USA > Massachusetts > Plymouth County > Hingham > The settlement of Hingham, Massachusetts > Part 1
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.
REYNCLOS HISTORICAL GENEALOGY COLLECTION
THE SETTLEMENT OF HINGHAM
L
MASSACHUSETTS
BY
LOUIS C. CORNISH
BOSTON THE ROCKWELL & CHURCHILL PRESS 1911
148907
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015
https://archive.org/details/settlementofhing00corn_0
1774698
F 844365 .19
Cornish, Louis Craig,
1870-
The settlement of Hingham, Massachusetts, by Louis C. Cornish. Boston, The Rockwell & Churchill press, 1911.
cover-title, 23 p. plates. 22cm.
RAIZLA CARD
1. Hingham, Mass .- Hist .- Colonial period.
A 506 Library of Congress - Copy 2.
F74.116C8 12-9005
F844365.19
Copies of this pamphlet can be obtained by addressing the Hingham Memorial Committee, Hingham, Massachusetts. Price 35 cents.
"The Settlement of Hingham" will also be printed in "Hingham," a book to be published in July, 1911, by the Old. Colony Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Copies can be obtained by addressing the Regent of the Chapter, Hingham, Massachusetts. Price $1.00.
1.
.
A VIEW OF OLD HINGHAM, NORFOLK, ENGLAND, TAKEN FROM THE TOWER OF ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH.
THE SETTLEMENT OF HINGHAM.
By LOUIS C. CORNISH.
A FEW families are known to have come to the shores of Bare Cove in 1633, and are believed to have been the first settlers. Others came in 1634. The deed to the whole adjacent territory given by the Indians thirty years later fixes this as the year of the foundation. "Certain Englishmen," it tell us, " did come to inhabit in the days of Chickatabut, our father chief sachem, and by free consent of our father did set down upon his land in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred and thirty-four." In 1635 some forty-eight settlers came, and perhaps as many more in the next three years. Their names are given us upon a list, made by Mr. Cushing, the third town clerk, "of such persons as came out of the town of Hingham, and the towns adjacent, in the county of Norfolk, in the king- dom of England into New England and settled in Hingham." " The whole number who came out of Norfolk, chiefly from Hingham and its vicinity, from 1633 to 1639, and settled in Hingham," he tells us further, " was two hundred and six."
Probably somewhat enlarged by additions from other sources, this little company of perhaps two hundred and fifty souls apportioned land in 1635, settled a minister, "gathered a parish," built a meeting-house, erected their settlement into a Plantation, thus gaining representation in the General Court, and named their new home Hingham in love for the old home across the sea.
2
Practical considerations no doubt determined the selection of the site. The bay gave good fishing, and the flats yielded plenty of shellfish. Then as now the low rolling hills stretched pleasantly inland from the harbor's edge. There were sightly and well sheltered building spots. The broad open spaces offered easy tillage and pasture. There was an abundant supply both of wood and of water. The site could be readily defended, and provided a convenient waterway to Boston, already a con- siderable town and well fortified. Not least of the advantages was a safe and sufficient anchorage in the landlocked harbor with the open sea just beyond it. Possibly another considera- tion may have had weight. The distance from Boston insured to the Plantation a considerable independence in the management of its own affairs. Such may well have been the reasons which led to the selection of the shallow bay at the lower end of what is now Boston Harbor for the site of the Plantation of New Hingham.
With this said, there remains the more interesting question what brought these people across the sea? Why did they leave well established homes in the old country to endure the dangers and discomforts of life on the edge of an untrodden wilderness? What tempted them to brave the little traveled and perilous North Atlantic? In short, what were the reasons for the migra- tion? Although it cannot be briefly stated, the answer is plain. To understand it one must journey at least in fancy to far distant places and times, and see the erection of this plantation in the long perspective of history.
Our journey will take us over the sea to England, and from London northward and eastward through the wide level lands of Essex, and Suffolk, and Norfolk. The New Englander will find
3
many names made familiar by long association, witnesses to th influence of this region upon early New England. Here ar Wrentham and Ipswich ; there Stoneham, and Yarmouth, Box ford, Sudbury, and Lynn. Here, too, is the little town Worstead, famed seven centuries ago for its woolen stuffs, name that long since became a household word. The entir region has a character peculiar to itself. From the Thames o the south to the Wash on the north, these counties form a sort promontory, which looks across the troubled Northern Sea t Holland and Belgium, countries which they much resemble The wide marshlands are deserted and again flooded each day b the tide, and the far-famed Norfolk Broads call to mind the fl: surfaces of the neighboring lowlands.
Not in appearance only is this promontory like the lo countries. From them it drew some of its blood, and much its spirit. This easternmost part of England has been called tl hotbed of independency. It was one of the strongholds, if n the very stronghold, of that independent spirit which in the la sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries established constitu tional government in England, and planted it on the edge of tl American wilderness.
Curious testimonies regarding the persistency of Norfolkshi independency are on record. In passing, two may be selecto from many others. The Evangelist Wesley, writing a centur after our period, said of Norwich, " Whatever be the color their religious convictions, they do all dearly love a conflict And a modern writer, tracing this independency through tl later infusions of Flemish and Huguenot blood to the earl Scandinavian settlement, ends sadly, "This spirit has persiste through all changes to the present time, causing Norfolk to I
4
the greatest hotbed of nonconformity to be found to-day within the three seas."
It will be well briefly to trace back this Norfolkshire inde- pendence that we may see how deep buried its roots are in the past. In the very early days there are traces of Scandinavian settle- ment in this region. Later William the Conqueror brought over weavers from Flanders, who settled in Norwich and laid the foundation of the city's prosperity. Later by three centuries Edward the Third invited over Flemish artisans who settled in Norwich and its vicinity. Their number was large, and they intermarried with the people. Later still, wherever these foreigners had settled there developed a stronghold of the Reform- ation, and later yet a center of this independency. Perhaps more potent than the infusion of foreign blood was the persistent influence and example of the foreigners. Through these centuries there was constant intercourse with the low countries, the nursery of European independency, and the foreigners in Norfolk and vicinity enjoyed substantial privileges that were denied to the people. So founded and fostered, this independency was shown in countless ways. To cite only one illustration, about 1360 Wycliffe spread a knowledge of the Bible. In the persecution which twenty years later overtook his followers more persons died at the stake in Norfolk than in all the other counties of England put together. Among the first was William Carman from Hingham. In short this eastern promontory of England was a region possessed from the earliest days of peculiar inheritances and influences. Norfolk was an important part of this region, Norwich was the center of it, and some sixteen miles out of Norwich lay the little town of Hingham.
The facts known to us about the Old Hingham of three cen-
5
turies ago are like bits of a broken mosaic. Judged by them- selves, though not without antiquarian interest, they have no great meaning. Placed in their pattern, however, they take on a large significance and are seen to be part of a great design.
The mosaic into which the facts about Old Hingham should be fitted is no less than the history of England from 1600 to 1650, momentous years which witnessed the rise of modern democracy. The struggle for freedom it is true can be traced far back of this period. Judged broadly it is as old as time. But in this half century certain distinct democratic aspirations after freedom slowly took definite form and were securely established for all English speaking people. For our purposes modern democracy began in the last part of Elizabeth's reign, came more plainly into view in the reigns of James and Charles the First, and was permanently established in the Commonwealth under Cromwell. Emerging about 1600, modern democracy took definite form and grew in strength until it established constitutional government fifty years later. Such is the pattern of history into which the story of Hingham must be fitted to be understood. It was part of a great movement, the result of a vital struggle in human development.
Mighty human issues hung upon this contest. Absolute monarchies were rising on the continent. It was boldly said in James' Parliament, and probably with truth, that England was the only country in Europe where the people were fighting for their rights. The issue was clear-cut. On the one side were the common people, sometimes ignorant and mistaken, but dog- gedly persistent. The parish clergy often were with them, and a few of the bishops. On the other side was the Court, compris- ing the King, the nobles, and the higher clergy. The latter,
£
6
themselves mostly of gentle birth and created by the Crown, naturally were devoted to its interests. The two parties were fundamentally at variance. The Court neither understood nor sympathized with the rising democracy. Its conception of the state was wholly aristocratic, government from above downward. The people, impatient of these practices, were groping toward the modern conception that government rests upon the consent of the governed. The people desired to increase the powers of their Parliament. The Crown desired to govern without the Parlia- ment, or with a Parliament made entirely docile. The people were feeling their way toward constitutional government. The Court was dreaming of absolute monarchy.
This fundamental disagreement must be kept in mind if the contest and its importance are to be understood. Unfortunately the issue is obscured by theological and ecclesiastical quarrels, and by the romantic appeals of the cavaliers and round-heads. To look on this controversy, however, as concerned primarily with churchly or philosophical matters is to profoundly mistake its meaning. Modern democracy, and nothing less, was emerg- ing for its age-long struggle against absolutism and privilege. It is in this broad aspect of the contest that we are all alike interested.
To understand it we must lay aside our preferences for churchly ceremonials and definitions of religion. On these matters we differ. But about the desirability of a truly repre- sentative government, concerning the people's right to govern themselves, upon the principle that we will pay no" taxes except those which we ourselves shall levy, about our freedom to think and act as we please, and to worship God as we deem helpful, on these essential underlying principles of democracy we all agree.
£
£
7
In England there was a mighty difference of opinion about these matters between 1600 and 1650. Men fought for them to the death and to the death men fought against them. It was for these great privileges of freedom that together with others the men of this castern promontory were contending.
While the contest was so broad in its scope that it is diffi- cult to show it in any brief compass, there were two points around which it clearly centered. The Church sought to sup- press all right of private judgment and independent action. The Crown sought to tax the people without their consent. Upon these difficulties the conflicting parties met and met again. It may be profitable for us to look at two fairly typical instances where these differences are shown, and where the part played by the eastern promontory is also revealed.
The first instance shows the temper of the Church in regard to the freedom of the individual. Persecution of independently minded people gradually increased through the century preced- ing our period. We find a number of persons burned in Nor- wich and its vicinity. For example, in 1556 William Carman of Hingham is burned in Norwich for being " an obstinate heritic," and for having in his possession "a Bible, a Testament, and three Psalters in the English tongue." In 1593 the Lords passed a bill making it punishable by death merely " To hold an opinion contrary to the ecclesiastical establishment of the realm." The bill did not become law. Reflecting perhaps upon the diffi- culty of judging unexpressed opinions, the Commons amended it. As passed the law provided that, "Any person writing or saying anything against the Crown in ecclesiastical causes . shall be imprisoned without bail [It should be remembered what the English prisons were at the time],
i
£
£
8
and at the end of three months shall be banished from the kingdom forfeiting all his goods and chattels, and the income of his real estate for life. Persons refusing to leave, or return- ing, shall suffer death as felons." This was for writing or saying anything against the Crown in ecclesiastical matters. Here surely was government from above downward ! That the eastern promontory did not take willingly to this procedure is shown by the comment of Sir Walter Raleigh. He held that there were no less than 20,000 persons in this vicinity to whom the law applied.
The next incident shows the temper of the Crown in the matter of taxation. It will be remembered that on the death of Elizabeth in 1603 James the First came to the throne. He reigned until 1624, when he was succeeded by Charles the First. During these years continual quarrels arose between the King and people over the right of the Crown to levy taxes without the consent of Parliament. For example, King James reproves the Parliament for asking him how the taxes had been expended. The Parliament then records its conviction that this matter is a part of its duty and proper privilege. For answer the King goes to the House of Commons and with his own royal hand tears from the Book of Records the pages on which the resolu- tion is written.
The same struggle is shown in a stronger light some years later. King Charles sends soldiers to arrest the refractory mem- bers of Parliament. A member sees them coming, locks the door in their faces, and holds the speaker in his chair while the Commons passes the famous resolution, declaring that thereafter any man paying taxes levied without the consent of Parliament
ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH, HINGHAM, NORFOLK, ENGLAND, AS SEEN FROM THE RECTORY GROUNDS.
9
shall be considered an enemy to the liberties of England. This member was Sir Miles Hobart, representative from Norfolk.
Arrayed against this absolutism in Court and Church was the people's independence. Widespread throughout all England, perhaps this independent spirit found its largest single expres- sion in southeastern England in the little promontory where our interests are centered.
Curious incidents show how strong was this temper in Nor- folk. In Norwich the citizens occasionally rang the church bells during the sermon time at the cathedral, and even interrupted the sermon with questions. We find Robert Brown, later known as the Father of Congregationalism, much in Norwich, where at last he was imprisoned. As early as 1580, his followers had consid- ered migrating from Norfolkshire either to Scotland or the Island of Gurnsey in order to enjoy freedom of speech. John Robinson, who later led the Pilgrims from Austerfield and Scrooby to Hol- land, and who later yet helped on if he did not initiate their removal to Plymouth, was a settled minister of St. Andrew's Parish in Norwich between 1602 and 1607, where he may have been known to Robert Peck. Cromwell's mother was a Norwich woman, and Cromwell was much in this vicinity. Norfolk was one of the seven shires later associated for his support, and from Norfolk came many of his ironsides.
Through these years the officials in Norfolk had hard work of it. Bishop Harsuet of Norwich, for example, is disliked by the people because he favors the Court, and by the Court for the contrary reason that he favors the people. In 1619 he is singu- larly accused of holding " both papistical and puritanical leanings. Evidently the poor bishop did what he could. In 1624 we find him thanking the bailiffs of Yarmouth, a short distance from
10
Hingham, for closing conventicles. In the same year complaints are lodged against him in Parliament for suppressing sermons and lectures, exacting undue fees, persecuting parishioners who refused to bow to the east, setting up images in the churches, and the like. He answers that these accusations procecd from the independents ("Puritans") whom he has vainly tried to sup- press. As the conflict grew more bitter these difficulties increased.
Much more might be related to show the temper of independ- ency and its expression in Norfolkshire. But this outline will serve as a background. With these facts in mind, let us look at one of the fragments of Hingham history that has survived these three centuries. We learn that in 1605 Robert Peck became minister of St. Andrew's Parish, Hingham, a conspicuous and influential position. The son of a country gentleman, who traced his ancestry back through twenty generations to an ancient York- shire family, he was born in Beccles, Suffolk, a short distance from Hingham, in the year 1580. Beceles had been made con- spicuous by the burning of several heretics there a few years earlier. At the age of sixteen Peck entered Magdalene College, Cambridge University, then the academic center of the democratic movement, receiving his Bachelor's degree in 1599, and his Master's in 1603. It is to be noted that John Robinson was much in Cambridge until 1601, when he resigned his fellowship to take up his work in Norwich. The two men may well have been acquainted at the University. In his twenty-fifth year Peck was inducted into his first and only parish, which he served through many vicissitudes for fifty-three years until his death in 1658.
The contest which we have reviewed was at his doors. In the year of his settlement, 1605, five ministers were expelled from
11
their parishes in the diocese of Norwich, all neighbors of Robert Peck, and undoubtedly known to him. Soon after John Robinson left Norwich for Scrooby. In 1615 Peck was himself reported to Parliament for nonconformity and misdemeanors, in other words for his independency. We are told also that on one occa- sion the citizens of Norwich petitioned Parliament in his behalf .*
Before continuing with the Hingham history it is necessary to recall that in 1625 Charles the First succeeded his father. He early chose as an advisor William Laud, who became Archbishop of Canterbury. With him the struggle to make England con- form was carried to its greatest lengths, and he early turned his attention to this eastern promontory.
Sir Nathaniel Brent had been sent down to hold a metro- politan visitation. We are told that " many ministers appeared without priests' cloaks and some of them suspected for non- conformity, but they carried themselves so warily that nothing could be gathered against them." Robert Peck is believed to have been among this number.
Such a condition of affairs was intolerable to Archbishop Laud, who now transferred Bishop Wren from Hereford to Norwich. This prelate's policy has survived in a single phrase, "Uniformity in doctrine and Uniformity in discipline." He began at once to enforce these uniformities and in the little more than two years of his administration "he caused no less than fifty godly ministers to be excommunicated, suspended, or deprived."
* The writer has not been able to verify the statement, but regards it as probable.
Robert Peek married Anne Lawrence, whose father was "a reverend grave minister, a preacher to those who, fleeing for religion in Q. Marie's days, met together in woods and secret places as they could. He was a gentleman of great estate, and exceeding in liberality to the poor."
£
12
These fifty men would not read the Book of Sports in the churches as they were bidden. The book exhorted the people to play games on Sunday in Continental fashion, and was abhorrent alike to the Sabbath-keeping people and clergy. They persisted in using "conceived " prayers in addition to the liturgy ; that is, they offered prayers of their own composing, an offence strictly forbidden. They further stood at the desks instead of facing the communion table when they read. Their other misdemeanors were of a similar nature. Among those excommunicated was Robert Peck, now a man over fifty years of age.
When Bishop Wren, largely for his doings in Norfolk, was impeached before the Parliament two years later special mention is made of Robert Peck. The Bishop says in his defence : "It appears in the records of this House that Robert Peck had been complained of for misdemeanors, and that in 1616 and 1622 he was convicted for nonconformity." These statements show that through these years Robert Peck had been fighting for the rights of the people and had been brought to the attention of Parliament three times.
The Hingham story has many turnings. We must now look back to the earlier years of Peck's ministry. It may be noted in passing that in 1619 he baptized Samuel Lincoln, the fourth great-grandfather of Abraham Lincoln. Fourteen years carlier, in 1605, he baptized a little baby who was destined to play a notable part in the lives of many Hingham people. This boy was Peter Hobart, a founder and the first minister of New Hingham. Robert Peck baptized him doubly, first into the fellowship of the faith and then into the Christian ministry.
Much might be said of the Hobart family with which Peter
1
13
was connected. The member who held the Speaker of the House in his chair in the incident already cited was a Hobart. Sir Henry Hobart was Attorney General to James the First, and afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. The family was prominent in the region. Their altar tomb with its paneled sides, built in 1507, may still be seen in the nave of Norwich Cathedral. The fact that it survived the later sack- ing of the Cathedral is probably a proof of the standing of the family. Peter's kinship with these distinguished men has not been traced. Some kinship is probable, if not certain, and in temper he was truly related to them.
Peter was sent first to a grammar school, then to a Free School in Lynn, and thence to Magdalene College, Cambridge, where he graduated in 1625, from the same college where Robert Peck had graduated twenty-two years earlier. Next he became a "teacher," delivering lectures and preaching. But because of his independence he had difficulty in securing a parish. Cotton Mather tells us that " his stay in England was attended with much unsettlement." Mather also adds this one mention of his wife: "Yet by the blessing of God on his diligence and by the frugality of his virtuous consort, he lived comfortably." In 1635, together with the others from Old Hingham and its vicinity, he migrated to New England, where he joined his father and a few other settlers who had established themselves about two years earlier on the shore of Bare Cove, now Hingham harbor.
While Hobart had been growing to manhood, the troubles between King and Parliament had deepened. Taxes had been levied without the Parliament's consent and collected by force. Archbishop Laud as we have seen had taken in hand the govern-
14
ment of the churches. And events had been happening at Norwich that were no doubt much discussed in Old Hingham. The Dutch and Flemish people, we remember, had long been established in Norwich and its neighborhood. For many years their independent churches had existed under a special grant of Edward the Third. Despite the royal grant, however, the Archbishop proceeded to close these churches. Rather than submit the Dutch and Flemish people migrated back across the sea to the low countries. Many hundred people, it is said, left Norfolkshire. Perhaps as many as four thousand left the vicinity of Norwich. The exodus resulted in great detriment to the city and to the region, for these men were expert weavers.
In short, a great harrying process was in progress. King James had said that he would harry the independents out of England. By continuing the process Charles hoped to make England an absolute monarchy, and by this same process the Archbishop hoped to establish absolute ecclesiastical authority. He was trying to build that dreaded " Imperium in imperio," the kingdom within the kingdom, which was so feared by our fathers.
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.