USA > Maine > Lincoln County > Bristol > History of York, Maine, successively known as Bristol (1632), Agamenticus (1641), Gorgeana (1642), and York (1652) Vol. I > Part 12
USA > Maine > York County > York > History of York, Maine, successively known as Bristol (1632), Agamenticus (1641), Gorgeana (1642), and York (1652) Vol. I > Part 12
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
It is a slight basis, therefore, on which to build a story of the borough and city governments of the two corpora- tions. The first charter of April 10, 1640, provided that Thomas Gorges should be the "first and next Mayor," and the term reckoned from Whitsuntide "next after the comeing over of this present graunt." Whitsun Day of that year was May 24, and if the charter was sent imme- diately it could have arrived from Bristol before that date with a favorable voyage of six weeks. On this supposition Thomas Gorges began his first term Whit Monday of that year, and the roster of his first term would be, under the terms of the charter, as follows, viz .:
MAYOR Thomas Gorges
ALDERMEN
Edward Godfrey
Roger Garde
George Puddington
Bartholomew Barnard
Edward Johnson
Arthur Bragdon
Henry Simpson John Rogers
JUDGE Edward Godfrey
I27
HISTORY OF YORK
RECORDER Roger Garde
1641
By the same provisions of the charter Thomas Gorges was to be the next Mayor, serving until May 26, 1642.
MAYOR Thomas Gorges (other officials unknown)
The new charter of Gorgeana dated March 1, 17 Charles I (1641-2) probably arrived here, if promptly sent, by May I, 1642, and by its provisions the election of officers was to take place on March 25 (Lady Day) annually. This charter provided that the Deputy Governor (Thomas Gorges) should "appointe assigne and nominate the first Maior for the yeare to come," who should enter into his office on March 25 "nexte ensueing the Date hereof." This, therefore, made the term of the first mayor of the city begin March 25, 1641-2 which would be "nexte ensueing" the date of the signing and sealing. It did not arrive in time for this to take effect on that day, but Thomas Gorges, holding the same office under the Aga- menticus Charter till May, 1642, must have served his term out. It is not probable that he appointed himself to the city office. If Sir Ferdinando had wished him to fill it he would have nominated him in the patent as before. So that the successor to Mayor Gorges when named by the latter was probably for the term beginning March 25, 1642, and hereafter the list will follow as far as known, or surmised from collateral evidence.
1642-3 MAYOR (unknown)
1643-4 MAYOR Richard Bankes (other officers unknown)
I28
THE TWO CHARTERS OF 1641 AND 1642
1644-5 MAYOR Roger Garde (other officers unknown)
1645-6-7 (all officers unknown)
1647-8 MAYOR Edward Johnson
ALDERMEN John Alcock John Gooch Abraham Preble Henry Norton, Recorder Arthur Bragdon, Constable
1648-9-1650-1 (all officers unknown)
1651-2 MAYOR Abraham Preble
ALDERMEN
John Twisden Edward Johnson Henry Norton William Hilton
John Davess
(Deeds i [ii], 14-15.)
It is doubtful if the forty officials prescribed by the city charter were all chosen annually. It would have taken practically all the eligible adult freemen to have supplied the demand. It is credible that nearly all the principal residents of the place occupied some office during the twelve years of corporate existence. This situation prac- tically rendered the city government the equivalent of a town meeting, and was in effect the most democratic form of managing town affairs. We have one little glimpse of the punctiliousness of the new mayor in his first term of office. John Winter of Richmond's Island, while on a return voyage from Boston to the Trelawney Plantation in
129
HISTORY OF YORK
July, 1641, "was taken with a Contrary wind & put into Accomenticus Rode." He explained that Mr. Gorges "hearing of my beinge in the Rode sent abord his officer with 5 or 6 men more to command me ashore," (Trelawny Papers, 279). The Mayor was taking his office seriously. Anchoring in the roadstead required the dispatch of ser- geants of the white rod to require the presence of the master of the vessel before his worship to explain the object of his entering into the corporate waters of Aga- menticus. This was a customary procedure in English ports, especially at times when foreign craft were usually engaged in piracy and the Maine coast was not free from such marauders.
Although not so empowered in the charter, the Mayor and Aldermen took probate jurisdiction over estates of its deceased citizens, an evidence of which is found in the proving of the will of Henry Simpson by the city officials in 1648 and the approval of the executrix named. We also have knowledge of the special privileges conferred on this town by the two charters under which they were prac- tically independent of the provincial authorities. The town and city as a corporation sent deputies to the Gen- eral Court of the Province and always called attention to their chartered rights in doing so.
However much all this municipal paraphernalia may give rise to amused comment, as an over-canvassed ship of state, there is nothing of record to show that it failed to carry its passengers safely and satisfactorily along its course, as long as it was allowed to function. The people lived under it quietly and happily and made no effort to change the rig, and that is the test of its efficacy. It amounted to an organized town meeting, performing duties continuously throughout the year, instead of a headless affair operating in a haphazard way once a year, as developed in Massachusetts town meetings, and the officers were chosen freely by ballot without any restric- tions, except an oath of loyalty to the sovereign.
130
CHAPTER XII DIVISION OF THE GRAND PATENT, THE HOME LOTS, AND THE COMMON LAND
Possession of the soil in fee simple, or freehold, was one of the principal incentives of emigration to Maine. The religious factor was negligible, as most of the emigrants were adherents of the Church of England, conforming to its doctrine and ritual, and they had never been troubled by the ecclesiastical authorities. It was not so with a majority of the emigrants to Massachusetts who were influenced by the religious unrest of the period, and led by the Puritan clergy believed themselves "persecuted" and driven overseas to escape the "cruel Archbishop Laud," as they were pleased to characterize this church dignitary.
For generations, since the Conquest, the middle and lower classes of England had been dependents, in varying degrees of bondage, to the land-holding aristocracy. Land was entailed on the eldest sons and rarely could an ambi- tious person of the tenantry acquire a free hold interest which he might convey to his children. This long and grinding system of tenancy, of homage and fines, with no hope of freedom from the rent-roll, began to break out of the restraints of the past, coincident with the acquirement of religious freedom at the time of the Reformation, and the dissolution of the monasteries. Large tracts of lands belonging to these religious establishments were bought by the wealthy merchants and younger sons of the old aristocracy, but the upstart "gentry, " thus created, gen- erally made worse masters than the old. Gradually men eager to rise from this bondage could buy a small plot of ground, call it their own, and their children could inherit it; but the long intrenched Squirearchy parted with their holdings very reluctantly. Each acre alienated denoted to them so much less rent from the labor of others. It meant that landlordism was beginning to lose its strangle hold as a part of this selfish social system of kings and peers, and that in time human beings would not be forever paying tribute to a parasitic class battening on the industry of others, less fortunate by the accident of birth.
I3I
HISTORY OF YORK
Gorges himself was a product of the ancient manorial land system of England and it was natural that he should wish to perpetuate it in his Province, and yet he created only one manor in Maine for the transaction of his per- sonal business in this town. His aims in colonization were of the highest character from the patriotic ideal of extend- ing English civilization and power. His philosophy of government was, of course, an outworn anachronism as we view it today. It will be observed, however, as this history develops, that during his lifetime he was most generous in his grants of land tenure to settlers, retaining for himself only a nominal quitrent of some token in kind or a small ground rental. As an example of his dealings with them he gave a two thousand year lease to Cleeves and Tucker of the peninsula of Machegonne (now Port- land) at a yearly rental of £1-10, and all his grants or leases were of this type. It cannot be denied that he was entitled to a ground rent on his investment. This is very far from justifying the absurd charge recently set forth that Gorges was endeavoring to revive the long-abandoned and long-forgotten medieval villeinage system so labori- ously argued by the editor of the "Provincial Court Records of Maine." To state what it means is almost to ridicule it; but as it has been made with apparent solem- nity it requires equally definite refutation. Villeinage was a medieval form of personal slavery to the Lord of the Manor, by which he was restrained of his liberty of action and movement. It never had an extended vogue even in the palmy days before Runnymeade and was gradually eliminated from English life two centuries before Gorges was born. To suppose that Sir Ferdinando entertained such a preposterous idea, of which there is not the slightest evidence, expressed or implied, and to formulate it into a definite charge without a scintilla of proof is unworthy of serious historical writing. It would puzzle anybody to point out a concrete case of villeinage in Maine. This has been amply answered elsewhere,1 but in the history of the town of which Sir Ferdinando Gorges was its patron it is the duty of the historian to refute in as strong terms as possible the fantastic discovery that the Lord Pro- prietor of Maine ever undertook or even considered the revival in Maine of the discarded and forgotten system
1 Vide American Historical Review, xxxiv, 131.
I32
(Brixham)
DIVISIO
AND PATENT
Of LEONARD GODFREY
" ... that parcell of Land C comanly called the Neck of Lend
-4
S
KOLip DaBA
e
MITTIY HOWWE
₮
PR 126 JUNEL
HISTORY OF YORK
Gorges himself was a product of the ancient manorial land system of England and it was natural that he should wish to perpetuate it in his Province, and yet he created only one manor in Maine for the transaction of his per- sonal business in this town. His aims in colonization were of the highest character from the patriotic ideal of extend- ing English civilization and power. His philosophy of government was, of course, an outworn anachronism as we view it today. It will be observed, however, as this history develops, that during his lifetime he was most generous in his grants of land tenure to settlers, retaining for himself only a nominal quitrent of some token in kind or a small ground rental. As an example of his dealings with them he gave a two thousand year lease to Cleeves and Tucker of the peninsula of Machegonne (now Port- land) at a yearly rental of £1-10, and all his grants or leases were of this type. It cannot be denied that he was entitled to a ground rent on his investment. This is very far from justifying the absurd charge recently set forth that Gorges was endeavoring to revive the long-abandoned and long-forgotten medieval villeinage system so labori- ously argued by the editor of the "Provincial Court Records of Maine." To state what it means is almost to ridicule it; but as it has been made with apparent solem- nity it requires equally definite refutation. Villeinage was a medieval form of personal slavery to the Lord of the Manor, by which he was restrained of his liberty of action and movement. It never had an extended vogue even in the palmy days before Runnymeade and was gradually eliminated from English life two centuries before Gorges was born. To suppose that Sir Ferdinando entertained such a preposterous idea, of which there is not the slightest evidence, expressed or implied, and to formulate it into a definite charge without a scintilla of proof is unworthy of serious historical writing. It would puzzle anybody to point out a concrete case of villeinage in Maine. This has been amply answered elsewhere,' but in the history of the town of which Sir Ferdinando Gorges was its patron it is the duty of the historian to refute in as strong terms as possible the fantastic discovery that the Lord Pro- prietor of Maine ever undertook or even considered the revival in Maine of the discarded and forgotten system
1 Vide American Historical Review, xxxiv, 131.
I32
(Brixham)
EDWARD GODFREY
" ... that parcell of Land comanly called the Neck of Land, partly compassed about the River & to take soe( fare up as shall Con- tayne the like quantity that Mr Humphrey Hooke & partners hath on the East side."
HUMPHREY HOOKE and Partners
... From the afores'd bounds North West nine Lynes in length at 9 poole Lyne & from thence North East ."
SAMUEL MAVERICK WILLIAM JEFFREYS JOHN BURSLEY
... All the land from the bounds last ment- ioned up thr River side soe fare as It runnes North Westward. .. & fromthence North East
HUMPHREY HOOKE and Partners .. . All the land from the afores'd Hillocke to the Poynt or Cove of Marsh, next above the farm house & from the head of said poynt or Cove of Marsh North East ."
SAMUEL MAVERICK WILLIAN JEFFREYS JOHN BURSLEY . All the Land above the Bass Cricke from Mr. Gorges Bounds there up the River to a little Hillock by the River, above the next poynt of Land."
FERDINANDO GORGES Esquire
... All the Land from the Cricke below the house up to the bags cricke & soe North East from a Certen Oake marked for a bound on the upper side of the sayd Crick --
EDWARD GODFREY
" ... All the Land up from the lower Cor- /ner of Mr. Lynns feild to the Crick below Mr. Gorges House & from all sd bounds North East*
SAMUEL MAVERICK WILLIAM JEFFREYS JOHN BURSLEY
" ... All the Land between those two parcells of Land last men- tioned & from thence North East ."
EDWARD! ! GODFREY "First : "Division"
HUMPHREY HOOKE THOMAS HOOKE WILLIAM HOOKE GILES ELBRIDGE
... All the Land from the Stumpe of a tree neare Hene: Donells house up to a certen tree marked for & bound, on the upper side of Mr. Edw. Godfrey's feild & from those bounds North East ."
>The Iland at the Harbours mouth & wast between the sea side & the lower bound North Eastwards to remain in Coman
DIVISION OF THE AGAMENTICUS PATENT 1641
1,1320
product 0
dit s P Ip xopM års fellas. vierpeed.
fre
".oble jesz
bne HAOOH YERHAMUR
-Ins: ) AL ebruod si no .? [ b] [I .. ..
detall to svod to sayoq blee lo Essa s 1 mot 2 M. J AI NJICH
NOIREVAM JEUMAE
0 sed stis evode bred on LA ...
ens weled 9Hotro edt rout bred edt LIA . ..
COMVED CODEHEA rod tonof ent mort qu bred or ffA. ..
уздеяше ичет
seods negmted brad oft IfA ... "
DIVISION OF THE GRAND PATENT
of human bondage. Neither is there evidence that he employed this medieval tyranny on his own English estates, a fact which should be established before asking support of the notion that he tried to transplant it in Maine. There was enough repression of individual effort, in the manorial system, mildly patriarchal as it was, when Gorges was on the scene, but the tenants were not serfs.
The two great colonizing companies, with their sub- sidiary proprietaries, advertised for colonists and prom- ised an hundred acres for each person emigrating and settling. This was a "Kings Ransom" in the vision of the more ambitious of the yeomanry. The prospect of obtaining free of cost this enormous acreage in the place of a "handkerchief plot," which they must always rent and do homage for was the real motive which sent them over. The proprietors of the Agamenticus patent had promised one hundred acres to each head of a family making a permanent settlement in the town, and hither, on these inducements, came some of the first settlers of York (Deeds xxvii, 83).
DIVISION OF THE GRAND PATENT
The basic patents of 1631 and 1638 have already been described and their provisions explained. The policy of the patentees was undoubtedly to establish a modified manorial system by which the land would be granted as promised, subject to certain nominal rights of the pat- entees as over-lords, evidenced in annual "acknowledg- ments" of the settlers by small quitrents or services of a few days' labor. It was a vast improvement over their old hopeless drudgery in England, where all the improvements accrued to the Lord of the Manor, but that it was not wholly accepted as satisfactory will appear later.
It is evident that the land on the east side of the river of Agamenticus was held in common by the patentees, before 1641, when it was divided between them in sev- eralty, as will be shown on the accompanying map. In the ten years following the issue of the patent there were but eleven transfers by the owners of the patent, and these were made at places not yet assigned to any individual patentee. The first recorded sale was made before 1636, probably by William Hooke to George Newman, at the mouth of Meeting House Creek (Deeds viii, 120), and it
I33
HISTORY OF YORK
can be assumed that the resident proprietors, Godfrey and Hooke, had a tacit agreement about these sales. If and when a division was made their shares would be assigned to cover these early transfers. This seems to be the only way to account for them.
Bearing in mind that the patents of 1631 and 1638 were held in common by a number of patentees, it is conjectural how the home lots, prior to 1641, were allocated in sever- alty. But four deeds of land, as home lots, in fee simple, were passed between the proprietors and settlers, in the first ten years of the settlement, and these were granted by Maverick and Hooke, as patentees (i, II8; iii, 85; viii, 216; xxvii, 83). Yet by 1641 there were definite locations of two dozen known residents along the waterfront up to Gorges Creek. Their tenure and fee must have been by a common agreement of the patentees that certain sectors should be assigned to specified owners, if and when the grand patent should be divided. Godfrey stated that "certen yeares after some settlement the Inhabitance peticoned to have ther lands laid out & deeds for the same, wch was granted, and by that occation the whole Bounds of the Pattent were devided."
These first settlers must have been on a sort of lease- hold arrangement. It was not until the middle of the summer of 1641 that the first definite steps were taken to divide the grand patent. This was done on "petition of Roger Garde & others," and by a court order of August that year, the twelve thousand acres, east side of the river, were tentatively divided in principle, but not assigned to the thirteen members. Why Garde, who was not a patentee, should have petitioned for this is not known. The terms of this arrangement are as follows:
The Devission of 12000 m Acres of Land amongst the Pattentees of Agamenticus October 30 1641 : by us whose names are here subscribed. 6 Miles & 4 long & 3 Miles broad makes 12000 which being devided into 13 parts each parte will contayne 154 r: which makes 12 a Mile wanting 6 poole /
Fower of these partes putt together contayning 616 poole In breadth and 68 lynes at Nine poole by lyne make 616 poole & 2 poole over and above /
There is already layd out towards every of the fower parts 26 lynes & one over and above Soe there is more to be layd out for every fowereth parte 42 lynes & the salt Marsh ground to be devided in the like manner /
I34
DIVISION OF THE GRAND PATENT
A Divission already of the Land below Mr. Gorges house on the Lower side of the Crick/
Thomas Gorge Edw: Godfrey Roger Gard
This somewhat confusing description of the size of each of the thirteen parts may be roughly stated to pro- vide lots about one hundred fifty-four rods in width, by the river side, while the division lines were to run on a northeast parallel to the eastern limits of the patent. The last line reading: "A Divission already of the Land below Mr. Gorges house on the lower side of the Cricke," must mean that the seven lots below Point Christian, where Gorges house was located, had been tentatively allotted to certain resident patentees, subject to approval of the patentees absent in England or elsewhere. In November following the permanent assignment of the thirteen shares was ratified as follows:
DIVISION of the TWELVE THOUSAND ACRES 1641.
November A devission of twelve thousand Acers of Land amongst
1641
II the Patentees of Agamanticus/ made by us Thomas Gorges Esq and Edw: Godfrey Gentle: Chancellers of the Province of Mayn & Roger Gard, who are deputed In the behalfe of the sayd Pattentees/
Imprs to Fardinando Gorges Esqr, all the Land from the Cricke below the house up to the Bass Cricke & soe North East from a Certen Oake marked for a bound on the upper side of the sayd Cricke/
To Humfrey Hooke & Gyles Ellbridg Esqrs & Willia: Hooke & Tho: Hooke Gentlem: all the Land from the stumpe of a tree neare Hene: Donells house up to a certen tree marked for a bound, on the upper side of Mr. Edw: Godfreys feild & from those bounds North East : the yland at the Harbours Mouth & wast ground between the sea side & the lower bound North Eastwards to remain in coman amongst all the pattentees/
To Edw: Godfrey Lawrence Brinley, Willia: Pistor & Robert Tomson Gentlem All the Lands from the Last bound to a certen Oake Marked for a bound neare the path leading from the plantation to Mr Gorges house: alsoe all the Land up from the lower Corner of Mr Lynns feild to the Cricke below Mr Gorges his house & from all the sd bounds North East/
To Mr Samell Mavericke, Elyas Mavericke, William Jefferys, and Hugh Bursly Gentle: All the Land between those two pcells of Land last mentioned/& alsoe all the Land above the Bass Cricke from Mr Gorges bounds there up the River to a little Hillocke, by the River side, above the next poynt of Land & from thence North East/
To Mr Humfrey Hooke & partners, all the Land from the aforesd
I35
HISTORY OF YORK
Hillocke to the Poynt or Cove of Marsh, next above the farme house & from the head of the sayd poynt or Cove of Marsh North East/
To Mr Samell Mavericke & ptners, all the Land from the bounds last mentioned, up the River side soe fare as It runnes North West- wards, and soe over the sd River North West wards to a tree marked for a bound, & from thence North East/
To Mr. Humfrey Hooke & partners from the aforesd bounds North West nine Lynes in length at 9 pole p lyne, & from thence North East/
To Mr. Edward Godfrey & partners that pcell of Land commanly Called the Necke of Land, partly compassed about with the River & to take soe fare up as shall Contayne the like quantity that Mr. Humfrey Hooke & partners hath on the East side/
The sault Marsh devided as followeth/
To Mr Hooke & partners all the Marsh from the first Entrance to his farme house: All the rest upwards on that branch of the River to Mr. Mavericke & partners: And that on the Western branch of the River to Mr Godfrey & partners & to Mr Gorges the Pattentee/
154 poole in breadth, soe every Pattentee wch being measured by a lyne of 9 poole in length ammounts to 17 lynes & one poole/
The accompanying map shows this division in proximate detail. As far as existing records permit a statement the only members of the company, which owned this patent, who granted land to settlers were Godfrey, Hooke and Maverick. Of these Godfrey alone required in some cases two days work annually as a condition of sale and "ac- knowledgment" of his patent rights.
When the town came into possession of the land belonging to the patentees of Agamenticus in 1652, through the usurpation of government, it took over the fraudulent title of Massachusetts, as will be explained in Chapter XVII, and proceeded to parcel out lots to the inhabitants in its corporate capacity. What policy it adopted in respect to this distribution is not known, as the town records are lost, but from casual references in the partially restored duplicate record it is established that in addition to the homestead grants a further division took place sometime before 1672 and that they were known as "Dividend Lots." The few known participants in it had lots of varying size, from sixty to two hundred acres in extent. What constituted eligibility for them is likewise uncertain, possibly those who were here in 1652 and signed the Submission.
Outside of this early "division," indefinite in char- acter, there remained the large ungranted and unoccupied
136
DIVISION OF THE GRAND PATENT
area in the backwoods, which had lain untouched for half a century, as the settlers were, for safety during the Indian troubles, obliged to keep in the restricted territory border- ing on the main river. Individual grants to new settlers were usually made at first in definite acreage and bounds, with a condition of settlement within three years, but later the free and easy formula granted land, "clear of former grants, wherever he can find it." Evidently the grantee walked around the outskirts of the settlement until he had picked his location and then had it confirmed by the official lot layers. That this loose method resulted in overlapping by the pickers is evident from the numerous litigations following.
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.