USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > East Boston > History of East Boston; with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix > Part 9
USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > East Boston > History of East Boston : with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix. > Part 9
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
1 Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 203.
2 Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. * 161.
94
HISTORY.
[1635
defence ; to confine persons suspected of treasonable purposes against the commonwealth; fines were imposed, oaths of fidelity required, and every possible measure taken to protect themselves from the impending evil.
This brief statement is made to explain the following order of the general court in relation to Samuel Maverick, on the 4th of March, 1634-5, in the midst of these exciting times. It was ordered that he should, "before the last of December nexte, remove his habitation for himselfe and his family to Boston, and in the mean tyme shall not give entertainment to any strangers for a longer tyme than one night without leave from some Assistant, and all this to be done under the penalty of £100." 1 As he was an Episcopalian, and noted for hospital- ity to "all new-comers," he was doubtless put under these restrictions from fear lest he might have visitors for the pur- pose of promoting the introduction of the appointed govern- ment of New England.2 This injunction was not of long dura- tion, however, as it was countermanded in the September ses- sion. Felt says, " The suspicion against Samuel Maverick, as a staunch Episcopalian, having lessened, the injunction for his removal to Boston is repealed." 3
There is but little doubt that the authorities were jealous or suspicious of Mr. Maverick, as indeed they were of all who held views contrary to their own; and it is probable that the severe treatment he received at their hands influenced his sub- sequent conduct. He does not come under the head of the " pilgrim fathers." He was an Episcopalian and a royalist, evidently a good liver, a whole-souled, jovial Englishman, gen- erous and kind, but not sympathizing with the Puritans in their peculiarities. Probably of a firm disposition, and not inclined to be subservient to the dictation of others, he natu- rally came in conflict with the more rigid rules of his neighbors. Possessing these traits of character, he was not a favorite with the colonial government, and, in turn, he had no great respect
1 Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 140.
2 Felt's Eccl. Hist. N. E. p. 208. In this valuable work a brief but good account of this controversy can be found.
3 Mass. Records, Vol I. p. 159 ; Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 227.
95
GOVERNOR VANE.
1639.]
for it, especially as he found it vacillating in its actions in · most important matters relating to the welfare of the colony. And still he was always found ready to unite with the colo- nists, and do his full share in any public undertaking.
At the time of the exciting controversies between the Legal- ists and Antinomians so-called, the differences grew so great that they tended fast to a separation, and to the breaking up of social intercourse. Governor Winthrop, in July, 1637, invited the late governor, Henry Vane, to accompany the Lord Ley at dinner at his house. But Vane not only refused to come (alleging by letter that his conscience withheld him), but also at the same hour he went over to Noddle's Island to dine with Mr. Maverick, and took Lord Ley with him.1 This incident shows that Maverick continued his hospitalities, and was on familiar terms with the chief men of the colony.
Vane was "a true friend to New England, and a man of noble and generous mind."2 Winthrop was his rival, and per- haps did not treat him so well as he probably wished he had done some years after. Vane filled the office of governor with general satisfaction, but was left out of office by a manœuvre of the minority. He bore this in silence, his conduct was that of a high-minded and good citizen ; and when he left the coun- try, the people, who regretted his departure, showed him every attention in their power.3
Mr. Maverick's hospitality and humane disposition some- times brought him into trouble and expense. He may not always have been prudent or particular enough in the objects of his charity; but at this lapse of time it is impossible to decide upon the merits of individual cases, especially when the records, of necessity, give only the bare facts without those attending circumstances, which, if known, might palliate seem- ing crime.
In 1641, one Thomas Owen and the wife of a William Hale had been imprisoned under the charge of illicit conduct. In
1 Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. * 232; Felt's Eccl. Hist. p. 309.
2 Winthrop's Journal, Vol. II. p. 304.
3 Drake's Review of Winthrop, p. 18.
96
HISTORY.
[1637.
some way they found means to escape from custody, and it was ascertained that Mr. Maverick had admitted them to his house. It does not appear why he harbored them. He may have allowed them refuge as any other humane person would have done, seeing them in great distress; or there may have been peculiar circumstances connected with the case, which do not appear upon the records, and which justified some such course of action. However this may have been, he was fined one hundred pounds for this act; but it was afterward abated to twenty pounds. Mr. Maverick was not alone in this transac- tion, as we find six or eight individuals fined for the same offence ; and this fact leads to the inference that the proceed- ings against Owen were considered as unjust by not a few of the community, and that Mr. Maverick exercised the kindness for which he was so celebrated, in his usual independent man- ner, without reference to the authorities.1 His hospitable dis- position subjected him to numerous fines, which, however, were frequently remitted ; indeed, he seems generally to have been at war with the government.
Says the editor of Winthrop's Journal: " The character of Maverick induces me to believe that he supposed the parties innocent, which probably influenced Winthrop and the majority to a mitigation of the penalty. . . . . My opinion of Maverick's conduct, reported in the text, gains confirmation from the impli- cation of many others in the escape of the offenders." 2
There are many instances recorded where Maverick was intrusted with public matters, even before his appointment as royal commissioner, and these instances only show that he pos- sessed the confidence of the colonial government, and that they were willing to avail themselves of his services, although they did not allow him to hold any office. Such items, illustrative of his character and standing, may be introduced.
" On the 6th of June, 1637, Robert Anderson, for his con- tempt was fined £50, and sent to prison till he shall give satisfac- tion." . " Mr. Samuel Mavericke," on the same day, " was injoined
1 Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 259 ; Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 335, Vol. II. p. 32; Ibid. p. 54.
2 Winthrop's Journal, Vol. II. * 51, note.
97
REPUTATION.
1637.]
to keep in his hands of the goods of said Anderson to the value of £50 starling for his fine & to deliver him the rest of his goods." 1
In another instance he is directed to bring in his accounts for "publique busines" in which he had been employed ; 2 again, he is one of the referees in adjusting the differences between " Charles Towne & Newe Towne;"3 and, again, he with another individual is appointed to purchase clothing in England for a Wm. Bunnell, which expense the general court is to make good to them.4 In 1639, being bound in £10 for the appearing of James Meadcalfe, forfeited his recognizance, and in December of the same year paid in £5 of it.5
In 1640, among numerous grants of land by the town of Boston, Samuel Maverick and Thomas Fowle had 600 acres each, the greatest quantity allotted to any individuals. Mave- rick also had an additional grant of 400 acres of land in Brain- tree, by the town of Boston, " which was assigned unto Edward Bendall by said Maverick in 1643." 6
Maverick owned, or had claim upon property, in Boston, for we find on record a mortgage to him from Robert Nash, butcher in Charlestown, on a tenement upon the hill near the dwelling- house of "the Reverend Teacher, Mr. John Cotton, in Boston, formerly in the tenure of Lieut. Thomas Savage." The paper is dated on the 24th Sept., 1642, and discharged on the 29th August, 1648.7 In 1651 he is mentioned as one of the execu- tors of the will of John Mills, of Boston.
Without going into further detail to prove the assertion, it may be safely stated, that, so far as the records bear testimony to Maverick's position in society, he appears to have deserved, and to have received, the confidence and respect of those with whom he was associated, both in public and in private life. But, as already intimated, his religious views involved him in difficulties with the government of Massachusetts. A more particular narrative of these troubles forms the subject of another chapter.
1 Mass. Records, Vol. I. p. 199.
3 Ibid. p. 101.
5 Ibid. Vol. I. p. 149.
7 Suffolk Reg. Vol. I. fol. 35.
2 Ibid. p. 149.
4 Ibid. Vol. II. p. 149.
6 Boston Town Records, p. 67.
9
1
CHAPTER IV.
SAMUEL MAVERICK; HIS ECCLESIASTICAL TROUBLES.
IN the Massachusetts colony there were from the commence- ment, individuals who held views, in both civil and ecclesias- tical matters, contrary to the opinions and practices of the colo- nial authorities ; as these became more numerous, and came to include in their number men of character and distinction, they were not backward in making complaints of such laws and enactments as they considered arbitrary and exclusive. The rigid laws of the colony, and in particular the law restricting to church-members the right to hold office, naturally gave great dissatisfaction to those who, by holding a different religious belief from their Puritan neighbors, were thus debarred from any influ- ence or position in the government; and a desire for, and a determination to obtain, religious toleration, was rapidly gain- ing ground. Indeed, as early as 1645, the subject of equal civil and religious rights and privileges to all citizens was extensively agitated, books in defence of toleration were circulated, and the exertions to obtain the desired end became so prominent that the authorities began to be alarmed. The movements of the disaffected were for a time carefully concealed under the guise of enlarging the liberties of the people, but the design could not long remain secret. The struggle commenced in Plymouth by a proposition for a " full and free tolerance of religion to all men that would preserve the civil peace and submit unto gov- ernment ; " and there was no limitation or exception against any sect whatever. Turks, Jews, Papists, Arians, Socinians, Nicolaitans, Familists, indeed people of every belief, were to
99
EFFORTS FOR TOLERATION.
1646.]
have equal rights and privileges.1 It is not strange that such a proposition alarmed the Puritans, and was considered dangerous. The magistrates accordingly combined to defeat the move- ment, and the scene of action was removed to Massachusetts.
Prominent among those in the Massachusetts colony who were opposed to the prevailing principles of ecclesiastical policy, and the practices under them, was Samuel Maverick. The fact that his Episcopacy entirely excluded him from office was not calculated to conciliate his feelings towards the author- ities, or bring about a change in his opinions. On the contrary, he, and others who were under the same disabilities, the longer they were made in this way to suffer, were the more determined in their views, and commenced a course of proceedings for the advancement of religious freedom by far the most formi- dable which had yet been witnessed in New England. In this movement, personal motives may have been mingled with others of a more general character, but the main object in view was a worthy one. It was, however, unfortunately urged at a wrong time and in a wrong manner to accomplish much good. For the authorities were then peculiarly suspicious of any new movement, and were vigilant to preserve the purity of the churches, and to suppress all innovation upon the established laws and usages .. The efforts to obtain equal civil and relig- ious rights and privileges may be said to have first taken a definite form in 1646. Says Hutchinson, " A great disturbance was caused in the colony this year by a number of persons of figure, but of different sentiments, both as to civil and ecclesias- tical government, from the people in general." The principal persons connected with the controversy were William Vassall, a prominent member of the church in Scituate, a town in the Plymouth colony contiguous to Hingham in the Massachu- setts colony, Dr. Robert Child, a young physician from Padua, and Samuel Maverick. Vassall, who had much influence in the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies, prepared a scheme for petitions to be presented to the courts of both colonies by the non-freemen ; and if these petitions were refused, the plan was to apply to parliament, pretending they were subjected to
1 Barry's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. p. 338.
100
HISTORY.
[1646.
an arbitrary power and extrajudicial proceedings. The first two of the Massachusetts petitioners were Samuel Maverick and Robert Child.1
In accordance with Vassall's scheme, a " Remonstrance and humble petition" was addressed (1646) to the general court, signed by Robert Child, Samuel Maverick, Thomas Fowle, Thomas Burton, David Yale, John Smith, and John Dand. They complained, 1st, that the fundamental laws of England were not acknowledged by the colony as the basis of their gov- ernment, according to patent; 2d, that the civil privileges enjoyed by the freemen of the jurisdiction were denied to such as were not members of the churches, and did not take an oath of fidelity devised by the authority here, although they were freeborn Englishmen of sober lives and conversation ; 3d, that they were debarred from Christian privileges, such as the Lord's supper for themselves, and baptism for their children, because they were not members of the particular churches here, although of good character, and members of the Church of England. They therefore prayed that civil liberty might be forthwith granted to all who were truly English; and that all members of the Church of England or Scotland, not scan- dalous, might be admitted to the privileges of the churches of New England; or, if these civil and religious liberties were refused, that they might be freed from the heavy taxes imposed upon them, and from the impresses made of them, or their chil- dren or servants, in time of war; if they failed of redress there, they should be under the necessity of making application to England, to the honorable houses of parliament, who they hoped would take their sad condition into consideration, pro- vide able ministers for them, New England having none such to spare, or else transport them to some other place, their estates being wasted, where they may live like 'Christians. But if their prayer should be granted, they hoped to see the then contemned ordinances of God highly prized; the gospel, then dark, break forth as the sun; Christian charity, then frozen, wax warm; jealousy of arbitrary government banished ; strife and contention abated; and all business in church and
1 Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. p. 145.
101
REMONSTRANCE.
1646.]
state, which for many years had gone backward, successfully thriving, &c.
The substance of the remonstrance is thus given in the Massachusetts archives : -
"1. They discerne not a clear settled forme of gov"ment according to ye fundantall laws of England, which seemeth strange &c.
" 2. No body of lawes to enioy lives liberties, goods accord- ing to ye rights of English subiects from whence arise Jeal- ousies of introducing arbitrary govnmnt, wch is detestable to or English nation, & to all good men, from whence is feare of illegall commitmts taxes customes uniustifiable przes, undue fines & unconceivable dang's, by a negative, or destuctive vote unduly placed, or not well regulated of a non conformity of all things they enioy, & of undue oathes subject to exposition according to ye will of ye giver.
"3. Wrfore they desire ye establishing of ye fundamtall lawes of England to wch we are obliged by or charter, & oathes of allegiance from weh if wee swerve ye be a powr setled to call us to account according to y lawes of England.
" 4. Slavry & bondage, upon ym, & yr posterity intollerable by ym who ought to love, & respect ym as brethren, for not bearing office, or haveing votes, w"fore yey desire equall liberty wthout imposing oathes, or covenants, on ym unwarranted by ye patent nor agreeing with ye oath of allegiance, & ye place stiled a free state, rath" y" a Colony, or corporation of Eng- land or at least, yt yir bodies may not be imprest nor yir goods taken away least they ignorant of ye witness of ye warr may be forced upon yr destructions, & yt all taxes & impositions may be taken away, yt so they me be strang's in all things; other- wise they are in a worse case ya ye Indians.
"5. yt none be banished, unles they breake ye known lawes of England deserving such punishmt, & yt those yt come may settle without two matrats hands.
" 6. They desire librty for ye members of ye Church of Eng- land to enioy all ordinances wth us, or els to grant liberty to settle ym selves in a church way according to Engl : and Scot- land, wch if not granted they will petition ye Parliamt. 9*
-
102
HISTORY.
[1646.
" 7. These thinges amended all or calamities are like to cease, & all things prsper.
Robt Child
Thomas Fowle
Thom Burton David Yale
John Smith
Samu: Maverick."
John Dand 1
It is evident that this petition was intended for an extensive circulation, as copies were rapidly spread into the adjoining governments of Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, and even in the Dutch Plantations, Virginia, and the Bermudas ; and it seems to have been well understood that it was expected to reach English ears, and that it was to be forwarded to par- liament. The petition gave great offence to the court and to the people generally ; and in reply a declaration was published by order of the court, in which the charges were freely exam- ined and the government vindicated. The petitioners were required to attend court, and, on so doing, urged their right of petitioning ; to which it was replied, that they were not accused of petitioning, but of using contemptuous and seditious expres- sions in their remonstrance, and they were ordered to appear before the court. In the mean time there was much agitation in the community, and the civil authorities applied to the elders for their opinions respecting the bearing of the laws of England upon the government here. It perhaps was fortunate that at this time the government in England was in too unsettled a condition to attempt to settle affairs in the colony.2
In November (4th) the court came together by adjournment, and the case of Dr. Child and others was taken up. Two of the petitioners, Fowle, who was preparing to sail for England, and Smith of Rhode Island, then in town, were required to find sureties for their appearance to answer. In the end they were all fined in proportion to their supposed demerits. Winthrop says : " The court proceeded to consider of their censure, and agreed, that the doctor3 (in regard he had no cause to com- plain, and yet was a leader to the rest, and had carried himself
1 (1646.) Vol. 106, pp. 5, 6.
3 Doctor Child.
2 Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 295.
1646.]
FINES AND APPEAL.
103
proudly, etc., in the court) should be fined fifty pounds, Mr. Smith (being also a stranger) forty pounds, Mr. Maverick (because he had not yet appealed) ten pounds, and the other four, thirty pounds each." He adds, that, being called again before the court and admonished, "they were offered also, if they would ingenuously acknowledge their miscarriage, etc., it should be freely remitted. But they remaining obstinate, the court declared their sentence, as is before expressed."1
This exorbitant imposition excites both surprise and indig- nation, wholly opposed, as it was, to every principle of a free and enlightened government, and bearing with severity upon some of the most prominent and useful men of the colony. One of the petitioners was at that time associated with Winthrop as one of the selectmen of Boston, and Maverick, another one, had that very year shown his interest in the welfare of the colony by advancing a large part of the outlay required in fortifying Castle island, in which the town of Boston had engaged to save him harmless to a certain extent.2 This harsh legislation can only be viewed as one of the arbitrary proceedings which were too frequent in the early days of the colony.
It should be remarked, that the court was not unanimous in its sentence. Mr. Bellingham, Mr. Saltonstall, and Mr. Brad- street dissented, and desired that their dissent should be en- tered upon the records, - a course of action which reflects much credit upon them. Two or three of the deputies also dissented.
The petitioners then claimed the right to appeal to the commissioners for plantations, in England; but this was not allowed. Yet they appealed to parliament, and Dr. Child, with others, prepared in all haste to go to England to prosecute the appeal. The court, judging it dangerous to allow these men to proceed to England under these circumstances, and, under the pretence of detaining Child on account of his fine, deter- mined to seize him, and to take away and destroy whatever papers any of them might have, calculated to expose the pro- ceedings here; and, as if to aggravate this intended outrage as much as possible, it was " agreed to defer it till the Doctor had
1 Winthrop's Journal, Vol. II. pp. * 291-2 and note.
2 Ibid., note.
104
HISTORY.
[1646.
been on shipboard." But the plan being discovered, they say, " we sent the officers presently to fetch the Doctor, and to search his study and Dand's, both at one instant, which was done accordingly." Nothing obnoxious was found in the doc- tor's possession, but with Mr. Dand were found various objec- tionable documents, among which were two petitions to par- liament setting forth the experience of the petitioners in the court in Boston, and suggesting remedies ; also a paper con- sisting of some twenty questions respecting the validity of the patent of the colony; whether certain acts were not treason, and whether the courts had a right to prevent the establishment of churches according to the reformed English Church, and other inquiries of a similar nature.
Beside this search, so clearly unworthy of the authorities, there were other aggravating circumstances connected with the proceedings against Child, Dand, and Smith; and, to make the measure of punishment and disappointment full, they were held in durance until the ships had sailed. Vassall and Fowle sailed for England early in November, 1646.
Felt says: " The night before they intended to embark, order is given that search be made for their papers. At Dand's resi- dence some are found, which Smith, being with him, catches up to secure from exposure. When the officer seized them, the latter said ' he hoped, ere long, to do as much to the governor's closet and to him, as he did for them.' Among them is the petition of non-freemen, with twenty-five signers, most of them young men and strangers, which prays for liberty of conscience and a general governor ; and also another, of the remonstrants to parliament. In the last document, prayer is made for 'churches according to the reformation of England,' and for the removal of several customs here, which the petitioners call grievances.
" Child, Smith, and Dand are committed to the custody of the marshal till the vessels bound to sea shall have sailed. This was on account of the new matter which appeared from their papers. On giving sufficient bail, the first was allowed to be confined to his house. The other two were kept in the house of the prison keeper. A young man, Thomas Joy, who had circulated the petition for the non-freemen, and otherwise
105
VOYAGE OF FOWLE AND VASSALL.
1646.]
busied himself against the authorities, was put in irons for several days, when he confessed that he had done wrong, and was therefore released." 1
The measures against Child were probably thus severe from the fact that, as Winthrop says, "the writings were of his hand." By this phrase is undoubtedly meant that he drafted the petitions, for although Vassall was without doubt the prime mover in the controversy, he was not, to our knowledge, a man of public education, although his wealth and position in society gave him an extensive influence in the colonies. Child, who lived in the adjoining town of Hingham, was a talented man, and educated at Padua, that celebrated seat of learning. Even Winthrop, who was his bitterest opposer, calls him " a man of quality, a gentleman, and a scholar," and he of all the peti- tioners seems to have been the most likely to have been selected to draft the different papers ; indeed, they bear internal evidence of a discriminating and educated mind.
As Mr. Drake, the author of the admirable history of Boston, has given a well condensed account of Fowle's and Vassall's voyage, so far as this particular matter is concerned we repeat it in his language.
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.