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 7
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
Edward Randolph, New England's "evil genius," adverted to Goffe and Whalley on several occasions in his reports, but usually credited Daniel Gookin with harboring and protecting them. How- ever, one report to Secretary Coventry in June 1676 mentions that Goffe, "still in this Country, narrowly escaped the Major in the Southern parts, where he and others are harboured by Their Anti- monarchicall Proselites." Whether or not "the Major" referred to was Pynchon is not known; the date of the report is about the time that Goffe is believed to have quit Hadley for Hartford. If Pynchon was playing a double role, he completely deceived Randolph, who in September 1685 named the Major to the Committee for Trade and Foreign Plantations as a person well disposed and fit to be con- cerned in the temporary government.56
Whatever his inner convictions, John Pynchon encountered little difficulty in adjusting to the loss of the First Charter. When Joseph Dudley arrived in May 1686 Pynchon was one of those named coun- cilors. Samuel Sewall noted in his Diary that, on May 14, "Major Pynchon and Mr. Stoughton are sent to the Magistrates to acquaint them with the King's Commands being come." At Dudley's meeting with the "Old Government" on May 17 the diarist indicates that Pynchon filed in next to the President. Pynchon was one of the Council nominated a committee to take the accounts of Nowell, the late Treasurer, as well as to make recommendations as to collection of duties on imported wines and liquors. In June Pynchon and two others were charged with examining and reporting on the acts of the proprietors of the "Narragansett Country." 57
55 Judd, Hist. Hadley 214 ff .; Dexter, "Memoranda Respecting Edward Whalley and William Goffe" in A Selection from the Miscellaneous Historical Papers of Fifty Years (1918) 24-29; CSP, Col., 1661- 68, #160. For biographical details on Lord, see 1 Trumbull, The Memorial His- tory of Hartford County, Connecticut, 1638-1884 (1886) 249. Lord's son Richard married Mary Smith, John Pynchon's niece, on April 15, 1665, was one of the wealthiest merchants of his time, and en- gaged in at least one venture with John Pynchon. Among the Mather Papers is a copy of a March 26, 1662 letter coded by Goffe as "from Mr. Pinchon to Mr. Daven-
port" (presumably John Davenport) . 8 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (4th ser.) 170-171. Perhaps Davenport, active in harboring the fugitives in the early days of their flight, had turned Pynchon's letter over to Goffe
56 1 Edward Randolph 59, 100, 173, 196; 2 ibid. 207, 314; 3 ibid. 43-45. It is ex- tremely doubtful whether Gookin main- tained any relationship with Goffe and Whalley. See Gookin, Daniel Gookin, 1612-1687 (1912) 106-110; Hutchinson, Collection Original Papers 419-420.
57 2 Ms. Mass. Council Rec. 15, 56, 77, 79, 80, 94; 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (1st ser.) 246; 6 ibid. (6th ser.) 475-476; 5
50
INTRODUCTION
In July Pynchon and Wait Winthrop were "persuaded" to under- take a visit to the Connecticut authorities at Hartford to encourage alliance with Massachusetts; they were received with respect if not interest. In the same month Edward Randolph visited Pynchon at Springfield in a swing around New England, perhaps in connection with the Connecticut mission. The Record also reveals that during July and August Pynchon delivered commissions to the various military officers in western Massachusetts, administering the oath of allegiance.58
When Governor Andros arrived in Boston in December 1686, Pynchon was again nominated a councilor, a post which he retained under the second commission to Andros. Apparently he was named a justice in the commission of the peace for Hampshire and sat on the quarterly Court of Sessions and, by virtue of a commission as judge, headed the Inferior Court of Common Pleas for that county. By June 1687 he was serving in the capacity of judge of the Preroga- tive Court of Hampshire.59
There is reason to believe that Pynchon became too identified with Andros for his own good. The two were not strangers when they met in Boston; earlier Pynchon had dealt with Andros as Governor of New York in Indian matters and probably in connection with Pynchon's trading venture at Albany with Robert Livingston. A December 28, 1686 letter from Edward Randolph to Pynchon con- cerning the opposition of Connecticut to becoming part of the Do- minion is extremely revealing as to the latter's relations with the Crown representative. Almost a year later, when Connecticut was made part of the Dominion of New England, Pynchon was one of the cavalcade accompanying Andros from Boston to attend the Council meeting held in Hartford on November 1st. Apparently Pynchon also played a part in explaining or gaining acceptance by Connecticut of Dominion legislation.60
Springfield's exposed position also made it mandatory that Pynchon, made Lieutenant Colonel and then Colonel, maintain close relations with the Dominion executive. On July 27, 1688 a
ibid. (5th ser.) 137-138; Dudley Papers, 13 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. (2nd ser.) 251, 254, 272-273; CSP, Col., 1685-88, #702.
58 13 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. (2nd ser.) 282, 284; CSP, Col., 1685-88, #2140, 2144; Rec. 198. For the visit to Hartford see 3 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 358-359, 363-365; 1 Conn. Archives, Miscellaneous 5a, 7a-b, 8; 1 Edward Randolph 299. For Ran- dolph's visit see 6 ibid. 191.
59 1 Laws N.H. 143, 235; 2 Edward Ran- dolph 19; 2 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec.
141-145. For the form of a commission for a judge of the Superior Court of Common Pleas and of a fragmentary commission of the peace see 40 Mass. Archives 243-244. 60 4 Edward Randolph 139-140 (cf. the variant version in 2 ibid. 11) ; Bates, “Ex- pedition of Sir Edmund Andros to Con- necticut in 1687," 48 Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc. (ns) 276-299; 3 Coll. Conn. Hist. Soc. 139; Barnes, The Dominion of New England (1923) 94.
51
JOHN PYNCHON
small party of Indians from Canada penetrated to the vicinity of Springfield and killed five friendly Indians at Spectacle Pond. A "diary" account reveals a picture of Pynchon springing into action upon receipt of the news, sending out scouts and a burial party, dis- patching messengers to the nearest towns, and putting Springfield in a posture of defense. A few days later he was off to New London to await orders from the Governor; on August 3 he was back in Spring- field. On August 6, upon intelligence of strange Indians in the vicinity, he moved up to Northfield with a few followers, picking up additional soldiers in the upper towns, and assisted in putting that town in a state of defense. Matters appearing quiet at Northfield, Pynchon ordered some Connecticut Indians assembled at Springfield sent home and returned to Springfield on August 11, where, with misplaced optimism, he discharged all the soldiers assembled for the trip. However, on August 16 the same war party killed six settlers at Northfield. Pynchon immediately sent a party of soldiers from Springfield in a vain attempt to take the murderers. On August 19 a small force was sent to Quabaug, "the people then being about to remove: ordering and urging their continuance"; it was, however, to fetch off such women as desired to come away. Despite some at- tempts to safeguard Northfield in August, a more permanent garrison was not established until Captain Jonathan Ball with some fifty men left Hartford November 9 and remained at Northfield until the overthrow of Andros.61
Governor Andros at New York expressed great concern at the "mischief and the actors escaped." Later he sent a strong representa- tion to De Nonville, Governor of Canada, demanding that the mur- derers be sent to him forthwith, without success. In October Andros spent a short time at Hartford with John Allyn and other "princi- pal officers and magistrates" of Connecticut, held a consultation with Pynchon at Springfield, and reached Hadley on October 14 or 15. From Hadley, Andros and his group went to Brookfield and then to Worcester and Marlborough. The inquiries made in this eyre were scarcely calculated to endear Andros or his adherents to the Valley inhabitants. This was strongly reflected in a letter written by Pynchon in early November when a report of enemy demonstra- tions at Northfield caused him to dispatch some men from Spring- field, who readily attended, and to give orders to the defiant upper towns, who would not "give 3 skips of a louse" for Pynchon's au- thority, to supply additional men.62
Pynchon does not appear to have held strong views on the subject
61 Temple and Sheldon, Hist. North- field 113-117, 215; CSP, Col. 1685-88, #1877, I, II, III.
62 Temple and Sheldon, Hist. North- field 117-120.
52
INTRODUCTION
of the Revolution of 1688. He took no part in the overthrow of the Andros regime in April 1689.63 One historian has sought to explain Pynchon's role in the Andros government by stating that "although utterly opposed to the arbitrary measures of that day . . . he deemed it his duty to hold the office [on the Council], that he might be the better enabled to subserve the interests of the people." 64 However, this explanation apparently did not enjoy contemporary currency.
Pynchon was not on the Council for the Safety of the People and Conservation of the Peace, formed on April 20, 1689, ostensibly be- cause he had never taken the oath as assistant, although chosen to serve in May 1686, prior to Dudley's arrival. He was not chosen an assistant during the interim prior to the granting of the Second Charter.65 However, in September 1689, in June 1690 and in May 1691, Pynchon was allowed and confirmed as associate for the County Court of Hampshire and invested with magistratical power. In March 1692 he was again chosen an associate. Pynchon was not named a member of the Council in the 1691 Charter, but no disap- pointment is evident in his comments on those appointed. The Record shows that at a meeting of the freemen of Springfield in May 1693 John Pynchon was chosen representative to the General As- sembly but "being taken to the Council The Freeholders made a choise of Captain Benjamin Davis for their Representative." Pynchon continued a member of the Council until his death.66
Pynchon was commissioned a justice of the peace in 1692 and headed both the Court of Inferior Pleas and the Court of General Sessions of the Peace of Hampshire established under the Second Charter. He was appointed Judge of Probate for Hampshire in June 1692 and continued in this office until his death.67 There are
63 See letter, dated January 16, 1688/9, to Robert Livingston in Livingston Mss., Redmond Library. For an appeal by Lieu- tenant Governor Nicholson to Pynchon, see Documents Relating to the Adminis- tration of Jacob Leisler, N.Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., Pub. Fund Series (1868) 248-249; 2 Conn. Archives, War Colonial 4. Wash- burn, quoting from an unidentified docu- ment, states that Pynchon, among others, was empowered by Andros "to bind over all persons suspected of riots, outrages, or abusive, reflecting words and speeches against the government." Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts (1840) 102. However, Pynchon is not mentioned in the pamphlets justifying the over- throw. See Andros Tracts, passim.
64 Oliver B. Morris, "Bi-Centennial Ad- dress at First Church in Springfield, May
25, 1836," 1 Papers and Proc. Conn. Valley Hist. Soc. 323-324.
65 For the 1690 and 1691 choices of as- sistants, see CSP, Col., 1689-92, #904-905, 1399.
66 1 Laws N.H. 327, 406; Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 143, 151; Vol. A, Registry of Deeds, Springfield, Hampden County, 1690-92, 301, 313; 14 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. (2nd ser.) 215-217; Rec. 335.
67 Whitmore, The Massachusetts Civil List (1870) 46-47, 91, 94, 139. The results of the 1696 and 1697 choice of councilors indicate that Pynchon's popularity and in- fluence had waned. 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (5th ser.) 426, 454. Pynchon's tenure as Judge of Probate is confirmed by the Hampshire County Probate Court Rec- ords.
53
JOHN PYNCHON
also references to Pynchon as County Treasurer in 1690 and again in 1693.68
For several years after the overthrow of Andros there is no record of Pynchon's appointment to ad hoc town committees. Then, in August 1691, and again in the next year, Pynchon was appointed a commissioner to join with the selectmen in taking a list of the town's estate for presentation at a shire meeting. In 1692-93 Pynchon was active in several church matters and on a committee to settle boundaries with representatives of Northampton. In 1694 and in 1696, Pynchon and two others were named assessors for the public tax. With one other he was delegated the duty of examining the constable's accounts. In the closing years of his life Pynchon, still at work as a public servant, was authorized with one other, in 1698, to present certain circumstances on the local church establishment to the General Court, and again with one other, in March 1699/1700, to make inquiry as to the payment of rates to constables in Andros' time and report to the General Court. His last appointment came in November 1701 when he was named to a committee dealing with the perennial problem of the settlement of a ministry in the town.69
Between May 1693 and June 1694 Pynchon was active in seeking action by the Massachusetts Council on complaints by Suffield and Enfield that Windsor inhabitants were forcibly entering on their lands and carrying away their hay, timber, and so on. In October 1694 he was on a committee to perambulate the Massachusetts-Connecti- cut boundary line and to examine what had been done formerly in order that the line might be settled. In June 1700 Pynchon and three other councilors were constituted a committee to join with a com- mittee of the House of Representatives to treat with Connecticut commissioners concerning the boundary line.70
Under the Second Charter Pynchon played little part in the settle- ment of new plantations. However, in February 1700/1, when some inhabitants of Springfield petitioned for a tract of land to the east
68 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 118; Hamp. Rec. Ct. Pleas, volume reversed. As a public servant Pynchon was handicapped by "many losses and charges" and advancing years. 3 Mass. Archives 51; 2 Conn. Ar- chives, War Colonial 99a-c, 103; 4 ibid., Private Controversies 163.
69 2 Burt, Hist. Springfield 202, 204- 205, 207-208, 212-213, 330, 332-335, 343, 345, 347, 350, 356, 358. See also 7 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay 38; 113 Mass. Ar- chives 102.
70 2 Mass. Archives 214-218a, 258a; 112 ibid. 438-439, 444, 447, 449; 3 ibid. 54.
CSP, Col., 1700, #545. For the June 13, 1700 proposal of the Massachusetts com- missioners, see 21 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay 695-696. For an enigmatic se- cret letter from Pynchon to Governor Treat see Conn. Archives, Colonial Boun- daries 10a. See also 4 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 161 and the May 5, 1696 letter from John Allyn to Pynchon re quieting some Enfield inhabitants who threatened to take tar away from Windsor people burning can- dlewood on lands claimed by Enfield. Wolcott Mss. (Conn. Hist. Soc.)
54
INTRODUCTION
of the town and reference was made to a committee to admit inhabit- ants, grant allotments of land, and order all the prudential affairs, the petitioners were "bold to suggest to your Consideration that the Honourable Colonel John Pynchon be one of the committee having been Improved in Continuing and Settling new Places." The com- mittee appointed consisted of Pynchon and five others.71
Even if Pynchon was out of favor after April 1689, and may have reverted to the rank of major, he still was continued in his military duties. In July 1689 he was active in garrisoning Northfield. In Sep- tember he was again prevailed upon to travel to Albany, this time accompanied by Major Savage, Captain Belcher, and representatives of other New England governments, for a meeting with the Five Nations. However, the New Englanders "mist their chiefe expecta- tations," when the Five Nations refused to make war on the Eastern Indians until they found whether the latter sided with the French against them.72
In February 1689/90 Pynchon wrote to the Connecticut authori- ties in connection with garrisons at Northfield and Springfield that:
Stephen Lee reported here that the French and Indians had a special aime to this Towne and a particular designe against me and that he was afraid this place might be laid in ashes before he returned to Boston, which is a greate discouragement to many of our people . . .
We are extreame naked and open and cant agree upon fortification some being for one way and some another . . . 73
In March 1690, following news of the attack upon Schenectady by the French and Indians, Pynchon approved a weekly scout for discovery of the enemy, which was accordingly ordered by the County Court. He was also empowered by the General Court to dis- pose the Hampshire Indians to such place or places as might prevent exposure to danger and with such limitations as might least disquiet the Indians. In May 1690 Pynchon was consulted on raising troops from Hampshire for an expedition against the enemy and directed to consult with the Connecticut authorities whether a combined Hamp-
71 113 Mass. Archives 256, 258; 21 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay 712-713.
72 Temple and Sheldon, Hist. North- field 117, 121-123; 35 Mass. Archives 18- 19, 21, 32-33, 274; 107 ibid. 253, 258; 4 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 2; 3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y. 621; 2 Conn. Archives, War Co- lonial 6, 12, 15. The account in Colden, The History of the Five Nations of Can- ada (1747 ed.) 100-105 states that, while proclaiming publicly that they could not declare war on the Eastern Indians, repre- sentatives of the Five Nations "with some
Art" said in private they would war against them. See also Buffington, "The Isolationist Policy of Colonial Massachu- setts," 1 N. Eng. Quart. 175-176. For an informative Pynchon letter to Governor Bradstreet on frontier problems, see 35 Mass. Archives 102-103 (letter dated De- cember 5, 1689) .
73 Letter, dated February 24, 1689/90, from Pynchon to Samuel Wyllys and Colo- nel John Allyn at Hartford. Mass. Hist. Soc. Mss.
55
JOHN PYNCHON
shire-Bay force should advance to Albany or be deployed in defense of the Hampshire frontier. To a proposed levy of sixty soldiers from Hampshire, Pynchon objected that the towns were "weake scattered and next to the enymy." Finally, not "desyring in the least to with- draw from the Publike service, or to be wanting thereunto," Pynchon left the determination of the Hampshire quota to the Governor and Council, requesting only leave to designate the commissioned officers.74
During the summer of 1690 Pynchon was in an unenviable posi- tion. From the Bay he was under pressure to have Connecticut sup- ply troops for the proposed land expedition against Canada, despite the friction between Jacob Leisler and Major Fitz-John Winthrop and the unwillingness of the Connecticut contingent to serve under Jacob Milborne. From Hartford he was under pressure to hasten the preparations of the Massachusetts authorities for the coordinated as- sault by water against Canada. At the same time, signs of hostile Indians near Deerfield and Swampfield and complaints from the Mohawks against the detention of two alleged Albany Indians (sus- pected of participating in the attacks in the Eastern parts) made it necessary to seek the retention of Connecticut troops in the Valley. In December 1690, the Connecticut Council was again asked by Massachusetts to provide garrisons for the upper towns, to be dis- posed of as Pynchon and the Council best advised.75
In November 1691 a group of about 150 Indians from Albany, many former enemies, settled near Deerfield. Pynchon, fearing that these Indians might prove to be false and betray the towns, sug- gested that a company be raised in the upper towns to march to Deerfield once or twice during the winter to let the unwelcome in- truders know that the settlers were in a "warlike Posture." The Council accordingly directed Pynchon in January 1691/2 to keep a sharp lookout, to organize the company as suggested, to continue the weekly scout, to send a message of inquiry to Albany, and, if neces- sary, to maintain a garrison of Connecticut men at Deerfield. These directions were complied with, Pynchon sending Samuel Partrigg with a form of proclamation to parley with the Indians. However, the winter passed without incident and in May the inhabitants were relieved when the Indians returned home.76
74 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 121; 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 221-226; 1 Laws N.H. 373; 36 Mass Archives 56-57; 8 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (2nd ser.) 238; 5 ibid. (5th ser.) 320- 321; 5 ibid. (4th ser.) 253, 258.
75 2 Conn. Archives, War Colonial 84, 86, 91-92, 98-99, 103, 113, 120, 127; 36 Mass. Archives 439. For a typical letter to Pynchon on frontier conditions see June
2, 1690 letter from Thomas Wells of Deer- field. 8 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (2nd ser.) 239.
76 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 222-223; 37 Mass. Archives 214-215, 223-224, 246, 306a; 2 Conn. Archives, War Colonial 156a. See also letter, dated January 18, 1691/2, from Pynchon to William Stough- ton and Samuel Sewall regarding frontier
56
INTRODUCTION
In February and March of 1692/3 Pynchon was again active in transmitting intelligence to the Bay and in securing a Connecticut garrison for Deerfield upon news of assaults upon the Mohawks by French and Indians from Canada. Since the garrison would have to be provisioned by the country, Pynchon sought directions from Governor Phips as to hastening the garrisoning, "for I am in Paine least my good husbandry in delaying them (to ease the Country's charge) should prove of any dangerous consequence." In June 1693 several Deerfield inhabitants were murdered by Indians. Based upon identifications in dying declarations, a Mohawk and an "Albanian" Indian, hunting in the vicinity of Deerfield, were accused of the crime and imprisoned at Springfield. The Mohawks immediately brought pressure to bear upon Governor Fletcher to secure the re- lease of the prisoners, asserting that weapons left at the scene of the crime bore the marks of Canadian Indians. Fletcher in turn brought pressure upon Pynchon and the Massachusetts authorities for re- lease of the prisoners, sending Major Wissells, "a greate man with the Indians," and a group of Mohawks to investigate the matter. Pynchon, who "verily supposed" the Indians guilty of the murder, first requested that a suitable time and commission be appointed for the trial, but soon weakened. in his resolution.77
On July 4 Phips wrote to Fletcher, commenting on certain evi- dence supplied by the latter that Canadian Indians were guilty of the crimes, that the accusation and evidences were direct and posi- tive against the prisoners, but that he proposed "to defer a present Tryal if Probably Providence may make a fuller and more clear dis- covery of the matter." 78
On July 28 Phips, writing Pynchon that his letters and same ma- terial supplied by Governor Fletcher and others in New York had been laid before the Council, said:
The Council have likewise procured the Examinations and Evidences taken from the wounded people being chiefly what others report to have heard them say, and not directly from themselves, besides that it's much doubted whether they were of sound mind, and upon consideration of the whole, are of opinion, the Indians cannot be convicted by those Evi- dences, advising that they be dismissed if no further material evidence
defense matters in Misc. Mss. IV. 1683-93 (Mass. Hist. Soc.) and 4 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 14.
77 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 229-235, 241; 7 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay 378 ff., 390; 2 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 89; let- ter of Governor Phips to Governor and Council of Connecticut, dated February
24, 1692/3, 2 Mass. Archives 212; 2 Conn. Archives, War Colonial 167a.
78 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 236. See also the July 12 letter from Pynchon to Phips concerning a meeting with Lieuten- ant John Schuyler and some Mohawks at Springfield. 2 Davis Papers, 1681-1747 (Mass. Hist. Soc.)
57
JOHN PYNCHON
appear against them, which I accordingly order, and that care be taken that they may pass homeward without any violence being offered them . . .
In conclusion Phips stated that:
It is of great concernment to the whole of there Majesties Interest in these Teritories that the English be in good termes with the Maquas etc at this Critical hour when they are so much Solicited to go over to the side of the Enemy and that no just provocations be given them for a Rup- ture. As all caution ought to be used that no muther escape Justice, so it being plainly evident beforehand that these Indians cannot by this evi- dence be found guilty upon Tryal, its thought more advisable to dismiss them without and to avoid the inconvenience that may ensue there being longer detained which the Indians (not understanding the formalities of Law) may improve to disaffect them to the English Interest.79
However, Phips's letter crossed one from Pynchon, dated July 29, relating that, two days earlier, the Indians had escaped from prison, supposedly having been secretly provided with files by other In- dians.80
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.