USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > East Boston > History of East Boston; with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix > Part 10
USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > East Boston > History of East Boston : with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix. > Part 10
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 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72
He says : " They went in a ship named the Supply. About the time of her sailing, Mr. Cotton preached a Thursday lecture sermon, with special reference to persons going over in her with written complaints against the late transactions in Boston. Some belonging to the ship, or going in her, were his hearers at the lecture, and he warned them against the bearers of such communications ; that any such papers would prove a Jonas to the voyage; and recommended, if a storm did arise, that certain trunks should be searched for a Jonas. A storm did arise, and a certain female on board, who had heard Mr. Cotton's late ser- mon, ran about the ship in much consternation, insisting that if any passenger had a Jonas, it should be produced, and the ship delivered of it. She gave Mr. Vassall a call at midnight. He asked her why she came to him ? ' Because,' she said, 'it was thought he had some writings against the people of God.' He
1 Eccl. Hist. N. E. p. 592.
106
HISTORY.
[1646.
told her he had only a petition to parliament, merely praying that they might enjoy the liberty of English subjects ; and surely that could be no Jonas. She next paid Mr. Fowle a visit, in 'like distracted manner.' He told her he had only a copy of the petition, which himself and others had presented to the court at Boston. This he produced and read to her, and then said, that if she and others judged that that was the cause of the storm, they might have it, and do what they would with it. She took the paper to her companions, who, after a consul- tation, decided that it should be cast overboard. But it is remarked, that though it was thus ceremoniously committed to the waves, there was no immediate cessation of the tempest ; nor did it prevent another, which seemed to have doomed them all to certain destruction near Scilly, fourteen days after.
" Notwithstanding those and other storms during the voyage, and notwithstanding the real Jonas continued in the ship, and was ' cast up at London' in safety, as were all the ship's com- pany ; yet it was reported that they owed their safety to the destruction of the petition to parliament, when, as Major Child says, it was only a copy of a petition to their own court at Bos- ton ; still the petition to parliament, with a copy of that thrown overboard, and other writings of that nature, were still in the ship, and safely delivered at London, as before mentioned." 1
The petitioners may not have been all of the best temper, nor in all respects of the best intentions; but the treatment they received was singularly unjust. A number of years sub- sequent to this, Mary Hooke, a daughter of Maverick, in a peti- tion to Governor Andros, refers to the severe treatment which her father received. This petition, which is an important one in many respects, is as follows 2 :-
" Feby 13th, 1687 -
" To His Excellency S' Edmund Andros Knight Captr Gen- erall and Governor in Chiefe in & over his Majesties Territory and Dominion of New England &c.
" The Humble Petition of Mary, the wife of Francis Hooke,
Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 298.
2 Mass. Archives, Vol. 128, p. 45 ; N. E. Hist. & Gen. Reg. Vol. VIII. p. 334.
107
MARY HOOKE'S PETITION.
1648.]
of the Towne of Kittery in the Provynce of Mayne, Daughter and Heiresse of Samuel Mavericke, deceased,
" Sheweth unto yor Excellency
" That Your Peticoners said Father the sd Samuell Maverick was in the yeare of our Lord God 1648 an inhabitant and owner of a place called Noddle's Island in New England, now in the possession of Corronell Shrimpton, at which tyme, he yr Peticonrs sª father with some others drew upp a Peticon wth an intent to prsent it to the late Majty King Charles the first of ever blessed memory, in which Peticon they requested severall liberties which they did not then enjoy, and amongst other things for the baptizeing of their Children. But by some means or other the said Peticon was discovered by the Massathusetts Government and the Peticon's imprisoned for a long season, and att length all fined, amongst which yor Peticon's sª Father was fined the full summe of Two Hundred and Fifty pounds sterling ; 1 Which sume he resolveing not to pay, and fearing the sd Island would be seized to make payment of itt, he made a deede of Gift of the sd Island to his Eldest sonne, not wth any designe to deliver the sª Deede to him, but onely to prvent the seizure of itt. But yor Peticon's sª Eldest Brother heareing of itt, by a Crafty Wile contrary to his Father's Knowledge gott the sd deede into his custody. But whether he sold it, or how he disposed of itt yor Peticon" canot sett forth, soe that yor Peticon's sd Father in his life tyme. And yor Peticon" since his decease hath been debarred of their just right, and partly by the Massathusetts Government continuing soe long, And yor Peti- con's Father being one of the Kings Comissrs sent with Collon !! Niccolls Gen Sr Robt Carr & Collon" Cartwright to settle the affaires in New York & New England but were interrupted at Boston wth sound of Trumpett.
" Wherefor yor Peticon" humbly desires yor Excellency to take the prmisses into consideration and to graunt her some reliefe therein And yor Peticon" as in duty bound shall ever pray &c
MARY HOOKE." 2
1 She makes a mistake ; the fine was £150.
2 Mary Hooke married, first, John Palsgrave on the 8th of the 12th month,
108
HISTORY.
[1647.
The petitioners of 1646, two of whom went to England with their appeal in November of that year, had declared their inten- tion of appealing to parliament. This is probably the one to which Mary Hooke refers, although, from the ambiguous man- ner in which her statement is worded, it might seem the petition to which she refers was sent in 1648. But as Charles I. had at that time lost his throne, she undoubtedly had reference to the petition of 1646, and the words, "at which time," may mean that the petition was sent when Maverick was owner of Nod- dle's Island.
In March, 1647, the assistants arraigned Samuel Maverick and William Clark for their active exertions in obtaining signa- tures to the non-freemen's petition, which it was intended to present to the Earl of Warwick and the other commissioners, who had the control of affairs in the North American colonies. Clark was a member of the Salem church. Both Maverick and Clark were bound over to the general court, Smith and Dand having given security for the payment of their fines. Relative to the first petition, they were bailed to appear at the same tribunal. Child declined to give similar bonds, and was therefore committed to prison. The reason for such particu-
1655, and after his decease, on the 20th of September, 1660, Francis Hooke. " Francis Hooke is first introduced to us as a pious man and preacher of the gospel. He selected his place of abode at Winter-harbor, in Saco, where men- tion is made of him in 1660. Inflexibly attached as he was to the interests of Gorges, in belief that his right was well-founded, he was appointed a justice, both under Archdale in 1663-4, and by the king's commissioners in 1665. For a period his acceptance of these offices, in connection with his political senti- ments, might have rendered him unpopular among the partisans of Massachu- setts; yet so entirely had he regained the public esteem in 1680 as to be appointed first county treasurer under President Danforth's administration, and a member of the council during the whole period of his presidency. He seems to have had the singular good fortune of a very few public men, that is, to be popular with all parties. For, in 1692 and 3, he was a member of the prov- ince council under the charter of William and Mary, a judge of probate two years, and also a judge upon the bench of the common pleas. He removed to Kittery before the commencement of the second Indian war, where he died in January, 1695. In a word, such was Francis Hooke, that no other of that age in the province was so public spirited and highly useful, none better beloved." - Appendix, Williamson's Hist. Maine, p. 679.
1647.]
IMPRISONMENT. 109
larity, as Winthrop observes, was that " the cause was of so great concernment as the very life and foundation of our gov- ernment." 1
" On the 26th of May, at the general election, an effort was made by the favorers of the principles advocated by Child and others to choose a governor and magistrates who would sus- tain their cause. The attempt was unsuccessful, no one of their candidates being elected save Robert Bridges, belonging to Lynn, for an assistant." 2
On account of the insecurity of the Boston jail, the court in June gave instructions, that if all the prisoners of Dr. Child's company be released except one or two, these should be put in irons, unless they paid the charge for two watchmen.3
It was ordered, in October, that Dand, one of the remon- strants, should be set at liberty on condition of tendering a suitable acknowledgment, and giving sufficient security for the payment of fifty pounds.4
If by "all the prisoners of Dr. Child's company " is meant all who signed the remonstrance to parliament, then Maverick was at one time imprisoned for an offence like that his daughter names ; and that this was the case is evident from a clause alluding to his imprisonment in one of the petitions pre- sented by Maverick to the court, which is given on a sub- sequent page.
On the 26th of May, 1647, the court agreed upon the sen- tence against the petitioners, and it is thus recorded : - 5
" The Courte having taken into serious consideracon the crimes chardged on Doct Robt Child, Mr John Smith, Mr Thomas Burton, Mr John Dand & Mr Samuell Mauericke, & whereof they have binn found guilty vpon full evidence by the former judgement of this Courte, have agreed upon ye sentence here ensewing respectively decreed to each of them,
Doctor Child, two hundred pounds, & imprisonment vntill £ s. d.
it be payed or security given for it . 200 00 00
1 Felt's Eccl. Hist. N. E., p. 594. 2 Ibid. 596. 3 Ibid. 598. 4 Ibid. 602. Mass. Records, Vol. III. p. 113.
10
110
HISTORY.
[1647.
£ s. d. Mr John Smith, one hundred pounds, & imprisonment as be- fore 100 00 00 Mr John Dand, two hundred pounds & imprisonment as be- fore . 200 00 00 . Mr Tho : Burton, one hundred pounds & imprisonment as before 100 00 00 Mr Sam: Mauericke, ffor his offence in being pty to ye conspir- acy one hundred pounds, & imprisonment as before .
100 00 00 .
Mr Sam. Mauericke, ffor his offence in breaking his oath, & in appealing agnst yt intent of his oath of a freeman, ffifty pounds & imprisonment as before . 050 00 00 Jacob Barney, contradicens to ye sentence of ye Courte."
Maverick did not quietly submit to this heavy tax, but earnestly addressed the court on the subject. The following petition is copied from the archives : - 1
"I Samuell Mavericke humbly request that whereas at a Corte held in May & June 1647 there was layd to my charge conspiracy and periury, for wch I was fined 150£, no witnes appearing either viva voce or by writinge, but was refered to the records for sufficient testimony to convince me, wch records I could not obtaine in thirteen weekes, in the space of one month after sentence I yielded myself prisonner according to the order of Corte, & after my abode there 12 dayes paid the fines, & so was discharged, wch time haveing gotten coppies of the records, and finding nothing materiall against me, whereby I may, (as I conceive) be rendered guilty, so as to deserve so great a fine, or to lye under so great disparagment upon record.
" I therefore humbly desire this honored Courte, that my fines may be repaid, and my Credit repaid, by recording my inno- cency, if such testimony do not further appeare, as may render me guilty.
8 (3) 1649
" SAMUELL MAUERICKE."
Another petition, for the remission of his fines, etc., entitled " Mr Mauericke's 2nd petition," was presented on the 16th of May, same year, and is thus recorded.2
1 Lib. 38, B. 228. 2 Mass. Records, Vol. III. pp. 166, 167.
111
PETITIONS.
1647.]
" To the honnored Generall Courte, now assembled in Boston. " May it please you :
" Whereas I have been formerly chardged wth conspiracy & perjury, wch to my vnderstanding, hath not binn sufficyently pvd agt me, tho the Courte, vpon the evidences brought against me, sentenced and fined me 150£, & having searched the records cannot yett see sufficyent evidence to prove the chardges against me, wch mooved me to petition this honnored Courte for a review of my cawse ; yett I desire the Courte to vnderstand me, so as if I accoumpted myself altogether free of error, but have cawse rather to suspect and judge myself and accons then your justice and p'ceedings ; and being confident and experimentally assured of yor clemency to others in the like kind, I am bold rather to crave yor mercy in the favorable remit- tance of my fines then to stand either to justify myself or p'ceed- ings, wch as they have (contrary to my intencons) prooved p'ju- dicyall and very offensive, so it hath binn, is, and willbe, my griefe and trouble. I shall not trouble you wth arguments respecting myself and family, though the burden lyes heavy in that respect ; the only motive lies in yor owne breasts, yor wonted charity, wch will render you to the world mercifull, and refresh and fully satisfy yor humble petitioner, who doth remaine Your humble servant
" SAMUEL MAUERICKE."
To this petition the deputies consented in full, " wth refer- ence to the consent of our honnored Magists." But the magis- trates refused their consent, and the petitioner failed in his request.
We find yet another petitione, in these words : -
" To the right worpp" the Gouernor Deputie Gouernor and Assistants togeather wth the honord Deputies now Assembled in the Generall Court at Boston -
" The Humble Petition of Samuell Mavericke sheweth that Whereas yor Petition" did in or about November last prferr a peticon to this honored Court; wherein hee desired you would graunt him a review of his Tryall, the reparacon of his Creditt, and remittmt of fines imposed on him for the reasons therein
112
HISTORY.
[1650.
Declared as more fully doth appeare by the sayd Peticon, a Coppy whereof hee doth heerewth prsent vnto you but receiving noe Answer.
" Hee doth Humbly request you to take the sayd Peticon into yor serious Consideracon being ready to make his Purgation on Oath if desired, and willing if any Evidence appeare suffi- tient to Render him Guiltie (and hee not able apparently to Contradict it) freely to Submit vnto the Sentence ; his Request being, (as hee supposeth) reasonable, hee doubts not of yor fauorable Answer wch will farther Obleidge him Euer to Remaine Yor Humble Servant."
Mr. Maverick's persevering efforts were, at last, partially successful; for on the 19th of June, 1650, -
" In answer to the petition of Mr. Samuel Mauericke for the remittinge or mitigation of a fine of one hundred & fiftie pounds formerly layd vppon him, it is ordred, that the petitionor shall haue the one halfe of the foresd fine abated. p Curiam." 1
Mr. Maverick, a few years later, had these proceedings of the government in full remembrance, and doubtless enjoyed the exercise of the power given him over those who had, but a short time before, judged his actions so severely ; and it is only another instance of the vicissitudes of life, when the accused becomes the accuser, the law-breaker the lawgiver.
On this whole subject, Drake justly observes: "It may appear strange that Mr. Maverick should submit to so many indignities as from time to time it has been seen that he did ; a man that Boston could not do without. He was a gentleman of wealth and great liberality. A few pages back, 291, we have seen how much the town was indebted to him for help to rebuild the fort on Castle island. He may have looked upon these and other proceedings against him as petty annoyances, to which it was best quietly to submit, not wishing to set an example of opposition to the government, or, having a large property at stake, he might not wish to jeopardize it."2 Says another writer : "He was compelled to contribute to the sup- port of the elders, but, with his family, was excluded from all
1 Mass. Records, Vol. III. p. 200.
2 Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 296
113
REFLECTIONS.
1662.]
participation in the solemn ordinances of religion."1 When considering the peculiar circumstances under which he was placed, and the evident fact that his position as a man of wealth, liberality, hospitality, public spirit, enterprise, and rank in society, demanded at least equal rights and privileges, it must be admitted that he exercised exemplary patience.
It is sad to contemplate such acts of oppression as have been briefly noticed, whatever the provocation might be that called them forth. The government appears to have been for a long period in constant fear of attempts, both here and in the mother country, to establish Episcopacy, to which their own independ- ence would be brought into subjection; and that fear was doubtless the chief incentive in all their harsh and oppressive acts towards members of the Church of England contending for their rights. But a significant clause in the letter of Charles II. (28th June, 1662) to the Massachusetts Colony, illustrates that the spirit of intolerance was not confined to New England, nor to any particular sect of Christians. " We cannot be under- stood hereby to direct, or wish, that any indulgence should be granted to those persons commonly called Quakers, whose prin- ciples being inconsistent with any kind of government, we have found it necessary, by the advice of Parliament here, to make a sharp law against them, and are well contented that you do the like there." 2
In the spirit of toleration and mildness our ancestors were far in advance of the mother country; and it would be well for those who delight in dwelling on the confessed severity and rigidness of the early settlers, and their spirit of intolera- tion to all who differed from them, to compare, with reference to this point, Old England and New England at that time. Such a comparison will show that our honored ancestors, although to our present ideas harsh and bigotedly illiberal, still were many years ahead of the times in which they lived. It was natural that they should be jealous of any innovation in their religious worship. They had left their own country on account of the persecutions of the church, and, with singular self-sacrifice, had crossed the ocean and founded a settlement
1 Puritan Commonwealth, p. 419.
2 Danforth Papers.
10*
114
HISTORY. [1650
to enjoy their own forms of worship and their own ideas of government; and when they saw the attempt made to establish here the very system from which they had fled, they resisted, and resorted to measures which we cannot approve; but yet they were much milder measures, and more in accordance with the opinions of the present day, than were pursued under the same circumstances in England. It is by no means certain but that, with all our boasted liberality of sentiment, we should act in the same manner if placed in a similar situation; and our judgment of others should always be regulated by the time and the peculiar circumstances which surround the subject. Situated as we now are in the full enjoyment of the funda- mental principles which our forefathers established, it is difficult for us to appreciate their peculiar situation, or to realize the difficulties they had to encounter and overcome. Their tenacity of opinion and jealousy of intrusion led to a too intense expres- sion of their ardor in the cause they had espoused, and for the establishment of which they had planted their feet on these western shores. Smarting with their recent sufferings from intolerance at home, they could not brook the thought that they were to be followed over the waters by the same spirit. They pursued a course of measures perhaps impolitic and severe, and upon which we look back with regret. But, while we condemn, let us not forget the extraordinary circumstances in which they were placed, and let us give our judgment upon an honest investigation and just appreciation of all the pecu- liarities of the case.
CHAPTER V.
NODDLE'S ISLAND A PLACE OF REFUGE TO THE BAPTISTS.
SIMILAR in character to the Episcopalian troubles in the Mas- sachusetts colony were the Baptist difficulties, which lasted for a period of twenty years, and involved both church and state in an unhappy controversy.
In the direct order of time, the sale of Noddle's Island by Maverick came between these two religious controversies, but they are so closely connected in character it is thought best to present them in juxtaposition, even at the sacrifice of strict chronological order. Suffice it then in this place to say, that, during the protracted contest in which the persecuted Baptists took refuge on Noddle's Island, the Island was not in Mave- rick's possession, nor was he connected with it in any manner. With him circumstances had vastly altered. He had sold his Island home, and, as a royal commissioner, was in the exercise of authority over those who so recently had apparently taken delight in using with severity their brief authority over him.
Persisting in their harsh treatment of all who differed from what might with propriety be called the Established Church of the colony (for such it was in spirit), the authorities, in oppo- sition to the well-known wishes of the crown, and in spite of the presence of the royal commissioners, who had power over them in these matters, afflicted the Baptists with the same rigorous treatment with which they had treated Maverick and his Episcopalian friends. Resisting the authority of the com- missioners, the colonial government determined, at all hazards, to preserve its favorite form of religious worship untainted with any heresies, and this persecution of the Baptists well illus- trates this point, and is pertinent to the narrative.
As Noddle's Island was long the residence of Maverick, the
116
HISTORY.
[1665.
zealous Episcopalian and royalist, whose efforts to obtain relig- ious toleration and civil rights brought him only fines and imprisonment, so also it was, after it passed out of his posses- sion, the refuge of the First Baptist Church of Boston, while under the interdict of the provincial government.
" I give," said Henry Shrimpton, the father of Colonel Shrimpton, a subsequent owner of Noddle's Island, in his will, dated July 17th, 1666, " ten pounds to the society of Christians that doth meet at Noddle's Island, of whom is Gould & Osborne & the rest, as a token of my love." That this was also a token of his liberal and catholic spirit, and of his indiffer- ence as to official prejudice, the facts relating to this society will show.
This was not only the " First Baptist Church of Boston" (a name it still bears), but for nearly forty years comprised almost all the Baptist interests in the colony. Formed in Charlestown 28, 3, (May) 1665, by Thomas Gould, Thomas Osborne, Ed- ward Drinker, and John George, who were then baptized, and Richard Girdall, William Turner, Robert Lambert, Mary Girdall, and Mary Newell, who had been Baptists in England, the organization was preceded by ten years of ecclesiastical troubles, and followed by ten more of legal oppression.
Gould and Osborne had been members of the First Church in Charlestown ; but, " it having been a long time," says Gould, " a scruple to me about infant baptism, God was pleased at last to make it clear to me by the rule of the gospel that children were not capable nor fit subjects for such an ordinance." This was in 1655; and the omission at that time to present his child for baptism, introduced those troubles which issued in the formation of a Baptist church. He was cited to appear before the Charlestown church, and he did so; and at several meetings the propriety of infant baptism was discussed at length. The discussions resulted, as such disputations generally do, in con- vincing neither party. No church action, however, was had until he adopted the practice of leaving the church during the performance of this rite. Upon this and other manifestations of his dislike, as he himself says, he was " dealt with " for "unrev- erent carriage." The proceedings ran through two years, in the course of which he was laid " under admonition." From that
117
THE BAPTISTS.
1665.]
time he ceased to attend the meeting at Charlestown. A short time elapsed, and he was summoned to answer for so doing. His reply that "he had not rent from the church, for they had put him away," was not considered valid; and, in June, 1658, after conference between himself and the church, in which he justified his long absence upon the ground that their suspen- sion of him had deprived him of membership, he was " admon- ished for breaking away from the church in the way of schism, never having used any means to convince the church of any irregular proceeding, but continuing peremptorily and contu- maciously to justify his schism."
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.