USA > Maine > Pioneers on Maine rivers, with lists to 1651 > Part 27
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
rt
ts
r's r.
ho ly, le-
ne
id
0
H
1
·
d S e
e
2
y- ve n
r's
318
PIONEERS ON MAINE RIVERS
-not to overthrow the government at Dorchester as intimated- but to reform.
Proof of the absence of police power in northern New Eng- land is found in the necessity for the mobilization of two pin- naces, two shallops and forty men at Pascataqua in the attempt to discipline this small band of outlaws. This fleet, "coming to Pemaquid" in December, was "there wind bound about three weeks." The expedition was unsuccessful.§
Although Bull had reached England before the return of the fleet to Pascataqua, another was dispatched after him during the following spring. This squadron was composed of a pinnace from Winnisimet, in command of Maverick himself, and other boats from Neal's and Hilton's plantations .*
While Neal was at Pemaquid he gave possession of the prem- ises to Shurt, as agent for Aldworth and Elbridge. The cer- tificate, dated May 27, 1633, bore the signatures of William Hook, Robert Knight, George Newman and Christopher Burkett, master of the White Angel which then belonged to Allerton.
In the will of Robert Aldworth, dated August 30, 1634, he said, "I give and bequeath unto Abraham Shurt, my servant, if he live till my decease and shall return to Bristol, the sum of two hundred pounds." The testator died at Bristol November 6, of that year, and Shurt, who was a merchant of Bristol, may have learned of the bequest early the next spring, because May 6, he was making plans to return in the White Angel, of which Chris- topher Burkett was master .;
The White Angel had had a record. In 1628, it had belonged to Elbridge and visited New Plymouth under the same master. In 1631, Isaac Allerton bought it from Aldworth, to be used in conveying provisions to Ashley at Penobscot. At that time it was renowned for having won a remarkable naval victory in a former voyage. It was replaced in the Bristol fleet by the Angel Gabriel. June 19, 1635, Shurt sailed from Richmond Island in the former ship, which had been repurchased by Elbridge.#
Only three days later the Angel Gabriel cleared from Milford Haven for New England, in company with the James. The two Bristol ships must have passed in mid ocean. At any rate, while the White Angel arrived safely at Bristol, the Angel Gabriel was
& Winthrop. 1-97.
* 2 Mass. Hist. Col .. 8-232.
Waters' Gen. Glean., 1-735 ; Essex Rec., 2-23.
¿ Me. Doc. Hist., 3-58.
319
PEMAQUID RIVER
wrecked, with Massachusetts passengers, during the severe storm of August 15 in Pemaquid Harbor. The fact that survivors were forced to seek shelter in their tents until they could obtain trans- portation to their destination proved the utter absence of lodging capacity at Pemaquid at that time.
Shurt's renewal of his covenant with the surviving patentee of Pemaquid for five years' service from November 11, 1635, may imply an extension of a former indenture with Aldworth and Elbridge, for the same term, from 1630.§
That winter he returned to Maine in the White Angel in com- pany with William Cock, another early resident of Pemaquid.
During the period that followed the plantation was in a crit- ical position, due to its nearness to the French settlements to the north. Its attitude in this respect was misunderstood. As one early writer claimed "In truth ye English them selves have been the cheefest supporters of these French; for besides these, the plantation at Pemaquid (which lyes near unto them) doth not only supply them with what yey wante, but gives them continuall intelligence of all things that passes among ye English (espetially some of them), so as it is no marvell though they still grow, & incroach more & more upon ye English, and fill ye Indeans with gunes & munishtion, to ye great deanger of ye English, who lye open & unfortified, living upon husbandrie; and ye other closed up in their forts, well fortified, and live upon trade, in good securitie."*
June 28, 1636, Shurt apprised Governor Winthrop that he had been warned of impending invasion by the French. Accord- ing to his communication, an English or Scotch captive among the Frenchmen at Penobscot had encountered "a boate of ours (draylinge for mackrell)," presumably a dory belonging to the White Angel. The name of Shurt's informant was William Hart who reported that the French had "gone to the Eastwards to fetch more helpe to take this plantation & others." As to the means of communication the manager said : "This the master & purser of our shippe tould me : cominge hither for my lettres for England." Since his arrival in the White Angel that spring the vessel had been fishing in Penobscot Bay .;
At Pemaquid it was decided to await developments and de-
& Aspinwall, 31.
* Bradford. 2-210.
+ 4 Mass. Hist. Col., 6-570.
rd NO ile as
red er. in as er el. er
1-
ng- in- npt to
the the om at
m- er- ok, ter
he
ree
of ave he is-
320
PIONEERS ON MAINE RIVERS
fend the place, if possible, when the occasion required-a decision made more confidently because there was little danger of an alli- ance between the enemy and eastern Indians. The natives about Penobscot then complained to resident Englishmen, as they had to Smith twenty years before, that they were disposed to abandon the district on account of harsh treatment by the French. In this connection Shurt observed: "It is lamentable that a handfull should insult over a multitude."
What actually transpired at Pemaquid was disclosed by Ed- ward Winslow in a letter to Winthrop, dated April 17, 1637. That part which related to eastern affairs was worded as follows: "Concerning things Estward, Capt. Standish is returned who reporteth of the Royall entertainemt Shurt hath given Dony at Pemaquid. He saith (being commander Generall) that if he re- ceive a Comission he must take him, onely six weeks before he will give him notice, and in lue thereof tis said Mr. Shurt hath promised him to informe him of whatever prepacon shall be made or intended against them. He further saith that if his com- mission be to take the Grand Bay (yorselves) he will attempt it though he should have no other vessell then a Canoe. But the English are all his friends except Plimoth : nor is he enemies to any other. Shurt hath undertaken to furnish him wth powder shot yea all manner of provisions, And to that end under a colour of gathering up some debts is come to make provisions for them till his owne ship come. Tis also reported that Sr fferdinando Gorges hath written to Saco that the ffrench here are not sett out nor allowed by the King of ffr. but a base people wch their state disclaime, & therefore stirreth them up to informe both you & us that we might joyne together to expell them. One thing more wch I had almost forgotten they have lost their Gally & a pinnase at Ile Sable & brought away their people who are at Penobscot where they have built a pinnase of threescore tunne."}
From this letter it is apparent that the French had with- drawn all colonists at Sable Island to strengthen their position at Penobscot. On the other hand, Shurt, more concerned than ever, had formed a friendly alliance and was engaged in com- merce with Aulnay.
One of the outstanding debts referred to was that of Thomas Wannerton, of Pascataqua. There had been dealings between
# Mather's N. E., 287.
321
PEMAQUID RIVER
Pemaquid and Pascataqua for several years. May 20, 1637, Shurt brought suit against the debtor to recover the balance of his account.
Between July 16 and October 8, 1638, the name of Pemaquid plantation was changed to Aldworth Town.§
January 4, 1638-9, Walter Barrett and Walter Sandy and their company at Bristol petitioned for a license to transport 180 persons to their plantation in New England, "to provide and gather up in that country a sufficient quantity of Victualls for furnishing of such Shipps and men as the Petitioners intend to keep and employ in a Fishing trade upon that Coast all the year, for which Works it hath ever been permitted to export provisions from hence." The petition further stated that the merchants of Bristol and their friends had "disbursed great charges for many years in setling of a Plantation in New England, which Planta- tion was by them begun long before such multitudes of people were sent as now are planted there, That those whom the said Petitioners have there already and all such as they intend now to send are regular people That their Plantation is apart from all others and hath no relation to them."*
The fact that these settlers were adherents to the doctrine of the Church of England and outside the civil jurisdiction of the western governments of Gorges, Mason and Winthrop, disclosed the fishing plantation at Pemaquid as their true location.
July 21, 1639, Gyles Elbridge obtained a license to transport 80 passengers and provisions "formerly accumstomed * * * for the encreace and Support of his fishing plantacion in New Eng- land." These were embarked on the Charles, of Bristol, which belonged to "Mr. Elbridge."¡
Bristol merchants were independent traders at Pemaquid and, in 1640, Hugh Yeo recovered judgment for merchandise formerly delivered to Thomas Purchase and at the same session Elbridge obtained a similar decree upon a separate account. In the suits the plaintiffs were represented by Arthur Brown, Robert Knight and Shurt himself. Brown then lived at Winnegance. Francis, brother of Robert Knight, was also involved in litigation.
February 4, 1643-4, Gyles Elbridge died at Bristol and an examination of his affairs showed that his manager at Pemaquid
§ 4 Mass. Hist. Col .. 6-571.
* N. E. Hist. Gen. Reg., 8-140.
Lechford, 180.
een
mas
en ado out ate ;us ore ase scot ith ion han om-
d- at s: ho at re- he th be m- apt che to der
on li. ut ad on lis
322
PIONEERS ON MAINE RIVERS
had never accounted in his stewardship at the plantation. Suit was begun against Shurt upon the covenant which had been executed at Bristol eight years before. The defendant removed to Charlestown, where he furnished security to John Elbridge, brother and sole legatee of the Bristol patentee, to await the verdict.
At the departure of Shurt from Pemaquid Francis Knight, with his brother's influence, secured control. In 1647, however, Thomas Elbridge, younger brother and heir of John, arrived in the country and superseded Knight in the management of his new estate. At that time the owner cited before him fishermen living at Damariscove and Monhegan and secured acknowledge- ment of his rights in their premises.
In the outstanding accounts for the year 1647 Knight filed an itemized statement of the transactions which had taken place between himself and John Holland, of Dorchester, who had been a trader on the Maine coast for many years. One item of debit comprised goods charged to the plantation but delivered to "Mon- higon men."}
Other persons who then lived in the vicinity of "the house" at Pemaquid were Thomas Atkins, of Sagadahoc, Edward Bateman, Elizabeth and George Buckland, John Cousins, John Gent, John Hopkins, Elias Hoskins, Robert Knight, Walter Phillips and Richard Toogood.
The purchases consisted largely of clothing, ammunition and liquor ; the sales comprised bread, fish, peas and furs. Some of these provisions were delivered to Knight at "Nagausset," which fact, considered in connection with a credit for goods received from "Mr. Bateman," indicated continued business relations, be- gun at Pemaquid, where Bateman and Brown had formerly lived.
June 20, 1649, Nathaniel Draper was living at Aldworth Town, where he drew an order upon William Foster, of Boston, in favor of George Newman for the account of Charles Saunders, a London merchant resident in Boston. The bill was dishonored. Three days later the same person witnessed a note drawn by Francis Knight who still continued at Pemaquid. Two years later Draper was described as living upon "Damiriscove River"-evi- dently as a fisherman or planter at Winnegance.§
The only resident of Pemaquid who submitted to the New
¿ Suffolk Deeds. 3-100.
$ Aspinwall, 205, 209 ; Suffolk Deeds, 1-24.
323
PEMAQUID RIVER
York government in 1665 was Thomas Elbridge; he was joined by Edmund Arrowsmith and Henry Champney, of Winnegance, and George Buckland, of Corbin's Sound, all proprietors of large farms on Damariscotta River.
In 1672, Elbridge removed from Pemaquid to Marblehead, Massachusetts, and three years later to Barbadoes, leaving his
RIVER
William Way
KING'S BRIDGE
John Brown NEW HARBOR
GVLES
ROAD
William Cox
300 HOPS
Thomas Phillips
John Cole
HARBOR
PUMPKIN COVE
PEMAQUID
POINT
LICHT
SKETCH MAP OF PEMAQUID
family, consisting of five children, in the custody of the eldest daughter at Marblehead.
He died in Spring Plantation, Barbadoes, in 1682.
At the beginning of the Indian Wars of 1675, a contemporary writer remarked that "There have been for a long Time seven or eight considerable Dwellings about Pemmaquid, which is well accomodated with Pasture Land about the Haven for feeding Cattel, and some Fields also for Tillage."*
* Hubbard's Wars, 2-7.
. Nes
late
vorta oston ders lored
1 and ne of which eivel s, be lived
e" at man John and
filed lace been lebi
FISH POINT COX COVE
BEACH
Suit een ved Åge the
ght ver, d in his mer. dge
324
PIONEERS ON MAINE RIVERS
John Earthy, son-in-law of Gardiner, the early settler asso- ciated with Shurt at Pemaquid, was in charge at that port in 1676. Although he had tried to maintain friendly relations with the Indians, western traders directed by Major Waldron, of Dover, had seized several of the natives at Cape Sable. The cap- tors were Henry Lawton and John Laverdure and the captives were sold at Fayal in the Azores. The eastern tribes regarded this act as an infringement of their treaty with the English.
At that time the New York government built at Pemaquid a new fort, consisting of a redoubt and outwork of pine logs fifteen feet in height, which were defended for a short time by twenty soldiers and seven cannon. Governor Andros reported that the chief commercial products of Pemaquid were fish and masts.
In 1677, Earthy and all other eastern residents had with- drawn to Salem district, where they took the oath of allegiance in various towns. After the death of his father-in-law Earthy may have returned to Pemaquid, but he was living in Boston ten years later. His family consisted of his wife Mary and daughters Abigail, Ann, Elizabeth and Mary.
The correspondence of Edward Randolph, in 1688, mentioned an interview that he had just held with William "Stuert," town clerk of Pemaquid. The name has been mistaken for that of Shurt, who, if he had been then living, would have been a centenarian.
JOHN BROWN OF PEMAQUID.
This pioneer was a tenant of Aldworth and Elbridge, and the alleged Indian deed given him by Samoset, of land at New Har- bor, has furnished a basis for the claim that there were settlers at Pemaquid in 1625. Moreover, in 1660, Samuel Maverick as- serted that Robert Aldworth, mayor of Bristol, had transported colonists to Pemaquid during the same year in which the Brown deed purports to have been dated, but the Massachusetts author- ity was writing long afterward and at a distance, and his allusion must have been to Monhegan, which was regarded as part of the Pemaquid premises. However, the patent issued to Aldworth and Elbridge fixed the date of their settlement at 1628.
The Samoset deed to John Brown was forged more than a century later. Two hundred years ago such a statement would have met strenuous denial, because the title to a tract of land twenty-five miles long and eight miles wide-equivalent to four
1
---
1
325
PEMAQUID RIVER
full townships-was based upon the authenticity of the alleged deed. Now, neither public sentiment nor private interest re- quires recognition of its validity, and it is unfortunate that men- tion of it must be associated with the earliest period of Maine history, where its omission might be misconstrued.
Samoset, one of the supposed grantors, was the most noted Indian in New England. In 1619, he had associated with Dermer ; in 1621, he had sought the acquaintance of Plymouth colonists ; and, in 1623, he was a persistent attendant of Levett at Casco. Unnongoit, the other grantor, does not appear again in any relation.
Brown and his son-in-law Richard Pearce were friendly with the natives and transmitted some account of Samoset to their descendants. Depositions of Brown's grandchildren, taken more than a century later, proved that they had known many of the earliest settlers by name. With selfish motives and such an his- torical background it was not difficult to fabricate an Indian deed. Apparently, that was just what happened.
The Trail of Brown. The settlement at Bristol was known first as Pemaquid. The patent, issued in the spring of 1632, dis- closed the year of settlement as 1628-probably at Monhegan. Legal seizin was not taken until 1633. Five years later the plan- tation, then a mere fishing hamlet, was called Aldworth Town.
Late in 1639, when Brown and Edward Bateman bought the whole of Woolwich from Robinhood, the grantees were described as residents of Pemaquid. Soon after the purchase they removed to their new property, upon which only an Indian house or wig- wam was then standing.
In 1654, Brown was still residing at Woolwich when he signed the articles of submission to New Plymouth, which had just ex- tended its jurisdiction down the Kennebec from Cushnoc.
In 1658, the Woolwich interests of Bateman and Brown had all been sold to James Cole, James Phipps and John White, by various conveyances. Brown's acknowledgement of his release in 1664 described him as a resident of Pemaquid, but "lately of Nequasseag" (Woolwich). In this connection the sworn state- ment of Robert Allen, of Sheepscot, taken at Bristol, England, February 12, 1659-60, referred to Brown as a mason of New Harbor; the deponent also testified that he had known that me- chanic for seventeen years; that his father's name was Richard,
asso- rt in with i, of cap- tives rded
aid a fteen renty t the
with- ice in may years hters
ioned town Shurt, ian.
nd the Har- ettler ck as- porter Brown uthor- llusica of the th ant
than wouk of lan to fos
326
PIONEERS ON MAINE RIVERS
of Barton Regis, and that his wife was Margaret, daughter of Francis Hayward, of Bristol, England.
The year before his deposition was given Allen had been a subscribing witness to the transfer of the islands of Damariscove and Monhegan as part of Pemaquid patent .;
The lineage of Brown's descendants was prepared by the heirs to establish their rights of inheritance in his estate at New Harbor. The families represented are subjoined.
1. Margaret, who married Alexander Gould, of Salem, about 1660. She left two daughters : Margaret, born at New Harbor in 1661, and another baptized at Marblehead November 21, 1686. The former married James Stilson and had James, John, Mary, and Margaret who became the wife of William Hilton. Gould was killed by Indians, but his widow married Maurice Champney and resided on Muscongus Island.
2. John, who was born in 1635 and lived with his father until thirty years of age, when he settled at Damariscotta Falls. He died in Framingham in 1720, leaving a son of the same name.
3. Elizabeth, who was born in 1642 and married Richard Pearce, of Muscongus. She was a stepmother of some of the fol- lowing children: Richard, born in 1647, John, born in 1653, Francis, Elizabeth, wife of Richard Fulford and Samuel Martin, Margaret, William and George, born in 1666.
4. Francis, who was named for his paternal grandfather in England. He was living at Pumpkin Cove near Pemaquid in 1674.
5. Emma, who married Nicholas Denning. Her husband was born in 1645, lived at Pumpkin Cove and died in Gloucester June 9, 1725. Their children were Eliza (Paine), Nicholas, Mary (Stevens), George, Grace, Emma and Agnes.
The immigrant spent the last days of his life with his eldest son and may have died in Massachusetts. There is some evidence that his widow resided at New Harbor after his decease.
The Forgery of the Samoset Deed. Aldworth and Elbridge, patentees of Pemaquid, were wealthy merchants of Bristol, which was the paternal home of Brown's wife and, at that date, the principal port of departure from Western England. It is absurd to suppose that Brown, a mason, who substituted his mark for a signature, could obtain a native title to 120,000 acres at Pema-
+ York Deeds, 17-868.
327
PEMAQUID RIVER
quid for the price of "fifty skins," trapped upon the premises, while two influential subjects of the British realm were only able to procure one-tenth of that area to found a city for the Crown.
Payment in clothing, ammunition or liquor would have been more in accord with ordinary trade relations, savage needs and historical precedent. There are instances when the Indians sold land and agreed to pay forfeitures with furs, but the grantors proffered them as a medium of payment rather than received them as a consideration.
The text of the alleged Samoset deed was couched in compara- tively modern phraseology. Historians have pronounced the instrument the masterpiece and model of all American convey- ancing, on account of its exemplary form and precision. Its per- fection in these respects renders it an object of suspicion and leads to the conclusion that it was merely an adaptation of forms in existence when it was made, and not the precursor of deeds of the Seventeenth Century.
In the descriptive part nautical terms were used in defining the courses, but such terms as "North and by East" and "South and by East" belong to conveyances of later dates. Even grants by the Plymouth Council, established to cede dukedoms to New England proprietors, were limited wholly by natural boundaries and surveyed accordingly.
The names of witnesses affixed to the Samoset document are those of Matthew Newman and William Cox. The latter was a witness at Bristol in 1635, when Shurt made his agreement with Elbridge to return to Pemaquid, and the former may have been the Matthew Norman who was a witness at Pemaquid in 1640.
The chief inconsistency in the attestation was that it was fol- lowed in the line of title by another from John Brown to his son-in-law Alexander Gould, to which the same witnesses sub- scribed in exactly the same order, although, according to the professed dates of the two instruments, there was an interval of thirty-five years between executions. It is doubtful if this com- bination would have recurred if the same persons had lived to- gether in the same house for the entire period. Moreover, Cox attested another deed of Brown's in 1671.
A year after the date assigned to the Samoset deed the Indian grantors were represented as having appeared at Pemaquid be-
# Lincoln Deeds, 5-61.
intil He
r in d in
was June Lary
hard fol- 653, rtin
out r in 686. ary, was and
ove
the Tew
of n a
Idest
idge. hich , the surd for & ema
ence
328
PIONEERS ON MAINE RIVERS
fore Shurt to confirm a written contract which they could not read, interpret or identify by any reasonable method. The ca- pacity of the magistrate to officiate was not indicated. He was merely the Pemaquid agent of Aldworth and Elbridge, who took possession of part of the same premises for them, seven years later.
No such formula of acknowledgement was required in Eng- land by the leasehold system, nor prevailed in this country until 1641, when an order of Plymouth Colony first made it a pre- requisite for registration. The laws of Massachusetts did not become effective in any part of Western Maine until after 1652, and not in Pemaquid until later.
In 1653, Shurt was a resident of Charlestown and a specimen of his clerical proficiency was recorded in Maine. The spelling of that certificate cannot be reconciled with the exquisite orthog- raphy of the Samoset formula. Three other Samoset conveyances, of 1641 and 1653, were not acknowledged at all.
No deeds certified by a magistrate were recorded in Maine registries until the decade of 1660. If comparison of this acknowl- edgement be made with that endorsed on the alleged deed from Brown to Gould, purporting to have been made in 1660, it will be seen that, except for necessary modifications, the forms were identical.
The Samoset deed to Brown was not presented for entry in the Book of Eastern Claims until December 1, 1720, and the affidavit of Benjamin Prescott shows that the clerk accepted the instrument after the expiration of the legislative limit and neg- lected to docket the entry. The usual explanation for such im- proper procedure is undue influence. At any rate, soon after registry the original deed had disappeared and, although the county recording office for York had been available for over ninety years, it was not until 1739 that a copy of a copy of Brown's deed was transcribed therein.
Simultaneously with the entry of the Samoset deed, the other from Brown to Alexander Gould was filed. Comparison of the two documents indicates that both were drawn at the same time and by the same person, although the latter was acknowledged before Thomas Garner. The magistrate intended appears to have been Thomas Jenner, a deputy of Massachusetts authorized to take acknowledgements of deeds.
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.