USA > Connecticut > New London County > New London > History of New London, Connecticut, From the First Survey of the Coast in 1612 to 1852 > Part 21
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64
This ceremony thus publicly performed, John Rogers, Jr., supposes "every unprejudiced person will judge as authentic as any marriage that was ever made in Connecticut colony." The authorities did not look upon it in this light. Rogers herein set at defiance the common law, which in matters of civil concernment, his own principles bound him to obey.
A story has been currently reported that this self-married couple presented themselves also before Mr. Saltonstall, the minister, and that he wittily contrived to make the marriage legal, against their will. Assuming an air of doubt and surprise, he says, Do you really,
.
217
HISTORY NEW LONDON.
John, take this your servant-maid, bought with your money, for your wife? Do you, Mary, take this man so much older than yourself for your husband ? and receiving from both an affirmative answer, he exclaimed : Then I pronounce you, according to the laws of this colony, man and wife. Upon this Rogers, after a pause, shook his head, and observed, Ah, Gurdon ! thou art a cunning creature.
This anecdote, or something like it, may be true of some other Rogerene marriage, but not of this, for then no doubt would have arisen respecting the validity of the union.
The connection was an unhappy one ; violent family quarrels en- sued, between the reputed wife, and John Rogers the younger and his family, in the course of which the law was several times invoked to preserve peace, and the elder Rogers himself was forced to apply to the court for assistance in quelling these domestic broils.
The complaint of John Rogers against his son, and "the woman which the court calls Mary Ransford, which I have taken for my wife, seeing my lawful wife is kept from me by this government," is extant in his own handwriting, dated 27th of 4th month, 1700.
In 1703, on the presentment of the grand-jury, the county court summoned Mary Ransford, the reputed wife of John Rogers, before them, declared her marriage invalid, sentenced her to pay a fine of 40s. or receive ten stripes, and prohibited her return to Rogers under still heavier penalties. Upon this she came round to the side of the court, acknowledged her marriage illegal, cast off the protection and authority of Rogers, and refused to regard him as her husband.
Soon after this she escaped from confinement and fled to Block Island, leaving her two children with their father. Rogers appears to have renounced her as heartily and as publicly as she did him ; so that actually they both married and unmarried themselves. They had never afterward any connection with each other.
About this time Rogers made a rash and almost insane attempt to regain his divorced wife, then united to Matthew Beckwith. A writ was issued against him in January, 1702-3, on complaint of Beck- with, charging him with laying hands on her, declaring she was his wife, and threatening Beckwith that he would have her in spite of him-all which Rogers confessed to be true, but defended, on the plea that she was really his wife.
" In County Court, June, 1703 .- Matthew Beckwith Sent appeared in court and swore his Majesty's peace against John Rogers, for that he was in fear of his life from him."1
1 County Court Records.
19
218
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
In 1710, Mary Ransford was married to Robert Jones, of Block Island ; and in 1714, Rogers married the widow Sarah Coles, of Oyster Bay, L. I., the ceremony being performed within the jurisdic- tion of Rhode Island, by a magistrate of that colony.1 With this con- nection there was never any interference.
The troubles of Rogers did not cease with old age. His sea was never smooth. His bold, aggressive spirit knew not how to keep the peace. In 1711, he was fined and imprisoned for misdemeanor in court, contempt of its authority, and vituperation of the judges. He himself states that his offense consisted in charging the court with injustice for trying a case of life and death without a jury. This was in the case of one John Jackson, for whom Rogers took up the battle- ax. Instead of retracting his words, he defends them and reiterates the charge. Refusing to give bonds for his good behavior until the next term of court, he was imprisoned in New London jail. This was in the winter season, and he thus describes his condition :
" My son was wont in cold nights to come to the grates of the window to see how I did, and contrived privately to help me to some fire, &c. But he coming in a very cold night called to me and perceiving that I was not in my right senses, was in a fright, and ran along the street, crying, ' The authority hath killed my father,' and cryed at the Sheriff's, ' You have killed my father'-upon which the town was raised and forthwith the prison doors were opened and fire brought in and hot stones wrapt in cloth laid at my feet and about me, and the minister Adams sent me a bottle of spirits and his wife a cordial, whose kind- ness I must acknowledge.
" But when those of you in authority saw that I recovered, you had up my son and fined him for making a riot in the night, and took for the fine and charge, three of the best cows I had."
His confinement continued until the time was out for which the bond was demanded. He was then released, but the very next day he was arrested on the following warrant:
" By special order of his Majesty's Superior Court, now holden in New Lon- don, you are hereby required in her Majesty's name, to take John Rogers, Senior, of New London, who to the view of said Court appears to be under an high de- gree of distraction, and him secure in her Majesty's Gaol for the County afore- said, in some dark room or apartment thereof, that proper means may be used for his cure, and till he be recovered from his madness and you receive order for his release. Signed by order of said Court, March 26, 1712.
" Test, JOHN PRENTIS, Sheriff."
" JONATHAN LAW, Clerk.
1 Narrative of John Rogers, Jr.
219
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
This order was immediately executed. Rogers was removed to an inner prison and all light excluded. But the town was soon in an uproar ; the populace interfered and tore away the plank that had been nailed over the window. Some English officers then in town also made application to the authorities to mitigate his treatment, and he was carried to the sheriff's house and there kept. Two days afterward, he received, he said, a private warning that it was deter- mined to convey him to Hartford, shave his head, and deliver him over to a French doctor to be medically treated for insanity. Where- upon by the aid of his son and the neighbors, he escaped in the night, and was rowed in a boat over to Long Island. Thither he was fol- lowed by the constable, and pursued by the "hue and cry," from town to town, as he traveled with all possible secrecy and dispatch to New York, where at length arriving safely, he hastened to the fort, and threw himself upon the protection of Governor Hunter, by whom he was kindly received and sheltered. Here he remained three months, and then returned home, where probably he would not have been molested, if he had remained quiet. But no sooner was he recruited, than he returned to the very position he had taken with so much hazard before his imprisonment, resuming the prosecution of the judges of the inferior court before the General Court, for judging upon life and death without a jury in the aforesaid case of John Jackson. He was nonsuited, had all the charges to pay, and another heavy fine.
The next outbreak, and the last during the life of the elder Rogers, is thus related by the son :
" John Rogers and divers of his Society having as good a right to New Lon- don meeting-house as any of the inhabitants of the town, it being built by a public rate, every one paying their proportion according to their estate,' did propose to hold his meetings there at noon time, between the Presbyterian meet- ings, so as not to disturb them in either of their meetings. And accordingly, we came to the meeting-house and finding their meeting was not finished, we stood without the door till they had ended and were come out ; and then John Rogers told the people that our coming was to hold our meeting, between their meetings, and that we had no design to make any disturbance, but would break up our meeting as soon as they were ready for their afternoon meeting. Whereupon several of the neighbors manifested their freedom in the matter ; yet the Constable came in the time of our meeting with an order to break it
1 " The building of the meeting-house cost me three of the best fat cattle I had that year, and as many shoes as was sold for thirty shillings in silver money."-John Rogers, Sen.
220
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
up, and with his attendants violently laid hands on several of us, hauling men and women out of the meeting, like as Saul did in his unconverted statc, and for no other crime than what I have herc truly related.
" John Rogers was had to Court and charged with a riot, &c. If myself had been the Judge, as I was not, I should have thought the constable to have been guilty of the riot, and not John Rogers. However, he was fined 10s., for which the officer first took ten sheep, and then complained they were not sufficient to answer the fine and charges, whereupon he came a second time and took a milch-cow out of the pasture, and so we heard no more about it, by which I suppose the cow and ten sheep satisfied the fine and charges. This was the last fine that was laid on him, for he soon after died."
Joseph Backus, Esq., of Norwich, writing in the year 1726, gives this account of the death of the Rogerene leader :
" John Rogers pretended that he was proof against all infection of body as well as of mind, which the wicked only (he said) were susceptible of, and to put the matter upon trial, daringly ventured into Boston in the time of the Small Pox; but received the infection and dyed of it, with several of his family taking it from him."
In answer to this statement, John Rogers the second observes :
" It is well known that it had been his practice for more than forty years past, to visit all sick persons as often as he had opportunity, and particularly those who had the Small Pox; when in the height of their distemper he has sat on their bed-side several hours at a time, discoursing of the things of God ; so that his going to Boston the last time, was no other than his constant practice had been ever since he made a profession of religion.
" Now let every unprejudiced reader take notice how little cause J. Backus has to reflect John Rogers's manner of death upon him who lived to the age of seventy-three years, and then died, in his own house, and on his own bed, hav- ing his reason continued to the last and manifesting his peace with God, and perfect assurance of a better life."
" Oct. 17, 1721 died John Rogers Sen.
" Nov. 6, 66 John Rogers 3rd, aged 21 years and 6 days.
" Nov. 13, " Bathsheba, wife of John Rogers 2nd. " All of small pox."1
Rogers was buried directly upon the bank of the Thames, within the bounds of his Mamacock farm. Here he had set aside a place of family sepulture, which his son John, in 1751, secured to his de- scendants by deed for a burial place. It is still occasionally used for that purpose, and it is supposed that in all, sixty or eighty interment s have here been made : but the wearing away of the bank is gradually intruding upon them. As the Rogerenes do not approve of monu-
1 Town Record of New London.
221
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
ments to the memory of the dead, only two or three inscribed stones mark the spot.
Rogers was a prolific writer. In the introduction to his " Midnight Cry," he observes : " This is the sixth book printed for me in single volumes." He argued upon theological subjects with considerable skill and perspicuity. The inventory of his estate was £410. Among the articles enumerated are :
Several chests and packages of his own books.
Seven Bibles : Powel's and Clarke's Concordances.
19*
CHAPTER XV.
HISTORY OF THE LIVEEN LEGACY-VARIOUS APPEALS TO ENG- LAND.
JOHN LIVEEN, a considerable merchant of New London, died October 19th, 1689. He was of English birth, but carried when young to Barbadoes, and knew not that he had father, or mother, or any kindred upon earth. Before emigrating to New London, he had married Alice Hallam, the widow of a Barbadoes trader, who had an estate of about £200, which with the business accommodations of her former husband, passed into the hands of Liveen. She had two sons, John and Nicholas, who when the family came to New London, in 1676, were about twelve and fifteen years of age-John being the oldest. By the will of Mr. Liveen, executed the day of his death, the bulk of his estate, after subtracting some trifling legacies, was be- queathed "to the ministry of New London"-his wife, however, to have the use of one-third of it during her life.
It had been expected that her sons, for whom he had always man- ifested a becoming affection, would be his heirs, but they were cut off with insignificant legacies. What rendered the will still more extraordinary, was the fact, that Mr. Liveen was, in religion, what was then called an Anabaptist, and had never been known to at- tend any religious meeting in the town, during the twelve years of his inhabitancy. His business sometimes led him to Boston, and when there, he went to hear Mr. Milburne preach, at the Anabaptist house of worship, and this was his only attendance at meeting in America. He had scruples about taking an oath, and when chosen to the office of constable, would not be sworn in the customary way,
223
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
but pledged himself to perform the duty on penalty of perjury. The will was written by Daniel Taylor, of Saybrook, then living with Liveen ; the executors appointed were General Fitz-John Winthrop, and Major Edward Palmes. It was proved at a special court in New London, at which Governor Treat presided ; but the authority of this court was challenged-Sir Edmund Andross having at that time annulled the charter government of the colony, and declared no testaments valid, that were not carried to Boston for probate. The will was therefore kept back, until Connecticut, in 1690, resumed her former government. It was then demanded by the county court for probate. But the colony having restored her ancient system with- out waiting for instructions from the crown, Major Palmes, who had borne office under Andross, refused to acknowledge the legality of the court, or to produce the will ; and General Winthrop, the other executor, was absent with the army, on the northern frontier.
In October, 1690, Mrs. Liveen, in her own name, and the town by its deputies, petitioned the General Court to devise measures for the speedy probate of the will and the settlement of the estate. The widow stated that Major Palmes kept the will, and a ship was then ready for sea, by which "he intended to send to his own country," for orders respecting it. It will be observed that this petition of Mrs. Liveen, implies that she considered the will valid and acqui- esced in its provisions.
The affair was again referred to the county court. Before that body, the town brought an action against the executors for not deliv- ering that portion of the estate bequeathed to the ministry. Major Palmes being cited to appear, sent a written refusal, denying the au- thority of the court as not derived from the crown, and accusing them of arbitrary and star-chamber measures, to which he said freeborn subjects could not submit.
The court, however, proceeded to settle the estate upon a recorded copy of the will. The amount of the personal property devised, was estimated at something more than £2,000, but this amount could not be realized. A provision of the will prohibited the sueing of debtors at law, so that the outstanding debts, amounting to some hundreds of pounds, could not be collected, the ground being taken that the testa- tor intended to make his debtors, legatees.
Among the assets, was a vessel called the Liveen, burden one'hun- dred tons, which was sold to John' Hallam and Alexander Pygan, for £600-Nicholas Hallam being one of the witnesses to the bill of
224
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
sale. This act was virtually an acceptance on the part of the sons of Mrs. Liveen, of the will.
Here the case rested, the estate remaining in the hands of the ex- ecutors, and the town receiving an annual dividend, until the death of Mrs. Liveen, in 1698. By her will she bequeathed the whole es- tate, which had been kept in a measure integral, to her sons. This will was utterly inconsistent with that of her husband, and therefore the Hallams, before it was exhibited for probate, that is, in October, 1698, applied to the Court of Assistants for liberty to contest the Li- veen will, which was refused them. The young men protested, and a special court was appointed to try the case. This court sat in New London, Nov., 1698, and again in 1699. Many witnesses were examined, and great labor expended.
The ground taken by the contestors was, first, the vagueness of the terms used in the will. What does he mean by the ministry ; he names no person, no sect, no community ; the word ministry is in- definite and has no construction in law. Again, if the bequest be good to any community, it must be to the ministry appointed and al- lowed by the laws of England.
On the other hand it was argued that the terms ministers and min- istry, in the laws of the colony, and in common speech, had a partic- ular application to persons exercising the sacred office, under the authority of the government of the colony. Neither could the terms in the will apply to a ministry that had no existence in the town. Moreover, Mr. Liveen knew well what was understood by those terms, and in 1688, had voluntarily subscribed to a fund for the support of the minister of New London, Mr. Saltonstall.
The second plea advanced by the contestors was, that Mr. Liveen was not in a condition to make a will, and unconscious of what he did when he signed it. Several witnesses testified that he was confused in mind, in great pain, and overpersuaded by Mr. Taylor to sign the writing. But the most remarkable witness on this side was Major Palmes, who was placed in the singular position of defending the will as one of its executors, and testifying against its validity as a witness for the Hallams. He bore witness to the affection of Mr. Liveen for his sons-in-law-to his often expressed intention of leaving his estate to them-and to his entire dissent from the established ministry of the town. He also asserted that Mr. Taylor had previously written the will, but did not produce it to. the view of Mr. Liveen, till the day of his decease, at which time he kept constantly with him, allow- ing no one to speak to him but in his presence.
225
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
On the other side, the testimony was no less ample. Several neighbors, friends and attendants who were all with the sick man, a greater or less part of the day on which he died, testified that his reason, judgment and memory were perfect, till within an hour of his death. He was not then supposed to be near his end ; being able to sit up and to move about with help. He was led to the table to sign the will, and as lie did it, he said, "I write my name John Liveen." He afterward spoke complacently of what he had done for the town, and Major Wait Winthrop coming in, he showed him the will, and desired him to read it, asking him how he liked it. Major Winthrop then said, "Is this your will, Mr. Liveen ?" to which he replied, " It is my last will and testament." Subsequently he observed, " Many will say I am not in my riglit senses, but I am." To Mrs. Pygan he spoke also of what he had done, saying, " I would not have you troubled that my brother is not an executor of the will ; I had a rea- son for it."1
The court decided that the case was not sustained, and the will was valid. The brothers appealed to the Court of Assistants, and the case was carried to Hartford. Here the decision of the lower court was confirmed May 2d, 1700. Upon which the contestors de- manded permission to appeal to the king and queen, (William and Mary,) in council. This they were prohibited from doing, the right of appeal in such cases being denied by the colonial government, and thus a new element of discord was brought into the conflict. The brothers entered their protest and declared their intention of contest- ing the right of the colony to forbid an appeal before the English courts. At this juncture one of the appellants was suddenly removed from the scene. John Hallam died at Stonington, Nov. 20th, 1700.
The labor of prosecuting the question of appeal, and of contesting the will, now devolved solely upon Nicholas Hallam, whose determi- nation increased with every difficulty, and rendered him superior to emergencies. He proceeded to England, to manage his interests in person, and was there detained for nearly two years. The question of appeal came within the scope of authority committed to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations. It was accordingly ar- gued before that body. Sir Henry Ashurst, agent of the colony, en- deavored to prove that Connecticut, by its charter, had a right to
1 According to a custom in those days, Liveen calls Mr. Pygan his brother, because their children were united in marriage: Nicholas Hallam, the step-son of Liveen, had married Sarah Pygan.
226
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
hear, determine, and bring to a final issue, all causes and controver- sies arising within that colony, without any appeal elsewhere. But the lords decided otherwise ; the king approved their decision, and Mr. Hallam was allowed to bring his case before the council. Here, the action seemed to remove the settlement of the business to a still greater distance. An order in council of March 18th, 1701-2, set forth that the examinations had not been taken in due form of law, the witnesses not having been interchangeably examined, and therefore the parties should be sent back to Connecticut to correct the error, and all documents must be transmitted under the broad seal of the colony.
The examinations were now to be renewed from the beginning, and scattered witnesses to be reassembled. Major Palmes withdrew his name from the defense of the will, in which he had never heartily concurred, and Fitz-John Winthrop was left the nominal respondent in the case, though it was regarded as an affair of the colony. A court of probate was held in New London in Jan., 1702-3, in which the witnesses were examined by both parties, and subjected to a te- dious interrogatory detail. The documents were officially sealed and transmitted to her majesty in council: (King William had died while the case was pending, and Anne was now the sovereign of England.) The case was heard in June or July, 1704 ; at first it was confidently expected that Hallam would gain his cause, but the respondents hav- ing exhibited, in council, the original bill of sale of the Liveen, to which the appellant was a witness, it was regarded as an acknowl- edgment on his part of the validity of the will, and the decision of the colonial courts was thereupon approved and confirmed.
The defense of the will cost the colony £60. Mr. Hallam is sup- posed to have expended £300 in contesting it.1 He made several voyages to England on this business, and when there, used his influ- ence against the colonial government, not only in this question of ap- peals, but also in the. Mason controversy, uniting with the Masons and the Indian party who were then carrying their complaints to the throne. Major Palmes was also in England at the same time, with grievances of his own to cast into the scale against the colony. He had become involved in a lawsuit with his brothers-in-law, Fitz- John and Wait-Still Winthrop, respecting the portion of his wife.
1 He estimated the expenses of his last voyage and suit in England at £179 1s. 6d., one-half of which he charged, probably with justice, to the heirs of his brother John. They refused to pay it, and on his return from England he was involved in a lawsuit with them for its recovery.
227
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Judgment being pronounced against him in the colonial courts. he also appealed to the king in council, and proceeded to England to prosecute his case. The council, on examination, found no occasion for reversing the decision already made. It is highly honorable to Connecticut, that the judgments of her courts should have been thus repeatedly confirmed by the highest court of judicature in the British nation.
Major Palmes entered warmly into the Indian controversy, de- nouncing the policy that had been pursued toward the natives, and joining with Mason, Hallam and others, in accusing the colony of having unjustly dispossessed the Mohegans from their lands. Queen Anne appointed a court of commission to issue and determine this case between the colony and the Masons and Mohegans, and Major Palmes was nominated as one of the commissioners. This court sat at Stonington, in 1704.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.