History of East Boston; with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix, Part 8

Author: Sumner, William H. (William Hyslop), 1780-1861. cn
Publication date: 1858
Publisher: Boston, J. E. Tilton
Number of Pages: 883


USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > East Boston > History of East Boston; with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix > Part 8
USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > East Boston > History of East Boston : with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix. > Part 8


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


" CHEVALIER DE LA TOUR." 1


A passage in the Massachusetts Records has given rise to some discussion as to the character of the " Mr. Maverick" therein referred to. The passage is as follows : -


" It is ordered that Mr Shepheard, and Robte Coles shalbe . ffyned 5 mks a peece & Edward Gibbons xxs for abuseing them- selves disorderly with drinkeing to much stronge drinke aboard the Frendshipp & att Mr Mauacke his howse at Winettsemt." 2


Were there nothing else by which to judge of the character of either Elias or Samuel Maverick, this passage, taken alone, would have an unfavorable bearing; although the strictness of the laws at that time, and the severe punishments inflicted for small crimes, are well known. On examination it appears that a part of the cargo of the Friendship was, "2. hoggsheads meatheglin, drawne out in wooden flackets, but when these flackets


1 Suffolk Deeds, Vol. I. p. 75.


2 Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 90.


83


MAVERICK OF WINNISIMET.


1631.]


came to be received there was left but 6 gallons of ye 2 hogsheads, it being drunke up under ye name of leackage and so lost," 1 and in another place the crew is spoken of as a "most wicked and drunken crue."2 The probability is that the liquor was drunk on board the Friendship, and thence they went to Mr. Mave- rick's house. But that drunkenness was countenanced by either Elias or Samuel is contrary to all our knowledge of their respective characters. And still further, these men so fined were subsequently discharged.3


There is another record, which reads as follows : --


"3d May 1631. It is ordered that Thomas Chubb shal be freed from the service of Mr. Sam" Mauacke & shall become serv't to Willm Gayllerd of Dorchester," etc.4 Efforts have been made, in some directions, to impeach the character of Mr. Mave- rick from this record, which is only special pleading. If this Chubb had been bound to Mr. Maverick, of course he could not change his master without authority, and this record is no evi- dence that the change was on account of any misdemeanor of his old master.


In the year 1632, when the colony was alarmed by reports of piracy committed by one Dixy Bull, a man of note on the coast, the governor and council determined to send an armed vessel with twenty men to join others at Piscataqua, and this united party was to go in search of the pirate. Samuel Maverick's " pinnace " was selected for the purpose, and it made a cruise of several weeks, but without success. In the bills for this expedition, we find the following : " Paid by a bill from Mr. Samuel Maverick, being husband and merchant of the pin- nace for a months wages to Elias Maverick £2 Paid for victuals on his account £2. 5s. Lieut. Mason for his service in the pinnace £10." etc.5


When the name " Mr. Maverick of Winnisimmet " has been mentioned, it has sometimes been difficult to determine whether


1 Bradford's Plimoth Plantation, p. 269.


2 Ibid. 291.


3 Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 243.


4 Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 86.


6 Drake's History of Boston, p. 148 and note.


84


HISTORY.


[1633.


Elias or Samuel was meant. In Winthrop's Journal we find the following : " 1633 Dec. 5. John Sagamore died of the small- pox and almost all his people; (above thirty buried by Mr. Maverick of Winesemett in one day)" and "when their own people forsook them, the English came daily and ministered to them : and yet few, only two families took any infection by it. Among others, Mr Maverick of Winesemett is worthy of a per- petual remembrance. Himself, his wife and servants went daily to them, ministered to their necessities, and buried their dead, and took home many of their children. So did other of their neighbors."1 It has been generally supposed by writers, among whom are Savage, Drake, Felt, and others, that this referred to Samuel Maverick ; but there are many circumstances which go to show that this act of Christian kindness was by another of the name, Elias, probably a brother of Samuel. At this remote day, and in the lack of positive records, it is impos- sible to determine the question. All that is known on either side will be given, and the intelligent reader can draw such a conclusion as seems most satisfactory to his own mind.


In Winthrop's narrative, one point is worthy of notice. He twice specifies on this point " Mr. Maverick of Winnesimmet," as if to distinguish him from Mr. Maverick of Noddle's Island, and in speaking of the latter, he invariably calls him simply " Mr. Maverick," without giving him any location ; but in this case he gives the location, and the most natural conclusion is that it was done to distinguish two men. Samuel Maverick at that time was well known as the proprietor of Noddle's Island, it having been granted to him on the 1st of April, 1633 ; and, since all the authorities agree in placing him on Noddle's Island from 1628 or 1629, so on through a long course of years, it would appear to have been generally understood that that was his place of residence. It will be noticed also, that the Indians were not assisted until the December following the April in which the Island was granted to Samuel Maverick. The Island, according to the best authorities, seems to have


1 Winthrop's Journal *119, 120, note; Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 164; Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 173.


85


MAVERICK'S RESIDENCE.


1635.]


been his established home before the arrival of Winthrop, and here he had fortified himself with his fort, and " four murther- ers," arrangements which pertain to a permanent, and not a temporary, habitation. Nor would he have protected himself at Winnisimet by building a fort and mounting the guns at Nod- dle's Island; nor after building his fort there, and after he "had fixed his tent " 1 there, and acquired a "flourishing plantation," 2 would he be likely to leave for another place. Johnson locates him at Noddle's Island in 1629; Farmer also at the same time. Drake, and there is no better authority, says that Mave- rick's settlement on Noddle's Island was commenced a year be- fore Conant's arrival, and that it was never abandoned. Prince states that he "lives" on the Island, in 1630, where " he had built a small fort." Edward Johnson, one of Winthrop's com- pany in 1630, speaks of him as then living on the Island, and mentions his fortifications,8 and the records of the court, and the histories which have come down to us, all unite in fixing his residence there, and speak of it as a well understood fact. The two principal reasons, probably, which have led to the supposition, that Samuel Maverick was of Winnisimet, are that he was the most prominent man of the name and occupies a more conspicuous place in the colonial history, and that the ferry to Winnisimet was granted to him. But it should be remembered, that the ferry was not granted until the 3d of September, 1634, almost a year after the sickness of the Indians. According to the Records, 1634, Sept. 3: "The fferry att Wynysemet is graunted to Mr Sam11 Maâucke, to enioy to him & his heires & assignes foreuer,"4 etc. He did not hold it long, however, for on the 27th of February, 1634-5, Mr. Maverick and John Blackleach sold to Richard Bellingham " a messuage called Winnisimmet," etc., and " also his interest in the ferry." 5


It is evident from this and from other records, that Samuel Maverick owned land at Winnisimet, and he probably desired the ferry as a mean of intercourse between the different por- tions of his estate. He owned a large tract of land on the


Mass. Hist. Coll. IX. 47, 48.


8 Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. XII. p. 86.


5 Suffolk Deeds, I. 15.


2 Puritan Commonwealth, p. 419.


4 Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 126.


8


86


HISTORY.


[1635.


Chelsea shore. For instance, we find that about the year 1642 he sold land there to William Stitson, the father-in-law of Elias Mavericke. The record states, that -


" Wm Stitson of Charlestown, yeoman, sell to Elias Maver- icke of Wenesimit wtin the precincts of Boston, all yt parcel of Land at Winesimit wch upward of 20 yeares I have quietly possessed by purchase from Mr. Sam1 Maverick, 70 acres or thereabouts.1 (8: 2: 1662) WM STITSON


ELIZABETH < STITSON."


Still, this ownership of land at Winnisimet does not neces- sarily prove that he lived there, and indeed nothing is more improbable than that he should erect a strongly fortified resi- dence, occupy it for years just previous to this sickness of the Indians, then move to Winnisimet, and in a short time go back to the Island, at which place we find him not long afterward. Another reason to show that the Maverick in question was not Samuel is, that, on the 4th of March, 1634-5, " Mr. Maverick" was ordered to remove to Boston, and not to give entertain- ment to strangers, etc. This, unquestionably, refers to Samuel, who was so noted for his hospitality, and his hospitality is always mentioned in connection with Noddle's Island.


Reasons like these give plausibility to the idea that it was not Samuel Maverick who was so kind to the Indians, although such acts would be in accordance with the benevolence of his character; while, from the reasons which follow, it is not improbable that the man in question was Elias.


Elias Maverick was born in 1604, and was admitted to the church in Charlestown on the 9th of February, 1632-3;2 but there is no positive evidence, which we have yet been able to find, which shows that he resided there. Granting that he resided at Winnisimet, the church at Charlestown was the nearest one he could join, and the ferry between Winnisimet and Charlestown being already established, there was regular communication between the two places.3 In the town records


1 Suffolk Deeds, Lib. IV. fol. 40.


2 Budington's Hist. 1st Ch. in Charlestown.


3 Mass. Records, I. 87.


87


MAVERICK OF WINNISIMET.


1633.]


of Boston1 is recorded the marriage of Abigail, " Daughter of Ellias Mavericke of Winnesimet," 4th of June, 1655. His name does not appear on the list of those who were inhabitants of Charlestown in 1630 ;2 it does not appear among possessors of land there in 1638, nor in town deeds from 1638 to 1665. This would indicate that he did not reside in Charlestown. His name is not found there as a resident, nor as a landholder, only as an active church-member. His locality in 1633 cannot yet be ascertained. Some one had been at Winnisimet for a number of years, but who, the records do not state. It may have been Elias Maverick; this is supposition ; still it may be so. On May 2d, 1657, we find " Ellias Maverick of Winnisimmet," planter, buying land on Hog island,3 and again in 1662 (2d month, 8th day),4 " Elias Maverick of Winnisimmet," bought land in Win- nisimet of William Stitson (his father-in-law).


Winnisimet was ordered to "belonge to Boston" on the 3d of September, 1634.5 Children of Elias Maverick born subse- quent to this date are found on the early records of Boston ; still, this of itself would not be enough to substantiate the point, as sometimes in those early records, names were inserted of those belonging in other towns.6 But taken in connection with all the circumstances, it seems to favor the idea that Elias was living at Winnisimet, especially when we are certain that he never resided within the limits of the city proper. That Elias made Winnisimet his home is made certain, still further, from his will, dated there, and which commences, " Elias Mave- rick senior of Winnasimmett." It will be given entire on another page. There is a record which states that Anne Her- ris became the wife of Elias Maverick of Charlestown; still, this does not of necessity prove that Charlestown was his resi- dence. Of course, there were no records kept at Winnisimet, and Elias was well known as a prominent member of the church in Charlestown, and married a Charlestown woman.


1 Gen. Register, Vol. I. New Series, p. 203.


2 Budington's Hist. p. 179.


3 Suffolk Deeds, Lib. 3, fol. 20.


4 Ibid. 4, 40.


5 Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 125.


6 Gen. Register, Vol. IV. p. 268.


88


HISTORY.


[1633.


From all that has been stated, a natural conclusion is that Elias Maverick is the one who is " worthy of perpetual remem- brance" for his kindness to the poor Indians. The substance of the reason is this : that Samuel Maverick lived at Noddle's Island, and there is no positive evidence that he ever lived any- where else within many years of the date in question (1633) ; Winthrop distinguishes between the two men, in locating one while he never locates Samuel, he being a man so generally known in the colony. Elias Maverick lived for many years at Winnisimet, and died there. He was a member of the church in Charlestown in 1632, and for the remainder of his life, so far as is known, but he was not a real estate owner there, nor is his name on the town deeds between 1638 and 1665. The church at Charlestown was the nearest one to Winnisimet, and a ferry made communication between the two places. The births of his children are recorded in Boston, and Winnisimet was " laid to Boston" before these births occurred.


Except as a matter of curiosity, and for the sake of settling a disputed point, this question has no particular importance. The kindness performed was creditable in the highest degree to the doer, whether Samuel or Elias, and is in accordance .. with the character of both of the men. If it was Elias, it shows that Christian kindness was exemplified in his character to a remarkable degree, especially when we consider the nature of that loathsome disease, and especially before vaccination was known. If it was Samuel, it shows the same Christian kindness and humanity, only in a higher degree ; for although he was an Episcopalian, and as such was debarred from hold- ing office, and in adhering to his faith was opposing the wishes of the colonists, yet he united with them in the noble work of benevolence, subjecting the minor differences of sect to the universal principles of Christianity.


Before closing this point, it should be stated, that, although in the printed text of his admirable history of Boston, Mr. Drake speaks of Samuel Maverick as the one who buried the Indians, yet in the Index, subsequently printed, he honors Elias with this distinction, and, in a note to the writer, he says : " On referring to my History, p. 164 (corrected copy), I find I have written against Samuel Maverick ' Elias ?' having come


89


HOSPITALITY.


1634-8.]


to the conclusion (after I had printed), that the ' Mr. Maverick' was Elias, and not Samuel." Mr. Drake, from his thorough research, is probably as well qualified to judge on this point as any man living. Of course, a single date, locating Elias or Samuel in the year 1633, would decide the question; and it is possible that such a date may yet be found, although the most patient research has as yet failed of so doing.


With the destruction of the records at the burning of Charles- town in 1776 perished the records of the Maverick family ;1 and this accounts for much of the difficulty in settling doubtful points.


In March, 1634, it was agreed by the general court that " noe wood shalbe felled at any of the islands nor elsewhere, vntill they bee lotted out, but att Muddy Ryver, Dorchester Necke or Noddles Island; yt all ye wood as yet left vpon ye Necke of land towards Roxburie, shall bee gathered vp and layd or heaped in pyles " before the seventh day of April next.


In the month previous to this regulation by the general court, the Town of Boston had passed the following order 2: - " Yt all the inhabitants shall plant eyther upon such ground as is alreadie broken up or enclosed in the neck,3 or else upon the ground at Noddles Island from Mr. Maverick's grant, and that every able man fitt to plant shall have allowed him two acres to plant on, & for able youth one acre, to be allotted out by Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Sampford, & Wm. Cheese- borough, & Mr. Brenton or any three of them."


The hospitality of Maverick's mansion seems to have been generally acknowledged.


Josselyn, who made a voyage to this country in 1638, in the " New Supply, alias the Nicholas of London," has given an interesting narrative.4 He arrived " before Boston," after a pas- sage across the Atlantic of about seventy days, July 3d, 1638,


1 On the authority of N. B. Mountfort, Esq., of New York City, a descendant of Maverick.


Town Records, Vol. I. p. 2.


8 Meaning the whole of the peninsula.


4 Mass. IList. Coll. Vol. III. 3d Ser. p. 220, 226.


8*


90


HISTORY.


[1638.


and after staying aboard a week, on the tenth of July he "went ashore upon Noddle's Island to Mr. Samuel Maverick (for his passage), the only hospitable man in all the country, giving entertainment to all comers gratis." " Having refreshed him- self for a day or two upon Noddle's Island," he crossed to Bos- ton, " which was then a village of not above twenty or thirty houses ; and presenting his respects to Mr. Winthrope the Gov- ernor, and to Mr. Cotton the Teacher of Boston church, to whom he delivered from Mr. Francis Quarles, the poet, the translation of the 16, 25, 51, 88, 113, and 137 psalms into English Meeter, for his approbation, being civilly treated by all I had occasion to converse with, I returned in the Evening to my lodging.


" The Twelfth day of July after I had taken my leave of Mr. Maverick, and some other Gentlemen I took Boat for the Eastern parts of the Countrie," etc. Upon his return, he says, " The Thirtieth day of September I went ashore upon Noddles- Island, where when I was come to Mr. Maverick's he would not let me go aboard no more, until the ship was ready to set sail." 1


These extracts from Josselyn show in the plainest manner the character and reputation which Mr. Maverick had secured as a hospitable and generous man, and wherever his name is mentioned by writers of that time, this description is universally sustained.


Samuel Maverick was one of the earliest (if not the ear- liest) of slaveholders in Massachusetts. A Captain William Pierce, who was a prominent person in the early years of the colony, carried to the West Indies, in 1637, some captive Pequods to sell for slaves. On his return from the Tortugas, 26th Feb., 1638, he had as a part of his cargo a number of negroes. These appear to have been purchased by Samuel Maverick and others. " This is the first notice," says Felt in his Annals of Salem, " that we have of this disfranchised class." 2 At no period in the history of Massachusetts does it appear that slavery was viewed with favor by the people at large, while on the contrary it was repugnant to the feelings of


1 Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. III. 3d Ser. p. 231.


2 Felt's Annals of Salem, Vol. I. p. 414.


91


SLAVERY.


1639.].


the Puritans, and was looked upon with abhorrence. Yet, now and then two or three negroes at a time were brought from Bar- badoes and other British colonies and sold for about twenty pounds apiece, and as late as 1678 there were more than a hundred slaves in the Massachusetts colony. So that this cruise of Pierce's, and this purchase by Maverick and others, were not solitary instances, which make them to our enlightened views sinners above all others, but composed part of a series of similar cases, which, at that time, were looked upon in a far different light from the views which are at the present day entertained.


It is doubtless in reference to these same slaves, that Mr. Josselyn relates an incident, which at this day cannot be justi- fied, but which truth in a historical narrative demands to be recorded : ---


"1639. The 2d of October, about 9 of the clock in the morning, Mr. Maverick's negro woman came to my chamber window, and in her own country's language and tune sang very loud and shrill ; going out to her, she used a great deal of respect towards me, and willingly would have expressed her grief in English; but I apprehended it by her countenance and deportment, whereupon I repaired to my host, to learn of him the cause, and resolved to entreat him in her behalf, for that I understood before that she had been a queen in her own coun- try, and observed a very humble and dutiful garb used toward her by another negro who was her maid. Mr. Maverick was desirous to have a breed of negroes, and therefore seeing she would not yield by persuasions to company with a negro young man he had in his house, he commanded him, nill'd he, nill'd she, to go to bed to her, which was no sooner done but she kicked him out again. This she took in high disdain beyond her slavery, and this was the cause of her grief." 1


It must be remembered, that this was more than two hundred years ago, and that public sentiment then was not aroused to the moral and social evils of slavery, and the whole subject was looked upon in an entirely different light from what it now is ; and while we with our present feelings and belief do justly


1 Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. III. 3d Series, p. 231.


L 1 t


-


f


92


HISTORY.


[1639.


condemn such conduct as is here referred to, although it then was, and now is, a common practice in slave countries, we shall do well to ask ourselves whether parallel instances are not numerous in our day, in the West Indies and in our own coun- try, and to consider that these latter cases, committed in the full flood of moral, intellectual, and religious light of the nineteenth century, are beyond comparison more blameworthy than similar occurrences two hundred years ago.


Josselyn 1 also speaks very feelingly of an incident of a dif- ferent nature, that occurred to himself. " The same day" (Oct. 2d, 1639), he says, "in the afternoon, I walked into the woods on the back side of the house, and happening into a fine broad walk (which was a sledg-way), I wandered till I chanced to spye a fruit, as I thought, like a pine-apple plated with scales ; it was as big as the crown of a woman's hat. I made bold to step unto it, with an intent to have gathered it; no sooner had I toucht it but hundreds of Wasps were about me ; at last I cleared myself from them, being stung only by one on the upper lip. Glad I was that I scaped so well; but by that time I was come into the house, my lip was swell'd so extreamly, that they hardly knew me but by my garments."


Johnson cites Henry Gardner, who speaks of Maverick as the "most hospitable man for entertainment of people of all sorts." 2 He doubtless extended his hospitalities to persons who sympathized with him in religious sentiment, and who, of course, were obnoxious to the government on that account. At this time the colonial authorities were exceedingly apprehen- sive of efforts to establish Episcopacy here. They had left England for the purpose of enjoying their own views, and were determined that that form of religion from which they had willingly and at great sacrifice exiled themselves should not follow them. While this state of mind, and the corresponding actions, under the circumstances were necessary for their self-


1 It is a curious fact, that (26th June, 1639) Mr. Josselyn was visited by some neighboring gentlemen, who, "amongst variety of discourse," told him of a " sea-serpent or Snake, that lay quoiled up like a Cable upon a Rock at Cape Ann," considered by the Indians dangerous if molested.


: Young's Chronicles, p. 322, note.


93


EPISCOPACY.


1634-5.]


preservation, and thus were justifiable on that ground, still the effects in individual cases were often unhappy, and, at this lapse of time, appear harsh and unjust. In England there was a concerted plan to uproot Puritanism and establish Episcopacy. Laud, and other commissioners for this country, issued orders that none should leave the realm for New England without certificates of having taken the oath of supremacy and alle- giance, and of being conformists to the discipline of the national church.1 The court party felt that some decisive action must be taken, or else the Puritan colonists would get beyond their control. In furtherance of the plan, the Plymouth council agreed to surrender their charter to the crown, provided they could distribute their territory among members of their own body, and in the presence of his majesty they drew lots for the twelve royal provinces into which the territory had been divided. Thus the plan was in progress to establish the supremacy of the king and the authority of the bishops.


Says Winthrop : " It appeared likewise, by a copy of a peti- tion sent over to us, that they had divided all this country of New England, viz., between St. Croix in the east, and that of Lord Baltimore, called Maryland, into twelve provinces, dis- posed to twelve in England, who should send each ten men to attend the general governour coming over ; but the project took not effect. The Lord frustrated their design." 2


This is not the place to go into the details of this contest between the colonists and the church royalists. With increas- ing apprehension that a new governor would be brought to their shores, forcibly dissolve it, and carry out the proposed plan, the general court passed an order that no person should visit any ship without leave from some assistants until she had been anchored twenty-four hours at Nantasket, or some other harbor, nor then unless it was evident that she was manned with friends. A beacon was ordered to be set up on Sentry hill, a watchman was stationed there, and a board of war was appointed to meet the emergency in case of a sudden invasion. This board was authorized to make every preparation for




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.