Blaxton the Real Founder of Boston

Church of England Services Held Here Years Before the Puritans Came

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."

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.

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."

Influenced by Capt John Smith

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.

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.

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."

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.

Maverick Hospitality

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.

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.

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.

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.

Weather Records Lost

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are numerous illustrations, admirable pen and ink sketches by Mrs Charles K. Bolton, several of them from rare antique originals.

Daily Boston Globe, Oct 27, 1929, p. A47

Who Were the Real Founders of Boston?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I pass these suggestions over for further investigation by your society, in memoriam majorum.

Hon. Nathan Matthews, The Boston Globe, March 22, 1908, p. 41

The Real Founders of New England

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:

"This Governo^r 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. . . .

"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^le 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^S 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^r 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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Charles Knowles Bolton, 1929