USA > Massachusetts > Dukes County > Marthas Vineyard > The history of Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County, Massachusetts, Volume I > Part 15
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
Right Worshipfull.
The many greevances which Leieth as a burden on our Spirits And the Consideration. of the waight of Duty that leieth on us doth Constrain us to be your most humble pettitioners who besecheth you for the Lords Sacke to Lend ane Eare unto our most humble pettition And protest as both from Domistic And forrain enemise And also to redresse what things Are Amisse And strengthen those that are redy to die.
to relat things at Large may be too tedious but our Greevences are redy to be mad App't when Ocation may serve but to cut short now the day of our choyce being past And no Choyce is made so that now here is none to bare rull nether have we any law but every one Doth that which is right in his own eyes. Now Mr Mayhews first purchase of this Iland was from the Agent of the Lord Starling in which graunt Mr Mayhew was oblidged to set up the Government of the Massachusetts which was then established And sence that Government hath bene laied by things have grown from better to worse untell we are Com to nothing as at this daye now for the Lords sacke graunt us your powerfull hand to protect us whilst there is probation time, besidse wee humbly besech your honours to considre the safe preservation of the shiping and trade of the Countrie by the preservation of the Iland and harbour now are the two tribs And halfe did take care for the preservation of theire posteritie so we besech you so to Commiserate our condition that if possible we may be yet recovered And made Able to stand A littell members of Gods Covenanting people in this wildernesse wee are the majer part of the freehouldes on the iland who doe thuse pettision unto yowe And his majesties Court the most noble in these parts of Amarika the other which doe not petition are many of them much desirous this thing would be Accomplished but only Mr Mr Mayhews families That doe withstand our pettisioning But we humbly conceive your honourable Court may receive us without Dainger And protect us in marcy for how can it stand in Law that Loveliss being Governour but for a time can have power to give a Commission unto Mr Mayhew for his life to govern without an oath as hath bene publiquly owned by Mr May: himselfe being [asked]. And thuse he doth hold him selfe to command to bare rull ouver ous.
Now that your honours may know we have not don this rashly we have here also sent a copy of what tender we made to Mr Mayhew: 1
but his answar was unto the men sent from us no he would not he could not Answar it
Now for this we are thretened to lose our lands and be made tratch- erous : Let the wisdom of god guyd both you and us And we besech you to Commiserat our condition and graunt us an Answare soe we shall remain
1 Printed on page 156.
I57
History of Martha's Vineyard
your most humble and obediant subjects to be guyded And protected under our Dred soveren Lord the King of England: Scotlan, franc and Iyerland
Yours to Comand by the subscribing of our hands
writen from Marthas Vineyard this 15th October 1673.
Tho: Birchard
Isaack Norton
Isaack Robinson
Joseph Norton
Thomas Bayes
Henery Luce
Nicholas Norton
Samuell Russell
James Skiffe
James Redfield
John Pease
Phillip Smith
John Butler
Charles Crossthout
Thomas Butler
Stephen Codman
John Ary
Thomas Trappe
Thomas Joanse
Simon Athearn
The same persons signed it, twenty in all, and their claim that they were "the majer part of the freehoulders on this island who do thuse pettision" seems to be borne out by an enumeration of those males known to be living on the island at that time. "The other which doe not pettition," they assert, "are many of them much desirous this thing would be Accomplished but only Mr Mayhews families that doe with- stand our pettisioning." It appears that the following named persons did not sign: James Allen, James Covell, Isaac Chase, Thomas Daggett, Joseph Daggett, John Eddy, Thomas Har- lock, Joseph Merry, Matthew Mayhew, Rev. John Mayhew, Thomas Mayhew 3d, James Pease, Jacob Perkins, Richard Sarson, William Vincent, Philip Watson, Thomas West, William Weeks, Jeremiah Whitten. Of the nineteen persons enumerated, those whose names are in italics, nine in all, were either Mayhews by blood or connected with them by marriage. Vincent, though not a signer, was fined later for his opposition. There may have been a few other tenants or freeholders then resident in the Vineyard, not enumerated above, but it cannot affect the point prominently put forward that, barring Mr. Mayhew, his son, sons-in-law, and those within their sphere of family influence, the majority were in favor of a change, and were willing to risk life and estate to free themselves from this personal government. This docu- ment may be termed the Vineyard's Declaration of Indepen- dence against arbitrary authority and irresponsible rulers.
1Mass. Arch. CVI, 202.
I58
.
The "Dutch " Rebellion, 1673
MASSACHUSETTS DECLINES TO INTERFERE.
But the Massachusetts Bay officials were in no mood to accept the offer so flatteringly made. They had but just emerged from one long struggle of twenty years duration in absorbing territory that did not belong to them, and their experience with the Province of Maine, being finally forced to buy what they had attempted to usurp, made them wary of going oustide their patent to engage in a dispute with the King's brother over territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, there was no hesitation in promptly declining to engage in the quarrel, and the following answer was returned: -
25:8: To Mr Thomas Bercher, Mr Isaac Robenson and the rest of the
1673. subscribers of a petition sent from Martens Vinyard unto the honoured Governour and Assistants of the Massachusetts.1
Gent men yr of the 15 present we rec'd by witch we understand that there is a difference betwixt your selves and your ancient and long continued Governour the whitch is very grievous to us, but how to help we kno not for at such a time as this is to set in with a divided people we se not sufficient reson nor to take upon us the Governm't of any people upon the request of a part of them, and where as you say your day for choyse is past it holds forth you had a day apoynted for election but why you pro- ceeded not in that work we understand not and if it were hinderd by your selves you may seriously considder whether the grete and many difficul- tyes you are under may not now be best eased by your quiet yealding unto your former Government and your own holdsum lawes you have lived so long under, Until you understand his Majestys pleasure whether to establish your one Governmt or to settell you under some other Coll- enyes in these parts, but to shew ourselves siding in a divission amongst our friends and Country men we are all together Indisposed unto, but earnestly desire your comfortable closing to geather, as in your best dayes. Not else but the respects to you all remain your very lo: freinds,
THE COURT OF ASSISTANTS As Attest: EDWARD RAWSON, Secretary.
Passed by the Court of Assistants 31 October 1673
AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT STARTED.
But this damper on their hopes did not deter them from their purpose, and the only effect it had was to precipitate "home rule" under the leaders of the rebellion. This was the course pursued. "They proceeded," so Mayhew stated, "to erect a Govourment in opposition to his Royal Highness' Govourment," but what form it took is not known, there being no records extant of its acts or for how long a period
1 Mass. Arch. XLVIII, 138.
I59
History of Martha's Vineyard
it endured. The Mayhew regime, of course, retained the possession of the records, land, probate and court, and this was a valuable asset, involving titles to property, settlement of estates, and other important books of reference. Doubtless this was used by the official party to its fullest extent, and it is probable that the recording of deeds and like matters was refused to the "rebels." 1
But two governments existed on the island for at least a year, the "regulars," composed of the Mayhews and re- tainers, and the "rump," consisting of the rebels and their friends. Doubtless Simon Athearn was the leading spirit in Tisbury as Thomas Burchard was in Edgartown, for there were no rebels in Chilmark, the peculiar domain of the May- hews. Seven of the signers were of the newly incorporated town of Tisbury. Probably it will never be known how this "rump" government was conducted or who were its officials. Confusion and bitterness prevailed as a matter of course, and it was truly a civil war, but without any casualties. "The longest sword must bear Rule," they said to the governor, and then they proceeded to tear down warrants posted by his authority, abuse the constables sent to serve his writs, and always "disdaining so much as any intimation of Right title of interest from his Royall Highness." As an instance of how high the feeling ran it is recorded that Mary, wife of John Pease, was indicted for "forcibly taking a warrant out of the marshalls hands" when they came to arrest her hus- band for "committing a riot."? The riot, of course, was his refusal to acknowledge the "regular" government, as he was one of the rebels who signed the petition to Boston, and the arrest was made five days after it was dated.3 It was May- hew's first move against the enemy, and Pease was "Both person and estate Bound to answer at the next sessions of Triall." It was indeed to be a case where "the longest sword" would win the victory. The opposition was irritated by this and Matthew Mayhew stated that they threatened the governor, "challenging the family of him," shook fists at his retainers and generally conducted themselves as if they felt
1In 1676, Simon Athearn, one of the signers, petitioned the Governor of New York to have the record of his lands and deeds placed in "the ofic of records at New- yorke." (N. Y. Col. Mss. XXIV. 104.)
2Dukes Deeds, I. 403.
3It is hardly to be supposed that John Pease, who was then an aged man, would create much of a riot in the accepted sense of the word. He had always lived a life noticeably free from contention, and rarely engaged in litigation.
160
The "Dutch " Rebellion, 1673
there would be no day of reckoning, and there would not have been if the Dutch had held New York. Having been jilted by Massachusetts, the leaders were without resource, except Rhode Island, and it is not known that they sought political connections there. In their extremity in the spring of 1674, they turned to Matthias Nicolls, late secretary of the colony of New York and in exile in New England during the Dutch occupancy of that city, and sought his advice in the premises. As they did not know how he stood affected to- wards them the precaution was taken to send the letter and papers anonymously. This curious communication to him was as follows: -
Worthy Sir we Intreat you to Except and piruse our Rude and Un- comly Loins yet trew : for our Oppertunity will not Admite of a New draught as our Intent was: our desires is allso that you may be pleased to bestow a few loins upon us in way of Counsall and advise and if you desire it we will keep your Advise a(s) seacret: sir if you see it your way to Answer our Request you may be pleased to direct your Letters unto James Readfiel(d) now Resadent in Newhaven who we doubt not will be Carefull of them and faithful to us in sending them.
Inhabitants of Mar(tins) Vineyard
[May 5, 1674] To the Worshipfull
Capt. Mathias Nicols now Resadent in New England.1
What reply, if any, Nicolls made to them is not known as it could not become a matter of record under the circum- stances. In this way things progressed for months with no result except increased bitterness between the factions. Matthew Mayhew testified that the rebels "managed their possessions with such.a high hand as to live according to their Profession, by the Sword."2 and that there was nothing more serious than wordy battles is due, so the same authority tells us, to the restraint placed on the official party by the governor. They were barely dissuaded by him "from using of the Sword in their Defence." Meanwhile the governor was quietly put- ting the screws on individuals where he could, fining them so heavily that it amounted to a sequestration of their prop-
1This letter, endorsed "About Mr May(hew) & his Patent" is in N. Y. Col Mss. XXIV, 75, and was probably a letter of transmittal covering copies of docu- ments relating to the subject. From internal and collateral evidence it is believed, that the document now filed in same collection of State Archives, Deeds, I, 72, con- sisting of copies of the town grants of Great Harbor, and signed by eleven of the signers of the petition of Oct. 15, 1673, is the one sent by the "Inhabitants" to Nicolls. (See Appendix.)
2N. Y. Col. Mss. XXIV, 16.
16I
History of Martha's Vineyard
erty. No doubt Mayhew acted in this particular from an honest, but exaggerated point of view as to his dignity, and he probably considered them all as traitors to the duke whom he represented. He had threatened to disfranchise them and deprive them of their lands, and he was doing it by a sure and slow process.
SIMILAR CONDITION AT NANTUCKET.
It is interesting to note that while these things were going on at the Vineyard, similar scenes were being enacted at Nantucket. It was the same story almost repeated with different performers on the stage - the people and the new- comers against the office holders and the ruling classes. Al- together, Governor Mayhew had his hands full. He wrote that when they, the outsiders and new-comers heard the news that "Yorke was taken by the Dutch" they entered into a rebellion against the authorities and said: "Noe Man had a Right to a Foot of Land before the Date of the last Charter, and they by the Book endeavour to dethrone our Libertys - announcing my Right obtained from the Earle of Sterlinge nothing, also the Indian Right nothing, my quiett occupation there of 29 yeares nothing, the Grounding of the ten Partners upon my first Graunt nothing." This "war" lasted longer than the Vineyard rebellion and in some ways the ringleaders on Nantucket were more resourceful. Matthew Mayhew admitted this in a quaint manner in an address to Governor Andros, when he said of the rebels: "Every Card they play is an Ace and every Ace a Trump."
Greater events were taking place in international politics which lent favor to Mayhew's cause. Had the Dutch con- tinued in possession of New York, it is probable that the rebels on the Vineyard would have won out by force of numbers, but rulers of larger destinies were making different calcula- tions which upset the plans of the little band of freeholders struggling for liberty of the ballot on the Vineyard. The differences which had existed between the English and the Dutch came into the hands of the diplomats for settlement at Westminster in February, 1674, and by the terms of the treaty executed at that place in that month Nieuw Amsterdam was to be surrendered to the English, and on October 31 of that year it became New York once more. On that date Governor Sir Edmond Andros resumed authority of the
I62
The "Dutch " Rebellion, 1673
. province in behalf of the Duke, and the Dutch foundation of our little rebel government was thus ruthlessly undermined by powers beyond its reach. He had undoubtedly been in- formed of the situation on the Vineyard, probably by the "loyal" element on Nantucket, and proceeded to deal vig- orously with the subject.
QUI
OIT
MAL
5
Y
EBORAC
INOH
PENSE
SIGILLUI
INON
GREAT SEAL OF THE DUKE OF YORK. USED ON THE VINEYARD CHARTERS 1671
163
History of Martha's Vineyard
CHAPTER XIV.
RESTORATION OF MAYHEW'S AUTHORITY, 1674-1682.
To remove any doubt of the validity of the duke's title, either for want of "seizin" to the crown, or on account of the conquest of the Dutch after the Treaty of Westminster, Charles the Second confirmed to his brother the duke, in language almost identical with the patent of 1665, the grant he made on that date.1 Under this renewal the duke proceeded to re-establish his provincial government. This re-grant, dated June 29, 1674, was made the occasion for a similar confirma- tion of the pre-existing conditions at the Vineyard. Under date of November 7 following, the new governor by and with the advice and consent of his council, issued the following order, "for the Settling of Affaires there (Martha's Vineyard) and preventing of future Contests that may arise amongst · them," as intimated by some of the inhabitants: --
I. Imprimis: That the Government and Magistracy in the Island Martins Vineyard shall bee sett and Confirmed in the same manner and in the same Psons that were Legally invested therein, at the Time of the Dutch coming into these Parts, in July 1673, or have since been legally Elected, by vertue of his Royall Highnesses Authority.
2. That by Reason of the first Right Mr. Thomas Mayhew Sr. hath had to the Island Martins Vineyard It is Ordered during his Time, that hee shall Preside at the Gen'll Courts which are to be held in like Manner as was established by Governor Lovelace, the Orders whereof as well as the Time of Election of their Magistrates and other Officers are to be observed as then prescribed.2
Further clauses decreed that all laws should be in force, as formerly approved, and all rights, privileges, and property grants heretofore in existence should stand until further order. In short, the meaning of this was to restore the status quo ante, to all intents and purposes. Under it the "rebels" could find little comfort.
GOV. SIR EDMUND ANDROS DEALS WITH THE REBELS.
It had in all probability been represented to him that the rebels were not only favoring the Dutch rule, but were
'N. Y. Regents' Report, I, 21, 22.
2N. Y. Col. Mss., Orders, Passes, etc., III, 19.
164
Restoration of Mayhew's Authority
enemies of the duke, and the new royal governor lost no time in issuing a special order to provide for the punishment of these traitors, in the following terms: -
Whereas I have been given to understand that severall Disorders have hapned in the Islands Martins Vineyard and Nantuckett (or one of them) since the Time of the Dutch coming into these Parts in July 1673: I have with the Advice of my Councell thought fit to order and appoint that the Governour or Governours and Assistants of both the Islands aforesaid bee hereby Authorized and Empowered to call to Account and Punish ac- cording to Law, all such offenders and Transgressors against the established Government under his Royall Highnesse, the Crime not extending to Life Limbe or Banishment: But in Cases of such High Crime which may Deserve those Punishments to secure the offenders and send them hither by first convenience.1
Mayhew was a little slow in his movements as usual, and some time elapsed before he decided to take advantage of this turn of events, but he soon despatched Matthew Mayhew and Thomas Daggett to New York to lay his complaints before the restored ducal government and to pay his and their humble respects in a loyal address. They reached Fort James about a week after Andros had issued his orders of confirma- tion and special warrant, and presented a joint statement of the late troubles on this island. In the address to Andros they referred to "his Majesties good subjects" of Martha's Vineyard, who had been awaiting the restoration of authority under his rule and "for whose arrivall they have patiently weighted, as in Time of great Drouth for the latter Rain."2 Andros was an absolutist and did not fail them. He was a supporter of the classes against the masses.
With the return of the grandson and son-in-law bringing this order the governor was fortified in his desire to punish the "tratcherous." It may be thought that in this the aged governor, then eighty-one, was under the influence of his grandson, about twenty-five years of age and then at a period in life likely to develop hot-headedness, or of his son-in-law Daggett, but no one who has studied the governor's character can fail to accord him the actual credit for all that he did, or had done in his name, down to the hour when he drew his last breath. He was a man who ruled his family as he ruled others, without brooking disobedience, and that he could and did get into violent passions is related by Captain John Gard-
1Warrants, Orders, Passes, Vol. III, 21. Dated Nov. 7, 1674.
2N. Y. Col. Mss. XXIV, 16.
165
History of Martha's Vineyard
ner of Nantucket, concerning an incident which occurred three years later when Mayhew was eighty-five. "Hee came to my Loging," said Gardner, "in as great Pashon as I Judge a Man could well be, accusing me highly wherein I was wholy inosent. . .. Mr Mayhew tacking this opertunity to vente him selvef as followeth: telling mee I had bin to Yourke but should lose my Labor: that if the Governor did unwind he would wind: and that he would make my Fine and Disfran- chisement abid on mee dou the Governour what he would: that he had nothing against me, neither was angry, but I had spocken against his Interest and I should downe."1
GOV. MAYHEW INSTITUTES REPRISALS.
This is quoted at length to explain the events which fol- lowed the return of the messengers to New York and the men- tal attitude of the man who was thus empowered to use his family and relatives to punish those who had opposed him. They had "spoken against his Interest" and they "should downe." Doubtless the rebels were fully aware that he would break if he could not bend them and many had felt his wrath in the past. John Pease, foreseeing the coming of the storm, made his will on March 4, 1674, and was thus prepared for the next world and what might happen in this. The records unfortunately do not give us full insight into the entire pro- ceeding, but Mayhew early selected William Vincent for his share and not only heavily fined but probably disfran- chised him. Simon Athearn was taken next and it was ordered that he be sent to New York under the terms of the order of Governor Andros as it was held that he was guilty of "High Crime." This was enough to take the fight out of most any- body in those days and the opposition now was on the losing side. Many doubtless came out and publicly admitted their guilt and were held on bail or under bonds. Otherwise, we cannot account for the few who were punished as appears of record. In different ways the opponents were made to feel "the halter draw" and without "good opinion of the law" as administered by the family bench. Thomas Daggett got after one of the signers, James Skiff, on a charge of de- famation and sued him therefor at a court held Dec. 29, 1674, and the jury brought in an alternative verdict for damages or an apology. Skiff to save his heavy fine acknowledged
1Warrants, Orders, Passes, Vol. III. Dated 16 March, 1677-8.
I66
Restoration of Mayhew's Authority
that he had "sinned both against god and Thomas Daggett"1 by the use of "sundry slanderous and opprobrious words as calling him theif lier and cheating knave.", But the verdict was not satisfactory to Daggett and his wife Hannah, the "deputy governor," berated one of the jurymen for depriving her husband of the money part of the verdict. "If an in- differant purson" said one juror, "and not a relation had writt the testimony or that if Skiffe had swept all his testi- mony away, and pleaded to your husbands own confeshon, Skiffe had proved his charg.""2 There can be no doubt that the partisan character of the duke's bench was notoriously to the great detriment of justice between the freeholders and members of the ruling family.
The punishments went merrily on. Nicholas Norton was tried, convicted and fined £51, but upon making two humble apologies for his part in the troubles and promising that "he shall be more .careful for the future" his fine was commuted. James Redfield was next in order, and was similarly convicted and mulcted, but in consideration of his poverty, the fine was remitted. It is believed he agreed to depart from the Vineyard and so leniency was accorded him.
He left within a short time, took up his residence in New Haven, Conn., and never returned. There is no record of a sale of his house lot in Tisbury, and possibly it was se- questrated. Charles Crossthwaite was another who was probably forced off, as he also ceased to be a resident within a year, removing to Boston. Stephen Codman made his escape to Roxbury, and left his large estate of three-and-a- half house lots on Starbuck's Neck uncared for a number of years, until the storm blew over. Death removed John Arey from the scene early, but his estate was encumbered for years after with a mortgage, perhaps raised to pay the fine imposed for his "treason." Samuel Russell left his new home in Tis- bury, bought by his father, and returned to Scituate where he afterwards lived, until his death in 1677 at the hands of Indians. These five men are the only ones known to
1Dukes Co. Court Records, Vol. I. The association of the name of Deity and the plaintiff in Skiff's apology doubtless arose from the fact that he considered now the Mayhews with their family connections were omnipotent.
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.