USA > Maine > Lincoln County > Bristol > History of York, Maine, successively known as Bristol (1632), Agamenticus (1641), Gorgeana (1642), and York (1652) Vol. I > Part 17
USA > Maine > York County > York > History of York, Maine, successively known as Bristol (1632), Agamenticus (1641), Gorgeana (1642), and York (1652) Vol. I > Part 17
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
Those of Sir Ferdinando Gorges his province beyond Pascataquack were not received nor called into the confederation, because they ran a different course from us both in their ministry and civil administra- tion; for they had lately made Acomenticus (a poor village) a corpora- tion, and had made a taylor their mayor, and had entertained one Hull, an excommunicated person and very contentious, for their minister (Journal ii, 100).
"one Hull" was the Rev. Joseph Hull, a graduate of Cam- bridge University, who was a victim of their "excommuni- cation" and was naturally "contentious" as an opponent . of their tyrannical proceedings. But this was not the true explanation of the omission, masked behind these puerile reasons. In the plan of Winthrop, Maine was to be plucked for her own purposes, and to have now acknowl- edged her representation with the other colonies on an independent basis would have proved an awkward prob- lem to solve when they should find the usual lucky oppor- tunity to stretch their line around her territory to make good their claim to its ownership. So the stealthy game was played with much pious phrasing in journals, letters and public documents, year after year. The full story, with contemporary evidences in complete abstracts re- veals the Puritan at his worst. It was the "ministry" of the Church of England, provided by the Gorges charter, and not the "civil administration," that Winthrop feared on his flanks.
The Governor and Council of Maine were by this time fully aware of the intent of these natural enemies to over- throw the newly established government and began to employ defensive measures to forestall hostile action. One
182
THE LAST YEARS OF FREEDOM
plan was to petition the government of Cromwell, now in power in England, to confirm the "Combination," adopted in 1649, as the lawful substitute for the old Gorges govern- ment, and accept them as a member of the English Com- monwealth. The usual "informers" in the service of Massachusetts warned the Boston officials of this plan, adopted by Governor Godfrey and his Councillors, of whom Richard Bankes and Abraham Preble were of this town, with three from Kittery. It was now necessary for the Massachusetts officials to drop the mask of hypo- critical friendship and come out in the open. Therefore on October 23, 1651 the General Court having been in- formed "that there hath been a late endeavor of severall persons thereabouts to draw the inhabitants of Kettery &c. who govern now by combination, to peticon the Parliament of England for a graunt of the said place," and taking into consideration "the comodiousnes of the River of Piscataque and how prejudiciall it would be to this gov- ernment if the aforesaid place and river should be pos- sessed by such as are no friends to us," it was ordered that "a loving letter and friendly" be sent to Maine to tell them that by the north line of the patent that Kittery was within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and a com- mittee had been appointed "to treate with them." (Mass. Col. Rec., iv, pt. I, 70). It is manifest that a pro- gramme was to be tried of dealing with one town at a time, and if successful the whole Province could be stolen by piecemeal. The counter move of Godfrey's govern- ment was taken December 3, 1651, when it was ordered: That Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Leader & Mr. Shapleigh are within 10 days tyme to draw out a petition to the Parlamant in the behalfe of this province for the confirmation of this present Government here established.
The letter was completed two days later. After reciting that through the death of Gorges, and his heir having "taken no order for our Regement," the Council of State was requested to declare the inhabitants of the Province of Maine "Members of the Coman Wealth of England," and to enjoy an equall shayre of the favours bestowed on the Colonys in these parts." (York Deeds i, 20-24.) Richard Leader of Kittery sailed at once for England to present this petition in person. It need not be said that with the Puritans in the saddle in England any requests
183
CHAPTER XVI PASSING UNDER THE YOKE 1652
It may be imagined that excitement ran high in Gorge- ana as the news came across from Kittery that the Massa- chusetts commissioners had successfully coerced their neighbors, and driven them under the yoke of alien con- trol. Although Sunday intervened, these victorious emis- saries lost no time to carry the campaign to this place while the spirit of conquest was in the saddle. The usual "loving letter and friendly" was sent here immediately addressed to Nicholas Davis and Capt. John Davis, who were charged with the duty of warning the people of "Acomenticus" to assemble at the tavern of Nicholas Davis "between seven and eight of the clock" on Mon- day the twenty-second, and appear before the commis- sioners "to setle the government." The letter concluded with the usual pious expression of hope that the results would "tend to the Glory of God." On a like occasion when Massachusetts had sent her agents to seize territory belonging to Plymouth, Governor Bradford, though a Puritan himself, after listening to their canting claims, alleging that "Providence had tendered it to us," could not help commenting that it were better to "abuse not God's providence in such allegations." The ground had already been prepared for this mockery in associating their use of power with Divine approval. A careful list of the inhabitants had been made showing the sequence of houses and occupants for the use of their campaign agents. This advance guard had gone "from house to house threatening and perswading if they did submit wee should enjoy all our Rights and priviledges either by Patent or otherwise." (Egerton Mss. 2395, British Museum.) After the experiences of those in Kittery who had the temerity to criticise the proceedings in that town, threats were not needed to affect their judgments, and no amount of per- suasion could convert an independent citizen of Gorgeana into a slave ready to sign away his liberties, without a mental reservation. Whatever the result it would have
I86
SIMON BRADSTREET Leader of Commission to Demand Submission of Maine, 1652
. PASSING UNDER THE YOKE
to be achieved by an illegal show of force. Accompanied by their marshal and retainers, with authority to call upon the militia of Norfolk and Essex "to compel us by force of arms" the fateful meeting began. There exists no cir- cumstantial account of the conference, except that given by the Massachusetts commissioners, and that only gives the most meagre details.1 It was reported that "some time was spent in debatements," and we can only suppose that Governor Godfrey, with his Councillors, Bankes and Preble, were the principal local orators. Of course it was a moot "debate" allowed for the sake of recording the generosity of the usurpers. "Many questions" were asked, and it can only be surmised what they were. It will not be far from the truth to say that the intruders were asked whether they could have a free church service; whether the franchise depended upon membership in the Puritan church; whether they had the right of appeal to the supreme government in England, and whether the laws of Massachusetts were held to be paramount to the laws of England. It is stated that "objections" were raised but what they might have been, we can easily infer. Aside from the general objection to the entire proceedings, based on such a distorted rendering of their charter in its geo- graphical relationship and the overturning of an estab- lished government, it is probable that objections were made to the prospect of domination of the clergy in civil administration, to the banishment of ministers of the Established church and to the savage treatment meted out to persons charged with holding alleged "heretical" views. The report goes on to say that the "objections were removed" but whether by argument or removal of the objectors, as at Kittery, does not appear. The result was a foregone conclusion. The commissioners had come to "setle the government" as decreed by the Massachusetts authorities with an instructed commission sitting as judges! The stage show had been enacted and posterity was informed by these drill sergeants that the verdict was unanimous! "With a full and joinct consent," they say, the people of Gorgeana "acknowledged themselves sub- ject to the Government of the Massachusetts in New England." That is, all but one did so. The report adds :
1 Stackpole says of their Kittery report that it was "amended or doctored" and that names were reported as submitting who did not sign (Old Kittery, 141).
187
1. Mr. Francis Raynes
2. Thomas Crockett
3. Mr. Edward Godfrey
4. Mr. William Hilton 5. John Lavers 6. William More 7. John Harker
8. Mr. John Alcock
9. Robert Edge
10. Henry Donnell
11. Nicholas Davis
12. William Dixon
13. Mr. Edward Rishworth
14. Philip Hatch
33
5
35
43)
37
40
25
442
24
20
19
6
4
8
3
2
15. Edward Start 16. Sampson Angier
29. Robert Knight
30. William Ellingham
31. Ruch Gale
32. John Davis( the Smith)
19. Rowland Young m. Mr.Henry Norton
34. William Garnesey
21. George Parker
22. Nicholas Fond
23. John Parker
24. Robert Hethersay
25. Andrew Everett
26. Mr.Edward Johnson
27. Arthur Bragdon
28. William Freethy
43. Philip Adams
CAPE NEDDICK
44. Sylvester Stover
45. Edward Wanton
46. Peter Weare
47. Mr.John Gooch
48. Mr. Thomas Wheelwright
45
GORGEANA IN 1652
Showing the Residences Of the
Inhabitants who signed the "Submission"
22nd November 1652
The dotted lines mark the Indian Treils which had become the "Paths" cf the settlers and later rere widened into highways. The house shown the Point of Gorges Neck is that of Sir Ferdinando Gorges.
The list of inhabitants is taken from a document in the Massachusetts Archives prepared for use on that cooasion by the Commissioners sent by the General Court to take over the Government of Maine
17. Rice Cadogan
18. John Davis
33. William Rogers
35. John Twisden, Senior
36. John Twisden, Junior
37. Samuel Alcock
38. Richard Bankes
39. Thomas Curtis
40 . Mr. Abraham Preble
41. Joseph Alcock
42. Mary Topp
48
HISTORY OF YORK
"only Mr. Godfrey did forbeare untill the vote was passed by the rest, and then imediately he did by word and vote express his consent also." (Mass. Col. Rec. iv, I, p. 129.) But Godfrey has told of this scene, the bitterest moment of his life, in simpler phrase. "Whatever my Boddy was inforsed unto Heaven knowes my soule did not consent unto." (P. R. O., Col. Papers xiii, 79.) No one who has followed the story of his struggle against an unscrupulous and powerful opponent will doubt his words. This act of his was a tactical error that will naturally affect historical judgment on his public career. It would have made no difference in the result if he had refused to submit, but it would have added to our estimate of his character if, by an uncompromising adherence to a principle of action he had refused acquiescence. In a crisis like this the moral effect of numbers is difficult to resist and it is easier to lay a course of action for others than to follow it ourselves.
The original document containing the signatures, as well as the order of signing the Submission,has disappeared from the Massachusetts archives and we have to rely on the list of names set down in the report of their com- missioners as comprising those who "submitted" (Mass. Col. Rec. iv, pt. 1, 129).1 From this it would appear that the "meeting" voted on the question as a body and then the townsmen, fifty in all, signed, as follows:
Edward Godfrey
John Davis
Thomas Curtis
Thomas Crocket
Nicholas Bond
Silvester Stover
John Alcock
Edward Johnson
Thomas Donnell
William Dixon
William Garnesey
Edward Rishworth
Rice Cadogan
Hugh Gale
John Harker
George Parker
Richard Bankes
Nicholas Davis
Andrew Evered
Edward Wanton
Sampson Angier
Robert Knight
George Brancen
Henry Norton
William Rogers
William Hilton
Robert Heathersey
Samuel Alcock
William Moore
William Freethy
Joseph Alcock
Henry Donnell Edward Start
John Davis
Peter Weare
John Twisden Senior
Philip Adams
Rowland Young
Abraham Preble
Francis Raines
John Parker
John Gooch
John Lavers
Arthur Bragdon
Thomas Wheelwright
Robert Edge
William Ellingham
Mary Topp
Philip Hatch
John Twisden Junior
1 It is to be observed that the document signed by the Kittery people was pre- served by the Commissioners and is printed in facsimile by Stackpole in his history of that town, pages 143-4.
190
PASSING UNDER THE YOKE
For some unknown reason Mary Topp was required to sign and it is noted in their report that she "acknowl- edged herself subject &c only."1
It will be noted that in the printed list of those who "submitted," as taken from the records of the General Court of Massachusetts, the name of Godfrey, like that of Abou Ben Adhem, leads all the rest, notwithstanding he was the last to consent. This arrangement was un- doubtedly made in the record for its historical effect to show his signature at the top of the list. Assuming that the other signatures are placed in their proper sequence, it will be observed that Mayor Preble was among the last of four of the principal citizens to submit. As printed the title of "Mr" precedes the names of Godfrey, Raynes, Johnson, Hilton, Rishworth, Norton, Preble, Gooch and Wheelwright. The last named was son of the Rev. John Wheelwright, who had been banished from Massachusetts in midwinter of 1638 during the Anne Hutchinson theo- logical tempest in Boston's teapot. He had reason to dread the coming of these Puritan persecutors of his father.
Meanwhile Godfrey, fearing for the safety of his title to lands in the town, owing to the threats of the Massa- chusetts commissioners that property holders who resisted them would suffer loss, presented a statement of his legal and equitable rights to his share in the patent of Aga- menticus as granted to him and others in 1631. His claim read as follows, which was drawn up for the signature of the commissioners :
Whereas wee whose names are here under subscribed being ap- poyinted Comissioners from the Generall Court (of the) Massachew- sets to settle the Estern parts under the Goverment of the Mache- chussets by power from them delegated to us finding that Mr. Godfrey of Agamenticus hath not onely binne first planter in the sayd River liveing here Twenty one yeares long before, and ever a great furderer for ppagating and popilating the Country in general to his great charge and payments procured a pattent for him selfe and every asso- tiate for this River, which by the petition of the inhabitants and order of Court was divided amongst them as by it and the dividants apeare; II: years past upon which dividents of his and his owne assotiates he hath settled divers of his servants unto whom he was and is bound to give 50 acres a man and divers other families as by his patent he might: 15 families already settled and divers of his aliants are to come thither to setle for these Considerations and others there moving do
1 Mary Bachiler was the only woman who signed in Kittery, and the reason for either of them signing is not understood.
191
HISTORY OF YORK
ratifie and Confirme unto him and his owne Associates there Ayres Execators forever all such lands and dividents as were ether devided possessed and apropriated to him or them ratifying and Confirming the same and what lands or hereditaments by virtue thereof or by his wright he hath alienated given or disposed of for any servises or reservations and his grant we hold good and valuewed without any molestation from the jurisdiction of the Mathechusets and these we ratifie and confirme to him and his Eyers Given under our hands 22 November: 1652
The Massachusetts commissioners took this problem, the first test given to them of the sincerity of the usurpers, and slept over it. On the following day they gave the ex-governor this evasive reply:
Though we cannot subscribe to this wrighting of Mr. Godfry because we have not certaine knowledge of what is aledged nor time at present regularly to examin the mater yet we thought meet to express our desires that neither Mr. Godfry nor any other may be injuried nor suffer any damage by reason of this Change of Government and for such lands as were orderly divided and layed out to him and his par- ticular assosiats before they were apropriated to or improved by any other we think it but equall that he and his Eyers should in Joy the same forever notwithstanding if our desire and present thoughts give nott sattisfaction to any that it may Concerne we leave it to be de- termined by a due course of Lawe/ Yorke Novem 23, 1652
SIMON BRADSTREET SAMUEL SYMONDS THO: WIGGIN BRIAN PENDLETON
At this meeting, which the commissioners called a "court," Nicholas Davis was chosen constable; Henry Norton as marshal, and Edward Rishworth as recorder and "desired to exercise the place of clark of the writts." The commis- sioners also appointed Edward Godfrey, Abraham Preble, Edward Johnson and Edward Rishworth as commissioners with magistratical power, "to heare and determine smale cawses," civil and criminal, and with one assistant from Massachusetts to keep one county court yearly at York. Further authority given them related to their general powers as county officials and are not enumerated here.
It will have been noticed that the Boston commis- sioners addressed their notices to the "Inhabitants of Acomenticus," a name which had been superseded ten years since by that of Gorgeana.1 The use of this name
1 That the name of Gorgeana was long cherished by the residents of York is shown by a deed drawn by Edward Rishworth in 1667, fifteen years after the Usurpation, for Robert Knight, who was called "of Gorgeana alias York" (Essex Antiquary iv, 132).
192
PASSING UNDER THE YOKE
was purposely ignored by the Massachusetts officials, as the legal title carried with it a recognition of the name of Gorges, whose inheritance they were despoiling, and the retention of it would be a continual reminder of their illegal proceedings. It must be wiped off the map so that no more remembrance of it would remain in the minds of men. In the progress of their usurpation through the Province of Maine it was the only name of a settlement which they changed, and it is impossible to escape the conclusion that it was a deliberate exhibition of petty spite heaped on the memory of the dead knight. In be- stowing his name on the town, almost at the close of his long efforts in promoting colonization in Maine, he had indulged the pardonable hope that it would be his lasting memorial whereby future generations might recall the part he had played in establishing English civilization on the American continent. It was not to be. They had reached down into the dead decade to pluck his name from the town he had incorporated and fostered and gave it the entirely meaningless name of York. It had then a significance as the name of an English city which had been recently surrendered by the Royalists to Cromwell in the Civil War. They were adding petty larcency to their pro- gramme of grand larceny.
On the morrow of this eventful meeting the people who had passed under the yoke learned that they had been accorded certain rights and privileges as citizens of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In the first place they were accorded the several privileges and liberties which were just granted to Kittery, and had been granted, in 1641, to Dover when that settlement was absorbed in the usual benevolent assimilation already described. They were to retain and enjoy "all their just properties, titles and interests in houses and lands which they doe possess,
whether by grant of the towne or of the Indians or of the Generall Courts." The present inhabitants of York were to be "freemen of the Countrie," after taking the pre- scribed oath, and could vote for Governor, Assistants and other general officers. They were to have and enjoy "proteccon, equall acts of favour & Justice with the rest of the people inhabiting on the South side of the Piscataque River." Like Dover they were "exempted from all pub- lique charges other than those that shall arise for or from
193
HISTORY OF YORK
among themselves," and to have liberty of fishing, plant- ing and felling timber.
As a town York was to have the same bounds "that are cleare betweene towne and towne"; to enjoy the privileges of a town as others "of this jurisdiction doe have and enjoy; and that it should have one Deputy yearly to the General Court, or to send Two, if they thinke good." The freemen could be "chosen to any office of honor or trust." That the franchise was not encumbered with the qualification of church membership was a singular con- cession, but as none of them belonged to the Puritan church, it would have resulted in denying the vote to everybody; a situation that would have been equivalent to civil slavery. In this predicament it was found wiser to waive the requirement which laid so heavily on the inhabitants of Massachusetts, and as an act of grace bestow the freedom of the Province on all who were otherwise eligible.
Thus was York torn from her natural, ancient and legal associations and made subject to a distant colony, alien in purpose and ideals and covertly hostile to all it had stood for. Might had triumphed over Right. The scheme planned twenty years before "that the patent be enlarged a little to the North, where is the best firs and timber," was now realized by force. This subserviency to an absentee landlord was to last while five generations of her children were born and died.
Successful in their task of annexing the towns of Kittery and Gorgeana the Massachusetts commissioners returned to Boston and received "due & harty thanks for their paines and service" and a promise of grants of land as a reward. Bradstreet and Symonds got five hundred acres each, and Wiggin and Pendleton two hundred each as their share of the spoils, but none of it was taken in the Province of Maine.
194
CHAPTER XVII THE TOWN RENAMED YORK UNDER PURITAN RULE 1652-1662
With the autonomy thus conferred on the newly bap- tized and incorporated town the inhabitants of York entered into another career under the conquering overlord. The changes necessary to adjust themselves to this new condi- tion were fundamental. It be- came requisite to adopt a dif- ferent style of local govern- ment, to conform to the usages of the Massachusetts Bay Col- ony, and thus the picturesque ARMS OF THE CITY OF YORK, ENGLAND officials of Gorgeana, the Mayor, Aldermen, Recorder and White Rod, passed out of existence and Maine lost its colorful reminder of ancient English pageantry. The abdicating Mayor, Abraham Preble, doffed his robes of office, and proceeded to make the best of a humiliating situation. His "submission" to it was made, like all the others, under duress.
With the wreck of the Gorges title went all ownership of the soil, de facto, and the rights of the Lord Proprietor and the patentees of Agamenticus became vested in the new town of York as a corporate body, created by the usurping government, with authority to deal with it and them as they pleased. In Massachusetts all towns held title to the soil within their prescribed boundaries, and whatever portions of such terrain as were not held in fee simple were "common lands" subject to disposal to resi- dents or prospective settlers, by the Selectmen. Having deprived Gorges and the patentees of their patrimony, Massachusetts conferred on the new town the right to dispose of the hitherto ungranted remainder of the Aga-
195
HISTORY OF YORK
menticus Patent as "common land." In this manner the Selectmen of York became officially "receivers of stolen goods," in effect, and to divide the spoils meant giving away land that belonged, by every moral and legal right, to Gorges, Godfrey, Maverick, Hooke and their associates, personally, who had acquired it by competent authority created by the Crown. This ownership was distinct from the power to administer civil government over the patent. Yet the first Selectmen had to face a condition that was of more practical insistence than the technical rights involved. Whatever of the twenty-four thousand acres remained ungranted by the lawful owners now became subject to the control of the town officers, William Hilton, Francis Raynes, Richard Bankes and John Alcock.
They began this spoliation promptly and vigorously. Before a year had passed after the "Submission" twenty- seven grants of the now "common land" were made to as many residents, and one of the principal victims was Godfrey, who saw his private property given to others without compensation, and without his consent. Neigh- bors were robbing the founder of the town. Godfrey was helpless in means to protect his property from the local imitators of the greater malefactors, and in October 1654, he appealed to the General Court of Massachusetts for redress. His petition was as follows:
30 Oct. '54. To The Hon. Gov. Deputy Gov. The Magistrates And Deputies Of The Court Now Assembled, The Humble Petition Of Edw. Godfrey of The Town Of York.
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.