USA > Massachusetts > Hampden County > Springfield > Colonial justice in western Massachusetts, 1639-1702; the Pynchon court record, an original judges' diary of the administration of justice in the Springfield courts in the Massachusetts Bay Colony > Part 3
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
To this petition the General Court replied that support for the supposition rested upon misrecital of passages from the March 3, 1635/6 commission for government of those settling upon the Con- necticut; that such commission was not granted with the intent either to dismiss persons from the Bay government or to determine any jurisdictional limits; and that the limitation of the commission to
would fall within the Massachusetts line" had not been declared prior to June 1638 and arose "from a present pang of discon- tent upon a sensure hee then lay under by the Government of Conectacutt." Baldwin, Secession 70.
37 1 Winthrop's Journal, "History of New England," 1630-1649 (ed. J. K. Hos- mer, 1908) 287.
38 1 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll. 12 ff. For Winthrop's letter of August 28, 1638, see Winthrop's Journal 290; 4 Winthrop Pa-
pers 53-54. On Hooker's letter, see also Miller, Thomas Hooker 700-701, and Er- rand Into the Wilderness 39-40. In April, 1640 the Reverend Moxon anxiously sought advice from Winthrop as to the status of Springfield. 4 Winthrop Papers 254.
39 1 Rec. Mass. Bay 320-321. As to deri- vation of the town name see Hubbard, History of New England, 6 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (2nd ser.) 308.
17
WILLIAM PYNCHON
one year showed an intent by the grantor to reserve an interest upon the River and by the grantees to stand to the condition of the license of departure given most of them, that they remain part of the body of the commonwealth. The General Court thereupon granted Wil- liam Pynchon authority to govern the inhabitants of Springfield and to exercise certain judicial powers.40
Relatively little is known concerning William Pynchon's activi- ties once Agawam returned to the Massachusetts Bay fold. As the settlement grew slowly in size, its founder continued to engage ex- tensively in the fur trade, although most statements as to the volume of this trade are based upon the later trade of his son John.41 In 1640 Timothy Cooper was sent to Woronoco to tap the flow of furs from the Mohawks. When Connecticut sought to grant trading rights at this location to Governor Edward Hopkins and William Whitney, Pynchon complained to the Bay authorities who successfully as- serted the jurisdiction of Massachusetts before the Commissioners for the United Colonies in 1644.42 Pynchon may have had some in- terest in the Winthrop graphite workings at Tantiusque for he en- deavored to keep the surrounding Indians friendly and interested in searching for further deposits, as well as supplying provisions.43
There is some indication that during the late 1640's the Connecti- cut Valley beaver trade began to decline. In 1650 the Dutch from New Amsterdam complained to the Commissioners for the United Colonies that Pynchon had ruined the beaver trade by paying too high prices for skins. Johnson, in his Wonder-working Providence of Sion's Savior in New England, published in London in 1654, de-
40 1 Rec. Mass. Bay 321. See also the four heads of a reply to George Fenwick which Governor Dudley was directed to make by the General Court on June 2, 1641. 87 Mass. Archives 251; reprinted in Jones, The Life and Work of Thomas Dudley (1899) 283, note.
41 At the September 1642 General Court Pynchon was appointed to pay according to the order for the beaver trade. A year later he was ordered to pay for his beaver trade from the time of the running of the line. 2 Rec. Mass. Bay 31, 44. The only surviving account book of William Pynch- on, kept by his son, contains entries of what amounted to a "country store" sup- plying the Springfield inhabitants with a variety of manufactured goods, largely in exchange for produce and services. See vol- ume catalogued as William Pynchon rec- ord of accounts with early settlers and In- dians carried forward from previous book around September, 1645 and to a new book
around March, 1650 at the Forbes Library in Northampton, Mass. For the allocation of lands in Springfield c. 1645, see map op- posite p. 84 of Wright, Early Springfield and Longmeadow, Massachusetts, with Special Reference to Benjamin Cooley, Pioneer, constituting C. IV of The Cooley Genealogy (1941) . See also Bailyn, The New England Merchants in the Seven- teenth Century (1955) 53-54.
42 Moloney, Fur Trade in New England 52-53; 9 Rec. Col. New Plymouth 21; 1 Lockwood, Hist. Western Mass. 16; Bagg, "Ruling Spirit and Good Genius of First Settlers of Western Massachusetts-Wil- liam Pynchon," 20 Americana 220-221. See 2 Rec. Mass. Bay 44 for reference to the Warwick patentees' claim to Woronoco.
43 4 Winthrop Papers 495-496. See also Haynes, " 'The Tale of the Tantiusque', An Early Mining Venture in Massachu- setts," 14 Amer, Antiq. Soc. Proc. (ns) 471-497,
1 8
INTRODUCTION
scribed Springfield as "fitly seated for a Bever trade with the Indi- ans, till the Merchants encreased so many, that it became little worth, by reason of their outbuying one another, which hath caused them to live upon husbandry." 44 Closely related to Pynchon's trading activities was his opposition before the Commissioners for the United Colonies to the imposts which Connecticut sought to impose upon the corn and beaver skins of Springfield inhabitants, shipped to sea via the Connecticut River, in order to defray the expense of main- taining a fort at Saybrook. Although Pynchon's view was rejected by the Commissioners, fear of retaliation by Massachusetts Bay ulti- mately brought the Connecticut authorities to heel.45
By virtue of geography and economics Pynchon was in close con- tact with Indian matters. In April 1636, even before the Agawam set- tlement, Pynchon cautioned John Winthrop, Jr., that he take careful information on the killing of two English by the Indians so "that a course of justice may be taken so as may be cleere to all that the course is just." 46 In August 1637 Ludlow, Pynchon, and others brought to Boston the scalps of Sassacus and other Pequot sachems whom the Mohawks had slain when the Pequots, fleeing from the English, had sought refuge with them.47
In July 1648 Pynchon may have averted a dangerous Indian war by refusing a request of several of the magistrates, spurred on by John Eliot, to assist some Indians of Quabaug in apprehending some murderers at Naucotok (Northampton) on the basis that the mur- dered Indians were subjects and the offenders within the colony juris- diction. While self-interest may have dictated the answer, Pynchon, refusing the request, stressed the danger of a war and resorted to le- gal principles in stating that the culprits were not subjects within the Bay jurisdiction. Governor Dudley apparently accepted the views of Pynchon who proposed a safer, if less efficacious, method of bringing the offenders to justice. This stand has caused Pynchon to be hailed as a champion of Indian rights; however, complaints about his pun- ishment of an Indian at Agawam had earlier led the Connecticut General Court to adopt an order regulating the punishment of Indians. 48
44 9 Rec. Col. New Plymouth 172, 178; Johnson's Wonder-Working Providence, 1628-1651 (ed. J. F. Jameson, 1910) 237.
45 9 Rec. Col. New Plymouth 80, 89-93, 128-136, 151-158; 5 Winthrop Papers 89- 92, 134-137, 142-143, 271. See also 2 Rec. Mass. Bay 182, 268-270; 1 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 119-120.
46 3 Winthrop Papers 254-255.
47 1 Winthrop, Hist. New England 281. For Pynchon letters to John Winthrop on Indian matters, see 4 Winthrop Papers 443-444; 5 ibid. 5, 114-115.
48 2 Winthrop, Hist. New England 397, 467-471; H. Morris, Early History of Springfield (1876) 68-71; 1 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 13-14.
1 9
WILLIAM PYNCHON
At a December 10, 1641 General Court Pynchon and several oth- ers were mentioned to be proposed to the towns as new magistrates. Accordingly, when the General Court met in May 1642 William Pyn- chon again took an oath as assistant. He continued to be chosen an assistant each year until 1651 by which time he had become em- broiled with the General Court on a charge of heretical writings.49 In his capacity as assistant he not only attended the General Court but also sat on the Court of Assistants; in both capacities he exercised a judicial function.
Only a few documents have survived to indicate Pynchon's atti- tudes on the many political events of the 1640's in both Massachu- setts and England.50 Of particular interest is his attitude toward the criticism of the administration of justice in Massachusetts Bay which welled up in 1646, principally in connection with the "Remon- strance and humble Petition" presented to the General Court by Robert Child and six others in May of that year. This document, po- litical in nature, was severely critical of existing conditions and ad- vocated drastic reforms unacceptable to the authorities.51 Probably Pynchon's best known letter was written March 9, 1646/7 to John Winthrop in connection with the documents seized when Child was about to embark for England. This letter reads, in part:
But how soever their endevors cannot but have an ill construction; yet I thinke the Courte both of magistrates and deputies, should not turne of[f] all the particulars wherin they desyre a Reformation, without making a right use of so much of their petition as doth justly calle for reformation: for as we had the happinesse to be bredd and borne under such lawes for civill goverment as I conceive no nation hath better, so it should be our care, in thankefulnesse both to God and that state to pre- serve and adhere to what ever lawes or customes they have except those that be contrary to God, and therin we must obey God and not man, and yet we have liberty from that pattent to make what soever by lawes may tend to the good of this place; and I cannot but apprehend that your spirit lies this way for I remember at our first comminge, as soone as ever
49 1 Rec. Mass. Bay 345; 2 ibid, 2; 3 N. Eng. Hist. and Gen. Reg. 189.
50 See 4 Winthrop Papers 443-444; 5 ibid. 90-92, 271.
51 For the remonstrance, see Hutchin- son, Collection of Original Papers relative to the History of the Colony of Massachu- setts Bay (1769) 188 ff. The most detailed accounts of the episode are found in G. L. Kittredge, "Dr. Robert Child the Remon- strant," 21 Pub. Col. Soc. Mass. 146; W. T. R. Marvin in his introduction to a re- print of Major John Child's New-Eng-
land's Jonas Cast Up at London (1647; re- printed 1869) ; 2 Palfrey, History of New England (1892) 165-179; Hubbard, Gen- eral History of New England (1815) 499- 519; Oliver, The Puritan Commonwealth (1856) 420-430; 1 Hutchinson, Hist. Col. and Prov. Mass. Bay (ed. L. S. Mayo, 1936) 124-127; 1 Osgood, The American Colo- nies in the Seventeenth Century, 257-264; 3 ibid. 111-112; Smith, Appeals to the Privy Council from the American Planta- tions (1950) 45-47.
20
INTRODUCTION
the people were divided into severall plantations, you did presently nom- inate a conestable for each plantation as the most common officers of the Kings peace, and gave them their oath in true substance as the conestables take it in England: likewise all controversies about meum and tuum were tryed by Juries after the manner of England, and after a while grand Ju- ries were appointed for further inquiry into such matters as might tend to the Kings peace; and still thes courses I thinke are continued and thes courses are the best courses that this commonwealth can take if they have free liberty to alter: as Fortescue in commendation of the lawes of Eng- land [to] my satisfaction doth shew he gives good Reasons for the neces- sary use of Juries for all tryalls shewing that it is consonant to the word of God and preferrs it far above the course of Justice in France which is also of high respect.
But that wherin I feare the Generall Court is most faulty is, in that they doe not issue out all warrants in the name of the Kinge: I know no hurt in it: for what though the Kinge be never so corrupt in Religion and manners yet if his subjectes will be faithfull to the lawes of England he cannot hurt his subjectes, for when warrantes are issued out in the name of the Kinge, they are not issued out in the name of his personall prerog- atives, but in the name of his power which is his lawes and therefore if his subjectes will sticke to his lawes (as the Parliament do at this day) the King cannot wrong them. Thes things you know much better than my selfe.
Again by the lawes of England if any of our people will stand uppon the priviledge of an English subject: they may I conceive lawfull disobey warrants of processe or Attachments and the like In case the warrants be not made in dew fourme accordinge to the lawes of England: as for ex- ample if they be not dated or if they be dated in any place out of the Jurisdiction or if they be not subscribed by such as are in authority. Thes and many such like circumstances may mak warrantes illegall and so a nullity as Dalton in his Country Justice sheweth at large and to my greefe I have seene many warrantes failing in thes circumstances But above all if warrants be not sent out in the name of the King they are not legall: we are not a Free state neather do I apprehend that magistrates Elders or deputies doe think we are a Free state, neather do I think it our wisdome to be a Free state though we had our liberty we cannot as yet subsist without England.52
William Pynchon has been closely linked by historians with two of the earliest witchcraft proceedings in Massachusetts Bay-those against Mary and Hugh Parsons of Springfield. Their first connec- tion with witchcraft appears in the Record when Pynchon, on May 30, 1649, in a case of criminal defamation sentenced Mary Parsons to
52 5 Winthrop Papers 134-137; 6 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (4th ser.) 381; reprinted in part in 1 Records of the Court of As-
sistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, 1630-1692 (1901) ix.
21
WILLIAM PYNCHON
twenty lashes or payment of three pounds to the widow Marshfield for spreading reports that the widow was suspected of being a witch.53
This sentence seems to have had little effect upon Mary Parsons who had married Hugh Parsons, her second husband, in 1645. Obvi- ously a mental case, she now concentrated upon spreading reports that her husband was a witch. However, it is not until a year and a half later that there was further mention of the Parsons in connec- tion with witchcraft. At the New York Public Library is a record, largely in William Pynchon's hand, of examinations in Springfield of Hugh Parsons who had been "attached upon Suspition of Witch- craft." 54 The manuscript refers to two examinations, one on March 1, 1650/1 and one later, perhaps on March 18. However, the manu- script contains statements made under oath before Pynchon on thir- teen different days, starting as early as February 25, 1650/1 and ex- tending to April 7. It indicates that Mary Parsons was also examined by Pynchon on the same suspicion but no record of her examination appears to have survived. Whether complaint was made against ei- ther of the Parsons or whether William Pynchon acted upon his own view of the case is not discernible. In its broader aspects the Par- sons incident may be related to the first witchcraft cases in the Bay and in Connecticut and the stern repression of witchcraft in Eng- land by Matthew Hopkins a few years earlier.
Apart from the Parsons, thirty-five persons testified under oath or volunteered information; few prominent Springfield names were absent. The case against Hugh rested in large part on the testimony of his wife, his "biggest Accuser," that he was a witch. Others testi- fied as to the unpleasant things that happened to people or their pos- sessions when Hugh threatened "to get even" with them, to the pres- ence of Hugh when events took place without natural explanation, to his unnatural lack of grief when his child died, and to his frequent appearance in the hallucinations of those subject to fits. Several wit- nesses testified that when Hugh, in paying the widow Marshfield for his wife's defamation, was refused an abatement, he threatened that the corn would avail her little.
Mary appears to have been taken into custody at some point dur- ing Hugh's examination and was probably transported to the Bay to stand trial late in March or early April 1651. Hugh was in chains in custody of the constable on March 2; when he was transported to the
53 Rec. 32-33. For Pynchon's earlier (1645) problems with Mary Parsons, then Mary Lewis, see 5 Winthrop Papers 45, 50.
54 The manuscript has been printed in
Drake, Annals of Witchcraft in New Eng- land, and Elsewhere in The United States from Their First Settlement (1869) 219- 258.
2 2
INTRODUCTION
Bay does not appear. Despite some contentions to the contrary, nei- ther Mary nor Hugh was "tried" at Springfield; the offenses charged were beyond Pynchon's jurisdiction to hear and determine. There is nothing in the Record regarding the examination of either Mary or Hugh.
On May 8, 1651 the General Court "understanding that Mary Parsons, now in prison accused for a witch, is likely, through weak- nes, to dye before triall if it be deferred," ordered that she be brought before it and tried the next morning at 8 o'clock, "the rather that Mr. Pinchon maybe present to give his testimony in the case." How- ever, it was not until May 13 that Mary, "being committed to prison for suspition of witchcraft, as also for murdering hir oune child" was called forth and indicted for witchcraft. Mary pleaded not guilty to the indictment, and after the evidences against her were heard and examined, the Court found that they "were not sufficcient to proove hir a witch"; therefore she was cleared in that respect.55
Mary Parsons, then indicted for the murder of her child, acknowl- edged herself guilty of this charge. The Court, finding her guilty of murder by her own confession, sentenced her to death by hanging. However, a marginal notation in the General Court records states that Mary was reprieved until May 29. No official record has been found of her execution; most writers accept the view that she died in prison shortly after sentencing.56
What happened to Hugh Parsons between his apprehension in March 1651 and his trial in May 1652 is far from clear. On May 20, 1651, Henry Smith, who by this time had been granted judicial au-
55 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part I) 47-48; 3 ibid. 229. There is no indication that Pynchon gave testimony against the ac- cused.
56 4 ibid (Part I) 48. William F. Poole in "Witchcraft in Boston" (chapter IV of 2 Memorial History Boston, pp. 137-138) , in concluding that Mary Parsons was exe- cuted, relied largely on a London news- paper, Mercurius Publicus, of September 25, 1651, in which a letter "from Natick, in New England, July 4, 1651," attributed to John Eliot, the Indian apostle, stated with respect to witchcraft that: "Four in Springfield were detected, whereof one was executed for murder of her own child, and was doubtless a witch; another is con- demned, a third under trial, a fourth un- der suspicion." Poole also construes a pas- sage in Cotton Mather's Wonders of the Invisible World as a reference to Mary Parsons. Hutchinson, finding no record or
contemporary account of the execution of Mary Parsons (mistakenly called Mary Oliver) concluded that, "I do not find that she was executed." 2 Hist. Col. and Prov. Mass. Bay 12. Johnson in his Won- der-working Providence of Sion's Savior in New England, which carries the history of New England to 1651, only states of Springfield that: "There hath of late been more than one in this Towne greatly sus- pected of witchcraft, yet have they used much diligence, both for the finding them out and for the Lord's assisting them against their witchery, yet have they, as is supposed, bewitched not a few Persons, among whom two of the reverend Elder's children." Hale's Modest Inquiry Concern- ing Witchcraft (p. 19) mentions "two or three of Springfield" being executed but has one whose circumstances are reminis- cent of Mary Parsons.
23
WILLIAM PYNCHON
thority in Springfield, took further testimony in Boston.57 Seemingly Parsons was in prison in October 1651, for we find an order by the General Court on October 24 that a Court of Assistants be held in January to try those in prison accused of witchcraft. The most mate- rial witnesses in Springfield were to be summoned to the Court of As- sistants to give in their evidence against the prisoners. There is no ex- planation of the plurality of prisoners, but Mary Parsons in her ex- amination may have implicated others.58
On May 12, 1652, a grand jury at the Court of Assistants indicted Hugh Parsons for witchcraft. The trial jury found him guilty. The assistants not consenting to the verdict of the jury, the cause came before the General Court. This body, on May 31, 1652, calling the prisoner to the bar and considering the evidences brought in against him, judged that he was not legally guilty of witchcraft. Acquitted, Parsons never returned to Springfield.59
Much of the tarnish upon William Pynchon's reputation stems from the treatment accorded the Mary and Hugh Parsons cases by historian Samuel G. Drake in his Annals of Witchcraft, a treatment that contains glaring errors, important omissions, and no under- standing of the legal procedure of the period. Distorting a contempo- rary reference, Drake asserts that "Witches were disturbing the Peace of the People of Springfield ten Years" before William Pynchon "felt compelled to set up his Inquisition," and insinuates that, since the offenders "were at first among a Class of Denizens of too high social Standing to admit an Interference," Pynchon waited until suspicion fell upon Hugh Parsons, an "honest, sensible laboring Man, a Sawyer by Occupation." 60
There are no facts to support such insinuations. If Hugh Parsons had anybody to blame for his plight, it was his wife and himself for
57 Smith took the evidence of Symon Beamon, a Pynchon servant, on May 20. This testimony and related testimony of Jonathan Taylor, originally given before Pynchon on March 21, 1650/51, are fol- lowed in the manuscript examination of Hugh by a notation "Deposed before the court 17.4 mo: 1651," signed by Edward Rawson, Secretary of the General Court. This deposition was probably not made before the General Court; it may have been made before the Court of Assistants. Three other depositions were taken during the period May 20-26th. See 35 N. Eng. Hist. and Gen. Reg. 152-153.
58 3 Rec. Mass. Bay 273. The testimony as to Mary Parsons' conversation with Thomas Cooper, who was appointed to
watch her in March, certainly implicated Goodwife Merrick and Besse Sewell. Drake, Annals of Witchcraft 244-245.
59 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part I) 96; Drake, Annals of Witchcraft 68-70. It would ap- pear that Jonathan Taylor, George Colton, Hannah Langton and Samuel Marshfield were the witnesses summoned from Spring- field who appeared at Hugh Parsons' trial on May 13th.
60 Drake, Annals of Witchcraft 65-66. The contemporary reference was to the passage from Johnson's Wonder-working Providence of Sion's Saviour in New Eng- land set forth in note 56. Drake's views were given further currency in Burt, Cor- net Joseph Parsons (1898) 8.
24
INTRODUCTION
his foolhardy habit of threatening to "get even" with those who crossed him. His inept answers at his examination must have con- firmed any doubts as to his guilt, being characterized by evasions, equivocation, falsehoods, refuge in rules of evidence (one witness not sufficient) , and pregnant silences. The contention that "there was Something like Conspiracy against Parsons," seems to be based upon the fact that, prior to his examination, Parsons was not in- formed of the identity of his accusers; yet he must have known his wife would be the principal accuser. Once the examination started it appears that most, if not all, the accusing witnesses testified in his presence, and he was given frequent opportunity to answer the charges. Most laudable in Parsons' conduct was his steadfast refusal to allow Pynchon to "saddle the right horse" by casting suspicion on others.
Drake comments that "the Testimonies amount to Nothing, be- ing a collection of as childish Nonsense as ever was got together." 61 By present-day standards this condemnation is just. However, the evidence was typical of that received in seventeenth-century witch- craft trials in Massachusetts Bay and elsewhere, and Pynchon had no alternative but to receive it. What is harder to justify is that the ex- aminations reveal that William Pynchon, enlightened as he may have been in some respects, clearly accepted the existence of witchcraft as a supernatural phenomenon.62
It should also be remembered that Pynchon, in conducting the examinations of the Parsons, was not entirely a neophyte. In June 1648, he had sat on the General Court at which Margaret Jones of Charlestown was indicted, found guilty of witchcraft, and hanged --- the first case of capital punishment for witchcraft in the colony.63
61 Drake, Annals of Witchcraft, 70-71.
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.