march, but the evidence is strong that they must have shared some sort of complicity, possibly under protest. The Indians were led by Josias Wompatuck, "chief ruler" of the mission town of Pakeunit, and they were not chastised upon their return. Besides all this, two governors of New York had been attempting for years to make peace between the Mohawks and all of New England's Indians, and the frustration of their efforts had not been caused by Mohawk intractability. Each time that Governor Richard Nicolls or his successor Francis Lovelace approached John Winthrop, Jr., to arrange a treaty, Winthrop evaded. At one point he came as close to outright refusal as his equivocal temperament permitted, declaring that New England's Indians actually dreaded a peace more than war. Winthrop was, without doubt, the most influential of the Commissioners of the United Colonies, and it is unlikely that he bothered to consult the Indians before he spoke for them. His conduct and language signify that the initiative for the war against the Mohawks came from the Puritan oligarchy, whose motive was to expand into the Hudson Valley by the same conquest-of-Indians techniques they were using openly in Rhode Island. (Both Massachusetts and Connecticut laid claim to territory within New York's jurisdiction.) There is some possibility that Eliot and Gookin may have dissented from a secret decision to launch their praying Indians on a particular campaign against the Mohawks, but they continued to be faithful servants of the agency from which they drew their funds.<br /><br />But the Puritan confederation had become a shadow of its former self, and intermural quarrels tore at the fragile fabric of Puritan unity. The charter coup by which Connecticut had seized New Haven aroused so much wrath in the swallowed colony that a contingent of its people sailed off to New Jersey rather than submit. More immediately pertinent to our interests, Plymouth Colony became nervous about its own survival. Plymouth was willing to help the United Colonies spend the "Indian stocke" and attend to "Corporation business"—i.e., the funds and affairs of the missionary society that had made the United Colonies its agent in New England—but Plymouth had been shocked by the New Haven affair. Governor Thomas Prence wrote: "Wee find not our reason seated in sufficient Light to Continew Confeaderation with three Collonies as wee did with foure; because it is against an expresse article that noe two of the said Collonies shall become one (and wee apprehend Grounded upon good reason) except with consent of the rest; which wee doe not nor youer selves for ought wee know nor New haven except Constrained."<br /><br />The rift was patched up, and the confederation rewrote its articles; but Plymouth's apprehension persisted. The only New England colony still without a royal charter, it was surrounded by border disputes on every side but the ocean. Rhode Island had won royal consent to expand to the east shore of Narragansett Bay, much against Plymouth's protests, and Massachusetts reopened the worrisome issue of its southern line. Plymouth men saw their colony being nibbled away. Who could know certainly that the rest of it might not go down in a gulp?<br /><br />Somehow Plymouth never did manage to get a valid charter, and it continued to rely heavily for legality upon its protectorate over the Wampanoag Indians. So long as the Wampanoags dealt in land affairs exclusively with Plymouth, the protectorate served to convert Indian rights into colony rights, but the device required constant controls over Indian cessions. Since the Wampanoags were a free tribe, never having subjected themselves in the manner of the Massachuset tribe, and since Plymouth lacked the size and strength of her northern neighbor, controls presented difficulties. Even old sachem Massassoit, subservient though he was, occasionally plucked up courage to sell his own land at his own whim. Indeed Providence Plantations had begun when Massassoit sold off his claim (overlapping the Narragansett claim to the same land) to Roger Williams. When Massassoit died, his successor, Wamsutta, showed considerably more independence than the old chief. Fearful Plymouth learned that Wamsutta was selling territory to outsiders. Plymouth's General Court directed an emissary "to speak to Wamsitta about his estranged land, and not selling it to our collonie."<br /><br />Wamsutta again asserted independence by selling to Providence after having been "spoken to," upon which defiance Plymouth resorted to more persuasive measures. Major Josiah Winslow, a worthy scion of his sire, Edward, took a small party of armed men to surprise Wamsutta at one of the Indians' hunting stations. Pointing a pistol at the sachem's breast, Winslow told him (as reported by William Hubbard) "that if he stirred or refused to go he was a dead man." It happened that Wamsutta was sick. Hubbard says he became sick on the way to Plymouth town, because of hot weather and choleric pride, but that alibi—so neatly tailored to the myth of the ferocious and irrational savage—fits badly into the circumstances. Wamsutta had lived in the open all his life and was certainly as accustomed as any of Winslow's Englishmen to traveling in hot weather, but he was so badly incapacitated that Winslow became worried and soon turned him loose. Wamsutta died "before he got half way home." Notably, not a word of all this found its way into the official records, although there was considerable indignation even the official records, although there was considerable indignation even among Englishmen over Winslow's brutality. Years later Hubbard felt obliged to denounce "false reports as if the English had compelled [Wamsutta] to go further or faster than he was able." The proof of falsity? It was not to be imagined "that a person of so noble a disposition" as Winslow's could be "uncivil to a person allied to them, by his own, as well as his father's league." It would seem that Hubbard included in his definition of admirable civility the threat to shoot Wamsutta on the spot for noncompliance with an ultimatum.<br /><br />Wamsutta's brother Metacom succeeded to the sachemship. We know him more familiarly as Philip, the name he asked for as a compliment to the English. (But that request was made before the death of his brother, who had also requested an English name and had been dubbed Alexander) Plymouth lost little time in bringing Philip to terms. Wamsutta's death had occurred sometime after June 8, 1664. Philip was haled to Plymouth town on August 6, on the pretext of "danger of the rising of the Indians against the English." A harried Philip remembered his brother and groveled. He "absolutely" denied conspiring and proffered another brother as hostage "untill the Court could have more sertainty of the truth of his defence." For once Plymouth was totally uninterested in hostages—a fact that implies much about the truth of its charges. What Plymouth did want was a contract that Philip would never again convey lands to any person, by gift, sale, or otherwise, "without our privity, consent, or appointment." Having gained that end, the General Court sent Philip back home.<br /><br />There is reason to believe that Philip was deceived about what he signed. The document pledged him without limit of time, which was surely not what he understood it to say. Within six months after signing he dictated a letter that reviewed his understanding, and no one at Plymouth corrected him. In his letter he remarked, "Philip would in treat that favor of you, and aney of the majestrats, if aney English or Engians speak about aney land, he preay you to give them no ansewer at all. This last sumer he maid that promis with you, that he would not sell no land <i>in 7 years time</i>, for that he would have <i>no</i> English trouble him before that time, he has not forgot that you promis him."<br /><br />It must be stressed that Philip was still a "free" sachem in 1662. His treaty pledged subjection to the king of England, but not to Plymouth. That distinction acquired peculiar force when Rhode Island gained its royal charter in 1663, for the charter put Philip's home village within Rhode Island's boundaries. Called variously Sowams, Pokanoket, and Mount Hope (now Bristol, Rhode Island), this small "neck" of land became the tinder that set all New England in flames. By the accepted rules Indian tribes came under the protectorate of the colony whose charter embraced their territory, and Rhode Island claimed that "the native Indians" wanted to be "within this jurisdiction," but Plymouth refused to let go of Philip. Instead Plymouth challenged Rhode Island's charter, and a struggle set in that was only intensified when Charles II wrote, in 1666, to say that the bounds set by his commissioners were to stand until his final royal determination—particularly "the present temporary bound sett by the Commissioners between the Collonies of New Plymouth and Rhode Island, until his Majestie shall find cause to alter the same." Instead of quieting Plymouth, the letter merely aroused hope and desire to provide the indicated cause.<br /><br />As to what then happened, it is regrettably necessary to omit much detail. In brief, all the New England colonies reopened all their boundary claims, and the competition in the deed game became fiercer than ever. The Narragansett country continued to be a cockpit of struggle as Connecticut attempted to enforce its jurisdiction there. And a new area became the scene of active conflict: a three-way struggle commenced in 1668 between Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Plymouth for the region where their claimed boundaries overlapped. This was the edge of the Nipmuck Indian territory, and Massachusetts and Connecticut became attentive to the Nipmucks because of still another boundary brawl. The Nipmucks were horribly caught as the client Indians of four colonies claimed tribute from them and fought to enforce it. Eliot's mission Indians heard the voice of God and threw themselves into the same fray, with their governing magistrate and minister in the lead. The sound of the battles reached England in 1671, where the Council for Plantations took alarm. Failure to compromise New England's boundary disputes would lead to civil war, the Council thought, and the crown resolved in 1672 to send a new set of commissioners. But there were delays, and no royal agent was sent until the forseen war broke out, though not in the foreseen way.<br /><br />In 1667 Plymouth's General court established the town of Swansea. Situated at the western edge of Plymouth's claims and straddling the counterclaims of Rhode Island, it also encroached upon sachem Philip's homeland of Sowams. Disregarding Philip's former plea (and Plymouth's promise) to prevent any Englishman from soliciting lands, the Court authorized Indian purchases "within the township of Swansey" early in 1668, providing they would not "too much straiten the Indians." A year later the General court authorized expansion of Swansea, ordering "for the accomodateing of more inhabitants in the said township, that all such lands as the Indians can well spare shalbe purchased." The means of determining which lands the Indians could "well spare" do not appear in the records. Certain it is, however, that the Indians were not permitted to make that decision. In 1670 Plymouth mended political fences by resubscribing to the articles of the United Colonies, then turned its attention once more to Philip.<br /><br />The Wampanoag Indians began to talk angrily and menacingly. Early in 1671 they made a display of armed force before Swansea's settlers, for which Plymouth haled Philip to Taunton on April 10, 1671, for discipline. Ordering him to turn in all his people's arms (which was the same as depriving them of essential tools for their livelihood), Plymouth also levied a fine. But the most serious clause in this April treaty demanded that Philip give submission to Plymouth as well as to the English crown. Moreover, the submission was retroactive to bind Philip's dead predecessors as well as himself: "My Father, my Brother, and my self, have formerly submitted our selves and our People unto the Kings Majesty of England, and to the Colony of New-Plimouth." Something more than exuberant imagination was behind this, as Plymouth's colonial neighbors instantly recognized. When Philip ran off to Boston to complain of his treatment, the magistrates there "doubted whether the covenants and engagements that Phillip and his predecessors had plighted" meant anything more than "a naighborly and frindly correspondency" to Plymouth. One need not leap to the conclusion that Massachusetts had suddenly become tender towards Indians. A matter of the validity of land titles can be discerned in the background. If Philip and his father and brother were all acknowledged as having been subject to Plymouth, the titles of lands bought by colonists of other jurisdictions would suddenly become vulnerable to Plymouth's challenge. So would the jurisdiction over those lands. Perhaps Plymouth was aiming the retroactive clause primarily at Rhode Island, but Massachusetts men of the town of Hingham had also bought land from the Wampanoag sachems, and Massachusetts would never recognize a treaty that might carve chunks out of its borders.<br /><br />Consultation ensued between the Commissioners of the United Colonies, and on September 29, 1671, they helped Plymouth bludgeon Philip into signing a substitute for the tacitly rescinded Taunton treaty. As far as Philip was concerned, the new treaty was not an improvement. Its abandonment of the retroactive clause helped him not at all, because the first clause of the new treaty made him and his people subject to New Plymouth from that time forward. The treaty once more denied him power to sell his lands except with Plymouth's permission, and, as usual, it levied a large fine.<br /><br />A modern scholar, usually strongly favorable to Plymouth, has remarked: "This treaty he [Philip] was supposed to have been 'left to accept or reject, as hee should see cause'; that a free choice in fact was his hardly seems possible. The treaty dictated harsh terms, unacceptably harsh for Philip to have signed freely. Such coercion as may have been used to secure his consent, the Secretary of the General Court, Nathaniel Morton, did not choose to record." A year after Philip's capitulation, the General Court put him in charge of all sales of Indian lands within the colony and made him personally responsible to the Court.<br /><br />On paper Plymouth's triumph was complete. Philip avoided open defiance, and Swansea continued to grow. But rumor traced Philip in conspiratorical journeys to and fro among the tribes, and in January 1675 a praying Indian named John Sassamon traveled to Governor Winslow's house at Marshfield to say that Philip was preparing for war. Whatever the truth of his information, Sassamon's visit guaranteed war, in a manner he would never know, because Sassamon never got home alive. Someone murdered him as he returned from Marshfield and stuffed his body under pond ice. <br /><br />That became the official version of Sassamon's death, and it was used as a means to put Philip under suspicion of having contrived the murder. There are reasons for doubt, although John Sassamon was indeed an unlovely character in pagan Indian eyes, and one can well imagine him having become the object of someone's lethal hate. A Massachuset Indian in origin, he had joined the English forces in the Pequot conquest. He became an early assistant to John Eliot at the chief mission town of Natick and was sent to Harvard College for at least one term in 1653 to be prepared for teaching at that town. Eliot soon found a more important use for him with Wampanoag sachem Philip. In Eliot's ineffable prose this was accomplished "upon solicitations and means used." The theory was that Sassamon would teach Philip and his men to read, but later history strongly suggests that the function of teacher took second place to those of political agent and spy. Certainly Philip came to think so. After several years as amanuensis to Philip, Sassamon left—in a great hurry. As John Easton heard the story in Rhode Island, Sassamon had written Philip's will at the sachem's request but had included a provision that was not Philip's intent: this was a stipulation that much of Philip's land was to become Sassamon's. Apparently Sassamon counted on Philip's illiteracy to keep the provision secret, but Philip learned of it and Sassamon departed. He returned to John Eliot and once more became a Sunday School teacher.<br /><br />Sassamon's death in 1675 was at first accounted an accident. Months later Plymouth became suspicious, exhumed Sassamon's body, and became convinced of foul play. Thereupon a praying Indian named Patuckson came forward to announce that he had seen the murder. There is, however, a certain difficulty about his testimony. He name three pagan Indians under Philip's government as the killers, and the interference was immediately drawn in Plymouth that Philip had ordered Sassamon's assassination. Few Indians accepted this theory because, as some of them pointed out, in such a case Philip would have had no reason to conceal his role; it was his right as sachem to order an execution. Instead Philip had rushed to Plymouth to disclaim any responsibility. However that may be, Patuckson seems also to have had a personal motive for naming the particular three Indians that he had denounced; he owed them a gambling debt. As John Easton wrote, "The Indians report that the informer had played away his Coate, and these men sent him that coate, and after demanded pay and he not to pay so accused them, and knoing it wold pleas the English so to think him a better Christian."<br /><br />The three accused were tried in a precedent-shattering court. As Puritan eulogists never fail to point out, Indians were among the jury. But this is not quite right. It is true that the jury foreman made much of the Indians when the trial concluded: "Wee of the jury," he announced, "one and all, both English and Indians doe joyntly and with one consent agree upon verdict." The statement is misleading, however, in its implication that the Indians were voting members of the jury. There were only four Indians, who had been added to the full complement of twelve Englishmen, and their function was not to make a decision, but rather "to healp to consult and advice with, of, and concerning the premises." The Indians' agreement with the verdict was precisely defined and delimited: "These [Indians] fully concured with the jury in their verdict." It is clear that the Indians sat <i>with</i> the jury, but not <i>of</i> it. Why, then, were they there? What had made them worthy to be consulted had little to do with their being "indifferentist, gravest and sage"; nor did it signify softening sentiments among Plymouth's hardheaded leadership. It was because these were praying Indians, and the defendants were not. Although the praying Indians' participation was only advisory, their association with the jury seemed to make them as responsible as the colonials for the jury's finding of guilt, and this praying Indian responsibility was strengthened by the testimony of convert Patuckson, who provided the evidence needed to convict. The whole trial procedure was carefully designed to drive a wedge between Philip's pagans and Plymouth's converts, to make reconciliation between them impossible under any circumstances. This was a show trial staged for political purposes from beginning to end.<br /><br />At the hanging one of the ropes broke (on purpose?), and the reprieved, horribly scared Indian began to babble. Wampapaquan confessed to everything his executioners desired—or almost everything; in return he got a carefully worded stay of execution that seemed to give him a month more of life. Desperately, however, he maintained that he had been only a bystander as the (already hanged) Tobias and Mattashunnamo had killed Sassamon. And he gratified Plymouth by implicating Philip, or so we are told at secondhand. For some reason, Wampapaquan's precise statements, interesting as they must have been, were not preserved, and he was quickly (and this time efficiently) executed before he could confirm or deny what his tormentors attributed to him.<br /><br />The malicious informing of Sassamon, the self-serving testimony of Patuckson, the tortured outcries of Wampapaquan—none of these would carry much weight under modern due process, but they were quite enough for Plymouth. Whatever may have been Philip's intentions earlier, preparations for war were now clearly in order.<br /><br />A party of Rhode Island Quakers tried to mediate. Headed by Deputy Governor John Easton, they interviewed Philip and apparently departed with some hope of success. But shortly after their conference they "sudingly had leter from Plimoth Governor thay intended in arms to Conforem [conform, subdue] Philip, but no information what that was thay required or what termes. [The governor] refused to have ther quarrell desided [by arbitration]; and in a weekes time after we had bine with the Indians the war thus begun."<br /><br />No modern account has improved on Easton's, and a good many have only smothered his information. Let him tell the rest of the story in his own words.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Plimoth soldiers were Cum to have ther head quarters within <span style="font-size:85%;">10</span> miles of Philip; then most of the English therabout left ther houses and we had leter from Plimoth governor to desier our help with sum boats if thay had such acation, and for us to looke to our selefs; and from the genarall at the quarters we had leter of the day that intended to Cum upon the indians, and desier for sum of our boats to atend. So we tooke it to be of nesesety for our Ieslanders [Aquidneck Island] one halef one day and night to atend and the other halef the next, so by turens for our oune safty. In this time sum indians fell a pilfering sum houses that the English had left, and a old man and a lad going to one of those houses did see 3 indians run out of therof. The old man bid the young man shoote; so he did, and a indian fell doune but got away againe. It is reported that then sum indians Came to the gareson, asked why thay shot the indian. Thay asked whether he was dead. The indians saide yea. A English lad said it was no mater. The men indevered to inforem them it was but an idell lad's words, but the indians in hast went away and did not harken to them. The next day, the lad that shot the indian and his father and fief [five] English more were killed. So the war begun with Philip.</span></div><br />Francis Jennings, <i>The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-83056752064721381262013-01-12T05:53:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:14:58.644-08:00The Mary and John, 1630<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="165" width="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiHqwUETCla0AehyRFyAIWh6EbwnwjAQyfTS7JFVJm6ketii-Agv9JBY3pQxZ2jLgxvouKeUUHBlkMSrDR3j7FkiuFCogZC8Z1aIhwsuelSM5lhuRlCe8Ce5Brf4xebwbms5Z2hBNU7wTj/s400/ship.jpg" style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"></div>
<br>
<div align="left">The historians among our early ancestors were serious men. They approached their gigantic task with great earnestness, as well they might; names, facts, and dates all carefully tabulated for the confusion of future generations of boys and girls. But the details of the lives of these people, the marvelous stories of bravery and adventure, of love and intrigue, of bigotry and chivalry, are either lacking altogether, or are told in a few brief words. Much has been written about the cruel punishments of the times, of the witchcraft trials, of banishments into the wilderness; but little has been told of the men who were kind, and gentle, and good. Those were hard times, and some of the men were harsh; but others were among the gentlest people on earth. Reverend Maverick has been called "a man of exceedingly humble spirit." And Reverend Warham must have been a great and sympathetic man to have held his group together through all their wanderings. Even Governor Winthrop, who was considered a harsh man, laments the mistreatment of children discovered in one of the early schools.<br>
<br>
Much has been said about the frequent marriages of our ancestors. If we consider the dangers of the times, we must realize that a woman could not live alone with a family of little children; nor could a man left alone with a new-born baby face life without a woman's help. It was wise and natural that the families joined together for mutual protection. Time and again in reading old wills, it will be found that a man has provided for the children of his wife, making no distinction between them and his own. And genealogies are full of marriages between these foster sisters and brothers.<br>
<br>
Searching family records becomes in time a gentle vice from which the eager victim finds it impossible to escape. He (or more often she) pours over dull finely printed pages, over long lists of somber names: Abner, Nathaniel, Moses, Elijah, Daniel. And then—there it is! The very name for which you are seeking! Suddenly the story brightens; once more these people live!<br>
<br>
The story of the "Mary and John" has been told many times, and the present work is intended to be genealogical rather than historical. And yet history has crept into the record. There is no official list of the passengers who sailed on this ship, but from various scattered sources, traditional, documentary, and circumstantial, the following list has been compiled, and is subject to constructive criticism. It has been said that there were one hundred and forty people aboard this boat, but we do not know if they counted the babies and small children. On some of the later boats, we know that it was the practice to allow two small children to go for one fare, and babes in arms went free. Perhaps this was the case on the "Mary and John."<br>
<br>
The principal authority for the voyage is Roger Clap, who was one of the party, and who wrote his oft-quoted <em>Memoirs</em>. But even he names only six of his fellow passengers: Reverend Maverick, Reverend Warham, Edward Rossiter, Roger Ludlow, Israel Stoughton, and Captain Southcote. The task of making an accurate list of the "Mary and John" passengers is made more difficult by the confusing fact that some colonists from the Winthrop Fleet of 1630 settled in Dorchester, too; and appear among the earliest records of the town.<br>
<br>
On The Twentieth of March, 1630, a group of men and women, one hundred and forty in number, set sail from Plymouth, England, in the good ship, the "Mary and John." The company had been selected and assembled largely through the efforts of the Reverend John White of Dorchester, England; with whom they spent the day before sailing, "fasting, preaching, and praying." These people had come from the western counties of England, mostly from Devonshire, Dorsetshire, and Somerset. They had chosen two ministers to accompany them: "men who were interested in the idea of bringing the Indians to the knowledge of the gospel." The Reverend John Maverick was an elderly man from Devon, a minister of the Established church. Reverend John Warham was also an ordained minister of the church of England, in Exeter, eminent as a preacher. There is some evidence that both of these men were in some difficulties with the church on account of their sympathies with the Puritans.<br>
<br>
Edward Rossiter and Roger Ludlow, two men who were members of the government in England, were also chosen; and several gentlemen, middleaged, with adult families were next joined to the association. Among these were Henry Wolcott, Thomas Ford, George Dyer, William Gaylord, William Rockwell, and William Phelps. But a large portion of the company were young men, eager for adventure, such as Israel Stoughton, Roger Clap, George Minot, Richard Collicott, and Nathaniel Duncan. [Clapp, Ebenezer: <em>History of the Town of Dorchester</em>, 1859, published by Ebenezer Clapp, Boston, Mass., pp. 17-18.]<br>
<br>
So we came, writes Roger Clap in his <em>Memoirs</em>, by the good Hand of the Lord, through the deep comfortably; having preaching or expounding of the word of God every day for ten weeks together by our ministers. When we came to Nantasket, Capt. Squeb, who was Captain of that great ship of four hundred tons, put us on shore and our goods on Nantasket Point, and left us to shift for ourselves in a forelorn place in this wilderness.<br>
<br>
It had been their original intent to land in the Charles River, but a dispute with Captain Squeb, the commander of the vessel, caused the whole company, on May 30, 1630, to be put ashore at Nantasket. The "Mary and John" was the first of the Fleet of 1630 to arrive in the bay. At that time there could not have been pilots, or charts of the channel, and it does not seem unreasonable that the captain refused to undertake the passage, but Roger Clap has sent Captain Squeb down to posterity as a merciless man. [Stiles, Henry R.: <em>History of Ancient Windsor</em>, 1891, Case, Lockwood & Brainard Co., Hartford, Conn.]<br>
<br>
According to tradition they landed upon the south side of Dorchester Neck, or South Boston, in Old Harbor. Ten of the men, under the command of Captain Southcote, found a small boat, and went up the river to Charlestown Neck, where they found an old planter, probably Thomas Walfourd, who fed them "a dinner of fish without bread." Later they continued their journey up the Charles River, as far as what is now Watertown, returning several days later to the company who had found pasture for their cattle at Mattapan. The settlement was later called Dorchester, in honor of the Reverend John White, of Dorchester, England.<br>
<br>
Roger Clap tells of the hardships that followed. They had little food, and were forced to live on clams and fish. The men built small boats, and the Indians came later with baskets of corn. "The place was a wilderness," writes Roger Clap. "Fish was a good help to me and to others. Bread was so scarce that I thought the very crusts from my father's table would have been sweet; and when I could have meal and salt and water boiled together, I asked, 'who could ask for better?'"<br>
<br>
Here they lived for five or six years. Other boats arrived and other towns were settled. But the life at Dorchester was not entirely congenial to the lovers of liberty of the "Mary and John." The group of settlements around Massachusetts Bay was dominated by clergymen and officials of aristocratic tendencies. Their Governor, John Winthrop, had little sympathy with the common people. "The best part (of the people)," he declared, "is always the least, and of that best part, the wiser is always the lesser." And the Reverend John Cotton put it more bluntly when he said, "Never did God ordain democracy for the government of the church or the people."<br>
<br>
These principles were repugnant to the people of the "Mary and John," who had come to America to escape such restraint. They had no wish to interfere with the methods of worship of others, and they did not wish others to interfere with them. Too, they were land-hungry, after centuries of vassalage to the lords of the manors, leading hopeless lives without chance of independence. Perhaps they were influenced also, by the fact that a great smallpox epidemic had raged among the Indians, killing off so many that they were not the menace that they had been at first. The settlers turned their attention toward the fertile meadows of the Connecticut Valley.<br>
<br>
A group under Roger Ludlow set out and reached the Plymouth Trading house that had been erected by William Holmes near the junction of the Connecticut and the Farmington Rivers, early in the summer of 1635. A little later sixty men, women and children, with their "Cows, heifers and swine," came overland from Dorchester. The winter was severe and the food scarce, and many returned to Massachusetts, but in the spring they came back to Connecticut with their friends, and by April, 1636, most of the members of the Dorchester Church were settled near the Farmington River, along the brow of the hill that overlooks the "Great Meadow." This in spite of the fact that the Plymouth people disputed their claim to the land. They built rude shelters, dug out of the rising ground along the edge of the river bank. The rear end and the two sides were simply the earth itself, with a front and a roof of beams. The town was later named Windsor.<br>
<br>
In the following year, 1637, danger from the Pequot Indians forced them to abandon their dugouts and to come together around the area known as the Palisado Green. Their new homes were at once enclosed with a strong palisado.<br>
<br>
In 1639 they began the construction of their first real meeting house. It stood in the center of the palisado, and was topped with a cupola and platform, where the sexton beat a drum to summon the people to attend services or public meetings. About the same time there was built and presented to the pastor, the Reverend John Warham, a corn mill, which is supposed to have been the first grist mill built in Connecticut. For many years it served all the settlements in the river valley, as far south as Middletown.<br>
<br>
All over America today live the descendants of the fathers and mothers of the "Mary and John." Their sons and daughters have written their names on the pages of American History. They have filled the pulpits of famous churches; they have sat on judges' benches, and in the seats of Congress; they have occupied Governors' Mansions, and even the White House. Some fought at Lexington, and wintered with Washington at Valley Forge. They joined in the trek to the West, and one followed Brigham Young into Utah. One marched with Sherman as he burned and pillaged his way through Georgia, and perhaps one fought on the other side with Lee. One is called the "Hero of Manila Bay," and one was hanged! They learned strange names like Saint-Mihiel, Chateau-Thierry, the Argonne Forest and Sedan. Perhaps one lies in Flanders Field.<br>
<br>
And even as this manuscript is being written, our boys are going again into strange lands: to Iceland, to Africa and to Australia! One of our own correspondents wrote from Schofield Barracks in Hawaii.<br>
<br>
An effort has been made to show through the ancestry of people living today, or through famous men of history, how this little group lived together, married and intermarried, even beyond the third and fourth generations. The names of descendants of the men and women who came to America on the "Mary and John" are found in every state of the Union.<br>
<br>
THE PASSENGERS<br>
<br>
REVEREND JOHN MAVERICK was a native of Devon, son of Peter and Dorothy (Tucke) Maverick. He was baptized Dec. 28, 1578, at Awlescombe, and married at Ilsington, Devon, Oct. 28, 1600, Mary Gye, who was living with her son Samuel Oct. 9, 1666. Reverend Maverick matriculated at Exeter College, Oxford; took holy orders by 1603, and later became a Puritan. He was made a freeman with the first group at Dorchester, May 18, 1631, and had expected to remove to Connecticut, but died at Dorchester, Feb. 3, 1636, aged about sixty years. Governor Winthrop in his "Journal" makes several references to Reverend Maverick and also to his son Samuel, who was in America as early as 1623, and was an early settler at Noddles Island. Winthrop says of Rev. Maverick: "He was a man of very humble spirit, and faithful in furthering the work of the Lord."<br>
<br>
Charles Edward Banks says that when Reverend Maverick and his wife came to America in the "Mary and John," they brought with them "their children, Elias, Mary, Moses, Aaron, Abigail, Antipas, and Margaret."<br>
<br>
The New England Historical and Genealogical Register in the issue of 1942, states that Elias was at Chelsea, Mass., in 1630, where he had his home near his brother Samuel. Aaron was alive in 1622, but is believed to have died young. Moses was given land at Dorchester in 1633, but moved to Salem by 1634. There also appears to have been a son John, and Margaret is not mentioned.<br>
<br>
Samuel Maverick settled first at Winnesimmet, now Chelsea, where in 1630 he entertained Governor Winthrop. In 1633, he and his wife cared for the Indians dying of smallpox, burying as many as thirty a day. In 1634 he moved to Noddles Island, which had been granted to him. It is an interesting fact that a line of descendants of Reverend Maverick went to the West Indies and later settled in Texas. A Samuel Maverick in the last century who did not make a practice of branding his cattle is said to have been the originator of the word "maverick" as applied to unbranded cattle.<br>
<br>
Maude Pinney Kuhns, <i>The "Mary and John"</i></div>
<br><center><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6306/1968/1024/Mary%20&%20John.0.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="DISPLAY: block; margin:0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6306/1968/400/Mary%20%26%20John.1.jpg" border="0" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"></a></center>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-10258156896862443662013-01-11T05:56:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:15:12.975-08:00Family Origins<center><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXGvwNzAF5KhSOgy0Ck-BlcjNdre3ItdVPExugE_NWp-UrLXrSXgMukZPmGw4Gd8LkHgJIANUOS8YrKuv-YgwUp_BxALe8aj4vzNXjgIlgPt8dQ2sv9J-AS-tYiaKTOahicI7r8EgpQwIb/s1600/c.+1650.jpg" "target="_blank" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="254" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXGvwNzAF5KhSOgy0Ck-BlcjNdre3ItdVPExugE_NWp-UrLXrSXgMukZPmGw4Gd8LkHgJIANUOS8YrKuv-YgwUp_BxALe8aj4vzNXjgIlgPt8dQ2sv9J-AS-tYiaKTOahicI7r8EgpQwIb/s400/c.+1650.jpg" style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"></a></div></center>
<br>
<div align="left"><i>The English Origins of the "Mary and John" Passengers</i> related that Robert of this genealogy was of yeoman stock. Upon his death in 1573 he was described in parish records as a "clerk" which normally meant he was a cleric. Since he was married, he either was of a minor order which did not require celibacy, or he was ordained after the break with the Catholic church. His predecessor in the Awliscombe church was installed on May 11, 1554.<br>
<br>
Although Robert's son Radford studied at Exeter College, Oxford as early as 1581, supposedly he did not receive his B.A. until 1599. He was instituted as vicar of Islington, Devon, on July 1, 1597, received his M.A. in 1603, and became the minister for the city of Exeter. However, parish records at Exeter disclosed his ordination as priest on June 15, 1583. In 1586 he was admitted to the rectory of the church of Trisham. Radford resigned his position at Islington in 1621 and was succeeded by Christopher Warren.<br>
<br>
Ordination records of 1597 Exeter, Devonshire, revealed "Deacon and Priest: John Maverick literatus 29 July." In 1615, having received his M.A., John was admitted to the rectory of Beaworthy. He appeared to have died by the time of his brother Radford's 1622 will.<br>
<br>
Brother Alexander's wife, Alice Crabbe, may have been the "Alice Mavericke als. Tucke widow" who was buried in Awliscombe on December 16, 1607.<br>
<br>
In his will Radford referred to Peter as his eldest brother, so Peter was probably born circa 1550. According to ordination books, Peter was ordained as deacon in a private chapel at the Bishops Palace in Exeter on January 15, 1573/4 and became a priest on March 16 of that year. He was admitted to the "Perpetual Vicarage of Aulscombe" on the resignation of Richard Bacon, clerk, the last incumbent, and was there in 1580. He was succeeded after his death by John Hassard.<br>
<br>
One of the entries in the ordination books referred to him as "Peter Bull alias Maverick" and another referred to him as "Peter Maverick alia (sic) Bull." Institution Books at Exeter for 1580 read "Peter Maverick alias Bull, clerk." While no explanation for the two names has been found, there are several possibilities. The most reasonable explanation was that as the eldest brother, in reality Peter was a step-brother. Peter may have been the child of his mother's first marriage. But in that case, Robert would have been the father of Peter.<br>
<br>
In 1577 Peter Maverick married Dorothy Tucke, daughter of tenants of the Mayor of Exeter. Perhaps Dorothy was a relation of the "Alice Mavericke als. Tucke widow" referred to above. Peter and Dorothy produced two sets of twins. Both sets died shortly after birth.<br>
<br>
According the <i>English Origins of the "Mary & John" Passengers</i>, Peter met a violent death circa 1616. However, no details were given.<br>
<br>
His son John was baptized on December 28, 1578 in Awliscombe. John attended Exeter College at Oxford where he received his B.A. on July 8, 1599 and his M.A. on July 7, 1603. John had been already ordained as priest at Exeter, Devon County, on July 29, 1597. Based on her genealogical research reported in the April, 1915 NEHGR, Elizabeth French believed John may have been curate to his uncle Radford who was vicar at Ilsington. John married Mary Gye there on October 28, 1600.<br>
<br>
The Maverick family, in particular Radford Maverick, may have been related to the Gye family. In "The Ancestry of Mary Gye, Wife of Rev. John Maverick", John G. Hunt reported that Mary's great-uncle was Nicholas Radford, a noted judge who was murdered circa 1455 and suggested that Radford Maverick might have been named after Nicholas or some other member of the Radford family.<br>
<br>
The Gye family owned land in Ilsington where Radford Maverick became rector, and Robert Gye gave a large sum of money to him to raise Gye's daughter Mary. Hunt reported that Radford Maverick gave Mary in marriage to "his german-cousin" John Maverick.<br>
<br>
Hunt claimed that in the 16th and 17th centuries that "cousin-german" meant "first cousin". However, in a codicil to his 1622 will, Radford Maverick referred to "Radford my brother John Mauericke's son" as his cousin. So Radford referred to his nephew as "cousin". In addition, the nephew Radford mentioned in the will was a true "cousin-german" to the John Maverick who married Mary Gye.<br>
<br>
On August 30, 1615 John Maverick was inducted to the rectory of St. Albans, Beaworthy in North Devon County. He resigned that post on December 4, 1629 and, according to <i>The English Origins of the "Mary & John" Passengers</i>, the family resided near Honiton until their immigration. On March 24, 1629/30 John was chosen a teacher of the puritan church at Plymouth, England.<br>
<br>
John, Mary, and their children (Elias, Mary, Moses, Aaron, Abigail, Antipas, and Margaret) emigrated to New England on board the "Mary & John" on March 20, 1629/30 from Plymouth, England. Their son Samuel had already emigrated to New England.<br>
<br>
In his "Some Passengers of the 'Mary and John' in 1630," John Hunt related that the early settlers from Dorchester "included two unlike clerics, John Warham, a nonconformist, and John Maverick, a conformist." While many of the group came from Exeter, Maverick "lived forty miles off" at the time. But along with Warham, he became the religious leader of the group.<br>
<br>
According to <i>The Founding of Harvard College</i>, the Mavericks were with the group containing John Warham and other West Countrymen who settled Dorchester, Massachusetts. While at Dorchester; along with Warham, Gaylord, and Rockwell; John signed early orders for distribution of land.<br>
<br>
There was evidence that John had been intending to remove to Connecticut when he died suddenly at Dorchester on February 3, 1635/6. Winthrop wrote that John was a "man of very humbel spirit, and faith full in furthering the work of the Lord her, both in the church and civil state."<br>
<br>
His wife Mary was found to be living with her son Samuel in 1665. Furthermore, Samuel sent his mother's regards in a 1666 letter to Sir William Morrice.<br>
<br>
John's son Elias Maverick and his wife resided first in Chelsea and then in Charlestown, Massachusetts, where he joined the church. John's daughter Mary married Rev. James Parker of Weymouth and moved to Portsmouth, New Hampshire and, before James' death, to Barbadoes. Abigail married John Manning of Boston and removed to Charlestown, Massachusetts. Antipas was a merchant on the Isles of Shoals and then removed to Kittery, Maine and finally, to Exeter, New Hampshire.<br>
<br>
John's son Moses Maverick first married Remember Allerton who emigrated to New England aboard the "Mayflower" in 1620. His second wife was Eunice Roberts, a widow. After leaving Dorchester, Moses removed to Salem where he became a freeman on September 3, 1634. The next year he was at Marblehead, Massachusetts and was there for most of the rest of his life. He served on the Grand Jury in 1645 and 1649. In 1645 Moses Maverick and David Carwethan acted as attorneys for William Walton, John Peck, and other Marblehead residents in a trespassing court case against Phillip Alke, Thomas Dyer, and Christopher Rogers. In 1647, Moses sued John Legg and his wife Elizabeth for defamation of character. And then in 1636, he rented Noodles Island from the General Court and was in charge of it while his brother Samuel was in Virginia. But by 1650 he was back purchasing land in Marblehead.<br>
<br>
His informal will, with no signature or witness, was presented by his second wife Eunice at Ipswich on March 30, 1686. He remembered his wife and four daughters - Elizabeth Skinner, Remember Woodman, Mary Ferguson, and Sara Rosman. He also referred to Moses Hawks, the child of his deceased daughter Rebecca; and to Samuel Ward, Abigail Hinds, Mary Dollabar, and Martha Ward, the children of his deceased daughter Abigail. His children objected and it was held over until the next court term. The will was administered on July 15, 1684, docket number 1472. The will may not have been accepted, but Eunice was made administratrix of the estate. Edward Woodman, husband of Remember, petitioned the court three times demanding an accounting of Moses' estate. The final settlement of the estate wasn't made until November 29, 1698.<br>
<br>
According to <i>The English Origins of the "Mary & John" Passengers</i>, the motivation of John's probable son Samuel for emigrating to the New World was not religious. He was an Anglican who emigrated long before his parents and in his "Briefe Description of New England" he wrote about his observations upon his arrival in 1624. In 1625 he fortified a house at Winnissimet (Chelsea) "with a Pillizado and fflankers and gunnes." Hart, in <i>Commonwealth History of Massachusetts</i>, reported that in 1627, only blacksmith Thomas Waldorf / Wolford at Charlestown, "prelatist" Samuel Maverick at Noodles Island, recluse clergyman William Blackstone at Boston, and the small group at Cape Ann lived between Plymouth Colony and New Hampshire.<br>
<br>
So Anglican Samuel Maverick was already established when Winthrop's Fleet arrived in 1630. On June 17, 1630, Winthrop recorded in his journal his first contact with "Mr. Maverick."<br>
<br>
The Puritans had arrived too late in the season to plant enough to survive and Endicott's group had little to spare. So Samuel helped keep many of the new settlers from starving during that first winter. Then, when small pox attacked the Indians in 1633, Samuel cared for them.<br>
<br>
<i>Massachusetts Bay: The Crucial Decade, 1640-1650</i> claimed Samuel became a freeman in May, 1631, before church membership became a qualification. However, French claimed he did not become a freeman until October 2, 1632. He was listed in Volume 1, page 74 of <i>Colonial Records</i>, as the lone person to take the oath on October 2, 1632. On May 18, 1631, a John "Mavericke" had taken the oath. Then in April, 1633, claimed Samuel may have received a grant of Noodles Island. However, Hard had reported Samuel was living on Noodles Island as early as 1627.<br>
<br>
He married Amias, the daughter of William Cole, a shipwright from Plymouth; and the widow of David Thompson, an apothecary. Amias had first married Thompson in St. Andrew's Church, Plymouth, Devon County, England. According to Elizabeth French, Thompson went to Piscataqua in 1623 and to an island in Boston Harbor later known as Thompson Island in 1626. He died there in 1628.<br>
<br>
In the 1674 book <i>An Account of Two Voyages to New England</i>, John Josselyn wrote that on July 10, 1638 he "went a shore upon Noddles island to Mr. Samuel Maverick the only hospitable man in all the Countrey, giving entertainment to all Comer grate's." He stayed with Samuel for several days before starting out towards Maine. Then from September 30 into October, 1639, Josselyn was again entertained by Maverick.<br>
<br>
In 1632 a Mr. Pynchon (probably William Pynchon) paid Samuel Maverick a month's wages. In April, 1633, the Court of Assistants recognized Samuel's ownership of "Noddles Island upon payment of a quitrent of 'either a fatt weather a fatt hogg or eleven shillings'." On Noodles Island he operated fishing, trade, and farming businesses. Darrett Rutman described the farm as having a "mansion house, millhouse and mill, bakehouse . . . outhouses barnes staples." Then in 1634, a committee was set-up to divide Maverick's Noodles Island grant among the people. Each adult mail received two acres and each youth one acre. However, Samuel appeared to have stayed on his Noodles Island farm.<br>
<br>
In addition to his land on Noodles Island, Samuel had numerous grants of land from Massachusetts to Maine. In 1635 he spent nearly a year in Virginia.<br>
<br>
Samuel Maverick was admittedly, an oddity. In addition to helping the natives, he was an early slave holder and was fined heavily for sheltering suspected adulterers who had escaped from prison. In fact, according to Rutman, one of Maverick's three slaves claimed to be "a Queen in her own Countrey."<br>
<br>
As a member of the Church of England and a supporter of the King of England, Samuel was not the most popular settler in Massachusetts and was in constant opposition with the government.<br>
<br>
In 1647, Massachusetts was no democracy. Samuel, along with a number of other prominent men sent a petition to the General Court protesting the lack of civil liberties. The petition signers were fined for maligning the government, for slandering the church, and, later, for conspiring against Massachusetts Bay Colony.<br>
<br>
Samuel returned to England complaining bitterly. While there, he wrote to the King that he had lost all of his civil and religious liberties and warned the King that there were thousands of his subjects in the same situation.<br>
<br>
However, in 1664 Samuel Maverick returned to Massachusetts as one of Charles II's four royal commissioners; along with Nicolls, Cartwright, and Carr; to settle affairs in New England and to rid the New Netherlands of the Dutch. They were to make the citizens accept changes in the charters and to place their militia under authority of the crown. The commissioners were sent because the King had heard the Puritan governments had been trampling on the rights of non-Puritans and had not been properly supportive of the crown. The commissioners were to be champions of the English and Indians. By strengthening the rights of the English in New England, it was hoped the commissioners would strengthen the King's support. In <i>The Invasion of America</i>, the commissioners' arrival was called "a new era." Although they were "but four persons without any of the paraphernalia of power except the royal seall . . . they spoke and acted with the confidence of men who can summon power in need."<br>
<br>
The arrival of the commissioners and their mission was to be a surprise. But Maverick couldn't wait. As soon as he arrived in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a few days before their arrival in Boston, Samuel Maverick dashed off a note to Captain Breedon in Boston. Maverick instructed Breedon to go to the governor and tell him what was in store for the colonists. Maverick had been in the New World before any of them and, simply because he was different, he had been forced to move, was fined, and was finally imprisoned. Suddenly he was the man in charge and he felt the need to gloat. So by the time the commissioners arrived in Boston, word had spread, and Endicott and his people were ready for them.<br>
<br>
Some colonists quibbled, some evaded, and some pretended to be loyal in an attempt to deceive the commissioners. But few cooperated with the commissioners. When Samuel proposed eight changes in civil and religious law, Massachusetts refused to accept any of them. Eventually, the commissioners gave up.<br>
<br>
Unsuccessful in Massachusetts, Samuel Maverick finally settled in New York after the Dutch had left. He was accorded a house there as a reward for his fidelity to the King.<br>
<br><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">Judy Jacobson,</span><i> Massachusetts Bay Connections</i></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-37746569361816270262013-01-10T08:39:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:15:24.113-08:00Maverick Family<br />
<center><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8ZaPhvCoYo50MekCueUaCmK7M2KIetWj-obN1pfiTAcPJci7a967riPQtCrhK1hGuAKMlbW1HcCMmwBFgXdsltCLG0_CwbYULa9W8tpgOUgwE3yWMv91SEP9W1ejZQ8jGaEXJcSQhj6s/s1600-h/11.1.1851.jpg"target="_blank"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 0px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8ZaPhvCoYo50MekCueUaCmK7M2KIetWj-obN1pfiTAcPJci7a967riPQtCrhK1hGuAKMlbW1HcCMmwBFgXdsltCLG0_CwbYULa9W8tpgOUgwE3yWMv91SEP9W1ejZQ8jGaEXJcSQhj6s/s400/11.1.1851.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054782917213983186" style="filter:alpha(opacity=30)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,30,50,5)"/></a></center>
<br />
<div align="left">Some twenty years since, looking over the late Col. Joseph L. Chester's MS. catalog of Oxford graduates, my attention was drawn by him to the name of "John Maverick, 1595, Exeter College, from Devon, Minister."<br />
<br />
Foster's Catalogue, much fuller in detail, reads as follows:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;">"Maverick, John of Devon cler. fil., Exeter Coll., matric. 24 Oct. 1595, aged 18; B.A. 8 July 1577; M.A. 7 July 1603; then in orders, rector of Beaworthy (s.w. of Hatherly), Devon, 1615. (See Foster's Index Eccl.)."</span><br />
<br />
This was undoubtedly "the godly Mr. Maverick," whom Roger Clap, born on the Devonshire coast, at Salcomb (between Sidmouth and Branscomb), speaks of as living "forty miles off," and who, after establishing a congregation at Dorchester, N. E., died Feb. 3, 1636-7, being, according to Winthrop, "near sixty years of age."<br />
<br />
Though we hear nothing of his wife, she is alluded to in 1665, by Col. Cartwright, in his "Memorial [Clarendon Papers, N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1869, p. 108.] concerning the Massachusets," who observes:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;">"If any of the commissioners think it more convenient for them to stay in those parts, that they may haue leue to do so. For Mr. Maverick hath his mother, wife, children & brothers living there, and nether estate, nor employment here."</span><br />
<br />
And Samuel Maverick, writing from Rhode Island Oct. 9, 1668, to Secretary Sir William Morice, says that his mother "presents her humble service." (See Sainsbury's Calendar of Colonial Papers, vol. 3, p. 415, No 1288). This Secretary Morice, who died in Dec. 1676 aged 74, was son of Jevan Morice, fellow of All Saints College, Oxford of an ancient Welsh family, doctor of laws and chancellor of Exeter, Devon, in 1594, and ancestor of the extinct Baronets Morice of Werrington, Devon, on the borders of Cornwall, a few miles s.w. of Beaworthy.<br />
<br />
The widow Maverick, in 1668, must have been well advanced in years, since by his own deposition [Suffolk Deeds, iv. 328.], taken in December, 1665, her son Samuel was then "aged 63 yeares or therabouts." <br />
<br />
Samuel, the eldest son of the Rev. John Maverick, born about 1602, had settled in New England as early as 1624, near the confluence of Charles and Mystic Rivers, where with the help of his neighbor David Thomson, he had built a small fort. He was an episcopalian and loyalist, and frequently embroiled with the colonial government; finally, after one of his several voyages to the old country, he was, in April 1664, appointed on of the four Royal Commissioners to visit the colonies and inquire into grievances. For his services he received from the Duke of York, through a grant from Gov. Lovelace, a certain house and lot in New York City, on the Broadway. This gift he acknowledges in a letter of Oct. 15, 1669, to Col. Rich. Nicolls, his associate in the Commission, and we hear not of him again till in a deed of Mar. 15, 1676 (recorded Albany, L.1, p. 133), his trustees, John Laurence and Matthias Nicolls, of New York, confirm to William Vander Scheuren this same property on Broadway, which the latter had bought from the Deacons of the City, by whom it had been purchased at a public sale made for the benefit of Maverick’s daughter, Mary, wife of Rev. Francis Hooke of Kittery. Neither the time nor place of Maverick’s death, nor the depository of his will have, as yet, ascertained. No records of so early a date are preserved by the Dutch Church, who evidently held the lot for a short period, but, after a careful examination of conveyances in the City Register’s office, the writer has satisfactorily located the position of the Maverick Lot. May 30, 1667, Gov. Nicolls granted a lot on Broadway to Adam Onckelbach, which is described in later deeds as bounded south by house and lot of William Vander Scheuren, and which finally in October 1784, when known as No. 52 Broadway, was sold to John Jay, Esq., the future governor, who here erected a fine stone mansion. At this time the lot adjoining to the south was in the tenure and occupation of John Sliddell, save some 64 feet on the easterly of New Street end, which had been sold in 1683 by Vander Scheuren to William Post. Slidell’s sons in 1819 sold the greater portion of the lot, facing on Broadway, with a frontage of 21 1/3 ft, and a depth of 110 ft, to Robert Lenox; while the remaining few inches, with a lot adjoining to the south, known as No. 48, was sold by them on the same date to David Gelston. From the foregoing facts we gather that the original Maverick Lot was 26 1/4 feet wide, located on the easterly side of Broadway, running through to New Street, and beginning 125 feet south from the Church Street (afterwards Garden Street, and now Exchange Place); and that it corresponded with the present No. 50 Broadway.<br />
<br />
Though extinct in the New England States, the Maverick family has existed for the past one hundred and fifty years in New York City, where Andrew Maverick, a young painter, 24 years of age, was admitted freeman July 17, 1753; his name occurring on the Poll List of Feb., 1761. He was baptized at the New Brick Church, Boston, Feb. 9, 1728-9; one of the numerous family of John Maverick (Paul, Elias, Rev. John), an importer of hard woods on Middle Street (now Hanover St.), at the sign of the "Cabinet and Chest of Drawers," John’s grandson Samuel (son of Samuel deceased), an apprentice of Mr. Isaac Greenwood, ivory turner &c., was mortally wounded, March 5, 1770, in the Boston Massacre. Andrew, who came to New York, married about 1754 Sarah, dau. of Peter and Bethia Ruston or Rushton, and Mr. Rushton, in a will of 1765, proved Aug. 14, 1767, leaves his entire estate, after the death of his wife Bethia, to his grandson Peter Rushton Maverick [Dr John Greenwood of N.Y. writing in Nov., 1803 to P. R. Maverick, alludes to a lot on Middle St., Boston, belonging to the estate of his late father, Isaac G., and which adjoined land of Maverick's grandfather.] The latter, born in the city April 11, 1755, a silver-smith, etcher and engraver, was in Aug. 1775 an Ensign in Capt. M. Minthorn’s Co., of Col. John Jay’s 2d Reg’t of N.Y. Militia, and on July 23, 1788, represented the Engravers in the N.Y. Federal Procession; he died in Dec. 1811, and was succeeded by his three talented sons, Samuel, Andrew and Peter.<br />
<br />
The name Maverick, one of unusual occurrence, is akin doubtless to Morris, Morrice, or Maurice; we get nearer to it in the original Welsh Mawr-rwyee, "a valiant hero."<br />
<br />
Nath. Maureick, chief clerk of the Town Clerk, London, died 24 November, 1630, and John Mavericke was a settler located in Charleston, S. C., in 1672.<br />
<br />
One other name is given by Foster:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;">"Maverick, Radford of Devon, pleb., Exeter Coll. matric. 17 Nov. 1581 aged 20; rector of Trusham (n. of Chudleigh), 1586, and vicar of Islington, Devon 1597. (See Foster's Index Eccl.)."</span><br />
<br />
Isaac J. Greenwood, <i>N. E. Historical and Geneological Register</i>, April, 1894</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-47820692436710126742013-01-09T06:01:00.002-08:002021-12-18T17:15:38.252-08:00The Mavericks of Devonshire and Massachusetts<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6zPwEg-8_KJLfDoiLL8gQpelfogGz0wf2eFwpNcGUoftY2yjg4PdkJB0gIstnTHEvUP-B1QOraDxBNrAwsN74SphBIdMiLch8cQTLSYgqq19mHE9qGQ9qwvCgXxpjtjdCAv-qd_m_4sho/s1600/signature_and_seal_of_amias_cole_thompson_maverick.gif"target="_blank" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="254" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6zPwEg-8_KJLfDoiLL8gQpelfogGz0wf2eFwpNcGUoftY2yjg4PdkJB0gIstnTHEvUP-B1QOraDxBNrAwsN74SphBIdMiLch8cQTLSYgqq19mHE9qGQ9qwvCgXxpjtjdCAv-qd_m_4sho/s400/signature_and_seal_of_amias_cole_thompson_maverick.gif" style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" /></a></div>
<br />
<div align="left">In 1630 the Revd. John Maverick quitted the West of England, and adventured across the ocean to become one of the earliest founders of Massachusetts.<br />
<br />
The Mavericks were of that yeoman stock which has always been the back-bone of England; those "plain Folk" of whom it has been said:—<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"Though kings may boast and knights cavort<br />
We broke the spears at Agincourt,<br />
Never a field was starkly won<br />
But ours the dead that faced the sun."</span></blockquote>The name occurs in various forms as Mavericke, Mauerricke, Madericke, Mathericke, and Maverick. The last spelling, now adopted by the family, has been used throughout these pages except where it otherwise occurs in extracts or quotations.<br />
<br />
Whence the name is derived can be merely a matter of conjecture. It has been suggested that it is a form of Maurice. No connection is, however, traceable between the Morrices of the West Country and the Mavericks.<br />
<br />
Whatever may be its source the name, or term, of Maverick has found a permanent place in the English language, and that in a somewhat remarkable manner.<br />
<br />
About the year 1840 Samuel Maverick, a descendant of the Mavericks of Devon and Massachusetts, then settled on a ranch in Texas, was notorious among his neighbours for not branding his cattle. A calf or yearling found without a brand was sure to be Maverick's, and such cattle are known as "mavericks" at the present day. By a further development a masterless man was called a maverick. The word has found its way into literature; Rudyard Kipling tells the story of "The Mutiny of the Mavericks," that Irish regiment "of loyal musketeers, commonly known as the Mavericks, because they were masterless and unbranded cattle." [See "Life's Handicap."]<br />
<br />
During the sixteenth century the family was established in East Devon, but it is very possible that they drifted up from the more western parts of the county. There are traditions of a Maverick having got into trouble at Tavistock during the 14th or 15th century, when somebody's head got broken; not at all an unlikely incident, but no documentary evidence exists to prove it, and the name does not occur in any known records of the town.<br />
<br />
Whatever may have been the circumstances which took them there, the Mavericks were settled early in the 16th century at Awliscombe, a village in East Devon, two or three miles from the old market town of Honiton.<br />
<br />
The name of the village occurs as Aulescombe, Olescombe, Ewelscombe, with other variants. It lies in a valley north west of Honiton, on the other side of the river Otter, here crossed by a bridge at the end of the town.<br />
<br />
Awliscombe still remains a typical English village, with clusters of low cottages, many of them thatched, and each fronted with a gay garden. The ancient grey church dominates them from a slight rise, so that the tower is the first point visible on approaching the village.<br />
<br />
In pre-reformation times part of the manor, and the advowson of the church, belonged to Dunkeswell Abbey, situated not far off. These at the dissolution of the monasteries were granted to the Russells, Earls of Bedford. Another part of the manor was given the 15th century to the Mayor and Chamber of Exeter as the endowment of a charitable bequest made by Thomas Calwodley of the City of Exeter.<br />
<br />
ROBERT MAVERICK of Awliscombe is the first member of the family of whom there are any definite records. [His parents were Alexander Maverick, born 27 September 1497, Awliscombe, Devonshire, and Judith Combe, born c1500, Awliscombe; married 1520, Awliscombe.] He was born in the early 16th century [14 February 1523], most likely in pre-reformation times; the entry of his burial on November 14, 1573, in the Parish Register at Awliscombe describes him as "Robert Maierwick clerk."<br />
<br />
At that period a "clerk in orders" did not necessarily imply Holy Orders. There were minor orders which a man could take without the priestly vow of celibacy. Such minor orders entitled him to be styled a clerk in orders, and he could "plead his clergy" or clerkship, as an exemption from capital punishment, if he fell into the clutches of the law.<br />
<br />
The name of Maverick does not occur among the tenants of Awliscombe on the property which belonged to the Mayor and Chamber of Exeter. Robert may have held some position under the Abbot and Convent of Dunkeswell for the management of their lands in the parish.<br />
<br />
He never was Vicar of Awliscombe. In 1554 the benefice was vacant, and Robert Slade was admitted Vicar on the presentation of John Russell, Earl of Bedford. The next incumbent, whose name is given without date of institution, was Richard Bacon, on whose resignation Peter Maverick, Robert's eldest son was instituted in 1580.<br />
<br />
The Parish Register of Awliscombe does not begin until 1559, thus no entry of the marriage of Robert nor the baptisms of his elder children are on record. These were Peter the eldest son, John, Edward, and Alice. Alexander Maverick, whose name occurs later in the register, was perhaps another son. The actual name of the family first occurs in 1560 when Radford Maverick, probably the fifth son and sixth child was baptised.<br />
<br />
RADFORD MAVERICK. From the biographers point of view Radford, the fourth, or fifth son of Robert Maverick is one of the most important members of the family. Although not a direct ancestor of the Mavericks of Massachusetts their history owes much to his personality. <br />
<br />
His baptism at Awliscombe is the first mention of the Mavericks in parish registers:—<br />
<blockquote>1560, June 5. Radford Mauericke the son of Robert Mauericke baptized.</blockquote>Radford, as already mentioned, was a sixth child, with four or five brothers his seniors.<br />
<br />
There is nothing to show how Radford acquired his Christian name, no family of Radfords resided in the neighbourhood, but there were other "Radfords" among the Honiton children. There must have been a Radford of local importance who was godfather to them all. Radford Maverick himself had a godson Radford, the son of his brother John.<br />
<br />
The family prosperity seems to have increased as the young Radford Maverick grew up. Neither his father nor his elder brother had been at College, but after Robert Maverick's death in 1573 (Radford being then aged thirteen), he matriculated at Exeter College, Oxford, November 17th, 1581, when he was twenty years of age [Foster's <em>Alumni Oxonienses</em>]. He left College without a degree, and in 1583 took Holy Orders, being ordained by John Woolton, Bishop of Exeter, in the private chapel at the Bishop's Palace, receiving deacon's orders on June 1st, and was ordained priest on the 15th of the same month.<br />
<br />
For three years there is no record of his career. Then he was instituted rector of Trusham, June 12th, 1586, on the presentation of Thomas Southcote.<br />
<br />
The friendship with the Southcotes was close and intimate; Dowsabelle, or Dulcibella Southcote was his god-daughter. In his will he left her 10<span style="font-size:100%;"><sup>s.</sup></span> "to be put into a gold ring" and in the codicil he specially desired that this legacy should be paid even if other bequests were set aside for lack of money to settle them.<br />
<br />
An elder sister, Mary Southcote, had married Thomas Ridgeway, bringing Radford Maverick into friendly relations with the Ridgeways of Torre-Mohun, better known nowadays as Torre and Torquay.<br />
<br />
The church and village of Trusham stand on a lofty eminence above the beautiful valley of the Teign, between Exeter and Chudléigh. The old rectory still exists. Some years ago it had degenerated into two cottages, but has recently been restored to its dignity as a dwelling house, and retains evidence of its antiquity. The church preserves some Norman features of the 11th century. Its most recent addition has been a carved oak screen set across the tower arch. On this are placed the names of the rectors of Trusham from 1260 to the present day, and among them appears Radford Maverick who was rector from 1586 to 1616.<br />
<br />
After being rector of Trusham for ten years Radford was presented to the vicarage of Ilsington by Thomas Ford of Bagtor and Henry his son, who were patrons for that turn [<em>pro hac vice</em>] he was instituted July 1st, 1597.<br />
<br />
The large parish of Ilsington covers an extent of 25 square miles. The old granite church, dedicated to St. Michael, displays the fine 15th century characteristics prevalent on the borders of Dartmoor. <br />
<br />
The most famous feature of the place, Haytor Rock, dominates the moor above the village, a land mark for miles round every part of the county. This magnificent granite rock is perhaps the finest of those Tors which are the distinguishing character of the great moorland centre of Devon. Nowadays Haytor is one of the most popular playgrounds for holiday makers; in Radford Maverick's time it was like the rest of the moor worked for tin streaming. Radford evidently did a little mining speculation on his own account. He left in his will "to Mr. Warren, Vicar of Ilsington, my freeholde in a tynne work called the Sanctuary, and his successors for ever." The name of Sanctuary suggests that the "tynne work" may have been adjacent to the glebe. The present Vicar of Ilsington still has the glebe land known as Sanctuary, but no tin mine. The tin work must have been Radford's freehold as he would not have left the church lands to his successor.<br />
<br />
He held these two livings of Trusham and Ilsington together until 1616, when he resigned Trusham, his successor being instituted August 17th that same year.<br />
<br />
The date is significant for on September 15th, 1616, he was in London and preached at Paul's Cross a sermon on "The Practice of Repentance."<br />
<br />
It is worth while briefly to consider some points in Radford Maverick's sermon, as throwing light on the religious opinions of the family, indicating the Puritanical tendencies which eventually induced his nephew John Maverick, to seek for freedom of conscience in the New World.<br />
<br />
The sermon is strongly impregnated with the doctrine of pre-destination. The preacher exemplifies the preservation for Divine purposes not only of Scripture characters, but also Constantine the Great Luther, Queen Elizabeth spared through the reign of her sister Mary, and James the First escaping Gunpowder Plot. He wrote:<br />
<blockquote>No man cometh into the world by chance, but for some end and purpose, God doth sett every one his task, alloting some special duty to every one of his servants, whereunto he ought specially to attend.</blockquote>The Preacher shewed his erudition by quoting St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in the original Latin. Here and there he introduced a Hebrew word, and a little Greek. As may be expected there are several allusions to "our enemies the papists."<br />
<br />
Radford Maverick remained in "his poor house at Ilsington," the vicarage there, until 1621, when he resigned the living and came to Exeter. His name occurs as "Master Radford Maverick" as minister or curate of All Hallows, Goldsmith Street, Exeter, in 1622. William Sheers was then rector.<br />
<br />
Radford must have been residing in Exeter for some little time before he resigned Ilsington; for his wife pre-deceased him and was buried in St. Mary Major's church there. In his will he describes himself as "minister and preacher in the cittie of Exeter." No record of his marriage, or of his wife's maiden name has been found; she probably was Audrey Rackley.<br />
<br />
PETER MAVERICK. The direct ancestor of the Mavericks of Massachusetts was the eldest son of Robert Maverick, probably born at Awliscombe before the commencement of the earliest existing parish register of 1559. If, as is most likely, he was about two and twenty when he took Holy Orders, he would have been born about 1550.<br />
<br />
The earliest record that we have of him is his ordination by Bishop Woolton in the private chapel of the Bishop's Palace at Exeter, where he was ordained deacon on January 15th, 1573-4, and priest on the 16th of March following.<br />
<br />
In the Bishop's register his name occurs as "Petrus Bull als Maverick." [His mother was Willemotte Bull, born 26 May 1526, Awliscombe, married 1548, Awliscombe.]<br />
<br />
He married at Awliscombe on November 7, 1577, the register recording that on this day the marriage of Peter Maverick Clerk and Dorothie Tucke [born 1559].<br />
<br />
The Tuckes appear to have been amongst the most important parishioners of Awliscombe. They were tenants of that part of the parish which belonged to the Mayor and Chamber of Exeter.<br />
<br />
From the Bailiffs' accounts, preserved in Exeter Guildhall, we find that in 1588 Robert Tucke paid rent for the Barton of Awliscombe. In 1600 John Tucke is recorded as holding one tenement there "being the capitull house." This Barton, or Capitull House, would have been the manor house. Dorothie Tucke was most likely the daughter of Robert Tucke, her father's name is not given in the register. She had a sister married to "one Jeffery Granow." This marriage is not in the Awliscombe register, but, as we shall presently see, Granow proved an unpleasant thorn in Peter Maverick's side.<br />
<br />
As he was at the time of his marriage a clerk in holy orders, Peter may then have been serving as curate at Awliscombe. The vicar was Richard Bacon.<br />
<br />
Ecclesiastical affairs were then in a very fluctuating condition. The older men, ordained in pre-reformation times, were dying out. Many of them had adjusted their consciences to new opinions, and retained their livings through all changes of ceremonial. Parishes like Awliscombe, which had belonged to the monasteries were now in lay patronage. The patrons frequently regarded the advowson as property which could be "farmed out"; or temporarily handed over for a money payment to some individual who had a relation or protege he wished to patronize. It was often difficult to find "fit persons to serve in the sacred ministry of the church" (as the Book of Common Prayer words it), sometimes the individual was so unfit that he was speedily deprived, and the Crown, in the person of Queen Elizabeth, intervened and presented someone else.<br />
<br />
In 1580 Richard Bacon resigned the living of Awliscombe, and Peter Maverick als Bull was instituted on November 3rd of that year on the presentation of John Cole, clerk, patron "for this turn, by reason of an assignment made to him to John Woolton, Bishop of Exeter, who had a grant of the advowson from Francis, Earl of Bedford true patron of the living." This is a typical example of how ecclesiastical affairs were then managed. The Earls of Bedford, to whom the property belonging to Dunkeswell Abbey had been given, granted the advowson of Awliscombe to the Bishop of Exeter. He, in his turn, assigned the patronage of the vacant benefice to John Cole, who for some reason wished to present Peter Maverick to the living.<br />
<br />
The pretty rural village of Awliscombe has already been described. A few notes on the church where Peter Maverick ministered from 1550 to 1616 may not be amiss. Thirteen vicars had preceded him; the first known being Lawrence de Sanford admitted in 1287, "on the presentation of the Abbot and convent of Dunkeswell."<br />
<br />
In common with other Devonshire churches few architectural features remain that are older than the 14th or 15th century.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of the 15th or early in the 16th century the building received considerable additions. Thomas Chard, last Abbot of Ford, one of the most prominent ecclesiastics in Devon of his time, was born at Awliscombe, and wished to erect some memorial that would commemorate him in his native parish. With the consent, doubtless readily granted of the Abbot of Dunkeswell, he built, or re-decorated, the south transept adding near it a magnificent porch, rendering the church of St. Michael, Awliscombe, one of the finest churches in East Devon. Inside it has retained a good stone screen. In the north-east window some ancient glass is preserved where the figures of St. Helena, St. Katharine, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Barbara may be recognized.<br />
<br />
In the ancient font, a fine example of 15th century perpendicular style, John the eldest child of Peter Maverick, was baptized October 28th, 1578. The surviving children were John, Nathaniel and Elizabeth.<br />
<br />
What the original cause of the dispute may have been is difficult to ascertain; it was probably a question of money, or a debt; but about 1586 Jeffery Granow (or Granowe) was detained in the Sheriffs ward of Devon "at the suit of one Maverick, his brother-in-law."<br />
<br />
It is worth noting that at this period, except for debtors or political offenders, imprisonment was not a punishment, but merely a detention of the individual until he could be brought before the Justices for trial; the trial being often indefinitely postponed in spite of every effort made by the prisoner to obtain a hearing. Prison life at that time has been described as "nasty, brutish, and short," the last because the incarcerated wretch too often obtained "gaol delivery" by the hand of death before his case was tried. The Governor of the Gaol paid a sum of money to the Crown for his office, and maintained the prison as an expensive boarding house. The well-to-do could procure fire, light, bedding and food at an extortionate rate, every official from the Governor to the gaolers demanding exhorbitant fees.<br />
<br />
The wards, or prisons, of Devon and Exeter were at that time notorious for their vile conditions, and it is not surprising that Granow availed himself of every possible means of release. Wherefore he:—"falsely accused Peter Maverick preacher of diverse fowle and lewd matters" which resulted in the Justices "sending for the said Granow out of the said ward," for examination. The affair dragged on till 1590-1591, Granow contriving that his information should reach Queen Elizabeth's Privy Council. Letters were then directed to "certaine Justices of the Peace in the County of Devon, who again examined the matter" and made report on the same and of their opinions of the good disposition of Mavericke, a Learned Preacher, and of the evell life and conversation of Granowe."<br />
<br />
Further examinations followed before Gervase Babington, then Bishop of Exeter, but later mentioned in the report of the Privy Council as "now Bishop of Worcester." Babington was Bishop of Exeter 1595-1597, the dates shewing how this litigation dragged on. The Mayor of Exeter also took part in the enquiries, and declared "he could find no credit in the accusation and the accused was greatly wronged."<br />
<br />
An order was then given for the discharge of Maverick; he seems to have been obliged to attend personally before the Privy Council and to have been detained in some sort of custody during the enquiry.<br />
<br />
Granow, however, made another effort, "being still a prisoner in Exeter." He was sent before the Lord Chief Justice, "but was able to say nothing, whereupon his Lordship would have sent him back again, but by entreaty he was committed to the King's Bench. Any place of detention was better than Exeter.<br />
<br />
The report concludes:—"Emongst the examinations taken there divers matters concerning the lewd behaviour of Granow, and the grounds of this mallice, Mavericke and he having married twoe sisters."<br />
<br />
Apparently the examiners regarded the family connection as acountable for anything.<br />
<br />
The final report is endorsed "concerning Jeffery Granow, 1597." So this quarrel, with the legal enquiries arising out of it, lasted ten years.<br />
<br />
From the conditions of ecclesiastical affairs at that period it is possible that Granow's accusations dealt with the religious opinions and practises of Maverick. "Fowle and lewd matters" do not sound to modern ears like complaints of false doctrines, or neglect of religious ceremonials. In the 17th century, however, these were regarded as crimes of the "fowlest" character and the term lewd is applied to unlawfulness in clerical matters (Johnson gives <em>lewd</em> as wicked, lustful, unclerical.)<br />
<br />
The probability that the accusations were of this character is strengthened by the examination before the Bishop, and the circumstance that Peter Maverick had to attend personally to answer for his conduct before the Privy Council.<br />
<br />
In his charge before the Bishop and Mayor in 1591 Granow was associated with Andrew Holmer, "a verie lewd person." The reports of these bygone enquiries are very wordy and full of repetitions, yet so vague that it is difficult to determine what really passed between accuser and accused, or the actual doings of the legal courts. Nevertheless they are of value in throwing light on family history.<br />
<br />
Andrew Holmer, for instance, "exhibited divers complaints against Peter Masvericke, Vicar of Olescombe." The identification of the name as Awliscombe is written on the document in a later hand, affording a clue for tracing the earliest records of the family. It is also gratifying to read the opinions of those important people the Mayor and Bishop of Exeter, who asserted that Peter Maverick was a man well accounted for in his profession and honest conversation.<br />
<br />
From the documentary evidence at our disposal Peter seems to have been of a disputatious disposition, and prone to law-suits. This may have rendered him unpopular, however grateful the biographer may be for the information afforded in the history of the Mavericks.<br />
<br />
He appears in 1612 as plaintiff in a suit against William Champeneys of Yarnscombe in North Devon, concerning the lease of a messuage and land in Awliscombe. These Mr. Champeney in 1609 was willing to lease as was then the custom, to Mr. Maverick for 99 years on three lives, Maverick undertaking to pay £40 as earnest money on the lease.<br />
<br />
After this was paid William Champeneys demanded a larger sum, "having intelligence that more money might be gotten for the said messuage."<br />
<br />
The dispute is not particularly interesting but the terms of the lease are of the greatest importance in the history of the family.<br />
<br />
Leases were then, and for long afterwards granted on "lives." That is to say three individuals, seldom more, rarely fewer, were named during whose lifetime the property was to be held by the lessee and his successors. Our ancestors were stay-at-home folk; a man took it for granted that he, his sons, and grandsons would be willing to reside on the lease-hold property for the entire period of 99 years, while the man who thus leased the estate did not really alienate it from his family possessions by an actual sale. If one of the lives fell in by decease, it was usually replaced by another but there was always an endeavour, when the lease was taken out to insert the names of children, or very young people, who were likely to survive, if not 99 years, at least for a considerable part of them, and who would later on renew the agreement with other young lives to succeed them. Estates in England have sometimes been held by the same families for extensive periods through this custom of lease on lives.<br />
<br />
Peter Maverick named as the three lives on his lease his second son Nathaniel, not then thirty years old, and his two grandsons Samuel and Elias, particularly described as "two of the sons of John Maverick, son, of the said Peter."<br />
<br />
John Maverick had been married at Ilsington in 1600, when his uncle Radford was vicar, so these two boys, who had an elder brother, could not have been more than ten years old when their names were put on the lease.<br />
<br />
In 1601 Peter Maverick drew up a return of the "Vicarage of Awliscombe," detailing the name of the patron, and the extent of the glebe lands. He mentions that there was a "house and curtilages (courtyards), two herb gardens, and little orchards," and adds that when he came there he found "no implements in the house but the screens," these being the removable partitions that divided one room from another.<br />
<br />
A new Terrier, or parochial record, was written by him in 1613 in which he mentions that he had built a new vicarage at his "own proper costs and charges."<br />
<br />
This old vicarage stood in the hollow below the church, particulars of the house are given in a later Terrier of 1728.<br />
<br />
"The vicarage house is built of mud with earthen walls covered with thatch; containing four chambers kitchen, parlour and hall, and four small ground rooms floored with earth but not ceiled, consisting of two bays of building, built with mud walls and covered with thatch. The barn and stable adjoining consist of about two bays of building of mud walls covered with thatch."<br />
<br />
This vicarage was surrounded by about half an acre of walled garden, with an orchard bounded by a hedge. The site of the old house can be traced at the bottom of the present garden. Only the well remains, deprived of all picturesquesness by being supplied with a modern pump.<br />
<br />
Here Peter Maverick would have passed his days in the busy life of the country clergyman of the 17th century. Interested in farming his glebe, enjoying his garden, and sharing in the village pastimes, the Revel, Christmas games, and Harvest Home. At that period the parish priest was the link in local government that united church and state; friend alike to squire and cottager, to whom all appealed for the settlement of disputes or redress of grievances, and the parish church was the centre not only of the spiritual, but the parochial life of the little commmunity.<br />
<br />
Home life in the new vicarage would have been very simple. Baking, brewing, and all domestic work was done at home, and Mrs. Maverick was, we may be sure, fully occupied in providing comfort for the family, besides little luxuries distributed to the sick and poor of the parish. Those gardens and orchards so carefully detailed in the Terriers, helped to render the family self supporting. Charis were a luxury for old people, young folk sat on stools, or benches. The tables were boards set on tressells, removable when not required. Books were few. Among the most valuable household goods were the brass pans and crocks, so frequently mentioned in wills of that time.<br />
<br />
On February 3rd, 1616, John Hassarde was instituted into the vicarage of Awliscombe, the benefice being void "<em>per necem Petri Mavericke</em>."<br />
<br />
This ominous term "<em>per necem</em>" "by violent death" [<em>Nex-necem</em>, a "violent death" as distinct from natural mortality "<em>per mortem</em>" the term that usually occurs in the Registers of the Bishops of Exeter. It has been suggested that the scrivener on this occasion used an unusual term from mere pedantry, but the word is rare and seems to have been deliberately written.] shadows the close of Peter Maverick's life with mystery. So far nothing has come to light to reveal what occasioned the violent death of this Vicar whose Bishop declared that he was of virtuous life and honest conversation [behaviour]. No record of his death occurs in the parish register of Awliscombe.<br />
<br />
Had he, in spite of the Bishop's commendation, fallen under the harshness of the ecclesiastical laws, as did so many of the Puritan clergy of the time, the circumstance would have been fully recorded among the many accounts of the 17th century persecutions of the non-conformists.<br />
<br />
Did the exasperated Granow contrive the violent death of his brother-in-law?<br />
<br />
Peter Maverick's name is conspicuously missing from the will of Radford Maverick. He left legacies to "John, son of my eldest brother" but does not mention that brother's name, though there were two, if not three brothers his seniors, sons of Robert Maverick. Peter left no will, for that ommission the circumstances of his death would be accountable. Wills were then usually made during the last few months of the testator's life, if not on his death-bed. A sudden violent death left a man intestate.<br />
<br />
Nor does there seem to have been any grant for an administration of his goods applied for by his heirs.<br />
<br />
Only in the Register of Bishop Valentine Cary, by the use of an unusual Latin term, is there any hint given how the honest life and conversation of Peter Maverick met with its tragic end.<br />
<br />
NATHANIEL MAVERICK. Before proceeding to record the more important members of the family, it will be worth while to set down such brief facts as are known about Nathaniel, the second son of Peter Maverick, whose baptism is entered in the parish registers of Awliscombe on June 24, 1583, "Nathaniel, son of Peter Maverick clearke."<br />
<br />
His was the first of the three lives set upon the lease of land at Awliscombe between William Champeneys and Peter Maverick. He was then, in 1609, aged 23. We next meet with him in his 39th year when he was mentioned in Radford Maverick's will [1622] in which he left "to my cosen Nathaniel Maverick my eldest brother's son tenn shillings to be put into a gold ring."<br />
<br />
Nathaniel appears to have followed the legal profession, and left Devon for London, where eventually he had a good appointment as head clerk to the town clerk of the City of London.<br />
<br />
In the spring of 1630, John, Nathaniel's elder brother, had sailed for New England. Doubtless Nathaniel felt no inclination to resign his excellent appointment in London for precarious adventures across the ocean. It was however destined that neither through the church nor the law should the Mavericks acquire distinction in the land of their birth.<br />
<br />
He must have impressed some kindly recollections on the memory of his nephew, Samuel Maverick of Massachusetts, for he named his eldest son, born about 1629, or 1630, Nathaniel. This Nathaniel went to the Barbadoes, where he died in 1670. His father Samuel was still living, and is mentioned in his will. He left three sons, minors, one of these was also Nathaniel, later recorded as Nathaniel Maverick of St. Michael's Parish, Barbadoes. He died in 1700, leaving a young son, another Nathaniel. The will of yet another Nathaniel Maverick of St. Peter's parish is dated 1710. Thus did the Mavericks of the western continent preserve the name of their distant kinsman Nathaniel Mavericke of [St. Lawrence] Old Jewry, London, born in 1583 at Awliscombe, Devon.<br />
<br />
JOHN MAVERICK. When, on October 28th, 1578, Peter Maverick baptized his first-born child, a son, in the fine old 15th century font at Awliscombe, and named him John, he must have felt some of those aspirations and hopes concerning the boy's future which would occur to any serious minded parent at such a time.<br />
<br />
The Mavericks were prosperous. The Tuckes, John's grandparents, were amongst some of the most important people in the parish of Awliscombe. Hopes of further social advancement for his son must have passed through Peter's thoughts if he ventured to look forward.<br />
<br />
But never we may feel sure, when he dedicated that little swaddled infant, in the old words of the Second Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth, to be "Christ's faythfull souldier and seruant unto his lyves end," did he think of that life attaining its ripe fullness in the New World, not long discovered by West Country adventurers; vaguely described in Devon's seaports by weather-beaten mariners, whose tales were only half credited, or told as marvels on winter evenings round the fire on the open hearth.<br />
<br />
Peter Maverick had no University degree. That omission was rectified in the education of his son. There are indications that the Mavericks were in better circumstances after the death of Robert Maverick in 1573. Peter married, and married well, in 1577. Radford matriculated at Exeter College, Oxford, in 1581. He was Rector of Trusham in 1586, and may have given some assistance to his nephew when John followed his uncle's footsteps to the same College in 1595. [Mavericke, John, of Devon, cler., fil. Exeter College, Matriculated 24 Oct., 1595, aged 18; B.A. 8 July, 1599; M.A. 7 July, 1603, then in orders. Rector of Beaworthy, Devon, 1615.—Foster's <em>Alumni Oxonienses</em>.] Two years later he took Holy Orders, being ordained in the private chapel of the Bishop's Palace in Exeter by Bishop Babington, receiving deacon's and priest's orders on the same day, July 29, 1597. He is entered in the Bishop's register as a "literate" as he did not take his degree until 1599. In 1599 he took his B.A. and his Masters degree in 1603, when he is recorded as being then in orders.<br />
<br />
Not only was he an ordained minister, but he was also a married man. On October 28th, 1600 (the anniversary of his baptism twenty years previously), he was married at Ilsington to Mary Gye of that parish. It may be inferred that Radford Maverick performed the ceremony. The marriage is entered in the parish registers of Ilsington, and it is there, or at Trusham, that we should have expected to find entries of the baptism of his sons.<br />
<br />
John was probably serving as his uncle's curate, having taken orders soon after his matriculation on purpose to assist him; for nothing is recorded of his clerical work until 1615, when on the death of John Norreys he was instituted to the rectory of Beaworthy in North Devon, on the presentation of Arthur Arscott of Ashwater.<br />
<br />
Radford resigned Trusham in 1616, most likely he found two parishes, some distance apart, too much for ministration without his nephew's help.<br />
<br />
Neither at Ilsington, nor at Trusham is there any entry in the parish register of the baptism of John Maverick's sons. At Ilsington the name of Maverick only occurs in the one record of John's marriage; at Trusham it does not occur at all. It is just between the years 1601-1609, that we should expect to find it.<br />
<br />
A conjectural explanation can be given to account for the omission of their baptism in the registers. It is only offered as a plausible suggestion, liable to be contradicted by the discovery of the entries elsewhere. John may have baptized his sons privately at home, and never completed the office by the ceremony of receiving the children into Church, as appointed in the Prayer Book service. This latter part of the rite of baptism entailed using the sign of the Cross. The church insisted on it, the Puritans objected, it was Popish, superstitious, superfluous, and was one of the fiercest points of controversy between the Bishops and the Non-conformists.<br />
<br />
Thus it would appear that John Maverick had conscientious objections—to use a modern formula. Also John did not want to get into difficulties over ritual at a period when conscientious objectors were apt to be treated with short shrift and a long rope; so he christened his babies at home, and omitted, possibly through forgetfulness, to enter their names in the parish register. At that period the names of those baptized, married or buried were jotted down on loose bits of paper, and later on entered into the registers, when the parson, or parish clerk had leisure to do it, with the result that omissions were not infrequent.<br />
<br />
Beaworthy where John Maverick was instituted Rector, August 30th, 1615, lies on the north west of Devon, a little distance from the borders of Dartmoor. It is remote and little known at the present day, its conditions in the early years of the 17th century are past imagining. As a residence for a man of scholarly tastes, such as John Maverick seems to have possessed, it must have been exile indeed. All that can be said is that a minister who resided there fourteen years would have been able to adapt himself far more easily to life in the recently founded settlements of New England, than many of his clerical brethren.<br />
<br />
The church is very small, and, though it exhibits a few features of Norman work, it is neither dignified nor interesting. The dedication is to St. Alban, which is rather remarkable, for there is little to associate the proto-martyr of England with Devon. The one local event was an annual fair on July 25th, of which the principal feature was a race of old women for a greased pig. This fair, with or without the pig, survived until recent years; early in the 17th century, when John Maverick was rector, we may feel sure it was celebrated with all the merriment characteristic of the good old times.<br />
<br />
John Maverick's life is so definitely divided into two parts, that it is worth while to pause here, and briefly explain the ecclesiastical conditions of the period, which drove him, and so many more of the clergy out of the land of their birth to the new world across the sea.<br />
<br />
All through the reign of Elizabeth there had been a party in the reformed church, who did not consider that church sufficiently reformed. They demanded a more complete rejection of rites and ceremonies, a "purifying" as they expressed it, from certain doctrines, superstitions, ceremonials, and formal expressions of reverence. It is difficult to see, had their demands been complied with, what would have been left. The Elizabethan bishops made a firm stand. Possibly they over-did their firmness, for drastic pains and penalties, in the form of fines, excommunication (then a really weighty punishment) and imprisonments, were imposed upon these "Puritans" nor were spies and informers lacking who reported the behaviour of their ministers especially if the minister happened to be unpopular in his parish.<br />
<br />
In 1603 Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, drew up a number of canons, or rules for the church, and required them to be read aloud in every church in the kingdom, the clergy also signing assent to them. Many ministers throughout the country refused to sign. The number of these "dissenters" in Devon and Cornwall was fifty-one. Not a large percentage in the extensive Diocese of Exeter, where Devon alone had some five hundred parishes. But in 1607 the ministers of the Exeter Diocese further emphasized their position by publishing a treatise defending their opinions, and concluding with the statement that:—"the weight of episcopal power may oppress us, but cannot convince us."<br />
<br />
By this time both Queen Elizabeth and Archbishop Whitgift had died. Ecclesiastical matters had been allowed to drift in the last years of the old Queen. James the First now ascended the throne, Bancroft was Archbishop, and they laid heavy hands on all who would not conform to their regulations. At a conference held at Hampton Court James declared: "I will make them conform or I will harry them out of the land." Little did he realize the effect of this declaration on the history of the whole modern world.<br />
<br />
The first flights were made to Holland, the old refuge of those who suffered religious persecution in England; but Holland soon discovered that friendship with King James was not compatible with sheltering his rebellious subjects. Political considerations had the mastery; without being exactly refused protection the Puritans were no longer welcomed; they saw they must look elsewhere for a refuge, and they turned their eyes towards the New World.<br />
<br />
They were checked even in this direction. Several families went to Virginia, but when it was discovered that many more were preparing to embark, so far from "harrying them out of the country" they were forbidden to leave without special license from the King.<br />
<br />
Persecution is a course that cuts its own throat. The Puritans were determined to migrate, so they provided themselves with what ultimately proved the most magnificent and powerful credentials that ever founded a People. They royal licenses for which the ever impoverished James was quite willing to be paid, were those Charters for Permission to Trade, which, by what has been termed a daring breach of the law, were treated by those to whom they were issued as grants for founding the political self governing Settlement of Massachusetts.<br />
<br />
English affairs strengthened their powers, and assisted their independence. In the earlier years of their enterprise they looked back to England for help, depending a great deal on food supplies sent out to them, while, with more diffidence than might have been expected, they humbly asked for advice concerning the management of their colony, from a Government at that time incapable of managing itself, though not unwilling to try and manage other people. Finally affairs at home "did so take up the King and Council that they had neither the heart nor leisure to take up the affairs of New England." [Winthrop's Journal]<br />
<br />
New England was all the better for it; the settlers managed their own affairs and prospered exceedingly.<br />
<br />
It is difficult to determine how far the Mavericks were influenced by the Puritanical opinions of their contemporaries. A disctinctly calvinistic tone pervades Radford Maverick's sermon, but he managed to retain his two Devonshire livings unmolested from 1586 to 1621. It may be taken for granted that he was not among the fifty-one ministers who refused to assent to the Canons of Archbishop Whitgift.<br />
<br />
John was rector of Beaworthy for fourteen years, at the end of which time he resigned the living on his own initiation, apparently because he wished to settle elsewhere. It is worth noting that when Radford Maverick in 1622 left:—"to my cosen John Maverick, preacher, one of Zanchees works on the nature of God in Lattyn," he does not mention him as rector of Beaworthy, though John then had the benefice. This gives the impression that John had then left Beaworthy to the ministrations of some local curate, and was preaching to more enlightened congregations in East Devon or Dorset.<br />
<br />
The majority of the Mavericks were now settled in Honiton, a fairly numerous group of cousins, all John's connections, descendants of Robert of Awliscombe. From Honiton it is not far into Dorsetshire, and it is in Dorsetshire that we must look for the influence which led the Mavericks to New England.<br />
<br />
The then rector of St. Peter's Church, Dorchester, was the Rev. John White, who has been described as "a masterful old Puritan." He held the living from 1606 until his death in 1648, but his place in history is connected with New England, and he is justly regarded as one of the founders of Massachusetts, though he never went there.<br />
<br />
It has been said of Sir Walter Ralegh that he "understood that the road to England's greatness, which was more to him than all other good things, lay across the sea." The Rev. John White seems to have held the same opinion, and applied his wealth and influence to affording practical assistance to those willing to take that road.<br />
<br />
He despatched a party from Dorsetshire in 1624. Some years later he procured the "Charter of Corporation for the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay in New England"; this was dated March 4, 1628-9.<br />
<br />
We in England think of the great American Continents in connection with those daring spirits who first discovered them. Columbus, Amerigo Vespucci to whom they owe their name; Sir Francis Drake with his splendid talent for navigation; Ralegh dreaming ever of El Dorado; Sebastian Cabot, the Bristol Merchant adventurer; Henry Burrows of Northam near Bideford, the prototype of Amyas Leigh.<br />
<br />
Yet the actual founders of these settlements, who dared not only the hazards of the voyage, but the experiences of new climate and conditions of which they were wholly ignorant, were the homely determined pastors, harried out of their country by the obstinancy of their rulers. Men who abandoned all prospects of dignity and affluence at home, faced the rigours of winters such as they had never imagined, defended themselves from some of the cruelest savages ever known, and applied the determination which had defied king and bishops, to establishing civilization and prosperity in the wild but splendid regions others had discovered. It was as if rocks descried by eagles, were used as nesting places for flocks of sea swallows:—"The opportunity of the moment lay in those happy hands which the Holy Ghost had guided, the fortunate adventurers." [<em>Edmund Gosse: Some Diversions of a man of letters</em>.]<br />
<br />
The vessels came over in little convoys of six or eight, for mutual assistance and protection. They were armed for defence against Spanish warships or possible pirates. On board, besides the colonists with their wives and children, were horses, cattle, goats and sheep. A prosperous voyage took about six weeks, and it is not surprising to hear that the condition of the vessels could become very unpleasant.<br />
<br />
No wonder they rejoiced when at last land appeared. Even John Winthrop's somewhat prosaic pen ceases for a moment from dry details to record the green islands, the flat shores with blue hills rising in the distance:—"Fair sunshine weather and so sweet a smell as did much refresh us, for there came a smell of the shore like the smell of a garden."<br />
<br />
John Maverick formally resigned Beaworthy rectory in 1629-30. His successor was instituted on March 24th. The dates are perplexing, complicated by the year being then reckoned to begin on March 25th. March 24th would still be 1629. Whenever possible I have followed John Winthrop's Journal as being contemporary evidence. That same month of March he was chosen at Plymouth [Devon] as one of the teachers of the Puritan church, and soon afterwards he sailed for New England in the "Mary and John" whose Master was Captain Squib.<br />
<br />
Winthrop wrote in his journal on June 17th, 1630, "Captain Squib brought out the West Country people, Mr. Ludlow, Mr. Rossitur, and Mr. Maverick, who were set down at Mattapan." These were the founders of Dorchester, Mass., named in honour of the Rev. John White, and recalling to many of the settlers the old county town of their native shire.<br />
<br />
Armed with the new Charter, John Winthrop began establishing the settlement. As his license was nominally for a Trading Company the usual terms of the English Gilds, or Trading Companies were offered to the settlers; they had to become "Freemen of the Company" to secure permission to trade. On October 6th, 1630, among "the names of such as wish to become Freemen" are—<br />
<blockquote>Mr. Samuel Mavracke.<br />
Mr. John Mavracke.</blockquote>Mr. John Maverick took the oath of Freeman, May 18th, 1631; his son Samuel did not, however, take the oath till Oct. 2nd, 1632.<br />
<br />
An incident of John Maverick's life in Dorchester [Mass.] is recorded by Winthrop:—<br />
<br />
"1632, March 19. Mr. Maverick, one of the ministers of Dorchester, in drying a little powder, which took fire by the heat of the fire pan, fired a small barell of two or three pounds, yet did no other harm but singed his clothes. It was in the New Meeting House, which was thatched, and the thatch only blackened a little."<br />
<br />
The New Meeting House evidently served both for congregational worship and the minister's residence. Such explosions were not infrequent; gunpowder was a necessity, and it seems to have been made at home, and dried over the domestic hearth. Accidents often occurred. If the disaster was slight, the hand of Providence was perceived protecting the godly; if severe, the individual suffered for his sins. The Puritan settlers missed no opportunity of improving the occasion.<br />
<br />
John Maverick was highly esteemed by all in the Colony. He is called the "godly Mr. John Maverick" by Roger Clapp, another Devonshire man, born at Salcombe Regis near Sidmouth. The Clapps came out to New England from Dorchester [Dorset] and were among the founders of Dorchester [Mass.]. It is quite possible that Roger Clapp knew the Mavericks in England; Honiton and Awliscombe being easily reached from Salcombe or Sidmouth.<br />
<br />
In 1633 Samuel Maverick received a grand of Noddles Island [East Boston] where he built a new house. Either John Maverick went to live with his son, or was staying there at the time of his death; a record of the "decease of the Fathers of New England" includes "3 February, 1636. The Rev. John Maverick of Dorchester, died at Boston aged 60."<br />
<br />
A tribute to him was penned by John Winthrop:—<br />
<br />
"1636, Feb. 3. Mr. John Maverick, teacher of the church of Dorchester, died being nearly sixty years of age. He was a man of very humble spirit, and faithful in furthering the work of the Lord both in the churches and civil state."<br />
<br />
John Maverick's widow (Mary Gye) survived her husband many years. She made her home with her son Samuel in the house he had built shortly before his father's death on Noddles Island, Boston. The locality is now known as East Boston, but there still exists "Maverick Square." In 1665 mention is made that Mr. Maverick had his mother, wife, children, and brother living with him. They then were on Rhode Island. Samuel Maverick in a letter written Oct. 9, 1668, to Sir William Morice, Secretary of State in England, says that his mother "presents her humble service."<br />
<br />
Mrs. Maverick may have known some of Sir William Morice's family in England. His father Dr. Evan Morice was Chancellor of the Diocese of Exeter, and his mother Mary, daughter of John Castle of Ashbury, Devon. William Morice was born in Exeter in 1602, his father died in 1605, and in 1611 his mother married again, her second husband being Sir Nicholas Prideaux of Solden in the parish of Sutcombe, Devon. Ashbury is near Beaworthy, and Sutcombe, though farther off, is in the same part of the county; where William Morice passed much of his early life. He did not purchase the property at Werrington with which his name is usually associated, until 1651, but that is also in the neighbourhood of Beaworthy. His religious convictions were decidedly Puritanical, but he was one of the Devonshire gentlemen who supported General Monk in restoring Charles II to the throne, and was knighted on the king's landing in 1660, and immediately made Secretary of State. Samuel Maverick would have been a few years his junior, and the two may have known each other in boyhood.<br />
<br />
Mrs. Maverick would have been at least 80 years of age at her death [after 9 Oct 1666].<br />
<br />
SAMUEL MAVERICK. Among these eager settlers Samuel Maverick presents a most delightful character. Dry and meagre as are the details afforded us, we can read between the lines suggestions of romance and kindliness which endear him to the reader even after the lapse of three centuries.<br />
<br />
It must be confessed that most of the Fathers of Massachusetts wore a grim and forbidding aspect. Samuel Maverick in strong contrast was full of geneality and friendship towards all he met.<br />
<br />
He came out in 1624, possibly with the first contingent of Dorsetshire men, despatched by the Rev. John White of Dorchester. Arriving at Massachusetts he settled at Winissimet on the Mystic River.<br />
<br />
How lovely must that land of broad waters and forest primeval have appeared when seen by the first settlers.<br />
<br />
The Mystic river really bears an Indian name; Winthrop sometimes spells it Mistick, or Mistich; but when first seen flowing from regions unknown, the designation must have sounded singularly appropriate, and has happily been retained to the present day. Winissimet has exchanged its old name for Chelsea, which is a loss.<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"Here it was that Samuel Maverick:—<br />
<br />
". . . broke the land and sowed the crop,<br />
Build the barns and strung the fences in the little border station<br />
Tucked away below the foot hills where the trails run out and stop."</span></blockquote>He had a neighbour David Thompson, also a west-countryman, sent out about 1623 by Sir Ferdinando Gorges from Plymouth, Devon. Thomposon had his wife with him; the entry of their marriage is still to be seen in the parish registers of St. Andrew's Church, Plymouth [Devon].<br />
<blockquote>"1613, July 13, David Thompson and Amyes Colles were married."</blockquote>Together Samuel Maverick and David Thompson built a fort as a defence against the Indians. It was later described as:—"a house with a pillizado [palisade] and flankers, and gunnes both above and below in them." It was standing in 1660, "the antientist house in the Massachusetts Government."<br />
<br />
Here Samuel practised "large hearted hospitality" and shewed special kindness in welcoming all new arrivals as soon as they landed. John Winthrop mentions that when he and his companions reached New England in 1630 "we went to Mattachusetts to find a place for our sitting down [settling]. Wee went up the Mistick river about six miles and lay at Mr. Maverick's and returned home on saturday."<br />
<br />
Winthrop's arrival must have been especially welcome to Samuel Maverick, for his father and mother came over at the same time.<br />
<br />
About 1634 Samuel had the grant of Noddles Island, where he built another house. John Josselyn, who came in 1638, writes:—"July 10th I went ashore to Noddles Island to Mr. Samuel Maverick, the only hospitable man in all the country, giving entertainment to all comers gratis." He was again Samuel's guest the following year.<br />
<br />
Josselyn wrote an account of "Two voyages to New England," printed in 1674, and records the arrival of Winthrop with the other settlers, among whom he mentions "Mr. Maverick the father of Mr. Samuel Maverick."<br />
<br />
David Thompson died about 1628, and in course of time his widow married her husband's friend Samuel Maverick. She was considerably his senior, as she married her first husband in 1613, and Samuel was born about 1602, possibly later. He described himself as "aged 63 or thereabouts" in 1665. Where or when his marriage with Amyes (or Amias) Thompson took place is not known. David Thompson left a son John, and perhaps other children. Amias wrote in 1635 to Mr. Trelawney, Merchant, Plymouth, Devon, mentioning her "fatherless children." As she wrote from Noddles Island she most likely had then bestowed a step-father on them in the person of Samuel Maverick.<br />
<br />
Her son, John Thompson, in 1643 assigned a bill to "my father Samuel Maverick." His mother Amias was living in 1672. By her Samuel had three children, Nathaniel, Samuel, and Mary.<br />
<br />
Samuel did not limit his kindness to his own people. In 1633, Small-pox, "the white man's scourge" attacked the native Indians. The wild men were much impressed to find that though their own people forsook them, the English came daily and attended to their needs. "Among others (writes Winthrop) Mr. Maverick of Winnissimet is worthy of perpetual remembrance; himself, his wife and servants went daily to them, ministered to their necessities, and buried their children."<br />
<br />
On another occasion Samuel managed to smooth matters when some sailors and traders of the bark Maryland got into difficulties with the Puritan colonists. He came all the way from Winnissimet to settle the affair to everyone's satisfaction. In 1645 he protected La Tour, governor of one of the French settlements, and kept him for twelve months in his house at Noddles Island; the French having quarrelled among themselves, and La Tour's fort being totally destroyed.<br />
<br />
At the time of his father's death Samuel was in Virginia, where he remained for a year. Winthrop records his return on August 3rd, 1636—"Samuel Maverick, who had been in Virginia near twelve months, now returned with two pinnaces, and brought some 14 heiffers, and about 80 goats." He also brought "ten niggers" some of the first negroes imported into New England, where Samuel Maverick was one of the earliest employers of slave labour. One of the two pinnaces was a vessel of about 40 tons built of cedar wood at the Barbadoes. Owing to the death of the owner, it was sold cheaply in Virginia, and there bought by Samuel, who had only takne one pinnace from Boston and evidently required a second vesel for all the merchandize he brought home.<br />
<br />
In spite of his good qualities Samuel's religious opinions did not satisfy the Puritans of New England. The Mavericks were loyal to the English crown, and their religious tenants inclined to be episcopalian. It is impossible to discover, either from Neale's History of the Puritans, or Winthrop's Journal, what was required by the non-conformist founders of Massachusetts. Their government became a sort of theocracy, and it is well known that so far from having "freedom of conscience" the settlers endured sharp persecution unless they shared the narrow opinions of their superiors.<br />
<br />
The Editor of Winthrop's Journal, J. K. Hosmer, notes:—"This estimable man Samuel Maverick was looked upon askance in the community, where, though recognised as a man of substance and worth, he was given no public place."<br />
<br />
Noddles Island appears to have been entailed on his heir, Nathaniel Maverick, who in 1649 occurs as "Nathaniel Maverick of New England, Gentleman," when "with the consent of his father and by the advice of his friends," he sold to "Captain Briggs of ye Barbadoes one Island known as Noddles Island." For this Captain Briggs paid with 40,000<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>lbs</sup></span> of white sugar "to be lodged in some convenient place."<br />
<br />
So frequently was Samuel embroiled with the Governors of the settlement, that he eventually decided to return to England and lay before the Government there the case of those who, like himself, did not consider they were fairly treated.<br />
<br />
England was still too much engrossed in home difficulties to take great interest in Colonial grievances. Samuel displayed a dogged persistance which extended over several years. His "Brief description of New England" was probably then written, for it bears internal evidence of being about the date of 1660. This printed pamphlet can be found in the British Museum Library. The original MSS. of his letters then written are at the Bodleian, Oxford; many of them are printed in the <em>New Eng. Hist. & Gen. Reg.</em><br />
<br />
Charles the Second was restored and the royal government re-established, and finally Maverick's pertinacity met with its reward. He returned to Massachusetts bearing instructions in which he was included with other Commissioners "To visit our Colony of Massachusetts in our Plantacion of New England"—dated April 23, 1664.<br />
<br />
Under the same date were also instructions "For the visitacion of our Colony of Connecticot."<br />
<br />
The Commissioners were to settle the affairs of New England, and reduce the Dutch in New Netherland. Samuel and his fellow Commissioners failed in their first undertaking, the Puritan Fathers of New England had no intention of submitting to any management but their own. Their dealings with the Dutch were far more successful, and, though they scarcely realised it at the time, far more important. England was then, most unwisely, at war with Holland, but this furnished an excuse for demanding the evacuation of the New Netherlands, and thus that part of the New World passed into the possession of the English settlers, and became the important State of New York.<br />
<br />
Never could Samuel Maverick then have foreseen that he was planting the English Tongue and English People where they would, after three hundred years, have their share in the international destinies of the whole civilized world.<br />
<br />
It has been said of Sir Walter Ralegh "that it was his undying glory to have made the great continent of North America an English speaking country, labouring in full faith and confidence that the great continent was by God's providence reserved for England." But:—<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"God took care to hide that country till he found His people ready."</span></blockquote>And other men, many of them, like Ralegh, west-countrymen, built on the foundations Ralegh had laid.<br />
<br />
Samuel Maverick, in reward for his loyalty and exertions, was given "a house on the Broad Way," which was granted to him in October, 1669. The site has been identified as corresponding with the present No. 50 Broadway, New York City.<br />
<br />
He lived another ten years, or more. His name appears on a deed dated 1676. Probably he died in New York, but the actual place of his death has not yet been ascertained nor his will discovered.<br />
<br />
Both his sons predeceased him, Samuel, the second, at Boston in 1663, leaving two infant daughters. Nathaniel, the elder, who has already been mentioned, died at Barbadoes in 1673, leaving a son Nathaniel, and other children, from whom are descended the Mavericks of Texas.<br />
<br />
Although her brother had heirs, Samuel's daughter Mary, described herself in 1687 as "wife of Francis Hooke (her second husband) and heiress of Samuel Maverick, deceased."<br />
<br />
Beatrix Cresswell</div><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-29468771987076938792013-01-06T04:03:00.004-08:002021-12-19T12:15:05.941-08:00Puritanism Moves South<center><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP48TT1sSvn0Kkn33TkC9eHsRTrFo-RN-3z4FMQyXHzTVNHLEl22tQe1xpefCQA3aPZtyQwxZFsqxwEs7LYz_vgDYLsKoUqluCHts37I0zhofCz5ZCszobacCjIrfsjJXw7dskONnAiKTs/s1600/Anthony_Ashley_Cooper,_3._Earl_of_Shaftesbury.jpg" target="_blank"><img border="0" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP48TT1sSvn0Kkn33TkC9eHsRTrFo-RN-3z4FMQyXHzTVNHLEl22tQe1xpefCQA3aPZtyQwxZFsqxwEs7LYz_vgDYLsKoUqluCHts37I0zhofCz5ZCszobacCjIrfsjJXw7dskONnAiKTs/s320/Anthony_Ashley_Cooper,_3._Earl_of_Shaftesbury.jpg" style="filter: alpha(opacity=50);" /></a></center>
<br /><div align="left">Puritanism did not confine itself to New England, even in the seventeenth century. The people of Dorchester, Massachusetts, looked southward and saw there, near Charleston, in South Carolina, a fertile missionary field. It is uncertain exactly why they felt there were opportunities in this proprietary colony where the Church of England was established. Of much different origin from Massachusetts Bay Colony, Carolina (it was not divided into North and South Carolina until 1729) was established after the Restoration when eight promoters obtained a proprietary patent from Charles II. Chief amongst them were Sir John Colleton, a wealthy planter of Barbadoes, and Anthony Ashley Cooper, later to be Earl of Shaftesbury, Chancellor of the Exchequer. Shaftesbury must have had a tinge of the romantic about him, because the 120 articles of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina which he and the political philosopher, John Locke, drew up, attempted to revive medieval feudalism on a more German and French pattern than English. An elaborate governmental system was devised which provided for five estates, eight supreme courts, a chamberlain, and lord high admiral, and titles of baron, cassique, and landgrave to be bestowed according to the size of land tracts purchased by individuals. Manors and leets were also created. Leet-men and leet-women were bound to the manor, and it was decreed that all their children unto all generations also should be leet-men and leet-women. The nobility was to be hereditary. The eldest of the Lords Proprietors was made Palatine, and at his death the eldest of the seven surviving Proprietors would succeed him. All the royalties, proprieties, jurisdictions, and privileges of the County Palatine of Durham were granted in the patent for the express purpose of avoiding the erection of a democracy. Although the Church of England was the only religious body to receive public maintenance, liberty of conscience was allowed. It was a strange document for John Locke to have had a hand in drawing up.
<br /><br />Charleston was settled in 1670, by a small group from England and several hundred colonists from Barbadoes. Early the following year, the <i>John and Thomas</i> carried forty-two men, women and children from Barbadoes to Charleston sent by Thomas Colleton, Samuel Farmer, and John Stroud, esquires. On board was John Maverick, a Barbadoes planter, with his servants, Philip Jones and Richard Rowser. Hugh Strode also was a passenger. He and John Stroud were undoubtedly members of the prominent Devon family which had taken an important part in the Dorchester Company of Adventurers. John Maverick, who was named in the Parliament of the Carolina colony on April 20, 1672, was probably the son of Nathaniel Maverick, esquire, who was in Barbadoes by 1656. This Nathaniel was the eldest son of Samuel and Amias Cole Thompson Maverick, and grandson of the Reverend John Maverick who was emigrated from Devon to Dorchester, Massachusetts, on the <i>Mary and John</i>. His will, dated August 16, 1670, and proved at Barbadoes February 24, 1673/4, names a son, John, who was under twenty-one years of age when the will was signed. Directing that he be buried beside his son, Moses, under the southeast window of St. Lucy's Church, he left to his daughter, Mary, 40,000 pounds of muscovado sugar to be paid to her either after her marriage or at the age of eighteen years. Samuel Maverick, who was an important figure in early Massachusetts and who there gained a certain amount of unpopularity because of his well-known attachment to the Church of England, apparently was considering emigrating to Barbadoes, as Nathaniel's will directed that if his father came into the island, he was to be maintained out of his estate. Nathaniel Maverick had joined in an agreement with a large group in Barbadoes on January 7, 1664, to settle in Carolina. Perhaps illness forced him to change his mind and remain in Barbadoes, but the subsequent activities of the group are obscure. After his arrival in South Carolina, John Maverick apparently did not prosper, at least, at first. Although he held land at Charleston, he could not afford to keep his servants.
<br /><br />It seems likely that the presence of Maverick in South Carolina had an influence on the decision of a group of Puritans in Dorchester, Massachusetts, to remove to the southern province in 1695. This is especially probable when it is considered that one of his relatives was one of those who emigrated. She was Mary Maverick Way, daughter of Elias and Anna Harris Maverick, and granddaughter of the Reverend John Maverick. She married Aaron Way, son of Aaron and Joanna Sumner Way, who was baptized at Dorchester, Massachusetts, on October 6, 1650. The couple, with their children, were dismissed from the church at Danvers, Massachusetts, on October 11, 1696, to "the church of Christ laterly gathered at Dorchester in New England, and now planted in South Carolina." It was just a year previous to this that the church had been gathered. October 22, 1695, being a lecture day for the church in Dorchester, Massachusetts, the day was set apart for the ordination of Joseph Lord for the church which was to remove to South Carolina and "settle the Gospel there." Those who signed the covenant were Joshua Brooks, Simon Daken, and Nathaniel Billings of Concord; William Norman of Carolina; William Adams of Sudbury; Increase Sumner and William Pratt of Dorchester, and George Foxe of Reading. Representatives or "messengers" of churches in other towns were present to carry out the solemn work at hand. Mr. Lord first prayed, then preached on Matthew 5:13—"ye are the salt of the earth," after which the ministers laid their hands upon him. Mr. Morton gave him a very solemn charge, and Mr. Hobert gave him the right hand of fellowship. A collection amounting to five pounds, eight shillings was taken in the Dorchester congregation which was to help pay the expenses of the day. Two days later a public fast was kept.
<br /><br />The presence of William Norman's signature on the covenant is curious. He had been in Carolina from at least 1684, as on September 22 of that year, he obtained the usual survey in preparation for receiving a land grant from the Lords Proprietors. His 320 acres were located on the northeast side of the Ashley River approximately three miles above the spot where the Dorchester settlement was later made. His family origins are uncertain, but he must have had connections with New England to have gone to Dorchester and become a member there of the church which was to plant in South Carolina. He may have been the William Norman who was in Falmouth, Maine, in 1663, and possibly he was the grandson of Hugh and Agnes Woolcott Norman, and son of Hugh Norman of Plymouth and Yarmouth who returned to his old home at Orchard, near Taunton, Somerset, about 1654, abandoning his wife, Mary White, and his children in New England. Then, too, it will be recalled that a John Norman and his son were among the Old Planters who stayed at Salem with Roger Conant. It certainly is plausible that John Maverick and William Norman were responsible for the beginnings of what was to become Dorchester, South Carolina.
<br /><br />The members of the newly gathered church for Carolina on December 3, 1695, embarked from New England on a longboat (skiff) to board the brigantine <i>Friendship</i> of Boston, but because of strong winds could not come along side her. They were forced to endure the cold of a winter day for three or four hours before they managed to get back to land at Dorchester Neck whence they returned to Boston. Two days later, another attempt was made which was more successful. By December 8, the <i>Friendship</i> had reached the Virginia Capes. A moderate and steady gale was blowing on this Sabbath evening, which soon became a blustery wind and continued to increase in strength the following day. By Monday evening they were forced to take in all the sails except the main sail, and the helm was lashed to leeward. They continued in this state until Tuesday night when at midnight, the wind rose so high that the vessel was in danger of sinking, and it was necessary to lay by for a day and a half. In the midst of this, the passengers agreed to set apart Friday as a day of fasting and prayer to beg the Lord for favorable winds and good weather, but by Thursday noon the winds decreased and the sun came out. On Sunday the ship made great speed. On the 19th of December they came in sight of land at Carolina and hoped to make port that day. It was the evening of December 20, though, before they docked "through divine goodness." The people of Charleston fired a nine-gun salute in response to the <i>Friendship</i>'s three guns. Many "worthy Gentlemen" went on board to welcome the New Englanders to Carolina, then took them to their homes for entertainment.
<br /><br />After spending a week in Charleston, William Pratt, an elder of the church, Increase Sumner, and two other men went by water to William Norman's home of the Ashley River and were entertained by Lady Rebecca Axtell, widow of Landgrave Daniel Axtell. They prevailed upon her and her neighbors for the acquisition of land in that region. The South Carolinians were not impressed with all the members of the group, so it was only when Pratt and Sumner held a secret discussion with them that any progress in the negotiations was made. The Ashley River people had a higher esteem for them than they had for many of those who came from New England. There were complaints that some of them were "guilty of gross miscarriages." It is probable that some of these obstreperous characters had left New England not with the desire to spread Puritanism in an Anglican colony, but with the hope of escaping from the strict control of the Bay magistrates. Joseph Blake, governor of South Carolina, was persuading the Reverend Mr. Lord and his congregation to settle at New London (later called Willtown), and sent them to discuss the matter with Landgrave Joseph Morton, son of the late governor of the same name. Pratt and Sumner joined them there after returning overland to Charleston. Lord called Elder Pratt aside to discuss the merits of the two sites, and they kept the conditions of the proposed transaction for the Ashley River settlement secret. They also kept secret from the other members of the congregation something which was greatly for their benefit. After a few days they returned to Charleston by water, and shortly the Reverend Mr. Lord and some of the church went up the Ashley River to William Norman's house where on Sunday, January 26, the minister preached on Romans 8:1. Many of the neighbors from the surrounding countryside attended and gave diligent attention to the sermon. The following Sabbath the sermon was on Peter 1:3-18, and again the neighbors came and also several persons from a distance of ten miles. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was administered and two deacons chosen. The next morning several members of the church set out for a return voyage to New England for the purpose of bringing their families to Carolina, so a time was spent in prayer on Sunday afternoon. It was probably they who carried the news of the day's activities back to the church in Dorchester, Massachusetts.
<br /><br />Puritans in the Province were not confined to the Dorchester Group. There was already a Congregational meetinghouse on Meeting Street in Charleston. In 1698, they were destitute of a minister and sent an invitation to the Reverend John Cotton, an uncle of Cotton Mather and a son of the Reverend John Cotton who had emigrated from Boston in Lincolnshire to Boston in New England. The flock must have been very destitute, as Cotton had been silenced by a council at Plymouth, Massachusetts, and dismissed the previous year for "his notorious breaches of the Seventh Commandment" (Thou shall not commit adultery), and for his "undue carriage in choosing Elders." Just before the unexpected invitation arrived, he had kept three days of fasting and prayer "that the Lord would look upon him in his desolate condition." He then set aside another day of prayer at the close of which he visited his nephew, Cotton Mather, requesting him to pray with him and commit him to the Lord. This he did. By October 1698, the Plymouth case still was dragging on. Just before John Cotton sailed for Carolina in November, having been delayed in Boston by unfavorable winds, he was presented with the testimonials against him. He peremptorily denied the most and the worst of them. His suffering under this cloud was of short duration, as he died of the terrible sickness which carried off many in the low country of Carolina, on September 17, 1699. Cotton Mather continued his interest in the South Carolina Puritans, writing and sending them sermons to keep them from straying into Anglicanism. The Reverend Joseph Lord, a 1691 graduate of Harvard College, apparently did not find South Carolina much to his liking, as by 1718, he was back in Massachusetts, at Barnstable, and two years later was installed pastor at Chatham, where he died June 6, 1748. Born June 30, 1672, the son of Thomas and Alice Rand Lord, he had taught school at Dorchester from 1692 until his departure for the South. On June 2, 1698, he married Abigail Hinckley, daughter of Governor Thomas Hinckley of Plymouth Colony,. Her mother was Mary Smith, daughter of Quartermaster John Smith of the Dorchester Group which sailed on the Mary and John.
<br /><br />The condition of the Anglican Church in South Carolina during the first half of the Eighteenth Century provided fodder for the growth of Puritanism. Letters went to the Bishop of London from clergy in the province deploring the caliber of their fellows in Holy Orders. They were a hard-drinking, quarrelsome, and troublesome lot, engaging in indiscreet conduct and performing illegal marriages. Good men were deterred from going to South Carolina by the lack of decent housing for themselves and their families and because of the low salaries. There were also constant pleas for more clergy. One was said to have died in the same beastly manner in which he had lived. In the space of twelve or fourteen years previous to 1734, there had been four ministers in succession at Christ Church, Charleston, and not one of them was of tolerable behavior, leading to the great damage of religion and the increase of dissenters in the city. The clergy of South Carolina plead for a settled minister for St. Bartholomew's Parish to prevent the inroads of Presbyterianism. One minister ran away from his parish and thus was held in contempt by the better sort of his parishioners.
<br /><br />The Puritans took advantage of the opportunity offered them. In April 1734, Nathan Bassett of Harvard College was ordained in the Brattle Street Church, Boston, by Cotton Mather, Benjamin Coleman, and William Cooper, to be minister of the Presbyterian Church in Charleston. The Calvinist element in South Carolina was augmented in 1735, with the arrival of immigrants from the North of Ireland whom the governor settled in Williamsburgh Township at Wingaw on the Black River where they immediately built huts, cleared the land, and planted corn. They were supported by public funds. A settlement of Swiss Protestants was made on the Santee River. Heavy taxes were levied to cover the cost of bringing and settling European immigrants; it was calculated that Charleston, although a small city, would pay £10,000 in taxes in 1735. White settlers, though, were needed to balance the number of Negroes. A vessel from Angola in that year had brought 318 slaves, and a number of slave ships were expected from Guinea. The Assembly passed a bill levying a duty on the importation of Negroes and the funds derived from it were used for the encouragement of importation of "strangers."
<br /><br />The tract of land on the Ashley River was finally acquired for the Dorchester Group when on July 7, 1696, a grant of 1800 acres was made to John Stevens. William Norman already held a 320-acre tract nearby. It is unknown why a new grant was made of the same 1800 acres to John Stevens on February 1, 1699/1700. At the same time, he also obtained another 2250 acres which had been in the possession of a Mr. Rose. These grants, totaling 4050 acres, were for the benefit of the Dorchester people as is shown by the deeds Stevens gave them. This was divided into twenty-six parts to be sub-divided. He conveyed 1/26 of all unpartitioned land which consisted of 123 acres near the mouth of the creek on the north side to be reserved for a mill, and a 50-acre commons adjacent to the "place of trade" of about 50 acres sub-divided into 115 lots of a quarter of an acre each. Later the mill land was sub-divided into 26 lots of 4 3/4 acres each, and the commons into lots of about two acres each. The old New England system of a common which had been brought from England, did not long survive in Carolina. There was, however, about twenty acres left between the town and where the creek enters the river for public use. Land also was set aside for a public square and streets. The remainder of the land was divided into two divisions and sub-divided into two ranges which were further broken down into forty-five and fifty-acre lots. One of the 115 quarter-acre lots was granted for the ministry of the Congregational Church. With the exception of Way and Sumner, the names of the other recipients are not familiar in Dorchester, Massachusetts.
<br /><br />The only family in the male line who had come on the <i>Mary and John</i> to Dorchester, Massachusetts, to go to South Carolina was the Way family. There they produced a numerous progeny. Aaron Way, son of Henry Way and grandson of Henry Way, the immigrant, died in 1695, in either Dorchester or Chelsea, Massachusetts. His widow, Joanna, and their children, Aaron, Moses, William, Mary, and Joanna, joined the South Carolina colony during its first year. She was the daughter of William and Mary West Sumner, who had emigrated from Bicester, Oxfordshire, to Dorchester, Massachusetts, in 1635. Two years later, William Sumner was admitted a freeman although he was not admitted to the church until 1652. He was a selectman for twenty-three years, and for twelve years a deputy to the General Court of Massachusetts, besides holding other lesser offices. His descendant, Increase Sumner, in the eighteenth century, was Governor of Massachusetts. Aaron Way II was already married at the time of the removal to South Carolina as he was accompanied by his wife, Mary Maverick, already mentioned. They were dismissed from the Boston church on October 11, 1696. Joanna Sumner Way's brother, Increase, was one of the signers of the covenant. He apparently went south with the advance guard, but his wife and children (they were the parents of ten) were not dismissed from the church in Dorchester, Massachusetts, until November 1, 1696. She was Sarah Staples, daughter of John Staples of Weymouth, but they were married in Dorchester on March 26, 1667. Other families came from various towns in the Bay and seem to have had no connection with Dorchester families. There is no list extant, unfortunately, of all those who emigrated from Massachusetts to South Carolina.
<br /><br />Dorchester grew only slightly and with slowness, never becoming a very thriving place. Its geographical location made it capable of easy defense and of quick communication by water with Charleston. For these reasons, it served as a refuge from Indian invasions. The terrible Yemassee Indian War of 1715, which wreaked havoc in the province and delayed settlement south of the Ashley River, did not reach Dorchester. Life in the town apparently moved along in the same fashion as it had in Massachusetts, except that it was probably a bit slower in this semi-tropical climate. In 1700, the wooden meetinghouse was replaced by a brick one in which George Whitefield preached in 1744, to a large congregation. Another church had been built at Beech Hill about 1737, to accommodate the increasing population, but one minister served both. An interest in education did not express itself as early as one would have expected of New Englanders, at least, judging by surviving records. The Anglican clergy in November 1726, were entreating the continuing influence of the Bishop of London with the King for his confirmation of the act to establish a school at Dorchester. The idea behind this was probably to attempt counteraction of Calvinism. Finally, in 1734, an act was passed to create a free school.
<br /><br />By this time, the value of the natural timber of South Carolina was recognized. Governor Johnson wrote to the Council of Trade and Plantations describing the great quantities of live oak there as well as in the Province of Georgia. He pointed out that by reason of its durability and crookedness of growth, it was suitable for the most difficult timbers in building men of war, adding that it was superior to any English oak. The growth of cypress was almost inexhaustible. Some of these trees were five feet thick at the bottom and tapered to a height of eighty feet without a knot nor a limb. He explained that because of this as well as its light weight when dry, it would be valuable for decks and masts. Live oak grew near the sea and cypress in swamps adjoining freshwater rivers. The latter was easily obtained at flood time, so with either there was little need for transportation overland. Yellow pine of moderate size and said to be better for masts than the white pine of New England, was also plentiful. Production of turpentine and rosin had begun ten or twelve years previous to 1734, and South Carolina was capable of supplying all that would be needed in England. Various planters in Carolina and the Trustees of Georgia recently had begun propagating a considerable quantity of white mulberry trees for the production of silk. Johnson suggested that it would be a great encouragement if import duties were removed by Parliament and the premium on naval stores increased. It appears that the Dorchester people had no interest in augmenting their farming with an income derived from timber. Remaining such an exclusive group, they seem to have never been absorbed into the main stream of Southern life, even on a purely economic level. Their only interest was in maintaining the New England Way, even fifty years after they had left the Bay Colony.</div>
<br />Ann Natalie Hansen, <i>The Dorchester Group: Puritanism and Revolution</i>, 1987Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-46406560502012491662013-01-05T20:37:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:16:07.524-08:00A Briefe Discription of New England and the Severall Townes Therein Together With the Present Government Thereof. (1660)<center><img border="0" height="400" width="387" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0KLngjYRR_YrM6EKwQHNigbrF2YzSJjbYpX9M9taEIN57No0mzUzjbH49FBEPoq2p-KefJryRSHCP7x8G5yiCnm0nkWSWLQrkhdJTp55dpWeFOnsrnlVnnD7rMpcShoexFyLW8caPWtfR/s400/new+england+in+1660%252C+blaeus+theatre+du+monde.jpg" style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"/></center>
<br />
<div align="left"><b>PREFACE. <br />
<br />
B<span style="font-size:85%;">Y</span> J<span style="font-size:85%;">OHN</span> W<span style="font-size:85%;">ARD</span> D<span style="font-size:85%;">EAN</span>.</b><br />
<br />
The Committee on English Research of the New England Historic Genealogical Society called attention in their last annual report to the fact that there were in England many important documents relating to the American colonies, as well as manuscript maps hitherto unknown to historical investigators. They urged upon the society the desirability of having exact copies of them made now while we have in Mr. Henry Fitz-Gilbert Waters an experienced American antiquary resident in London. This statement has been most strikingly verified by the recent discovery by Mr. Waters of the Winthrop map—one of the most valuable contributions yet made to our early colonial history—notices of which appeared in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for June 1884, and in the R<span style="font-size:85%;">EGISTER</span> for July, 1884 (xxxviii. 342). <br />
<br />
The manuscript "Description of New England," which is here printed, is a still more important discovery. Though it bears neither name nor date, there is internal evidence that it was written in the year 1660, after the return of Charles II., by Samuel Maverick, afterwards one of the king's commissioners. Maverick, when Winthrop and his company arrived, was settled at Noddle's Island, now East Boston, and was known to have been here some years before. The date of his arrival in New England has hitherto been unknown. This manuscript gives it as 1624. Maverick was then about twenty-two years old. <br />
<br />
An account of New England by one of the first white men who ever settled on the shores of Massachusetts Bay, one of the "old planters" whom Gov. Winthrop found here, is certainly of extraordinary interest to all students of our colonial history. Its fortunate discovery emphasizes in the strongest manner the great importance of the work which Mr. Waters is doing for us in England. <br />
<br />
This paper clears up many obscurities in our early New England history, and gives us definite information which we have long desired to obtain. It was probably presented to Sir Edward Hyde afterwards Earl of Clarendon who was then Charles the Second's Lord High Chancellor. It may be the paper referred to by Maverick in his letter to the earl, printed in the Collections of the New York Historical Society for 1869, page 19. That letter and others in the same volume should be read in connection with the present paper. They show the persistency displayed by Maverick in his efforts to deprive New England, and particularly Massachusetts, of the right of self government which had so long been enjoyed here. The same spirit is shown in his letters printed in the third volume of the New York Colonial Documents. The death of Maverick, which occurred between October 15, 1669, and May 15, 1676, did not bring repose to the people of Massachusetts. In the latter year a new assailant of their charter appeared in the person of Edward Randolph (see R<span style="font-size:85%;">EGISTER</span> xxxvi. 155), whose assaults on their liberties did not cease till the charter was wrested from them, and the government under it came to an end May 20, 1686. <br />
<br />
The document here printed is in the British Museum, Egerton MSS. 2395, ff. 397-411. The volume containing it was in private hands till 1875, when on the sixteenth of February in that year it was sold at auction by Messrs. Sotheby & Co., London, and bought by the Trustees of the British Museum. <br />
<br />
The long residence of Mr. Maverick, the writer of this "Description of New England," on these shores, and the opportunities which he is known to have had to learn personally the facts here stated, give it greater weight than it would have had were it merely the observations of a transient visitor to the New World. <br />
<br />
This document was read before the Massachusetts Historical Society by John T. Hassam, A.M., in October, 1884, and is printed in its Proceedings, vol. xxi. p. 231. It was also printed in the New-England Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1885, and the type set for that periodical have been used to print the present issue.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Boston, Massachusetts, January</i> 1, 1885.</span><br />
<br />
<b>A BRIEFE DISCRIPTION OF NEW ENGLAND AND THE SEVERALL TOWNES THEREIN,<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;">TOGETHER WITH THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT THEREOF.</span><br />
<br />
B<span style="font-size:85%;">Y</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK.</span></b><br />
<br />
<i>Pemaquid.</i>—Westward from Penobscott (which is the Southermost Fort in Nova Scotia) fourteen Leagues of is Pemaquid in which River Alderman Alworth of Bristole, setled a Company of People in the yeare 1625, which Plantation hath continued and many Families are now settled there. There was a Patent granted for it by his Mat<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>ies</sup></span>: Royall Grandfath<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>er</sup></span> and by vertue of that Patent they hold the Islands of Monahegan and Damerells Coue, and other small ones adjacent Commodious for fishing. <br />
<br />
<i>Sagadahocke.</i>—Three leagues distant from Damerells Coue is Sagadahocke at the mouth of Kenebeth River, on which place the Lord Pohams people setled about fiftie yeares since, but soon after deserted it, and returned for England; I found Rootes and Garden hearbs and some old walles there, when I went first over which shewed it to be the place where they had been. This is a great and spreading River and runes very neer into Canada. One Captaine Young and 3 men with him in the Yeare 1636 went up the River upon discovery and only by Carying their Canoes some few times, and not farr by Land came into Canada River very neare Kebeck Fort where by the French, Cap<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Young was taken, and carried for ffrance but his Company returned safe and about 10 yeares since a Gentleman and a Fryer came down this way from Kebeck to us in New England to desire aide from us ag<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>st</sup></span> the Mowake Indians who were and still are their deadly enemies; This River by reason of its nearnesse to Canada and some other branches of it tending towards Hudsons River; and a Lake of Canada afford more Beaver skins and other peltry then any other about us: On this River & on the Islands lying on the mouth of it are many families Scatteringly setled. Some attend wholly the trade with the Indians, others planting and raiseing a stock of Cattle and Some at the mouth of the River keep fishing. There was a patent granted to Christo: Batchelo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> and Company in the year 1632 or thereabouts for the mouth of the River and some tract of land adjacent who came over in the Ship named the Plough, and termed themselves the Plough Companie, but soon scattered some for Virginia some for England, some to the Massachusetts never settling on that land. <br />
<br />
<i>Casco Bay.</i>—Betweene Sagadahocke and Cape Elizabeth lying about 7 Leagues assunder is Casco Bay; about the yeare 1632 there was a Patent granted to one Cap<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span>. Christopher Lewett for 6000 acres of land which he tooke up in this Bay neare Cape Elizabeth and built a good House and fortified well on an Island lyeing before Casco River this he sold and his Interrest in the Patent to M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Ceeley M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Jope and Company of Plimouth, In this Casco Bay are many scattering Families settled. There was a Patent granted for this Bay some yeares since by the title of the Province of Ligonia to Collonell Alexander Rigby afterwards a Judge, and under this Goverment the People lived some yeares, till of late the Government of the Massachusits hath made bold to stretch its Jurisdiction to the midle of this Bay, and as lyeing in their way have taken in a dozen of Goverments more. <br />
<br />
<i>Richmond Island.</i>—There was long since a Patent granted to M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Robert Trelawny of Plymouth from Cape Elizabeth to Spurwinke River including all Richmond Isle, an Excellent ffishing place. His Agents for matter of Goverment long since submitted to the Province of Mayne, for which Province a Patent was long since granted to S<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Ferdinando Gorges there are not many people in it, Those that are, are under the Goverment of the Massachusits. <br />
<br />
<i>Black Point.</i>—The next place inhabited is Black Point two miles from Richmond Island; For this a Patent was granted to Captaine Cammock whose successor M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Henry Joselin lives there now, and severall Families besides, they were under the Goverment of the Province of Mayne, but now Commanded by the Massachusits. <br />
<br />
<i>Saco.</i>—Three miles beyond this is Saco River abounding with ffish as Basse, Sturgeon and Salmond. The Northside of the River was granted by Patent to M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lewis and Capt. Bonithan, and the Southside to on M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Richard Vines, upon this River are severall Families setled formerly under the Goverment of the Province of Majne and here was keept some time the Generall Court for that Province, but now Commanded by the Massachusits. <br />
<br />
<i>Wells.</i>—Three miles from Saco River are Cape Porpyes Islands a good ffishing place, where are Severall Families setled, and 4 miles from thence is Wells a handsome and well peopled place Lying on both sides of a River, for which Place a Patent was long since Granted to on M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> John Stratton but now Commanded by the Massachusetts. <br />
<br />
<i>Bristoll now Yorke.</i>—About 1 2 miles further is the River Agomentine, for which and the lands adjacent a Patent was (nere 30 yeares since) granted unto S<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Ferdinando Gorges, M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Godfrey, Alderman ffoote of Bristoll myselfe, and some others, On the northside of this River at our great Cost and Charges wee setled many ffamilies, which was then called Bristoll, and according to the Patent, the Goverment was conformable to that of the Corporation of Bristoll, only admitting of Appeales to the Generall Court for the Province of Mayne which was often keept there, but some yeares since the Goverment with the rest was Swallowed up by the Massachusetts. <br />
<br />
<i>Nichiquiwanick.</i>—About 3 miles from Agomentine is the River Pascataway which is 6 miles from the mouth, It brancheth itselfe in two Branches, the South branch of which retaineth the name of Pascataway the other Nichiquiwanich, on the Northside of this River there are severall Divisions of Land granted long since by Patents unto diverse persons as Cap<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Mason, Cap<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Griffith, M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Gardener and others, on which are severall persons setled for 12 miles togither. At the Falls of Nichiquiwanick 3 Excellent Saw-Mills are seatted and there and downward that side of y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> River have been gotten most of the Masts which have come for England, and amongst the rest that admired Mast which came over some time last year containing neere 30 Tunes of Timber (as I have been informed). <br />
<br />
<i>Cochequo.</i>—On the Sowth side of that Branch is a Creeke Cochequo, whereon at the head are 2 Saw Mills, and affoord good Masts, & Mutch Tarr hath been made on that Creeke side.<br />
<br />
<i>Dover.</i>—Belowe where the River parteth stands on a Tongue of Land the Towne of Dover, for which place and the land adjacent some gentlemen of or about Shrewsbury have a Patent.<br />
<br />
<i>Oyster Creeke.</i>—On the Northside of the South Arme is Oyster Creeke on which place are many people setled some Saw Mills and affoords yow Good Masts, and further up is another Saw Mill on Lamperell Creeke. <br />
<br />
<i>Exeter.</i>—Above this at the fall of this River Pascatoway is the Towne of Exceter, where are more Saw Mills, doune the Southside of this River are Farmes and other Stragling Families. <br />
<br />
<i>Strawberry Bank. The Great House & Isle of Shooles.</i>—Within 2 Myles of the Mouth is Strawberry Banke where are many Families, and a Minister & a Meeting House, and to the meeting Houses of Dower & Exceter, most of the people resort. This Strawberry Banke is part of 6000 acres granted by Patent about y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> yeare 1620 or 1621, to M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> David Thompson, who with the assistance of M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Nicholas Sherwill, M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Leonard Pomeroy and M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Abraham Colmer of Plymouth Merchants, went ower with a Considerable Company of Servants and built a Strong and Large House, enclosed it with a large and high Palizado and mounted Gunns, and being stored extraordinarily with shot and Ammunition was a Terror to the Indians, who at that time were insulting over the poor weake and unfurnished Planters of Plymouth. This house and ffort he built on a Point of Land at the very entrance of Pascatoway River, And haveing granted by Patent all the Island bordering on this land to the Midle of the River, he tooke possession of an Island comonly called the great Island and for the bounds of this land he went up the River to a point called Bloudy Point, and by the sea side about 4 milles he had also power of Government within his owne bounds, Notwithstanding all this, all is at this day in the power and at the disposall of the Massachusitts. Two Leagues of lyes the Isle of Shooles one of the best places for ffishing in the land, they have built a Church here and maintaine a Minister. <br />
<br />
<i>Hampton.</i>—Eight Miles to the Southward of Pascatoway is a small River called Monoconock, on which River is a large Town called Hampton, The inhabitants living weell by Corne and Cattle, of which they have great store, Ther was a Patent granted for this very place to Cap<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Mason neare 40 yeares agoe & this was the first land the Massachusits stretcht there line over beyond there true bounds: For about 3 miles South of this place, at there first coming over they sett up a house and named it the bound House as finding it three miles from Meromack, the North bound of there Patent, and with this they rested contented for about 10 yeares. <br />
<br />
<i>Salisbury New & Old.</i>—Seaven Miles to the Southward of Hampton is Meromack River, on the mouth of which on the Northside is seatted a Large Toune called Sallisbury, and 3 miles above it a Village called old Salisbury, where ther is a Saw Mill or two. The Commodities this Toune affords are Corne, Cattle, Boards and Piper Staues. <br />
<br />
<i>Haverell Andover.</i>—Fouer Leagues up this River is Haverell, a pretty Toune & a few miles higher is the Toune of Andouer both these Tounes subsist by Husbandry. <br />
<br />
<i>Newbury.</i>—At the mouth on the southside of Meromack and upwards is seated the Towne of Newbury, the Houses stand at a good distance each from other a feild and Garden between each house, and so on both sides the street for 4 Miles or therabouts betweene Salisbury and this Towne, the River is broader then the Thames at Deptford, and in the Sumer abounds with Sturgeon, Salmon and other ffresh water fish. Had we the art of takeing and saveing the Sturgeon it would prove a very great advantage, the Country affording Vinager, and all other Materialls to do it withall. <br />
<br />
In this Towne and old Newbury adjoining are 2 Meeting Houses. <br />
<br />
<i>Rowley.</i>—Three Miles beyound this Old Newbury is a large and populous Towne called Rowley about two miles from the Bay of Agowame within land the Inhabitants are most Yorkshiremen very laborious people and drive a pretty trade, makeing Cloath and Ruggs of Cotton Wool, and also Sheeps wooll with which in few yeares the Countrey will abound not only to supply themselves but also to send abroad. This Towne aboundeth with Corne, and Cattle, and have a great number of Sheep. <br />
<br />
<i>Ipswich.</i>—Three Miles beyond Rowley lyeth Ipswich at the head of Agawame River, as farr up as Vessells cane come. It hath many Inhabitants, and there farmes lye farr abroad, some of them severall miles from the Towne. So also they do about other Townes. <br />
<br />
<i>Wenham.</i>—Six Miles from this Towne lyeth a Towne called Wenham seated about a great Lake or Pond which abounds with all manner of ffresh ffish, and such comodities as other places have it affordeth. <br />
<br />
<i>Gloucester.</i>—Between these two Townes there runes out into the Sea that noated head land called Cape Ann fower miles within the outermost head. There is a Passage cutt through a Marsh between Cape Ann Harbo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> & Manisqwanne Harbour where stands the Towne called Glocester very comodious for building of shipping and ffishing. <br />
<br />
<i>Manchester.</i>—Fower miles Westward from Glocester, lyeth on the Sea side a small Towne called Manchester, there is a Sawmill and aboundance of Timber. <br />
<br />
<i>Mackrell & Basse Cove.</i>—About six miles from this Towne lyeth by the Sea side a Village Called Mackarell Coue, and a mile or 2 aboue on a Branch of Salem River lyeth another Village called Basse Coue, These two have Joyned and built a Church, which stands between them both ower ag<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>st</sup></span> Salem. <br />
<br />
<i>Salem.</i>—On the South side of Salem River stands on a peninsula the Towne of Salem, setled some yeares by a few people befor the Patent of the Massachusits was granted. It is very commodious for fishing and many Vessells have been built there and (excep<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Boston) it hath as much Trade as any place in New England both inland and abroad. <br />
<br />
<i>Marblehead or Foy.</i>—Two miles below this Towne on the Southside of the Harbo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> by the sea side lyeth Marblehead or ffoy the greatest Towne for ffishing in New England. <br />
<br />
<i>Lynne.</i>—Five miles Westward lyeth the Towne of Lynne along by the sea side, and two miles aboue it within the bounds of it are the greatest Iron works erected for the most part at the charge of some Merchants, and Gentlmen here resideing and cost them about 14000£, who were as it is conceived about six yeares since Injuriously outted of them to the great prejudice of the Country and Owners. <br />
<br />
<i>Reading.</i>—Three miles above the Iron Worke in the Country is a pretty Towne, called Reading, which as all inland Townes doe live by Husbandry. The people have imployment also at the Iron work in digging of myne, and cutting of wood. <br />
<br />
<i>Rummy Marsh.</i>—Two miles from the Ironwork by the Seaside is a large Marsh called Rummney Marsh and between that and Winnisime being about 2 miles, There are many good farmes belonging to Bostone, which have a Metting House, as it were a Chapel of Ease. <br />
<br />
<i>Winnisime.</i>—Two miles Sowth from Rumney Marsh on the North side of Mistick River is Winnisime which though but a few houses on it, yet deserves to be mencond One house yet standing there which is the Antientest house in the Massachusetts Goverment. a house which in the yeare 1625 I fortified with a Pillizado and fflankers and gunnes both belowe and above in them which awed the Indians who at that time had a mind to Cutt off the English, They once faced it but receiveing a repulse never attempted it more although (as now they confesse) they repented it when about 2 yeares after they saw so many English come over. <br />
<br />
<i>Mauldon.</i>—Two miles above Winnisime Westward stands a small Country Towne called Mauldon, who imploy themselves much in ffurnishing the Towne of Boston and Charles Towne with wood, Timber and other Materials to build withall. <br />
<br />
<i>Wooburne.</i>—Fower or five miles above Mouldon West is a more considerable Towne called Wooburne, they live by ffurnishing the Sea Townes with Provisions as Corne and Flesh, and also they ffurnish the Merchants with such goods to be exported. <br />
<br />
<i>Charles Towne.</i>—One mile from Winnisime crossing Mistick River is the Towne of Charles Towne standing on the Northside of the Mouth of Charles River, It Challengeth the second place of Antiquitie in the Massachusetts Government. It hath some considerable Merchants in it and many usefull handicraftsmen and many good farmers belonging to it. <br />
<br />
<i>Cambridge.</i>—Three miles aboue this stands on the same River the Towne of Cambridge in which there is a Colledge a Master and some Number of Students belonging to it; out of which there have come many into England, The Towne hath many great ffarmes belonging to it. <br />
<br />
<i>Water Towne.</i>—Joyning to this is Watter Towne, a great Towne reaching by y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> River Side two miles, and hath belonging to it very many and great ffarmes, about the uper end of this Towne are the ffalls of Charles River. <br />
<br />
<i>Concord.</i>—Above Twelve miles above Watter Towne is an In-land Towne called Concord It lyeth on the River Meromack I conceive about 20 miles above the first ffalls but good passing on it there in small Boats from place to place. They subsist in Husbandry and breeding of Catle. <br />
<br />
<i>Sudbury.</i>—About 4 or 5 Miles more Southerly on the same River is a Towne called Sudbury a very pleasant place, the River runing to & againe in it, In which I have seen Excellent ffishing both with hooks & Lynes and Netts, They plant and breed Catle, and gett something by Tradeing w<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> the Indians. <br />
<br />
<i>Nashoway.</i>—About ten or twelfe miles aboue these Two Townes is a Countrey Towne called Nashoway first begun for Love of the Indians Trade, but since the ffertility of y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Soyle and pleasantness of the River hath invited many more. There is Excellent Salmon and Trout. <br />
<br />
Now we must returne to the mouth of Charles River againe or rather the entrance of the Bay of Massachusits, It hath three entrances, two them difficult and dangerous without a good wind and Pylot. The Southermost called Nasascot in the usuall Channell; w<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span>in this Bay are 12 or 13 pretty Islands between some of which yow must saile about 2 leagues before yow come uyp to Boston Rode yow must passe within halfe a Cable lenth of Castle Island, on which is a ffort above and a strong Battery below, closs by Highwater marke. on this Island I conceive there be thirtie good Gunns. <br />
<br />
<i>Boston.</i>—Two miles aboue this Island is the Towne of Boston. the Metrapolis of New England lying pleasantly on a plaine and the ascending of a High Mount which lyes about the midle of y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> plaine, The wholl Towne is an Island except two Hundred paces of land at one place on the Southside it is large and very populous. It hath two handsome Churches in it, a handsome market place, and in the midest of it a Statehouse. In the Towne are fouer full companys of ffoote and a Troope of horse On the Southeast side of the Towne on a little Hill there is a Fort, and under it a Batterie both having a dozen of Gunns or more in them, and on the Northeast side of the Towne there is a Battery of 6 Gunns commanding the Rode and the entrance of Charles River. and on the tope of the Hill aboue the Towne and in the strats are severall good Gunns, The Towne is full of good shopps well furnished with all kind of Merchandize and many Artificers, and Trad's men of all sorts. In this Towne are kept the Courts of Election y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Generall quarter Court besids the Country Courts. <br />
<br />
<i>Roxberry.</i>—About two miles to the Southward of Boston is the Towne of Roxberry. The sea which surrounds Boston comes on both sides of it. It is well seatted, for the Body of the Towne lyeth on both sides a small Rivolet of water. There are many considerable ffarmes belonging to it, and by Farmeing is there most subsistance. <br />
<br />
<i>Dorchester.</i>—Two miles near east from this Towne lyeth Dorchester, which claimes the third dignity as being y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> third Towne setled by the English in the year 1630. They are a very industrious people, and have large bounds on w<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> are many gallant Farmes, by these bounds runes the Massachusets River. <br />
<br />
<i>Dedham.</i>—And on Charles River stands the Towne of Dedham about 8 Miles either from Boston or Roxberry, a very pleasant place and the River affoords plenty of good ffish In this Towne leiveth many Bisquett makers and Butchers and have Vent enough for their Commodities in Boston. <br />
<br />
<i>Medfeild.</i>—Five or six Miles from Dedham is a small in-land Towne called Medifield handsomly seatted for Farming and breeding of Cattle.<br />
<br />
<i>Braintree.</i>—Three or fouer miles Southward is a Towne once called Mount Wolaston, now Braintree. There was a Patent granted for a considerable tract of land in this place in the yeare 1632 or thereabouts to Cap<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Wollaston and M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Thomas Morton. Wollaston returned for England and Morton was banished, his house fired before his face, and he sent prisoner to England but for what offence I know not who some yeares after (nothing being laid to his Charge) returned for New England, where he was soon after apprehended and keept in the Comon Goale a whole winter, nothing laid to his Charge but the writeing of a Booke entituled New Canaan, which indeed was the truest discription of New England as then it was that euer I saw, The offence was he had touched them too neare they not proveing the charge he was sett loose, but soone after dyed, haveing as he said and most believed received his bane by hard lodging and fare in prison. This was done by y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Massachusetts Magistrats and the land by them disposed of. It subsists by raiseing provisions, and furnishing Boston with wood. <br />
<br />
<i>Weymouth.</i>—Two or three miles from hence Sowthward is y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Towne of Weymouth, wherein are some quantity of Inhabitants, & leive as their neibo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> who have commerce with Boston. <br />
<br />
<i>Higham.</i>—Three Miles from hence Easterly on the South shoare of Massachusits Bay is the Towne of Higham a handsome Towne supplying Boston also with wood, timber, leather and board, Some Masts are had there and store of provisions. <br />
<br />
<i>Hull.</i>—Three Miles further tending more to the East at the very entrance into the Massachusetts Bay is the Towne of Hull, the Inhabitants of which leives well being by Water not above 7 Miles from Boston tho neare 20 by land.<br />
<br />
Three miles South from this place is the utmost south bounds of the Massachusits Goverment and Territories, beyond which they have not gone although they have gone soe farr beyond them to the Northward.<br />
<blockquote>Before I enter into Plymouth bounds I must say something of this Goverment which hath ouertopped all the rest.</blockquote>About the yeare 1626 or 1627 there was a Patent granted by his Maty<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>es</sup></span>: Royall Father of ever blessed Memory to certaine Gentlemen and Merchants, for the Tract of land befor mencond, and power given them by the same to incorporate themselfes into a body pollitick the Governor and all other officers to be Annually chosen by the Majo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> part of the inhabitants, ffreholders, As soon as the grant was confirmed, they chose here on M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Mathew Craddock Governo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> and one Goffe deputy; They forthwith sent over one M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Endicott, Governor as deputy to rule over us the Inhabitants which had leived there long befor their Patent was granted, and some had Patents proceeding theirs, had he had pouer according to his will he had ruled us to y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> purpose; But within two yeares after they sent ower one M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> John Winthrope Governor and with him a Company of Assistants all Chosen here in England without the Knowledge or Consent of them that then leived there or of those which came with them. <br />
<br />
This Governo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> and his Councill, not long after their Aryvall made a law that no man should be admitted a Freeman, and soe Consequently have any voyce in Election of Officers Civill or Military, but such as were first entered into Church covenant and brought Certificate of it, let there Estates, and accordingly there portion of land be never soe great, and there taxes towards publick Charges. Nor could any competency of Knowledge or in offensivenesse of liveing or conversation usher a man into there Church ffellowship, unless he would also acknowledge the discipline of the Church of England to be erroneous and to renounce it, which very many never condescended unto, so that on this account the far great Number of his Majesties loyall subjects there never injoyed those priviledges intended by his Royall ffather in his Grant, And upon this very accompt also, if not being Joyned in Church ffelowship many Thowzands have been debarred the Sacrament of the Lords Supper although of Competent knowledg, and of honest life and Godly Conversation, and a very great Number are unbaptized. I know some neer 30 years old, 7 persons of Quality about 12 years since for petitioning for themselves & Neighbo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> that they might have votes in Elections as ffreeholders or be ffreed from publick Charge, and be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and theire Children to Baptisme as Members of the Church of England, and have liberty to have Ministers among themselves learned pious and Orthodox, no way dissonant from ye best Reformation in England, and desireing alsoe to have a body of Lawes to be Established and published to prevent Arbitrary Tiranny, For thus desireing these three reasonable requests besids imprissonement and other indignitys, they were fined 1000<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>ll</sup></span>, a Notw<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span>standing they Appealled to England, they were forced to pay the same, and now also at great Charges to send one home to prosecute their appeall which proved to no Effect, That dismall Change falling out, Just at that time And they sending home hither one Edward Winslow a Smooth toungued Cunning fellow, who soon gott himselfe into Favo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of those then in Supreame power, against whom it was in vaine to strive, and soe they remained sufferers to this day. <br />
<br />
By what I have said it appears how the Major part of the Inhabitants are debarred of those Priviledges they ought to enjoy and were intended fo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> them, How they Esteem of the Church of England. How farr they owne his Matie as haveing any power over them, or their Subjection to him; This I know that not long after they arrived they defaced the Collou<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>rs</sup></span> which they brought over with them, being the English Redd Cross terming it a badge of the Whore of Babelon.<br />
<br />
And not long after haveing received a Report that his Mat<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>ie</sup></span> intended to send a Generall Governo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> over, and being informed by a Shallop that they had seen a great shipe and a smaller one goe into Cape Ann Harbo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> about 8 Leagues from Boston There was an Alarme presently given and early in the Morning being Sabbath day all the Traine Bands in Boston, and Townes adjacent were in Armes in the streets and posts were sent to all other places to be in the same posture, in which they continued untill by theire scouts they found her to be a small shipe of Plymouth and a shallope that piloted her in, The generall and Publick report was that it was to oppose the landing of an Enemie a Governo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> sent from England, and with this they acquanted the Commanders. <br />
<br />
And about the year 1636 one Brooks hearing one Evers to vilifie the Govennent of England both Civill and Eclesiasticall, and saying that if a Generall Governo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> were sent over he would kill him if he could, and he knew the Magistrats would bear him out in it, of which Brooks complaining by way of Information, the matter was handled that Evers had nothing said to him, and Brookes forced to escape privatly for England <br />
<br />
They also in the yeare 1646 & 1647 suffered a ship the Mary of Bristoll then standing out for the Kings Majestie to be taken by one Stagg haveing a Commission from the Parliament, and conveyed away although they had promised them a protection. They also Ordered the takeing downe of the Kings Armes and setting up the States, & the like by the Signe of the Kings head hanging before the doore of an Inne. And when that unhappy warr was between King and Parlia<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> they compelled every Commander of a Vessell that went out from thence to enter into Bond not to have any Commerce with any place then holding out for the King, and in opposition to the then pretended power in England, Nor was there ever any Oath of Alleageance offered to any, but instead thereof they have framed two Oathes, which they impose on those which are made free. The other they terme the Oath of ffidelitie, which they force all to take that are above 16 yeares of age, a Coppy of it is as followeth—<br />
<br />
I. A. B. by Gods providence being an Inhabitant within the Jurisdiction of this Comon Wealth doe freely and sincerely acknowledge myselfe to be subject to the Goverment thereof. I doe hereby swear by the great and dreadfull name of the ever liveing God, that I will be true and Faithfull to the same, and will accordingly yeild assistance thereunto with my person, Estate, as in equity I am bound And will also truly endeavo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> to maintaine and preserve all the Liberties and priviledges thereof, Submitting myselfe unto the wholesome Lawes made and established bv the same. And further that I will not plot or practize any evill against it or consent to any that shall soe doe But will timely discover and reveall the same to Law full Authority now here established for the speedy preventing thereof. S<span style="font-size:78%;">O</span> H<span style="font-size:78%;">ELP</span> M<span style="font-size:78%;">E</span> G<span style="font-size:78%;">OD</span> I<span style="font-size:78%;">N</span> O<span style="font-size:78%;">UR</span> L<span style="font-size:78%;">ORD</span> J<span style="font-size:78%;">ESUS</span> C<span style="font-size:78%;">HRIST</span>. <br />
<br />
By this it may be judged what esteeme they have of the lawes of England, swearing theire subjects to submite to lawes made only by themselfes, And indeed to Alleage a Statute Law of England in one of their Courts would be a ridiculous thing, They likewise long since fell to coyning of monies, melting downe all the English Coyne they can gett, every shilling makeing 15<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>d</sup></span> in their monies, And whereas they went over thither to injoy liberty of Conscience, in how high a measure have they denyed it to others there wittnesse theire debarring many from the Sacraments spoken of before meerly because they cannot Joyne with them in their Church-ffellowship, nor will they permitt any Lawfull Ministers that are or would come thither to administer them. Wittness also the Banishing so many to leave their habitations there, and seek places abroad elswhere, meerly for differing in Judgment from them as the Hutchinsons and severall families with them, & that Honb<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>le</sup></span> Lady the Lady Deborah Moody and severalls with her meerly for declareing themselfes moderate Anabaptists, Who found more favour and respect amongst the Dutch, then she did amongst the English, Many others also upon the same account needless to be named, And how many for not comeing to theire assemblies have been compelled to pay 5<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>s</sup></span> a peece for every Sabbath day they misse, besides what they are forced to pay towards the mantenance of the Ministers, And very cruelly handled by whipping and imprissonment was M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Clark, Obadiah, Holmes, and others for teaching and praying in a private house on the Lords day, These and many other such like proceedings, which would by them have been judged Cruelty had they been inflicted on them here, have they used towards others there; And for hanging the three Quakers last yeare I think few approved of it.<br />
<br />
There are or will come unto the Hon<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Councell many Complaints against them, I shall say no more but come to <br />
<blockquote><i>The Description of Plymouth bounds.</i></blockquote><i>Connahassett.</i>—It begins where the Massachusets ends. Three miles to the Southward of the Massachusets Bay, where (neere by y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> sea side) there stands a Village called Connahasset eight miles further there is a small River comes out, and a reasonable harbour at the mouth of it.<br />
<br />
<i>Scytuate.</i>—On both sides is a Towne called Scytuate. <br />
<br />
<i>Greenes-harbour.</i>—From Scituate by ye sea side is a considerable Town called Greens Harbour, a Towne well meadowed & good farmes belonging to it. It is 7 miles from Scytuate. <br />
<br />
<i>Ducksbury.</i>—Seauen or eight miles from this Towne is Ducksbury which is also a good plantation and affords much provision, which they sell at Boston for the most part. <br />
<br />
<i>New Plymouth.</i>—Three or Fower miles Southward of this is ye Towne of New Plymouth whence the Goverment took its Denomination This place was seated about y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> yeare 1620 or 1621 by a company of Brownists, which went formerly from England to Amsterdam, and not beeing able to live well there, they drew in one M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Weston, and some other Merchants in London to Transport them and their Famelies into those Westerne parts; They intended for Virginia, but fell with Cape Cod als Mallabar, and gott into the Harbour of it, and finding it not fitt for Habitation, sought further and found this place and there settled liveing extream hardy for some yeares and in great danger of the Indians, and could not Long have subsisted, had not Plymouth Merchants settled Plantations about that time at Monhegon and Pascattaway, by whom they were supplyed and the Indians discouraged from assaulting them It is a poor small Towne now, The People being removed into Farmes in the Country. <br />
<br />
<i>Sandwich.</i>—Eighteene Miles more Southerly from Plymouth is a good Towne called Sandwich a Towne which affords good store of Provisions, and some yeares a quantity of Whalebone made of Whales which drive up dead in that Bay. <br />
<br />
<i>Barnstable.</i>—Twelve Miles from Sandwich is Barnstable a Towne much like it and affords the same Comodities. <br />
<br />
<i>Yarmouth.</i>—Seaven miles from Barnstable south east is the Towne of Yarmouth, much like the former, and had in it as the rest have good farmes about it, and sometimes also good benefite by drift Whales. <br />
<br />
<i>Billingsgate.</i>—Six miles east of this Towne is Billingsgate which lyes in y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Southeast nooke of Cape Codd Bay, and from thence to the Sea on the South side of the s<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>d</sup></span> Cape, it is a very litle way whereas to goe about is neare 20 Leagues which in tim will make it more convenient for Trade. <br />
<br />
Almost South some what Westerly from Billingsgate is Natuckett Island on which many Indians live and about ten leagues west from it is Martines Vinyard, whereon many Indians live, and also English. In this Island by Gods blissing on the Labour, care and paines of the two Mayhews, father and sonn, the Indians are more civilized then anywhere else which is a step to Christianity, and many of them have attained to a greate measure of knowledge, and is hoped in a short time some of them may with joy & Comfort be received into the Bossome of the Church, The younger of those Mayhews was drowned comeing for England three yeares since, and the Father goes on with the worke, Although (as I understand) they have had a small share of those vast sumes given for this use and purpose of y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Revenues of it It were good to enquire how it hath been disposed of I know in some measure or at least suspect the bussines hath not been rightly carryed. <br />
<br />
<i>Rhode Island.</i>—From this Island to Rhode Island is about Seaven Leagues west, This Island is about ffouerteen miles Long, in some places 3 or 4 miles Broad, in other lesse. It is full of people haveing been a receptacle for people of severall Sorts and Opinions. <br />
<br />
<i>Warwick Providence.</i>—There was a Patent granted to one Coddington for the Goverment of this Island, and Warwick and Providence two Townes which lye on the maine, And I think they still keepe a seeming forme of Goverment but to litle purpose, none submitting to Supream Authority but as they please. <br />
<br />
<i>Rehobah.</i>—Some three miles above Providence on the same River, is a Towne called Rehobah, and is under the Goverment of New Plymouth, a Towne not dispicable. It is not aboue 40 Miles from Boston, betweene which there is a Comone trade, carrying & recarrying goods by land in Cart and on Horseback, and they have a very fayre conveyance of goods by water also.<br />
<br />
<i>Taunton.</i>—About ten miles from this eastward is Taunton lying on another River within Rhode Island about 20 Miles up, It is a pleasant place, seated amongst the Windings and turnings of a handsome River, and hath good conveyance to Boston by Cart not being above 30 Miles assunder, here is a pretty small Iron-worke, & is under New Plymouth Government.<br />
<br />
<i>Pequate.</i>—Haveing gone through New Plymouth Goverment we come next to Connecticot Goverment. The first that was under this Goverment was Pequate, betweene w<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> and Rhods Island it is above 18 leagues,<br />
<br />
In the faire Narragansitt Bay, and diverse fine Islands <br />
<br />
<i>Fishers Island.</i>—Before the Pequate River lyes Fishers Island, on which some people live, and there are store of Catle. This Pequat Plantation will in time produce Iron, And in the country about this is a Myne of Black Lead, and supposed there will be found better if not already by y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> industry of that ingenious Gentleman M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> John Winthrop. It hath a very good Harbour, farr Surpassing all there about Connecticot River mouth to Pequate it is about eight Leagues. <br />
<br />
<i>Saybrooke.</i>—On the South-west side of the entrance of this River stands Saybrooke and Saybrooke Fort, a handsome place and some Gunns in the Fort. <br />
<br />
<i>Metaboseck.</i>—Fifteene Leagues up the River on the same side is the Plantation of Metaboseck, a very good place for Corne and Catle. <br />
<br />
<i>Witherfeild.</i>—From Metaboseck to Withersfeild a large & Populous Towne, it is about 9 miles. <br />
<br />
<i>Hartford.</i>—From Withersfield to Hartford the Metropolis of the Goverment, it is about 3 Miles, it is a gallant Towne, and many rich men in it <br />
<br />
<i>Windsor.</i>—From Hartford to Windsor 9 Miles, this was the first Towne on this River, settled first by people issueing from Dorchester in the Massachusetts Bay about the year 1636 <br />
<br />
<i>Springfeild.</i>—From Windsor to Springfield about 12 miles, and the first falles on Connecticot River are betweene these two Townes, This is the Massachusetts bounds. <br />
<br />
And above Springfeild 8 Miles is another Towne at first Intended but for a tradeing house with the Indians, but the gallant Land about it hath invited men to make it a Toune This Connecticott River is a great River before y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Towne bigger then the Thames above bridge, This Towne is also in the Massachusetts bounds and under its Goverment although 8 Miles from it. <br />
<br />
<i>Guilford.</i>—Now we must returne to the Mouth of the River and so along by the sea side; and first from Saybrooke to Guilford 12 Miles. <br />
<br />
<i>Tocott.</i>—From Guilford to Tocott 9 Miles. These two Townes are under Newhaven Goverment <br />
<br />
<i>Newhaven.</i>—From Tocott to Newhaven it is 7 Miles. This Towne is the Metropolis of that Goverment, and the Goverment tooke its Name from this Towne; which was the first built in those parts, many stately and costly houses were erected the Streete layd out in a Gallant forme, a very stately Church; but y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Harbour proveing not Comodious, the land very barren, the Merchants either dead or come away, the rest gotten to their Farmes, The Towne is not so glorious as once it was. <br />
<br />
<i>Milford.</i>—From Newhaven to Milford it is about 10 Miles, This Towne is gotten into some way of Tradeing to Newfoundland, Barbados, Virginia, So also hath some other Townes in this Goverment. <br />
<blockquote>Now in Course comes in againe some Townes in Connecticott Goverment</blockquote><i>Stratford.</i>—From Milford to Stratford about 4 Miles <br />
<br />
<i>Fairfeild.</i>—From Stratford to Fairfeild about 8 Miles <br />
<br />
<i>Norwock.</i>From ffairfeild to Norwock about 14 Miles and this Towne with those last named are in Connecticott Goverment. I suppose this skipped over Newhaven being they came from those Townes in Connecticott River. <br />
<br />
<i>Stamford.</i>—From Norwock to Stamford 8 Miles <br />
<br />
<i>Greewich.</i>—From Stamford to Greenwich miles, these two last Townes are under Newhaven Goverment, and there was another place begunn and much done in it, but the Dutch came and tooke it by force, and since the people of this Towne call it New Chester, <br />
<br />
There are some Townes on Long Island which have come some under the Government of Connecticot, and some of Newhaven; We are now come about 25 Miles within the Dutch plantation, which before I speake of I shall runn over ye plantations on Long Island, and shew under what Goverment they are begining at the west end. The Island conteanes in Lenth about 150 Miles, and lyes not farr from the Mayne, especialy at the west end where it is very narrow, The plantationes are all on the inside, the Sea board syde being a dangerous Coast and no Harbour at all on that syde. <br />
<br />
Within a few Miles of the West end over against Manhata, which is the Dutch's Chiefe Towne is seated Gravesend, most English, the Lady Moody being the first Setler, Some Dutch there are, and all under the Dutch Goverment. <br />
<blockquote>Then Mispach kell <br />
Then Midleburgh als New Towne<br />
Then Vlishing <br />
Then Hempsteed <br />
Then another Towne by the Dutch name</blockquote>These Townes are under y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Dutch Government<br />
<br />
Then follow to the Northward <br />
<blockquote>First Oyster Bay under Newhaven Goverment <br />
Huntington not submitting to any Goverment <br />
Then Sotocot Likewayes Submitting to none <br />
Nex<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Southampton under Newhaven Goverment <br />
Nex<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>t</sup></span> South-hole also under Newhaven</blockquote>These Townes belong to y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> English.<br />
<br />
Then crossing a Bay but 12 Miles (but to round it, it is much more) is Northampton. This Towne is under Connecticott Goverment. And then Easthampton under no Goverment <br />
<br />
I suppose these two Goverments of Connecticott and Newhaven, are only by Combination, I never heard of any Patent they have, and they are also in Confederacie with the Massachusetts, and New Plymouth, each of these 4 Goverments annually choosen two Comissioners to meet and Consult as occasion may serve; their power lasting for one yeare. These meettings prove chargeable, and as it is conceived of many of no great use. <br />
<br />
Tis well knowen the Dutch plantation had been taken by those two Southerne Collonies helpe, and the English on Long Island when Majo<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Sedgwick was sent to take it who putting back for Fyall news came by one of his Fleet that his designe was for that place; These afforsaid Comissioners mett at Boston, where some weeks were spent in Contest betweene the Commissioners of the two Southerne and Northern Collonies. Those of the South Colonies were for proceeding with expedition on the designe, The Comissioners of the North were dayly crying out for Orders or leave to goe on. But those of Plymouth being Mungrell Dutch, and some of the Grandees amongst them haveing a sweet trade with the Dutch or debts oweing to them, from them; And those of the Massachusetts haveing some other by-reason for it so long held out the dispute till it was to late the peace being concluded. <br />
<br />
There lye between this Long Island and the Mayne severall Islands, the most Considerable is Shelter-Island, about 8 miles in lenth and three in breadth, This belongs to Collonell Thomas Midleton and M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Silvester, on which they have some people & store of Catle. <br />
<br />
Another considerable Island lyes by it of about 6 Miles in Lenth, and three in Breadth. <br />
<br />
Now before I come to speak of Hudsons River, I shall most humbly desire the Hon<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Councill to take it in consideration the great benefits and profitts, which may redound to the English by these Westerne Colonies if well managed. Of their present condition I have given a breife accompt in my foregoing Relation, being my observations which for severall years I have spent in America, even from the year 1624 till within these two yeares last past: <br />
<br />
For Newfoundland, it is well known what a great Number of Shipps and Seamen have been there imployed annually I dare averr it hath bredd more Seamen then any Trade the English ever medled withall & what profitts the Owners and Merchants have gott by that Trade is unvaluable, And if a course were taken we might now have salt from the English Collonies in the West Indies, and provision from New England to carry on a greatt part of the designe, and on better termes then out of Europe. <br />
<br />
On all the Coasts of Canada from Cape Britton to Cape Sable is Excellent fishing and full of good Harbours <br />
<br />
On the Coast within Cape Sable, as in Nova Scotia, Port Royall, and those other fforts now in possession of Collonel Temple is mutch Beaver & other Peltry gotten, and more might be if fully Stocked <br />
<br />
And for the Southern part of New-England, It is incredible what hath been done there <br />
<br />
In the yeare 1626 or thereabouts there was not a Neat Beast Horse or sheepe in the Countrey and a very few Goats or hoggs, and now it is a wonder to see the great herds of Catle belonging to every Towne I have mentioned, The braue Flocks of sheepe, The great number of Horses besides those many sent to Barbados and the other Carribe Islands, And withall to consider how many thousand Neate Beasts and Hoggs are yearly killed, and soe have been for many yeares past for Provision in the Countrey and sent abroad to supply Newfoundland, Barbados, Jamaica, @ other places, As also to victuall in whole or in part most shipes which comes there. <br />
<br />
Betweene the years 1626 and 1633, Indian Corne was usually sold at 10<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>s</sup></span> or 12<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>s</sup></span> the Bushell, now not esteemed worth 2<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>s</sup></span>. Beefe and Porke then Brought from England and Irland sold at excessive rates. <br />
<br />
At that time all the Houses there, except three or fower at New Plymouth, and those which I had could not be valued worth 200<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>lb</sup></span>, and now to behold the handsome Houses & Churches in so many Townes as I have named is a wonder, And the place in which Boston (the Metropolis) is seated, I knew then for some yeares to be a Swamp and Pound, now a great Towne, two Churches, a Gallant Statehouse & more to make it compleate, then can be expected in a place so late a wilderness. <br />
<br />
And wheras about the time before mentioned wee could not make in all three Hundred men in the whole Countrey, those scattered a hundred and ffiftie Miles assunder, Now almost every Towne which I have named is able to bring into the feild a full Company of Foote and some Horse, some Townes two or three Companyes compleate with Horse proportionable and Boston more<br />
<br />
And the great abundance of English Fruite, as Apples, Pears, Apricocks, Plumbs, Cherries Musk-Mellons, Water-Mellons &c. is not to be beleeved but by those that have seen it<br />
<br />
And about those times also there were not within the now Great Government of the Massachusetts above three Shallops and a few Cannoes, Now it is wonderfull to see the many Vessels belonging to the Country of all sorts and seizes, from Shipps of some reasonable burthen to Skiffes and Cannoes, many other great Shipps of Burthen from 350 Tunns to 150 have been built there, and many more in time may be, And I am confident there hath not in any place out of so small a number of People been raised so many able Seamen and Commanders as ther hath been.<br />
<br />
Now we returne to Hudsons River, in the mouth of which lyeth y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Island Mahatas, on which stands now Amsterdam in the Latitude of 41 degrees and about 41 Leagues up the River is their Fort Oranja in the Latitude of 42 & 1/2 or thereabouts<br />
<br />
I have alwayes understood that the first Setlement of the Dutch there was about the yeare 1618, @ were then a very considerable Number, and long after. And this was as I conceive some yeares after King James had granted all the lands and Islands betweene the Latitude of 40 degrees to 48 North Latitude, unto a Company established at Plymouth in Devon then nameing it New-England; so that Manhatas lyes a full degree within y<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>e</sup></span> bounds of New England; and Fort Oranja their prin<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>l</sup></span> place both for Trade with the Indians @ for Husbandry it lyeth two full degrees and an halfe within the bounds of New England<br />
<br />
And about the year 1629 or 1630 Theire Title to it being in question a rich ship comeing from thence was seized on at Plymouth, as some now here can testify, which shipp and goods (as they say) was delivered up on the Dutch relinquishment of any Title they had or might have to the said Hudsones River And this seemes to be true, for in or about the year 1632 or 1634, a shipp set out from hence by M<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Clobery & Dellabar and others for New England, with passengers & goods & had also a Commission from his Mat<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>ies</sup></span>: Royall Father to saile unto Mahatas @ as farr up into the River towards Fort Oranja as they could goe, and there trade with the Natives; which they did without any opposition, as the Masters yet liveing can testifie <br />
<br />
From the uttermost part of Hudsons River to the North Cape of Delaware Bay, is somewhat above 20 leagues, and from this Cape to the entrance of the River is about 12 Leagues. <br />
<br />
Here the Sweedes some yeares since built a Fort and five Leauges above that a Sconce, and three Leagues above that another Fort, and 2 Leagues above that another. <br />
<br />
And hereabout the River trends away so much easterly that betweene that @ Hudsons River it is not above 30 Miles. In this River hath been seated some English Familes, but outed by the Dutch or Swedes. <br />
<br />
For this place there was some yeares since a Patent granted to S<span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Edmund Ploydon, but by whom I know not, nor what is become of him or his Patent. <br />
<br />
The entrance of this River is in 40 degrees And now I am come to the utmost Southwest bounds of New England which is a Country wherein the Rivers and Pounds affords variety of Fish and Beaver in Great abundance, The earth brings forth plentifully all sorts of Graynes, also Hemp @ fflax, The Woods affords store of good Timber for building of shipps Masts, Also Pitch and Tarre, The bowels of the earth yeilds excellent Iron Oare, and no doubt other Metalls if searched after.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-89554504263229016232013-01-04T00:00:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:16:18.943-08:00Letters of Samuel Maverick (colonist)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5Znni5r5XjaFPSad0IYZ3LELuko6V-bksbx7cSTtPCaD8YimtX55XA8FES79AOkIFYTi9iXfR9aYswSXDrfXVBhmR2Bv1WjUI-XFFzjkjJOx_h5hagc6V2yYiSYFzUEj1ViLVjA_31aW-/s1600/new+amsterdam.jpg" target="_blank" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="327" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5Znni5r5XjaFPSad0IYZ3LELuko6V-bksbx7cSTtPCaD8YimtX55XA8FES79AOkIFYTi9iXfR9aYswSXDrfXVBhmR2Bv1WjUI-XFFzjkjJOx_h5hagc6V2yYiSYFzUEj1ViLVjA_31aW-/s400/new+amsterdam.jpg" style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"></a></div>
<br>
<div align="left">Samuel Maverick, born about 1602, came to New England as early as 1624, as appears by his letter to Sampson Bond, published in this collection. He is supposed by some to have come over the year before with Robert Gorges. He was found here by the Massachusetts Company in 1630; having built a small fort on Noddle's Island (now East Boston), which was furnished with four pieces of artillery. The name of Maverick is found among those who "desire to be made freemen," 19th October, 1631; and he was admitted the following year. He had a grant of land in Maine from the "President and Council of New England" in 1631. After the Restoration, he went to England, and was appointed one of the Royal Commissioners "for reducing the Dutch at the Manhados; visiting the Colonies in New England, hearing and determining all matters of complaint, and settling the peace and security of the country." His associates were Col. Nicolls, George Cartwright, Esq., and Sir Robert Carr. He arrived at Piscataqua, in company with the latter, July 20, 1664. Maverick resided, after the recall of the Commission, in New York; and died there before May, 1676.—<i>Winthrop's N.E.</i>, i. 27; <i>Hutchinton's Mass</i>, i. 280; <i>Sumner's Hist. of East Boston, passim</i>; <i>Savage's Geneal. Dict.</i>—E<span style="font-size:85%;">DS</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br></span></div><b>Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop</b><br>
<br>
W<span style="font-size:85%;">ORSHIPFULL</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">IR</span>,—<div align="justify">My service beinge remembered, you may be pleased to vnderstand that there is a difference betwene one Ralfe Greene and Jno. Peirse, each challinginge a promise of mariage from a maide servant left with me by Mr. Babb, beinge daughter vnto a freind of his. Either of them desired my consent within a weeke one of the other, but hearinge of the difference, I gave consent to neither of them, desiringe there might be an agreement first amongst themselues, or by order from your worship. The maide hath long tyme denied any promise made to Greene, neither can I learne that there was euer any contract made betwene them, yett I once herd her say shee would haue the said Greene, and desired my consent there vnto; but it rather seemes shee first promised Peirse, and still resolues to haue him for her husband. For the better clearinge of it, I haue sent all such of my peopell as can say any thinge to the premises and leave it to your wise determination conceivinge they all deserue a checke for theire manner of proceedinge, I take leave, and rest <br>
<center>Your Worships Servant at commaund,</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span></div><span style="font-size:85%;">Indorsed by Gov Winthrop, "Mr Mavericke about his servants marriage."</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br></span></div><b>Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop</b><br>
<br>
<center><i>To the worshipful Jno. Winthorp Esqr: these present Boston.</i></center><div align="justify">S<span style="font-size:85%;">IR</span>,—I vnderstand there is a report abroade that I should be privey to the flight of one Bell, who was bound to appeare this court. He and one Morecroft I found at my howse one day last weeke, who acquainted me with the buisines they are bound ouer for, craved my advise; my answar was, Inocencey was a bulworke, wished them if cleare of the fact, to stay; if guiltey, left it to theire owne discretion. They professed innocencey, and, as I vnder stoode, resolved to stay; as Morecroft can testifie. Be pleased to certifie so much, if occasion be. I assure yow it is truth. I know there want not those which hunt after any thinge which may redound to my discreditt. Your selfe, euer honored Sir, and honest Capt. Gibones, are the only men which ever dealt plainely with me, by way of reproofe and admonition, when you have heard of any thinge in which I have beene faultie, which I hope hath not beene water spilt vpon a stone, and by it you have much oblidged me. There are those which take an inquisition like course, by indeavoring to gaither what they can from malcontented servants or the like; which course I conceive is not warrantable; the former course is more commendable, and will worke better effects. I hope God will enabel me in some measure to walke inoffencively, but findinge by 10 yeares experience that I am eie sore to diverse heare, I have seriously resolved to remoue hence, as sone as I have dispatched away Mr. Allies ship with fish, which ship is daily expected. Al other hinderances are already remoued. My well wishes shall euer attend the Plantation, and your selfe and yours in particular, howeuer. Be pleased to passe by my to longe neglect of visitinge yow, havinge not beene in Boston these fower monethes; as there is no one more engaged to yow, so there is none which more honores you then</div><center>Your worshipes reall freinde and servant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span></div><span style="font-size:85%;">M<span style="font-size:85%;">ARCH</span> 1th, 1640.</span><br>
<br>
<b>Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop, Jr.</b><br>
<br>
<center><i>To his much honored freinde Jno. Winthropp Esqr, Gouernour of Conecticott, these present, Hartford.</i></center><div align="justify">H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORED</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">IR</span>,—Yours of the 28th of October I receiued; yf we had not heard of your beinge comming this way, I had within two dayes beene on my journey towards you, and from thence to Boston. Coll. Nicholes his journey to Delawarr hath for present hindered our haply desired meetinge. It was suddayne, but a necessitie of it; Sir Robt. Carr,* (tumbling in plunder) against order resoluing to sett vp his habitation there, when as indeede he was with all expedition, by order, to returne; that himselfe, Coll: Cartwright, and my selfe might haue visited the Collonies lonies as farr as Boston before the winter. I am now designed for Roade Iland in Mr. Brownes Ketch, to giue a visitt to my freinds there; from thence I intend for Plymouth, and thence for Boston, and thence more eastward as wether shall permitt. <br>
I iumpe with yow in admiration, that the fort in Delawarr should, by storme, be taken, and not a dropp of English bloud shed, they having 18 peeice of ordinance loaden, and not one discharged. The Companyes goods and the estates of those that were in the fort, refusinge to consent to reasonable artickles, became plunder; all else, both Sweeds and Dutch, by complyinge saued theire estates; so that now, thourough Gods mercey, the two Colloneyes, Virginia and New England, are once more intirely ioyned together, vnder the Gouerment of our soueraigne lord the Kinge, and vnder him his royall highnes the Duke of Yorke. Some inhabitants of Maryland were there, and offered to engage in six weekes tyme to loade our hired shipp, they hauinge but five miles, by land, to bringe theire tobacco ouer. <br>
This very hower I receiued a letter from Mr. Bushrod, in Virginia, dated the 24th October, in which, for newes, he writes that the Turke hath receiued a great ouerthrow, the Visier Bashaw, cheife Commander, slayn, with ninetey thousand others, and 70,000 taken prisoners with bagg and baggage. The Intelligence bore date 27th of September. <br>
I pray excuse me for not writinge more largely, and to my old freind Mr. Allen, for not writinge to him at all. The truth is, we are much troubled with complaints and other thinges. Gouernour Nicholes hath ordered vs to send boats for vs on the other side, for him this day seuen night. Sir, I am in hast, but shall euer remayne <br>
<center>Sir, Your freinde and Seruant,</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span></div>You may be sure the Gouenour will be heare the tyme aforesaid, vnlesse some extrordinary thinge fall out: and I hope within 4 dayes after, Sir Robt. Carr and Coll. Cart wright will follow me; whither by you or not, cannot yett be agred on.<br>
<span style="font-size:85%;">N<span style="font-size:85%;">EW</span> Y<span style="font-size:85%;">ORKE</span>, Nour. 9th, 64.<br>
Indorsed by John Winthrop, jun., "Mr. Sam: Maueryck, rec. in the way to N: Haven, going to N: Yorke."</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:85%;">* After the reduction of New Netherland, the Royal Commissionurs sent "Sir Robert Carr, with ships under his command, to reduce the inhabitants on Delaware Bay and River; which he effected without much difficulty; for, on his arrival at New Amstel (Newcastle), the Dutch and Swedes, on the 1st of October, 1664, capitulated, and surrendered their fort." See Articles of Capitulation, &c., in Proud's "Pennsylvania," pp. 122, 123. In the latter part of October, Nicolls was commissioned to repair to Delaware Bay for the government of that place. See Smith's "History of New Jersey," pp. 47-50, for a full history of this transaction.—E<span style="font-size:85%;">DS</span>.</span><br>
<br>
<b>Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop, Jr.</b><br>
<br>
<center><i>To his very much honored freind Jno. Winthrop Esqr. Gouernour of Connecticott, these present.</i></center>M<span style="font-size:85%;">R.</span> W<span style="font-size:85%;">lNTHROPP, AND MY MOST HONORED</span> F<span style="font-size:85%;">REINDE</span>,—On Satterday last I vnderstood there was a horse sent me, by whome I knew not, and conceiuing it might be from the Collony of Conecticott, there beinge at that tyme, (and for ought I yett know) a dispute betwene the Duke of Yorke and that Collony, I resolued, till that dispute were ended, to receiue nothing as from that Collony, and tould your sonne last night so much, in effect; but being by Leiut. Budd and others informed that these horses were mearely as from your selfe, without any relation to the Collony; on those termes I thankefully accept of it, and wish I may deserue that fauour. The accord betweene the Gouernour & your Collony may be better made vp without me then with me. I know the Duke of Yorke his right, and the trew intent of your pattent to well to consent to what I perceiue will be demanded; howeuer, if any accord be fully made betweene the Gouernour & Coll: Cartwright, I shall freely consent vnto it, and euer remayne <br>
<center>Sir, Your assured & obliged freinde,</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span></div><span style="font-size:85%;">N<span style="font-size:85%;">OUR</span> 26th 64.</span><br>
<span style="font-size:85%;">Indorsed by John Winthrop, jun., "Mr. Maverick, about the horse sent him."</span><br>
<br>
<b>Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop, Jr.</b><br>
<blockquote><i>To the right worshipfull Jno. Winthrop, Esqr. Gouernour of Conecticott, these present with care and speede.<br>
Comitted to Zachary Crispe to deliver to Gouernour Winthrop. <br>
Two packetts of letters for Sir Robt. Carr. <br>
Two packets for Generall Nicolles. <br>
2 letters for Capt. Breeden. <br>
These papers were deliuered on Wensday att noone, and promised to be att Hartford on Satterday.</i></blockquote>M<span style="font-size:85%;">UCH</span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORED</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">IR</span>,—Mr. Richards hath by this bearer imparted the newes from England. This serues to enclose his Majesties letter to yow directed, and to desire yow with all possible speede to send these packetts to New Yorke, some of them much concerninge his Majesties seruice. We haue receiued graciouse letters from his Majestie, who is well satisfied with what we haue acted heare, and manifesteth it not in bare words only, but out of his royall bountie hath sent each of vs considerable gratuities. <br>
The Gouernor of the Messachusetts, Maiour Hawthorne, and 3 more whome they will chuse out amongst them selues, are commanded in to England, to answar before his Majestic for theire actinges heare. Sir Robt. Carr also, & my selfe, or one of vs, must likewise goe. Per the next you shall haue a coppie of all papers. I desire to hasten away the messenger: yf he come to yow a Satterday night next, pray add to what I haue giuen him heare 5 or 10 <i>shs</i>., and I will repay yow. I doe it to cause him to make the more haste. Sir, in haste, I remayne <br>
<center>Sir, Your affectionate freinde and seruant,</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span></div><span style="font-size:85%;">B<span style="font-size:85%;">OSTON</span>, Wensday the 9 of August, about 12 of the clocke. <br>
Indorsed by John Winthrop, jun., "Mr Samu: Maverick, rec: Aug: 12: 1666."</span><br>
<br>
<b>Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop, Jr.</b> <br>
<br>
E<span style="font-size:85%;">UER</span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORED</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">IR</span>,—About 3 weekes since I made bould to trouble yow with convayance of seuerall letters to New Yorke, which I vnderstand came there the same day seuennight they went hence; by the same bearer I sent yours from his Majestie, which I heare yow haue receiued. There came with it letters for vs, wherein his Majestie declares himselfe well content and satisfied with what euer we haue donne in this cunterey, and well pleased with yours and the other Collonies free and voluntary submission; and resents as ill the Massachusetts standing out, or rather Rebellion; and by a signification of his pleasure, expresely commands the Gouernour and Maior Hathome and 3 or 2 more of theire owne chusinge, to repaire in to England. Some one, at least, of vs must goe ouer also, to accquainte him with the present state of the cunterey, and to doe what seruice else he hath to command vs.<br>
Neither by word or writinge can the Gouernor be prevayled with to call his Councell, to receiue this signification. I belieue he desires not to see it. There are writts come fourth for calling a Generall Court about the 10th of September; they come out vnder the Deputies hand alone. <br>
Heare is no newes come since from England, and for 5 weekes now past, not a vessell from the Cariba Ilands, although at least 6 expected many weekes since. Euen now I receiued letters from Sir Tho. Modyford, Gouernour of Jamica, who confirmes what some weekes since he aduised me of, the taking of Prouidence Plantation from the Spaniard, 150 negroes, and 7000 peeces of eight, and that he hath sent downe Maiour Sam: Smith, with a supply, & to be Gouernour there, and he saies we are preparinge to engage the French, who seeme to be much puffed vp with the suckcesse at St. Christophers. We heare by the sea men that before they came away, the privaters had brought in 3 considerable prizes. Good newes for Jno. Hull. <br>
Sir, this gent., the bearer, goes with an intent to remayne in those parts; if he finde any encouragement, especially from your selfe, he intends to remayne there. Since I heard of his intent so to doe, I haue made some enquirie, and finde a very good character giuen of him, as to honesty and abilitie for his profession, Phisicke and Chirurgerie, and I haue taken obseruation of his caryage since he hath beene heare, and finde it to be ceuill. Sir, I know not how [to] goe about to exhort yow to be courteous; I know your nature is such; and if, at my request, yow shew him any favour, I shall acknowledg it as a curtesie. With my humble seruice to your selfe and good lady, and best respects to your children, I remayne, Sir <br>
<center>Your affectionat freinde & seruant,</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE</span>.</div><span style="font-size:85%;">A<span style="font-size:85%;">UGT</span>. 29th, 1666.</span><br>
<br>
I send yow a coppie of his Majesties letter to vs, that yow may see he approues of what we haue donn. I pray send me a coppie of that which yow receiued. <br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:85%;">Indorsed by John Winthrop, jun., “Mr Sam Mavericke.”</span><br>
<br>
<b>Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop, Jr.</b><br>
<br>
<i>To the Worshipfull John Winthrop, Esqr., Gouernour of his Majesties Collony of Conecticott, these present. Hartford. Per Mr. Butler.</i><br>
E<span style="font-size:85%;">UER</span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORED</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">IR</span>,— I wrote vnto you about 20 dayes since, and gaue you a breife account of the newes we had by the first permissionated ship for this yeare; six dayes since arived a second, and is the last will euer come on that account: the first came out before the permissions were recaled; this last Coll: Nicolls gott leaue for, with much difficulty. A letter from Coll: Nicolls to the Gouernour imparts as followeth. Staten Iland is adiudged to belong to N: Yorke. The L. Barkley* is vnder a cloud, and out of all his offices, and offers to surrender vp the Patent for N. Jarsey. Sir G: Carterett,† his partner, is in Ireland, but it is thought he will likewise surrender, and then N. Yorke will be inlarged. The L. Arlington is made L: Treasurer of England; the Duke of Buckingham, L: Leiutenant of Ireland. Coll: Nicolls hath deliuered the complaynts and charges against Scott,‡ and acquainted his Majestie, the Queene, and Duke, with his lavish extravagant expressions concerning each of them heare. The sight of Coll: Nicoles made him forsake Whitehall. All peace and quietnes att home and abroad. His Majestie very intent about settelment of his Collonies heare, [<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>a line destroyed</i></span>] a select counsell is appoynted for these affaires. Dclavall will be shortly heare in a shipp from England. Olaue Steuenson and other considerable persons of this place goe for England, to take passage on the English shipps, of which we may expect seuerall this sommer, and some very soone. <br>
When I had written thus farr, the Gouernour vnexpectedly returned home from Harlem. I acquainted him with this opportunitie of conveyance to you; he tould me he would write; I acquainted the bearer with his resolution, & ordered him to call for it. I shall therefore not enlarge, referringe you to his letter, euer remayninge, Sir,<br>
<center>Your most affectionate friende & seruant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE</span>.</div><span style="font-size:85%;">N. Y<span style="font-size:85%;">ORKE</span>, Feb. 24th 166<sup>8</sup>⁄<sub>9</sub><br>
Indorsed by John Winthrop, jun., “Mr. Maverick, rec: Feb. 26”<br>
<br>
* John, Lord Berkeley, of Stratton, one of the Privy Council in 1663, and one of the original proprietaries of New Jersey, to whom this territory was granted by the Duke of York, 23d June, 1664. In 1670, he was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland; was appointed ambassador extraordinary to Versailles in 1675; and died 28th August, 1678.— <i>Coll. Of N.J. Hist. Soc</i>., i. 30.—EDS. <br>
† Sir George Carteret was appointed, by Charles I., Governor of the Island of Jersey, and afterwards held the office of comptroller of the navy. He was associated with Lord Berkeley as proprietor of Carolina and New Jersey.— <i>Coll. of N.J. Hist. Soc</i>., i. 30; <i>Rose's Biog. Dict.</i>—EDS. <br>
‡ Capt. John Scott, a person somewhat notorious in the history of New England and New York, is doubtless here referred to. See General Index, p. 565, to Documents relating to the Col. Hist of New York; and Proceedings Mass. Hist. Soc. for June, 1862, pp. 65-73.—E<span style="font-size:85%;">DS</span>.</span><br>
<br>
<b>Samuel Maverick to Sampson Bond.</b>* <br>
<br>
<i>To the Reuerend & his much respected friend, Mr. Sampson Bond, these present, Barmodas. Per our friend, Capt. Stone.</i> <br>
R<span style="font-size:85%;">EUEREND</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">IR</span>,— After presentment of my respects to yow, these few ensuing lynes are to giue you to vnderstand that there hath come to my view a letter you sent to Mr. Wolstoncraft; the knowledg I haue had of him, and being informed by him, that yow are my cunteryman, borne at Northhill in Cornewall, make me bould to answar your letter, and to euery particular, as they lie in order. <br>
Your brother in law. Mr. Wolstoncraft, came ouer in the fleete I came in, and I knew his humour then, and obseruinge it now, finde him much reformed, and beinge retired in to the cuntery, he followes his buisines closely, (as I am informed) and liues comfortably.<br>
You hint to him, that you haue heard very well of New Yorke, which hath made you willing to come and dwell in some parte of this cuntery (if the Lord were so pleased). It seemes to me he is opening a wide dore to yow, by inclyninge the honorable Gouernour, on the first notice he had of your thoughts this way, to tell the bearer, Capt. Stone, that if your selfe and copany came, he would order yow a proportion of land (accordinge to the families you should bringe) on an Iland called States lland, about 3 or 4 leagues from this cittie, the most commodiosest seate and richest land I haue scene in America. It is probable (if his multiplicitie of buisines will permit it) he will lett you know it by his owne penn. I haue heard it from his owne mouth. <br>
You intimate that you want directions from some person well accquainted in the cuntery, as to the privilidges and libertyes of the Inhabitants. I haue beene heare from the very first settling of N: England, by the English, and could giue you an account of all the privilidges inioyed & bondages imposed in the seuerall Gouerments there, but that is needles. I shall only informe you what is allowed, and may be expected to be enioyed by the Inhabitants, within his Royall Highnes his territories heare. <br>
Ecclesiasticall liberties are, 1, Liberty of consience to all, prouided they rase not fundamentalls in religion, nor disturbe the publique peace. 2, Cerimonies may be used or omitted. 3, The Booke of Common Prayer may be made vse of or not. <br>
Civill liberties are,— All freeholders, not scandalous in theire liues & conversations, are capable to vote att the election of officers, military and civill, in theire seuerall towneshipps. <br>
As to your desire to know what trafficke the people take to for maintenance, be pleased to know that this harbour is the most commodious for trade of any on all this coast. The cunteiy affords all commodities fitt for Spaine, Tangeir, Jamica, and all the Cariba Ilands, in greater plenty then Boston & those parts haue, who by tradinge are growne so greate and rich. Shipping and stirringe marchants are the only want heare. The Gouernour is building a considerable ship, and some other are building smaller vessels. Codd fish is found in abundance on this coast; aboue 20 whales gotten this spring. There is gonn out of this port, to Boston, already, ten thousand skepell of wheate, and much more yett remaynmge. The greatest want heare is good, honest, ingenious people, and some good ministers; and though (if you should come) yow resolue not to be tyed to any people, yett many might reape benefitt by yow. If you and any else resolue to come, you may send a discreete person or two, to view the cuntery, per the first, who may make report how they finde things. It is 45 yeares since I came into New England. I haue kept correspondence with most, if not all the Gouernours that haue beene in your Iland, euen to Mr. Seimour, the last before your present Gouernour, with Mr. Copeland in his tyme, and Mr. Norwode also; and craue the like with your selfe, and shall be ready to serue yow in any thinge I may, of which pray be assured, and I shall euer remayne, Sir <br>
<center>Your affectionate freinde & humble servant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE</span>.</div><span style="font-size:85%;">F<span style="font-size:85%;">ROM</span> F<span style="font-size:85%;">ORT</span> J<span style="font-size:85%;">AMES IN THE CITTIE OF</span> N<span style="font-size:85%;">EW</span> Y<span style="font-size:85%;">ORKE</span>, May 30th, 1669.<br>
<br>
Indorsed by John Winthrop, jun., “Copy of Mr. Mavericks letter to Mr. Bond of Barmudas.” [The letter, or copy of letter, is in the handwriting of Maverick.]<br>
<br>
* Rev. Sampson Bond, an ejected minister from the county of Cumberland, after residing at the Bermudas, came to New England, and was employed as assistant to the Rev. James Allen, teacher of the First Church in Boston, in 1682. It is said that he was compelled to leave this place for preaching a sermon not composed by him; that he went to Barbadoes, and probably returned to Bermuda, where he died.— <i>Colony, Continuation, &c.</i>, ii. 150; <i>Hutchinson’s Hist. of Mass.</i>, i. 427; <i>Emerson’s Hist. of First Church</i>, pg. 134.—E<span style="font-size:85%;">DS</span></span>.<br>
<br>
<b>Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop, Jr.</b><br>
<br>
<i>To the worshipfull his much honored friend, John Winthrop, Esq, Gouernour of his Maiesties Collony of Connectocott, these present. Hartford.</i><br>
H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORED</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">IR</span>,—I haue received one from yow since I wrote to yow, for which I humbly thanke yow. I haue had no opportunitie till now to answar, and had I, I should haue lett it passe, dayly expectinge newes from England. Mr Laurence left all letters, both publique and private, behinde, although Coll: Nicolls tould him he had them ready, and ordered him a tyme to call for them. He saies he went for them, but Coll: Nicolls beinge not out of bed, and his man vnwilling to awake him, he came away without them. We may expect them per the next. <br>
Heare hath beene lately two vessells from Barmodaes; one bringes a letter from one Mr. Sampson Bond, which intimats that himselfe and some hundreds of people haue a desire to remoue from thence hither, if they might heare haue accommodation. It fell to my share to answar the letter, a coppie of which I send inclosed,* by which you may see what they desire, and what the Gouernour grants them. <br>
Heare are also considerable persons come from Barbadoes, who haue comission from persons of qualitie to buie Plantations and houses; some are already bought, more in chase. <br>
New Jarsey is returned to his Royall Highnes, by exchange for Delawar, as Sir George Carterett writs to his cosen, the present Gouernor;† some tract of land, on this side the river & on the other side, to reach to Maryland bounds. <br>
The L. Robarts‡ is gonn ouer as L. Deputie of Ireland. I supose the Gouernour will giue you an account of some other particulars, which I haue not tyme to doe, the bearer stayinge for this. I remayne, <br>
<center>Sir, Your most affectionate freinde and seruant,</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE</span>.</div><span style="font-size:85%;">N<span style="font-size:85%;">EW</span> Y<span style="font-size:85%;">ORKE</span>, June 29th 1669.</span><br>
<br>
I receiued yesterday from Boston the simpell history of N: Eng: and the lawes made the last Court. <br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:85%;">Indorsed by John Winthrop, jun., “Mr. Maverick.”<br>
<br>
* The preceding letter.—E<span style="font-size:85%;">DS</span>.<br>
† Philip Carteret, brother of Sir George, appointed Governor of New Jersey, Feb. 10, 1664.—<i>Coll. of N.J. Hist. Soc</i>., i. 36.—EDS.<br>
‡ John, Lord Robartes, of Truro, afterwards Viscount Bodmin and Earl of Radnor. He was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, Feb. 14, 1668; and was succeeded, in 1670, by John, Lord Berkeley, of Stratton.—<i>Collin’s Peerage</i>, ix. 122; <i>Haydn’s Book of Dignities</i>, p. 442.—E<span style="font-size:85%;">DS</span></span>.<br>
<br>
<i>The Winthrop Papers</i></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3289470258165065125.post-18034870745954670622013-01-03T00:00:00.001-08:002021-12-18T17:16:50.246-08:00The Clarendon Papers<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiihddD4ZS7TS4__ihDlsKqa_UPiq1BZ6Hb9IEAcei2pPQE0c1suEA7EOWSwXqovbMJhpjBR1pgwt5qqzlY9NrZbhJGPEmooNBQzDj_IOjmzmcb-wv5KBIcHKPvtVhG2crFgzY71x5cIzBS/s1600/edward-hyde-1st-earl-of-clarendon-by-adriaen-hanneman.jpg"target="_blank" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="400" width="332" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiihddD4ZS7TS4__ihDlsKqa_UPiq1BZ6Hb9IEAcei2pPQE0c1suEA7EOWSwXqovbMJhpjBR1pgwt5qqzlY9NrZbhJGPEmooNBQzDj_IOjmzmcb-wv5KBIcHKPvtVhG2crFgzY71x5cIzBS/s400/edward-hyde-1st-earl-of-clarendon-by-adriaen-hanneman.jpg"style="filter:alpha(opacity=50)" onmouseover="nereidFade(this,70,30,5)" onmouseout="nereidFade(this,50,50,5)"/></a></div>
<br />
<center>IV. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON</span></center><br />
<div align="left">R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span> AND MY VERY GOOD</span> L<span style="font-size:85%;">ORD</span><br />
Hauing formerly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented to p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Hon<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> my generall obseruations of the nature of the places, and Constitutions of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> seuerall Gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> in the northern pts of America, So shall I now in all humilitie lay open my pticular thoughtes, what in my weake Judgm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> may most Conduce, to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> regaininge of his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> rights in those pts from Intruders, And reducinge the English to dew obedience. The concernem<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> of it. And the easiest way as I conceiue to effect it.<br />
And shall therefore first humbly assert, that as his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> hath a genera<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ll</sup></span> right to those pts, by vertue, of the first discoueries, So likewise a pticular legall right, aboue, aboue and before all other Princes o<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> states in Europe. First by antient possession freely giuen by the Natiues, to the subiects of his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>decessors, and by them taken, to theire vse and theire suckcesses. Secondly by keepinge the said possesion euer since by the English in seuerall pts thereof. Thirdly by y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> purchasinge of seuerall tracts of land both on the Continent and adiacent Ilands by his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> subiects, and all hath beene donne by y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> desire & volentary consent of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> natiues in generall. Queene Elizabeth of famous memory granted Pattents to diuerse of her subiects fo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Virginia and places more southerly towards Florida. King James of like famous memory also granted letters Pattentes, to some noblemen, gen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>, and marchants, for all the lands lyinge betweene the degrees of thirtie fiue and fortie of north latitude, about the yeare 1609. And afterward also granted to some gen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>, and marchants, intituled the Plymouth Company, all the lands and Ilands betweene fortie and fortie-eight degrees, naminge it New England. So that I humblie conceiue, there can be no Intervale betweene either, for any prince or state to settell any of theire subiects there, nor can it be donne w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>out Intrenchinge on his Maies<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Rights And yett the Dutch, haue since these Patents were granted, And many English settled on both sides, intruded into the most considerable pt of both, for trade and Comerce w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> natiues gettinge yearely from them aboue one hundered Thousand Beauar skines, besides much other good Pelterey. The land also is exceedinge good, There are also two gallant riuers runninge farr vp into the land And it lyeth most Commodious for comerce from and w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> all pts of the West Indies, and may in tyme on that Account, proue very aduantagious to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Crowne of England if Regained, and as p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>iudiciall if not.<br />
As for those English in New-England w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> haue gotten the power in theire hands, you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ship</sup></span> hath beene informed how they stand affected to his Maies<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>, they are a greate and Considerable people, and y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> sooner reduced the better, They p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>tend seuerall Pattents to beare them out in what they doe, as Plymouth a grant from his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> royal grandfather, Messachusetts and seuerall others from his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> royall Father, who also since granted a large tract of land to S Ferdinando Gorges intituled y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Prouince of Mayne, wh<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> included seauen of Eight of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> lesser Pattents, granted to seuerall others before, And since in Oliuer Cromwells tyme another was granted for a large tract of land, to Collonell Alexander Rigby vnder the title of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Prouince of Ligonia, And he by his agen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> contended fo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Jurisdiction, ouer pte of the Prouince of Maine and some other Pattents, But while they were contendinge Messachusetts swallowed vp all, The two sowtheren Collonyes Conecticott and Newhauen haue no Pattents that I know but gouern by Combination amongst them selues, but in a strange confused way, and in this Confusion and y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> in New England at p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent, and I conceiue will be no otherwise vntill his Maies<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> be pleased to call all againe in to his owne hands, and disposall, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> I supose may be donne w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> out Iniury to any, there beinge, none but haue some way or other forfaited theire priuiledges And now my Lord in all humilitie I craue pardon, for what I may haue erred in, in the p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>mises, And humbly begg you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> fauou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> to giue me leaue, to shew w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> what facilitie, I conceiue the Dutch Plantations may be regained & y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> English reduced. For the Dutch I know by credible information they haue not of theire owne Nation, forteene hundered w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> can beare armes, and there are neare fower hundered able English men w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> liue amongst them, These all both Dutch and English, are extreamely burdned w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> heauie taxations as the tenth pte of all the land produceth, And vnheard of Excise, not only on all goods, brought to them or caryed from thence, but also on what they eate and drinke. S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> I am very Confident, if his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> doe but send and demaund a surrender lettinge them enioy theire lands and goods, and mittigatinge the burdens they now lie vnder, there will be littell or no dispute about it. Yet for the more honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> caryage on of the worke and the more surely to effect it, It will be Convenient if his Maies<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> please, to haue one good frigott and two smaler ones, a hundered or two of well experienced soldiers, one thousand spare armes w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> some powder shot &c. And for what men else may be needfull in case they should at first refuse surrender, the English Plantations w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>in twentie or thirtie leagues can suddenly furnish.<br />
As for reducem<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of the English, the diuisions amongst themselues, the members and freemen, against the non members and non freemen, is such, as that if the former of these should refuse to submitt, the latter I am very confident, (are w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> farr the greater number) will w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> much Joy, receiue and obay his Maies<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Commands, and then there can be no dispute. And howeuer debarringe them from trade a few monethes, will force them to it But care must be had, that they may enioy libertie of Concience in some reasonable large measure, And be as littell burdned by taxes or otherwise as may be,<br />
As for the diuidinge of this large and greate tract of land in to seuerall gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span>. The nominatinge, of some fitt and able Comisioners there. And the raisinge some reuenew to the Crowne, when regained and reduced, my selfe and one or two more well experienced there shall att all tymes waite on you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ship</sup></span>, to shew ou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> weake apprehensions, if desired. And I shall now humbly craue leaue to subscribe my selfe.<br />
<center>S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lordshipes most humble servant,</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div><center>VI. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGHT</span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:65%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span> AND MY GOOD</span> L<span style="font-size:85%;">ORD</span>.<br />
When I appeared before you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lordship, and the rest of the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> honorab<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>le</sup></span> Councell, expectinge other inter[ro]gatories, I declared not so fully as I should, as to the question, whither they euer ownd his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> souerainty ouer them, I declared some actions wh<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> I humbly conceiue rendered them of another Judgmen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> as defacing the English Coulors. Bringinge theire forces in armes and declaringe it was to resist y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> landinge of a generall Gouerno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> sent by the Kinge. The rage betweene Brookes and Ewers. Theire pmittinge shippes belonginge to places in obedience to the Kinge to be taken vnder theire forts wh<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> they might haue prevented. Byndinge all bound from thence in those tymes, not to commerce or trade w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> any people that held out for his Maies<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> A Cappitall law in the 12<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> page of theire law booke is, That who euer shall Indeauou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> the alteringe of the frame and politie of Gouern<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of that theire Comonwealth shall be put to death. Many other thinges I omitted. As in the begininge of the late troubles to incite men to come ouer sermons were frequently preached on that text Curse yee Merosh &c. At the first newes of his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> death the gouerno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> and magestrates sittinge att supper, one asked if it were good newes, another answered the best that euer came and no contradition. And p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sently after, he was not thought to haue taken a ptinent text, yf not such as these. He pulleth down the mightie from theire seates and exalteth y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> humble and meeke. And I will ouerturne &c. for the Oath of Allegance it was neuer administred to any although some haue desired it, but insteed there of the oath of fidelitie hath beene forced on all aboue 16 yeares of age. Wherein euery one must acknowledge himselfe to be subiect to the gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of that Commonwealth, and to be faithfull to the same, and yeeld assistance w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> pson and estate, to maintayne, the Liberties and privilidges thereof. And to submitt to Lawes established by the same.<br />
Many acts of high Iniustice haue beene donne, but more remarkable that ag<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Docto<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Child and six others, who for desiringe to haue a body of lawes established, and as neare as might be agreeinge w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> the lawes of England. Liberty as freeholders to haue votes in election of publique officers, or to be freed from publique charges. And psons of competent knowledge and inoffenciue in theire liues and conversations to be admitted to the Sacram<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of the L. Supper, and theire children to baptisme for this w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> hazard of theire lyues, they were besides fined about one thousand pound, And appealinge for England it was peremptorily refused. And the recorde of that buisiness, almost totally falsified, as was there in Court since Justified.<br />
As for liberty of Conscience the p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>tence of theire going ouer, they neuer yett allowed any to those neuer so littell differinge in Judgment from them, There are many thousands haue not received the sacram<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> since they went ouer, and many thousands more borne there in the like Condition, although they are of Competent knowledge, and ready to giue account of it in publique, and liue not scandalously, And many thousands are vnbaptised of whome some are aboue thirtie yeares old.<br />
My Lord, yf on what Complaynts haue come agains<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> these psons, a small pte in Comparison of the rest of the Considerable freeholders, The Kings Maiestie, resolue not on sendinge ouer a generall Gouerno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> expedition, his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> loyall subiects there w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> are three pts of fower, will be frustrated of theire expectations, remayne disconsolate, and still sufferers, on both accounts civill and Eclesiasticall.<br />
I assure yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> my Lord the worke will proue more difficult, if not speedily p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>uented, when we appeared before your hono<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rs</sup></span>, that Impudent and inconsiderable pson Scott thrust in after vs, And we have iust cause to suspect as a spie. for that night one Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Leuerett a proud spirited pson slipt privatly abord one of the shippes bound for N. England ridinge in the downes. It is that pson who in Oliuers tyme and since, was the N. England agent, And did not long since say, that before New England should admitt of appeales to England, they would deliuer it vp to the Spaniard, proued by a substantiall psons oath before a Comitee in Doctors Commons. And in these shippes are gonn also aboue one hundered other psons w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> are gon hence in discontent, and are not like to further the reducem<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> but may doe much to hinder it if not speedily p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>uented. I leaue this to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lordships wise Consideration, And to pardon the bouldness of<br />
<center>S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ships</sup></span> most humble servant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Honorab<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>le</sup></span> Edward<br />
Earle of Clarendon Lord Chan-<br />
cellor of England<br />
<center>these humbly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent.</center><br />
<center>VII. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGHT</span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<sup><span style="font-size:65%;">BLE</span></sup></span><br />
<div align="justify"> I was yesterday w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> the Lord Privie Seale, who intended this day to wayte on you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> I make bould heare inclosed to send yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> a breefe acc<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>o</sup></span> of what hath past betwene his Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> and my selfe, in refference to N. England. he put me to a taske yesterday, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> accordinge to what he propounded, and as the tyme would afford I haue ready to p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent to him, before he come to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span>, And probably may shew it to yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span>. In what I may be short therein of what is expected I shall God willinge make vp w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> expedition My Lord I pceiue some haue no desire that those psons in New England should be reduced: And shall make bould to put you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> in minde, that if any thinge be resolued on that way the tyme of the yeare calls for expedition, and surely my Lord the longer it is deferred the more difficult it will be to effect it Truly my Lord what euer I haue declared is truth, I haue no selfe end in what I haue donn, only a desire (yf it may be) that as I saw the first settlemen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of those p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> so that I may see the reducement<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of them of them vnder his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> obedience. w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> is the earnest desire of<br />
<center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humble servant,</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE</span> </div>To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Edward<br />
Earle of Clarendon Lord Chan-<br />
cello<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of England these humbly<br />
p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented.</div><center>VIII. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span><br />
The tyme seemes long since I had the happines to be admitted to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sence, I am in duty bound to acquaint you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span>, that we haue certaine intelligence from Holland that the Dutch haue latly sent one shipp and are p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>paringe three more, for the strengthninge the New Netherlands. My Lord I am affrayed Whaley and Goffe, haue a hand in the buisines, and I wish some in New England be not also involued. There are many discontented psons heare also w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> are p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>paringe to goe ouer speedily, 4 or 5 shipes are already designed, what the issew may be I know not. I haue had thoughts of late to propound to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> a p[s]on I apprehend fitt for a Commando<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> ther. It is Collonell Francis Louelace, a pson euery way accomplished for such an Imploy and very well beloued in all those pts. I leaue it to your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> consideration, being alwayes ready to wayte on you, I am S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span></div><center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humble seruan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span></center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span></span> Edward <br />
Earle of Clarendon Lord high<br />
Chancello<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of England these be<br />
humbly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented.<br />
<br />
<center>IX. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> I am a daily obseruer of the many great and waightie affaires of the nation passinge thorough you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> hands. Yett in the middest of the Croud I most humbly craue leaue, to aquaint your Lordsh<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span>, that w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> in a moneth past or there about there haue gonn of from hence for New England many seditious factious psons, Convayinge ouer considerable estates, Three shippes more are preparinge for the same designe, and for ought we know to transport the like Cargo, for what else we cannot imagine. These added to those of the same humo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> alr[e]dy there, may make y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> worke proue difficult and chargable, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> if sett on w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> expedition would be easily effected, Good my Lord pardon me, I can truly, and wth confidence affirme, that neither avarice, ambition, or desier of reuenge, hath put me on what I haue donn in this buisines from first to last, It is zeale to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> seruice, and affection to the many thousands of his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> loyall subiects and my sufferinge freinds, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> hath made me so bould att this tyme as formerly to be troublesome to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lordship. The summer passeth away, and winter is not for any designe in those pts. My Lord the Earle of Marlebourgh is ready at any tyme yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> shall appoynt to wayte on you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lordsh<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> So is also<br />
<center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lordships most humble servant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Edward<br />
Lord Hide Earle of Clarendon<br />
Lord Chancello<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of England.<br />
these be humbly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented.</div><center>X. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span> S<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>R</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> since I had the happines to kisse your hand I haue had seuerall discourses w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> the Earle of Marlebourgh, and the Lord Winsor about theire seuerall designes, I haue propounded to theire Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> Considerable psons for Commanders such as (by discourse w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> and full information from others) theire Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> rest fully satisfied w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>, as to theire abilities, for carying on the seuerall designes, but thus I finde and they vnders[t]and, that vnfitt psons striue hard for, and hope to, carry the cheife Commands, vnlesse yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> interpose as for the East Indies, on Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Minus, and Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Jerimiah Blackman, in whose roome some of the East India Company indeauou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> to bringe in two others who were neuer there. And for the west Indis Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Minges, well knowne by all and approued of by my Lord Winsor, is like to be outed, and in his roome put one Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Ffearnes, inconsiderable in respect of the other, as may easily be made appeare. Thus much I make bould to acquainte y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> wth desiring his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> designes may prosper. Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Mings desires to kisse yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> hand when yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> please to afford him that hono<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>, so also doth<br />
<center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humble seruan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>,</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div> I haue beene often w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> Collonell Venables, about the New England buisines and cannot vndersta[n]d w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tt</sup></span> is doun about it, I humb[l]y desire to haue the happines to speake w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> wher yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> please to appoynt, &c.<br />
To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Edward<br />
Earle of Clarendon, L: Chan-<br />
cellor of England these be hum-<br />
bly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented.</div><center>XI. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> I haue lately spoken w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> Collonell Venables, and finde him not altogether of from the New-Eng<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> designe, but backward because there haue beene no propositions made to him. I haue seene some w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> he hath drawne vp, to haue p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>esented to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> but fearing it might be ouermuch p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sumtion hath hitherto forborne. They are many and how you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> will app[r]oue of them all I know not, yf euer they come to your view, I leave that to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> wise Consideration. And shall now humbly craue leaue breefely to repeate the heads of what I haue formerly spoken as to the well settellm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of New England.<br />
Good my Lord it is the considerablest of all his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Collonyes in America what if it were by Act of Parlam<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> annexed to the Crowne of England, I meane N. Eng<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> from 40 degrees to 48. that bounde beinge alloted and that name giuen to it by Kinge James his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> royall Progenito<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>.<br />
How euer it will require a diusion into three Prouinces, and Commissioners appointed by his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span>, in either of them.<br />
The oath of Allegance to be taken by all, as a toutch stone to try theire loyalty to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span>.<br />
The Militia to be in the hands of such as his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> may confide in, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> will enable him the better to Protect them.<br />
The act of Indempnitie to be extended to all these as to life.<br />
Pattents not apparently forfaited to continew Corporations according to the teno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of theire Gran<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> all free holders w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> in their seuerall bounds having voats in Election of officers.<br />
The iust bounds of euery Pattent fourthw<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> to be laid out. <br />
Appeals on Just grounds to be admitted of, to his Maties Comissioners.<br />
The lawes to be reformed. And reduced as neare as may be to y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> lawes of Eng<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span>.<br />
Liberty of Consience in a large measure allowed, prouided they rase not fundamentalls, And to be enioyed till abused, the want of this hath much hindered the increase of that Plan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> for neare twenty yeares past, and the affordinge it, will speedily much increase it.<br />
Taxes to be abated as much as conveniently may be.<br />
I hope my Lord I haue at tymes made euidently appeare his Maies<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> titell to that great, and most considerable tract of land vsurped by the Dutch yf intended to regaine it, three shippes will be necessary, and some armes and ammunition. yf not one or two, will serue, and may in the way (if spedily dispatched) helpe to carry people w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> my Lord Winsor, from the windward Iland to Jamaica. Or else as a Convoy to seuerall Considerable shippes bound for New-England; and may there take in Provision for Jamica, and in the way take in Passengers, if any p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent in New England or else from Barmodaes, Barbadoes and other Carieba Ilands.<br />
My Lord I humbly conceiue, there must be from heare, a pson fitt for Conduct, and an able lawier, for there is not one in New Eng<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> that p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>tends any thinge as to the knowledg of the Lawes of England, and whom else his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> shall please to send from hence. some there will be found there, to doe him seruice on seuerall imployes, and the impowring of such, will much please the maio<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> pte of the people there.<br />
As to the raisinge a revenew to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> I am still to seeke, the Customs will in tyme be Considerable, and yearly one halfpenny on euery acker taken vp will amount to much. My Lord I beseech yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> consider, how the Inhabitants haue brought it to what it is, at theire owne cost & charges, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>out any help of the state heare, And the charge now for resetelm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> and keeping it in order for the future is not greate, and will alwayes grow lesse. as the place doth grow more populous. And truly my Lord, there are some hundereds intend for that place w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> theire families this yeare, and will proceed if they can but vnderstand what liberty they shall there enioye. five shippes are already designed for that place, and I beleiue more will speedily.<br />
My good Lord I beseech yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> pardon my p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sumption, M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Winthrop Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>: Breedon and my selfe, and another or two, are ready all wayes to wait on you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> and I alwayes am,<br />
<center>S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humble seruan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span></center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Edward<br />
Earle of Clarendon Lord high<br />
Chancello<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of England. be these <br />
most humbly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented.</div><center>XII. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> since Thursday last I heare M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Norton and Bradstreete boast much that by the assistance of some great psons they haue obtayned what they came for. I beseech yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> good my Lord Consider from whome they were sent, euen from those w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> for so many years stiled themselues a state and Comonwealth & neuer owned his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Soueraignitie ouer them vntill they saw there was no avoydinge of it. Yea they frequently bragged they were the elder Commonwealth. Consider also I humbly beseech yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> who they are w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> are sent, euen such as for many yeares in theire seueral wayes spoake & acted vyolently aga<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Interest. I wish my L. yf yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> shall think it fitt, that the oath of Allegance may be tendered them, and see also how they like the act of Vniformitie, although it may not be convenient at p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent to Impose it there. Truly my Lord if what they desire be granted w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>out limitation New E. will soone be in a shattered Condition.<br />
And now once more good my Lord I most humbly beseech yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> to take into you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> serious Consideration the bad neighborhoode New E. will haue of the Dutch if they grow more potent, sad experience hath shewed it in seuerall places, and the sooner the p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>uention of this is sett about, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> more ease and lesse charge, it will be effected, and also New England settled.<br />
I humbly begg the favo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>, at some tyme yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> shall thinke fitt, to admitt me to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sence, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> out these psons. Accordinge to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Comand I shall attend this afternoone, and at any tyme else. And euer remayne.<br />
<center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humble seruant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Honorable Edward<br />
Earle of Clarendon Lord Chan-<br />
cello<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of England. be these most<br />
humbly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented.</div><center>XIII. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> I most humbly beseech you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> that I may haue another hearinge before the New-England affaire be fully concluded on, where I shall affirme, (and no man shall be able iustly to contradict it) that those w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> haue had the Comande in the Mesachusets Gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>, and by vsurpation ouer many other gouermen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> haue shewed them selues disloyall (as I conceiue) in many pticulars, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> fauou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> I shall mention some.<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>Disloyaltie.</sup></span>1. The first w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> I obserued was defacing the English coulors terminge it a badge of the whore of Babell.<br />
2. On a rumo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of the arivall of a Gouerno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> sent by the Kinge they were all in armes to resist.<br />
3. They made a Capitall Law that who euer should atempt any Invasion, Insurection, o<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Rebellion, against that their Comonwealth, or Indeauou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> the surprisall, of any towne or fort, or the alteration, of theire frame and politie of Gouermen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>, should be put to death, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> hath kept all in awe, in so much as at this tyme, the Considerablest pte of the Inhabitants dare not make an Adresse to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span>.<br />
4. The Oath of Allegance was neuer administered to any, but an oath of fidelitie to them selues forced on all aboue 16 yeares.<br />
5. When the vnhappie breach began heare in England, to incite men to come ouer, sermons were frequently made on that text Curse yee Meroch, and many came ouer and serued against the King, and were heare highly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>ferred, others were sent to sow sedition, as Peeters and Weld, and were for some yeares maintayned by the Cunterey.<br />
6. After the sad newes of the Kinges death he was not thought to haue taken a ptinent text if not such as these. He putteth downe the mightie from theire seates, and exalteth the humble and meeke. And I will ouerturne ouerturne.<br />
7. They pmitted shippes belonginge to places in obedience to the Kinge to be taken by Parlament Comission vnder Command of theire forts. And forced all Commanders bound fourth, to enter into greate bonds, not to Comerce or trade w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> any place w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> held out fo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> the King.<br />
8. They maintayned an Agent heare in Cromwells tyme w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> shewed theire affection to him.<br />
9. Theire Courteous Intertaynem<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of Goffe and Whaley, many monethes, after they knew they were proclaymed traytors and transportation offered for them, shewes also how loyall they weare.<br />
10. In Cromwells tyme a Gen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> one Cason, for sayinge he was a Rebell and a Trayto<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> was Committed to prison and heauie Irons laid on him, for many weekes, and had once a resolution to put him to death.<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>Injustice.</sup></span> As for their acts of Iniustice they haue beene many.<br />
1. I shall name a few.<br />
They gaue a Comission to one Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Cooke to march w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> a foote Company aboue fivetie miles beyond theire boundes, and there by force of armes to sease on one M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Gorton and seueral of his neighbours, and aliue or dead to bring them to Boston w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> all their Cattell to a great number, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> was accordingly pformed, And they in tryumph brought in to Boston, theire Cattell sould, and they comitted to prison fo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> a long tyme w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> heauie Irons on, And at last dispersed in to seuerall townes, out of the bounds of w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> they were not stepp vpon payne of death. theire heauie Irons still on.<br />
2. One M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Morton a gen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of good qualitie, vpon p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>tence that he had shott an Indian, wittingly, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> was indeede but accidentally, and no hurt donn, they sentenced him to be sent fo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> England prisoner, as one who had a designe to sett the Indians at varience w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> vs, they further ordered as he was to saile in sight of his howse that it should be fired he refusinge to goe in to the shipp, as havinge no buisines there, was hoisted by a tackle, and neare starued in the passage. No thinge was said to him heare, in the tyme of his abode heare, he wrote a booke entitled New Canan, a good description of the Cuntery as then it was, only in the end of it he pinched to closely on some in authoritie there, for w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> some yeares after cominge ouer to looke after his land for w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> he had a patent many yeares before, he found his land disposed of and made a towneship and himselfe shortly after apprehended, put in to the goale w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> out fire or beddinge, no bayle to be taken, where he remained a very cold winter, nothing laid to his charge but the writinge of this booke, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> he confessed not, nor could they proue, he died shortly after, and as he said and may well be supposed on his hard vsage in prison.<br />
3. The case of one Ratclife whome they handled cruelly, as most seuerely whiped his eares Cutt and banished on payn of death, no c[r]ime legally proued against him.<br />
4. The sufferinges of Docto<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Childe and Company were very remarkeable, no crime proued against them, only accused for petitioning, and appealinge from theire sentence. besides the hasard of their liues Imprisonmen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> monethes and some for yeare (sic), they were fined aboue one thousand pounds, Six of the seaven paid the fines, the other was three yeare or thereabout prisoner, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> Irons on, because he could not pay it.<br />
5. Theire forcinge so many Gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> vnder theire Command w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> had as ample and more antient Patents then theires.<br />
6. Their banishinge so many Considerable psons, who were forced to shelter them selues vnder the dut[c]h, wher some whole familyes of them, were shortly after, all murdered by the Indians or Captiued, theire Crime was only difference in Judgement.<br />
7. Theire forcinge men and weomen, who are of Contrary Judgm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>, to come to theire church meetinges, or to pay 5/s for euery default.<br />
8. The puttinge to death so many quakers, strict Imprisonment, Cruell scurginges, heauie and insuportable fines laid on others, and strictly exacted to the vallew of a thousand pound and more.<br />
9. Neither is there to be left out, that hard measure w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> the owners of the Iron workes mett w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> all, the workes w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> cost them forteene thousand pound, beinge taken from them, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> a full stocke of mine and Coale, vpon p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>tence of a debt of three thousand three hundred pound.<br />
My Lord I know no man can disproue what I haue said, much more I could say on either accoun<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>,<br />
As to theire petitioning for a Continuance of theire priviledges, Good my Lord I humbly conceive, if they could w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> out scrupell, take away by force the priviledges, and dispose of the land of more then a dozen Paten<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> many granted and po[sse]ssed before theires, his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> doth them no Iniurie if he take away theires, beinge w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> all many other wayes forfaited, All others I am sure will freely submitt to what his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> shall order. I beseech Your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> pardon me for givinge yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> this trouble,<br />
<center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humble seruan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>.</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>To the right<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Honorable Edward<br />
Earle of Clarendon Lord High<br />
Chancellor of England.<br />
be these humbly presented.</div><center>XIV. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORABLE</span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> yf I misvnderstood yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> not, yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> ordered me to draw vp the heads of what might be thought requisit for those of the Messachusetts to Condescend vnto, vpon the Continewation of the Charter. I most humb[l]y conceiue they may be such as these followinge.<br />
That all freeholders may have voats in Election of officers civill and Military.<br />
That all psons inoffenciue in life and conversation may be admitted to the sacrament of the Lords supper, and theire childeren to Baptisme.<br />
That such lawes as are now in force there, derrogatinge from the lawes of England, may be repealed.<br />
That the oath of Allegance may be administered in steade of that w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> they tearme the oath of fidelitie.<br />
That they goe not beyond theire iust bounds, euen those w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> fo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> neare twentie yeares they were content w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>all.<br />
That they admitt of Appeales on iust & reasonable grounds.<br />
That they pmitt such as desire it, to vse y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Common prayer.<br />
That all writts &c. may be issewed out in his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> name.<br />
My Lord I hope you are pswaded of the greate necessitie there is of sendinge ouer some Commissioners for the further and better setlinge of those Collonyes, now out of order. I most humbly beseech yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> that all convenient expedition may be made, the summer passinge fast away.<br />
As for the Dutch I haue p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sumed to giue yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> notice, how they incroach and increase and what course they haue taken to invite people to them, and how seuerall of o<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> English familyes are lately gonn to them. I leaue all to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lor<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most wise Consideration, and shall alwayes attend you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Commands. Remay[n]inge</div><center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> most humble seruant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Edward<br />
Earle of Clarendon L. high<br />
Chancelo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of England be these<br />
Most humbly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented.<br />
<br />
<center>XVII. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> (if I know my selfe) I have beene for some tyme, beene a faithfull Intelligencer, as to the New-Englan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> affaires in psuance of w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> I heare w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> humbly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sume to p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> a trew representation of the affaires as now they stand there, colected out of seuerall letters lately come from thence and also by report of many psons lately arived euery pticular, and more, will be playnely made out if required. I leave all to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p[s]</sup></span> wise Consideration, and am att all tymes ready to attend you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Comandes. And shall euer remayne</div><center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humble seruant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE</span> </div> My Lord I haue much more to say, so hath Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Breeden and others, yf yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> please to Command vs att any time to wayte on yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span>.<br />
<br />
To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Edward<br />
Earle of Clarendon Lord high<br />
Chancellor of England these be<br />
must humbly presented.<br />
<br />
<center>XVIII. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> As I haue ptly vnderstoode w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tt</sup></span> Indeauours there haue beene to obstruct the settelm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>te</sup></span> of the Gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of New England, so I also vnderstand that some (vnder the name of Inhabitan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>te</sup></span> of, and adventurers to New England,) haue indeavored to render me vncapable, of bearing any share (as a seruant) in that worke, this hath not beene vnknowne to many who haue beene, and are much concerned there on w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> some for p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>vention of secret scandalls w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> might hinder me of being the meanest seruan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> in this worke haue drawne vp, and subscribed, this inclosed testimony and presse me humbly to p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent it to you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> they are not many yett enough, And truly my Lord these are the men w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> long haue, and still doe driue on the trade in that place, and it will euedently be made appeare, that those, who haue indeauored to obstruct, are no way Considerable, nor cannot stand in competition w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> these. I humbly leaue i w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span>, and am ready at all tymes to attend your Commande humbly cravinge the fauou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> from you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> that at some convenient tyme I may haue the happines to speake w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span>: And I shall euer Remayne</div><center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> Most humble seru<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span></center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Edward<br />
Earle of Clarendon Lord high<br />
Chancello<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of England. These<br />
be most humbly p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;">Endorsed—"8. <i>Mr. Mavericke</i> 28. <i>March</i>. 1662. <i>testimoniall frõ the Merchants.</i>"</span><br />
<br />
<center><span style="font-size:85%;">[DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING LETTER.]</span></center><br />
<div align="justify"> These are to certify all whome itt may concerne that the bearer heereof M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Samuell Mauerick, hath a long tyme dwelt in New England (allmost since the first plantation thereof by y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> English) inioying the loue & friendly respects of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Generallitye of the inhabitants their, amongst whome hee hath had his conuersation inoffensiuely, & not iustly liable to any obiection so farr as wee can heere or vnderstand saue that (for conscience sake) hee could not subiect to bee a Church memb<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>, Butt otherwise in greate esteeme as a person whose desiers & endeauours haue allwayes bin for y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> generall good of y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> Cuntry, & for the inlargement of those iust Libertyes & priuilidges (w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> through the corruption of the tymes) the inhabitants their haue bin depriued of, & haue greate hopes of beeinge restored vnto, by the endeauors of the sayd M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Mauerick, Whose retorne to New England in the effectuall accomplishment thereof would bee exceedinge ioyfull to farr the Maior part of the people their, To the truth whereof wee who haue liued in those parts, and others of us who haue long tyme held correspondence, & bin frequent traders w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> inhabitants thereof (for preuention of secrett scandalls obstructing his endeauours) haue thought fitt to giue him this testimoney to w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> wee haue subscribed our names this 20th Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>rch</sup></span> 1662.</div> J<span style="font-size:85%;">OHN</span> B<span style="font-size:85%;">EIX</span> R<span style="font-size:85%;">OBERT</span> L<span style="font-size:85%;">ORD</span><br />
J D<span style="font-size:85%;">AVY</span> D<span style="font-size:85%;">AUID</span> A<span style="font-size:85%;">SHLEY</span><br />
W<span style="font-size:85%;">ILL.</span> B<span style="font-size:85%;">EEKE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">DWARD</span> G<span style="font-size:85%;">ODFREY</span><br />
W<span style="font-size:85%;">ILL.</span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">IECOKE</span> <span style="font-size:65%;">of Yorke in New Eng-</span><br />
J, P<span style="font-size:85%;">OCOCKE.</span> <span style="font-size:65%;">land some times an</span><br />
T<span style="font-size:85%;">HO.</span> G<span style="font-size:85%;">OODLAKE</span> <span style="font-size:65%;">Inhabitant 27 yeres.</span><br />
<span style="font-size:65%;">Wee whose names are</span> T. B<span style="font-size:85%;">REEDON</span><br />
<span style="font-size:65%;">avoue menconed are</span> J<span style="font-size:85%;">OHN</span> W<span style="font-size:85%;">INDER</span><br />
<span style="font-size:65%;">the Company of Ad-</span> T<span style="font-size:85%;">HO</span>: K<span style="font-size:85%;">ELLOND</span><br />
<span style="font-size:65%;">venturers for the Iron</span> J<span style="font-size:85%;">OHN</span> B<span style="font-size:85%;">REEDON</span><br />
<span style="font-size:65%;">Works in ye Massa-</span> T<span style="font-size:85%;">HO</span>: B<span style="font-size:85%;">ELL</span><br />
<span style="font-size:65%;">chosetts in New Eng-</span> D<span style="font-size:85%;">AVID</span> Y<span style="font-size:85%;">ALE</span><br />
<span style="font-size:65%;">land.</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">AM</span>: H<span style="font-size:85%;">UTCHISON.</span><br />
[<i>Name illegible.</i>]<br />
J<span style="font-size:85%;">OHN</span> D<span style="font-size:85%;">AND</span><br />
<br />
<center>XXII. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGH<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> since I spoke wi<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lordship, we haue received Intelligence from New England, of what daylie and ernest expectation there is (by the loyall ptie there) for the arrivall of his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Comissioners, who may free them, from the bondage, they haue so long lyen vnder, they also informe, that very littell or nothinge is pformed, of what was promised before you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> by the Mesachusets agents last yeare, they also lett vs know that there are many hundreds this yeare arrived there from hence generally disaffected to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> both civill and ecclesiasticall, And from the Manhatas we heare the dutch Gouerno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> hath sent for a supply of men and ammunition, and that they intent w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> all expedition to build a fort on Niott poynt, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> who euer hath, will inioy, that braue riuer, and the rich trade there in: I therefore must humbly beseech your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> to be pleased w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> all conuenient speede to dispatch away the Comissioners. Collonell Griffith is goinge downe to Cornebury to kisse yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> hand, and to p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent to yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> seuerall proposalls many of w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> we humbly conceive will (being granted) proue vsefull, fo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> the better settlemen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of those Collonyes, And to wayte on him there goes to psons w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> I am well assured may (w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> approbation) be very vsefull. the one Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Jn<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>o</sup></span> Manninge who hath for many yeares beene a Commander vnder Maio<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> generall Morgan, who hath given him a large and ample Certificate, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> he will shew you, many more he might have had if desired, he is well knowne and beloued in New England, and will be fitt for any imploym<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> in the Militia. he is very desirious to goe, and hath wayted for this imployment aboue 18 monethes, The other pson is M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Mathias Nicholes who hath beene bred a scholar, and a studient in Lincolnes Inne, and a good proficient as by many I haue beene informed, and had he had now tyme, he could haue brought Certificates from some sariants at law and other eminent psons by what I haue heard and seene, I most humbly Conceive he may be fitt for a secretary to the Comissioners, and I hope after your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> hath had some discourse w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> him, approue of him so to be. My Lord I leaue all to your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> Consideration, Craving pardon for my bouldnes, I shall euer Remayne<br />
</div><center>S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lordp<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>s</sup></span> most humble seruant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div> Septemb<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> 1<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> 1663.<br />
To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Edward Earle of Clarendon Lord high Chancello<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of England. These most humbly be p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sented.<br />
<br />
<center>XXVIII. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGHT</span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONO<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>pp</sup></span> by Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Harrison I hope you have received two letters from me, one by the Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> owne hands, the other from the hands of M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> John Breedon brother to Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Breedon.<br />
In one of which I gave your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> a breife accoumpt of what passed at the court of Election: what kinde of persons were chosen into office; who amongst the whole Court of Magistrates, & Deputies I conceive to be loyall, & honest: who otherwise: How that the Major part, not the wisest disowned his Majesties authority over them, & in effect proclaimed it by sound of trumpet, forbidding us to act any more (within their jurisdiction) on his Majesties Commission, to us granted.<br />
In the other, I presumed to declare to your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> my opinion, how these people may most speedily, & with more safety to the innocent be reduced, As by seizing on some of their estates in England, I named a ship now in the King's service, belonging most part of her (if no fraudelent coveighances have been lately made) unto persons of this place, & none of his Majesties best subjects, her name the Society Christopher Clark Comander, untill shee was pressed into his Majesties service. An other way I propounded was the prohibiting of all trading with any of his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Colonys in America or into any part of Ewrope, without Certificat first had, & obteined from such as his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> shall here authorize to give such Certificates, that they belong to such or such a Colony who are in obedience to his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> or to such or such a person in any other Colony who are knowne to be loyall Subjects to his Majestie. A third way which I presumed to propound was, the keeping of two small vessells, on this coast, who may probably hinder all commerce with the Massachusets.<br />
Since which time I have met with some able, & honest men, who are of opinion, that, the ordering of two, or three (of the most refractory persons) to be sent for England, will soone do the work. but there must be force to backe it, The fittest psons for p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent to be sent for are Richard Bellingham Gou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Daniell Gookin, Will: Hathorne Rich: Waldron or Walden James Oliuer.<br />
Colonel Cartwright becoming fit for travell, on the 8th of June we began our journey to the Eastward parts: At Salem, Ipswich, Newberry, & Hampton we found kind entertainment: ffrom Hampton we went (accompanied by severall persons) to see the place where the bound howse once stood, a person living close by, shewed us the very place where it stood, & when the howse fell, he placed a barrell of a gun in the place where it stood, which hee shewed us standing, as the bounds of Massachusets eastwards: Between this place & the Province of Mayn are the townes of Hampton, Exerter, Dover, & Portsmouth, the three last lye in Pascaraquay river: In all those places we acted nothing; but passed over the river into the Province of Mayn, & first summoned the inhabitants of Kittery to appeare at Major Shapleys howse, to heare his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Commission read: They generally all peticoned, that they might be taken under his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> immedia<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> go<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>vm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>. not being willing any longer to remaine under the Massachusets, and as unwilling to be subject to Mr. Gorges: with what expedicon we could we went unto all the townes within the Province of Mayne & found the Inhabitants generally desiring, & peticoning for the same favour, as will appeare by a generall peticon now sent to his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> by Colonel Cartwright: To satisfie them for the present, till the Kings pleasure were further knowne, we freed them from being under either of the aforesaid Governments & appointed certaine Justices of the peace to order the affaires of that Province.<br />
Yesterday in the towne of Wells they kept the first Court, to the great joy of the people, who had been long in a confusion; S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Robert Carr & myself were present. Not withstanding those of Massachusets knew what we had don, yet on the 4th of July they sent two of magistrats, & other officers, to keepe Court at York: but finding the people would not submit to them & unexpectedly finding S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Robert Carr, and myself there, & the foot company in armes, they forthwith returned.<br />
When we were at Casco in this Province, the Sagamore of Wesapaguaqueg* & of severall other places, came & surrendered his Country (under the hand & scale of himselfe, & other great men) to his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> humbly craveing his protection of them; It is a far better country then Narraganset, Colonel Cartwright hath the deede in his keeping.<br />
The whole province of Mayn is claimed by severall persons who had distinct Patents from the Councell of Plymouth for it, all subscribed by S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> fferdinando Gorges, as he was one of that Councell, & done long before he got the Patent for the Province: And as I have said before the Inhabitants, humbly desire they may be free from that government, and truly My Lord, neither that, nor the Massachusets will ever flourish, nor will the major part of the people be satisfied, untill they be fixed under his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> immediat government. If all the ffreeholders may have liberty to assemble they will vote that the patents may be delivered up to his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> & it will be carryed by ten to one.<br />
On the 9th of Julie, we received his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> letter of the 28th of January, & forth with in prosecucon of what was commanded, we sent warrants to the foure townes on Pascaraquay river, ordering the inhabitants to meet us on severall dayes at their usuall places of meeting to heare his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> letter read, & to consult with them about fortifying that river. On the 13th of Julie being the day of meeting at Portsmouth, the Governor & Councell of the Massachusets, by two of their Marshalls sent a prohibition to the people, & a letter to us, which put a stop to our indeavours, for the present.<br />
Indeed, if it may please your Lords<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> it is very necessary that, that river should be secured: the harber is very good, & spacious, there is usually loaden thence above twenty ships yearly: at this time there are 7, or 8 ships lading, one of which is laden for the most with masts, & the best that ever went hence. It is very great pitty to see how naked, & open they lye, even a booty, to any small Pickaroone. Colonel Cartwright can give you an exact accoumpt of this, as of any other things you shall desire informacon in, especially what gunnes, ammunition &c. may be needfull, & are not here to be had, not only for securing this river, but Road Island, & other places also, who haue yet no kind of defence.<br />
My Lord, if it had not been for the stubborness (if not rebelliousness) of the Massachusets, his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> might by this time have had a better accoumpt of affaires here, then now he can. The far greater part of the people feare they shall still remain in bondage to their old masters the governour and Councell of the Massachusetts; Those in Hampshire are not yet freed from them, although much desired by them. Those in the Province of Mayn (although freed for the present) yet fear they may be returned again under either the Massachusets or M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Gorges government, & then look on themselves & posteritys as miserable.<br />
Good my Lord, I beseech you hasten what you may the setlement of these poore people, I am much affriad, there may be, else, bloudshed. I assure your Lords<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> we have used our indeavours according to our skill & have not forborn to travell in extreamities of cold, & heat any where, where we might have hopes to do his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> service your Lords<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> hath formerly been pleased to intimat that their was a suply for us, either sent, or to be sent, of which we yet heare nothing, I beseech you to consider, that our expence is great, far more, when we are travelling, then when we are in Boston in our quarters, & it can not be avoided with honour. And I hope your Lordship will not forget to procure something from his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> towards the expence, & trouble I was at in England in following this New England business, I shall desire M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Breedon to waite on your Lords<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> about it.<br />
Your Lordship knows I informed nothing but what was true, and as I said there, all things have come to pass hitherto here, I did prognostik the rebellion of the Massachusets governour, & councell; & now they have made good what I said. I am the man they looke on to be their cheife enemy, & on that accoumpt make no conscience of abusing me: yet I praise God for it, they have nothing justly to say against me. and may I but retein your Lordships favour, I care not for what they can say or doe, which favour I humbly beg, & shall endeavo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> in any thing I may in some measure to deserve. And shall much rejoyce, if while I live, I be any wayes serviceable to his Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> his Highness or your Lordship, & shall ever remaine</div><center>your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>pps</sup></span> Most humble Servant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>July 24<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> 1665.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;">[*"In this province also an Indian Sachem, who lives neare to the great lake, from whence flows Merimack River, petitioned his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ty</sup></span> to take him under his protection, which is also lost." <i>Commissioners' Account of the Province of Maine</i>, in Folsom's <i>catalogue, &<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>c</sup></span></i> p. 67.]</span><br />
<br />
<center>XXX. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IG<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>T</sup></span></span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONOR<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> good Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> please once more to giue me leaue to begg in behalfe of those who haue so long beene sufferers vnder the Mesachusetts Gouer<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> and yett finde no releife. On ou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> arivall they had great hopes of it, but seeing nothing donn, they feare they shall be in a worse condition then formerly, And if his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> doe not take some spedey course, those who haue declared them slues against them will be vndon, the case of the loyall ptie heare, being all one as it was not long since in England, although they are two for one at least, yett they are so ouer awed that they cannot helpe them selues, And if his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> should yet longer suffer these people to goe on in theire way, hauing so much declared them selues, against his authoritie ouer them, those w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> are well affected will neuer dare heareafter to declare them selues. besides all those ill consequences w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> must necessarily follow the loyall pte being daylie threatned, and this day the extraordinary generall Court setting it is rumored abroade, that we shall be commited and that they will send fourth forces in to the Prouince of Mayne to subdue those who latly renownced them, and so freely submitted to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> Good my Lord pardon my bouldnes the groanes, and continewall complainte of these poor people constraine me to it. I shall endeauou to keep vp theire spirite what I may, in hope of a speedy releife.<br />
We supposed the supply we haue heard of had come by one Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Carteret, but he hath beene long in Virginia and may haue come thence / and we hear nothing of any such thinge / ou<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> expences must necessarily be great / and w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> we haue receiued heare hath beene to a full quarter pte losse, And for credit we must expect none heare, vpon the acc<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>o</sup></span> we are on Coll Cartwright and my selfe haue not had one farthing worth of all the plunder taken at Delawar it was worth they say about Ten thousan<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> pound, but how squandred away or to whome giuen w know not, a runagat seruant of his confessed he had 400<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ll</sup></span> I mean S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Rob<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Carr, he heares he is not to haue the gouerm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of Delawarr and therefore now moues the Inhabitants of the prouince of Mayne to petition that he may be Gouerno<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> ouer them / he indeavours to be very popular / and accepts of Courtesies fron such as are not of the roghtest. I shall trouble you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> no more at p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent but subscrib my selfe.</div><center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humble seruant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>Boston, Aug<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> 11<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> 65.<br />
<br />
<center>XXXI. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGHT</span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONO<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>BLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> By Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Hide an account was given by us of our proceedings to that day, which was Novembr: 24<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> last, which came safe to hand, as your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> was pleased to writ to me. By Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Harrison May 30<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span>: we gave a full relation of what had past to that day; but not hearing whether that ship ever arrived, I herewith send you a copy of that letter, which I sent by him: but the particulars of the transactions w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> the Gen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>all</sup></span> Court of the Massachusets, was sent to New-York: one copy also was sent by Colonel Cartwright, besides that formerly by Harrison. The Court promissed to print it but since refused to do it.<br />
What business was done in the Eastern parts, from 8th of June, to the last of July Your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> may be pleased to see in the copy of the letter sent to M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Secretary Bennett, the originall of which was sent by Colonel Cartwright.<br />
On the third of August a gen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>all</sup></span> Court extraordinary, began at Boston to consider (as many supposed) how to mannage theire opposition: And being informed, that they had commissionated Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Gen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>all</sup></span> Leverat, Maj<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lushar; & Danforth, three of their Champions, to go into Hampshire, & the Province of Mayne to call the inhabitants to an account, for their submitting to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> and peticoñing to him, that they might be freed from them S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Robert Carr went shortly after thither, expecting their coming. I remained here, to watch their motions; at last about the 4th of October, they set forth, & coming to the hither side of Pascataquay river, it was expected they would have gone over the river into the Province of Mayn; but receiving a letter from S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Robert Carr (then being on the other side) they forbore, onely went to Dover, where they had ordered a Court to be kept that day; & demanding a reason from the inhabitants, why they had peticoñed to be freed from under their governm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span>, and receiving an answer (to be supposed) not according to expectation; within two howers came away for Boston.<br />
On the news of Colonel Cartwright's being taken (as 'tis by most imagined he is) the Gen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>all</sup></span> then sitting, ordered a gen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>all</sup></span> day of Thanksgiving, to be kept, in all their Jurisdiction; some frivioulous reasons they give for it; but the main is, that God hath yet been pleased to lengthen out the injoym<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of their liberties.<br />
Last night M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Delavall came from New York hither, haveing been, but 50 howers coming. all are well there: There wants nothing but a supply of money, or goods; which Colonel Nicolls & we all desire, may be sent, if not allready done; for without it the Garrisons cannot be maintained, nor we live, as (for his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> hono<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>) we ought to doe. We carry it on as well as we can, desiring, not to let the people know that we are any way straightned; which to know, would cause some to rejoyce, & insult.<br />
I shall trouble your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> no further at present humbly desiring your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> to be pleased to be referred to M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Secretary Bennet for further information, of what iherea is wanting; for to him by this conveighance we send copy of a Letter sent him by Colonel Cartwright. A copy of the Massachusets declaration; A Copy of J. Porters peticōn, & the protection we gave him, which they so much are troubled at; A copy also of the prohibition they sent to the Constable of Portsmouth, & of theire letter to us, & our answer to them.<br />
These we send fearing the former may be lost. By all opportunities I shall acquaint your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> with all materiall passages here; Humbly craveing the continution of your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> wonted favours towards me; and I shall ever remaine</div><center>Your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humble serv<span style="font-size:65%;">:</span></center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div>Boston Novembr: 7. 1665.<br />
<br />
<center>XL. <br />
<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO</span> G<span style="font-size:85%;">EORGE</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">ARTWRIGHT.</span></center><br />
E<span style="font-size:85%;">VER HONO<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>RD</sup></span> S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>R</sup></span></span><br />
Captain Peirse ariveing Aug<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> 7<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> I rec<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> from him a packet, wherein was enclosed his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> significacōn of his pleasure concerning the Massachusets, & his confirmacōn of what we had done as to the Province of Main, his order for y<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>e</sup></span> release of some prisoners if any such were on account of petitioning to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> or us his Comissioners; and also a confirmacōn of the temporary bounds, set betweene Plymouth, & Rhode Island till his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> pleasure was further knowne. In it the King commands the Councell to send four or five persons forthwith into England, ordering M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Bellingham, & Major Hawthorn to be two of them. I gave the Governor notice that I had such a significacōn, to deliver when his Councell was assembled, & notice given of it. It was nere five weekes after (notwithstanding all I could speake, or write to presse it) ere I could have opportunitie to deliver it, according to S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> William Morrice his order, which was to the Governor, & Councell assembled. On Sept. 5<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> both the Generall court, & court of Assistants sitting I deliverd it, and had it read, with much adoe. The Generall court after six dayes spent about Anabaptists, Quakers, & I know not what, tooke the significacōn into consideration; and it was voted that noe person should be sent, notwithstanding his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> expresse command; on which or a little before the considerablest in Boston, & other townes peticōned, that complyance with, & humble submission might be made to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> by them who were the representative of the Country; if not, they let them know they would peticōn his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> to distinguish between the innocent, and the nocent, as by the peticōn a copy of which Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Breedon will send you with this, yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> will see. There was an order presently made to summon into the next court eight of the peticōners, most of them you know. M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Dean, Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Savage, M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Bratle, M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Glover of Boston. M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Batter of Salem. Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Pike of Salisbury. What they will say to them I know not, & I am sure they care not. Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Hubband of Hingham should have bin amongst them, having with nere all the inhabitants of that towne, subscribed the peticōn; but their unworthy deputy delivered it not. Many were very hot for degradeing these Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ts</sup></span> presently; Major Dennison, & M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Broadstreet, and Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Pincheon, as I heare, entred their dissent, amongst the Magistrates. M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Browne, & Curwin, Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Davis, with severall others of the deputies, likewise dissented; and had their dissent entred. They now begin to thinke & feare that, the major part of the people will not stand by them. And (as I have ever thought, & said) not ten will stand by them: Yet some of them seeme to be resolved to beare it out to the last. One sayes, If they must be ruined, it were better to be torne in pieces by a Lyon, than gnaw'd in peeces by ratts. An other says they are resolved, not to be trampled on by any. Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Breedon (I suppose) will informe of this more at Large.<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> The 600<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>£</sup></span> worth of goods sent by M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Bendall, I rec<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>d</sup></span> at Boston, and about ten dayes since, they were divided. Colonell Nicolls his part is, by his order, put on board the sloape I lookd for here for my transportation to York, if shee come not in, I will away by land within two dayes, although (you know) it is a long journey. Wee humbly thank my Lord Chancellor for his ordering the aforesaid summe for us: and you for your care, & paines about it. The goods are not yet disposed off, only divided. Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Breedon, M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Deane, and M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lynde are desired to see how the Draper dealt as to the goodnesse, & price; (having looked superficially over them) they suppose there is 25: per Cen<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> charged above what they had them charged for ready money, As to the goodness it is not yet seene. I mean when I came from Boston.<br />
S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Robert Carr gott in his travills to Delaware, & Maryland a Feavo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>, & Ague, & I do not heare that he is yet recovered.<br />
I only write these lines to you, fearing the fleet may be gone before my returne. And with this Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Breedon will send you as many copies of papers, as can be procured, Within a few days I have bin at Yorke you shall have a better account, if this come to you before. I am now at M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Brentons who thanks you for your letter, & will write to you in answer. All your friends here, & elce where are well, & remember themselves to you, & desire the injoyment of your company. I do not meane as those of the Massachusets; With my best respects presented to you, & thanks for all favours remaine</div><center>Your very affectionat friend</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div> Major Phillips of Saco being here present desired me to present his service to you.<br />
To the Hono<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Colonell George<br />
Cartwright Esq<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> at M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lavand-<br />
ars a Cook at the Talbot in the<br />
Strand these present.<br />
<br />
<center>LII. <br />
<br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">OBERT</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">ARR AND</span> S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUEL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICK TO THE</span> E<span style="font-size:85%;">ARL OF</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">LARENDON.</span></center><br />
R<span style="font-size:85%;">IGHT</span> H<span style="font-size:85%;">ONOR<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ABLE</sup></span></span><br />
<div align="justify"> May it please your Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> In octob<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> last were two letters writen to yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span>, and in my absence att New Yorke, were by Captaine Breedon committed to the care and trust of M<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Bendall and Cap<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> Clarke, In this fleete are sent two pacquetts, the outward Couert is directed to S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Will: Couentry, in those are letters to his royall highnes, you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> and S<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Will: Morice, In all w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> an account is giuen, how al thinges stand heare att this tyme. One Samuell Wheate will repaire to yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>p</sup></span> and present to yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span>, the coppie of a letter we wrote to the Goue<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> and counsell of the Messachusette, exhorting them to obedience and theire answer to it. by w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> it is euident, they intend to stand out as long as they can. In the letters before mentioned were sent Copies of Petitions deliuered to the last Court subscribed by many considerable p[s]ons of seuerall townes desiring they would obay his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Commaunde. And how the petitioners were delt w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> by that Court for their p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sumption.<br />
Good my Lord we most humb[l]y desire yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> would be pleased to procure some speedy order may be taken for the quelling of the rebellious, and incouragm<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> of the loyall and well affected partie, for if they be suffered to goe on in rebellion it will be an ill and daungerous p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sident to the other Collonyes, Two yeares since we p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sumed to shew o<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> opinion, how this might be donn w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> the least charge and trouble, and w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> most securitie to the Innocent.<br />
At first by sendinge for some of the most eminent offenders was this yeare doune but takes no effect.<br />
next seisinge on their estate where euer found, and prohibitinge them all trade w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> any of his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Collonyes or in any other ptes, w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> the subiecte of any prince in league w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span>, vnless they can p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>duce a certificate vnder the hand and seale of such as his Maies<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> shall appoynt for that purpose, that they belong to such or such a Collony w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> are in obedience to his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span>, or to such or such a pson in the Messachusets, who haue declared them selues, and are certainely knowne to be loyall subiecte. seuer[a]ll shipes w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> went in the last fleete & now in this also, belong in whole or pte to disaffected psons, and goods to a great vallew.<br />
another way may be the keeping of a small frigott or two who may intercept all trade & comerce w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>th</sup></span> Boston or any other port belonging to the Messachusette. w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> will soone bring them downe. We humbly leave it to consideration. My Lord if some speedy course be not taken, those w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> haue submitted, or declared for his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>tie</sup></span> by petitioninge or otherwise will be in a miserable condition. Yf we may be any wayes seruisable, we are at his Ma<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ties</sup></span> Comaund. So craving you<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lord<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> pardon for giuinge yo<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>u</sup></span> this trouble we remayne.</div><center>Your Lordship<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>s</sup></span> Most humble seruants</center><div align="right">R<span style="font-size:85%;">OBERT</span> C<span style="font-size:85%;">ARR</span> </div><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE.</span> </div> Boston Janu: 10. 166<sup><span style="font-size:65%;">6</span></sup>⁄<sub><span style="font-size:65%;">7</span></sub>.<br />
<br />
<div align="justify"> My Lord I intended to haue come in this fleete and had all thinges ready abord. but the shippes being 20 dayes since driven ashore and and (sic) not able in 15 dayes to gett of,/ in the meane tyme I was seased on by a fitt of sicknes w<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ch</sup></span> hath so weakned me, as that by aduise of P[h]isitian and freinds, I am aduised not to aduenture. Pardon I beseech you these scribled lyenes in haste. I Remayne</div><center>You<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> Lords<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ps</sup></span> most humb<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>l</sup></span> servant</center><div align="right">S<span style="font-size:85%;">AMUELL</span> M<span style="font-size:85%;">AVERICKE</span> </div>To the righ<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>t</sup></span> honora<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>ble</sup></span> Edward Earle<br />
of Clarendon Lord high Chan-<br />
cello<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span> of England these humbly<br />
p<span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>r</sup></span>sent.<br />
<br />
<i>Collections of the New-York Historical Society for the Year 1869</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0