USA > New Hampshire > History of New Hampshire, Volume 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
I35
A HISTORY
that Gove and company "did at Hampton on ye twenty-sixth day of January last past traitorously with force & arms, Vizt., swords drawn, guns, pistols & other weapons, & with the sound of a trumpet, levy war against his Maty & his Government, appearing and rendevousing at Hampton aforesaid in a Rebel- lious body & assembly in a hostile manner, raising and making insurrections & with treasonable words at Hampton aforesaid and Portsmouth & other places moving and inciting the people to sedition & Rebellion, declaring for liberty & the like." The petit jury impaneled consisted of Henry Dow, Humphrey Wil- son, John Brewster, Philip Cromwell, Joseph Smith, John Tuck, Francis Page, John Sewer, Obediah Morse, Richard Water- house, Mathew Nelson, and James Randle. The witnesses against the accused were Richard Martyn, Reuben Hull (not Hall, as some historians have said), Jonathan Thing, Nathaniel Weare, Henry Green, Henry Roby and William Marston. The last four were neighbors of Gove at Hampton, now Seabrook, The judge was Major Richard Waldern of Dover, and he was assisted by Thomas Daniel and William Vaughan.
At the trial Gove was insolent and talked like a madman. He railed at the governor and called him traitor, saying that he acted by a pretended commission. All pleaded not guilty to the charge, though they admitted the fact. The others said that they had been drawn in by Gove. The jury, after six hours of conference found Gove guilty of high treason according to the indictment and all the rest in arms. Gove was then sen- tenced by Judge Waldern, in the language prescribed by Eng- lish law, to bear the same penalty as had been suffered by the regicides. "You, Edward Gove, shall be drawn on a sledge to ye place of Execution & there you shall be hanged by ye neck, and then yet living be cut down & cast on ye ground & yor bowels shall be taken out of your belly & yor privy members cut off & burnt while you are yet alive, yor head shall be cut off & yor body devided in four parts & yor head & quarters shall be placed where our Soveraigne Lord ye King pleaseth to appoint, And the Lord have mercy on yor soul." Let no more be said against the barbarity of the North American Indians of that time. This hideous and revolting sentence was framed by the educated court of England. It is said that Waldern shed tears as he pronounced sentence of death upon Gove, with
I36
NEW HAMPSHIRE
whom he had sat in the assembly and with whom he was one in spirit, if not in judgment.
Judgment on the rest was suspended till his Majesty's pleasure should be known. All were consigned to the custody of Capt. Walter Barefoot, who kept them in irons, called bilboes, in the fort, "irons five-foot and several inches long, two men locked together," as Gove wrote, yet he said that he rested better than he had done fourteen or fifteen nights before. His letter written in prison shows a disordered mind, and a jury of good sense ought to have discerned this and released the whole company with words of advice and caution. But juries were instructed to decide according to the letter that killeth, and law then knew little mercy. The pound of flesh must be exacted. The people were greatly excited, and a mole-hill was magnified into a mountain, especially in the reports of Cranfield and Randolph, who were anxious to impress upon the authorities at London the dangerous and rebellious character of the people of New Hampshire.
Edward Gove was conveyed to England in chains, under care of Edward Randolph, who seems thus to have learned bet- ter the spirit and motives of Gove, and he helped to secure his pardon. Gove was lodged in the tower of London and remained there about three years, under charge of Thomas Cheek, who never allowed Gove to be out of sight of a warden, day nor night. On the eleventh of June, 1683, Gove wrote to Edward Randolph, asking him to petition the king for pardon, saying, "Had I known the lawes of the land to be contrary to what was done, I would never have done it, you may well think, I was ignorant of any law to the contrary, since for 14 or 15 years past the same thing hath been done every yeare and no notice at all taken of it." Here he probably alludes to the fact that he was accustomed to invite his neighbors and friends to meet with him at his house and have a social glass together. When his case was under consideration for pardon it was alleged that he had not above two hours sleep in eighteen days previous to his arrest, so that he was distracted, scarce knowing what he either did or said, and that he "invited divers neighbors to his house as usual for twenty years and upwards to eat and drink with him." It may be that Cranfield desired his condemnation for high treason, in order that his property might be confiscated.
I37
A HISTORY
At any rate all his lands and goods were seized, and his wife and ten children were turned out of doors. After his pardon his property was ordered restored to him. The young men associated with him in this so called rebellion were all pardoned by Cranfield.
On the seventeenth of February, 1682, governor Cranfield caused notices to be affixed to the church doors, that if the in- habitants of the province came not within one month to take leases from Mr. Mason, pursuant to his Majesty's commission, he would certify the refusal to his Majesty, that Mr. Mason might be discharged from his obligation to grant such. This was meant to frighten the landholders into making terms with Mason. Major Richard Waldern, John Wingate and Thomas Roberts, all of Dover, waited upon the governor and Mr. Mason and proposed to the latter to refer the matter to the governor, that he, according to his commission, might present the matter to the king for his decision. Their proposal was rejected by Mason, although this was precisely in harmony with the king's expressed wishes. Witnesses testified that Mason threatened to take away the lands of the principal inhabitants, not leaving them a foot in the province, and that he would live on Andrew Wiggin's farm, being a good one; that the people had been in one rebellion and he would force them into a second and then hang them; that he was looking for a frigate and would quarter ten soldiers at each house, till they ate up all the cattle and sheep and beggared the inhabitants. Such testimony seems to be largely the product of heated imagination, not being in harmony with the patient and gentle character of Mr. Mason, as otherwise shown.
About this time Waldern, Martyn and Gilman were sus- pended as members of the council, and Nathaniel Fryer, Robert Elliot and John Hinckes were added thereto, all merchants of Portsmouth. Elliot and Hinckes were sons-in-law of Fryer, who for half a century was one of the leading men of Ports- mouth, holding many offices, such as judge of probate and chief justice of the court of common pleas. The tax list shows that John Hinckes was one of the wealthiest men of that city. He became a judge and a prominent man in the councils of the province, apparently siding with Mason or his opponents accord- ing to change of the political wind. His second wife was prob-
I38
NEW HAMPSHIRE
ably Mary, widow of Thomas Cobbet of Portsmouth. In 1684 Francis Champernown and Robert Wadleigh became members of the council, and Edward Randolph and James Sherlock are named as members. Joseph Rayn appears as sheriff and pro- vost marshal and later as attorney general. Barefoot was deputy governor, captain of the fort and judge. The juries were packed with men who had taken leases of Mason or were favor- able to his interests.
After court machinery had thus been put in gear and oiled, suits were begun by Mason against the principal landowners, and first of all Major Richard Waldern was sued for holding lands and felling timber to the value of four thousand pounds. The case is best stated in the words of Walter Barefoot who thus made oath, November 6, 1684,
"That at the trial had between Robert Mason Esq., Proprietor of the said Province, and Richard Waldron Esq., for title of land, the said Waldron, to avoid the trial, did except against the whole Jury that was impanneled. And when the court told him that he had liberty to except against any persons, showing cause, as they came to be sworn, the said Waldron answered he had nothing to object against any particular person, but he excepted against the whole Jury as being persons that lived in the Province and owned Mr. Mason to be Proprietor. Whereupon the court, that all reasonable satisfaction might be given, did administer an oath to every person of the Jury, who severally did make oath, that he was not concerned in the Land in Question; and that he would neither gain nor lose by the cause. Whereupon the said Waldron did speak aloud in the face of the Court, to ye people then present, these words : That his case was the case of them all, and that his case did concern the whole Province, and that if he were cast it would be a leading case, & then they must all of them become Tenants to Mr. Mason, & that they all of them being persons concerned they should not be of the Jury, for which words he was bound to ye good behavior, and at the next Quarter Sessions of the Peace, a Bill was found against him by the Grand Jury, and he fined five pounds. Nor did the same Waldron make out any title to the lands in question, or produce any evidence, though often required by the court, if he had any, that he would put it in, that the Jury might hear it; and in all the trials the Proprietor hath had not any one man hath produced any Deed, Evidence, or Record to make a title of land2
Waldron and others appealed from the decisions of the court to his Majesty in council, but gave no security, and a little
2 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. I, pp. 503-4.
139
A HISTORY
later the policy adopted was to make no appeal. Waldron was fined for "mutinous and seditious words," and the wonder is that the fine was so light, for he tried to browbeat the whole court, showing forth the imperiousness of a man of wealth and power.
Suits followed in quick succession, sometimes as many as from seven to twelve in a day. Some have written that as many as forty of the landowners were thus cast. Probably more than twice that number were sued and made no defense. In Dover alone suits were begun against the following thirty-four, Major Richard Waldern, John Heard, Sen., William Horne, Jenkin Jones, William Furber Jr., John Hall Jr., Joseph Field, Nathaniel Hill, James Huckins, William Tasker, Zachary Field, Philip Chesley Jr., Robert Burnham, Anthony Nutter, William Furber Sen., Thomas Paine, Charles Adams, Thomas Edgerly, Henry Langstaff, Thomas Stevenson, John Meader, John Wood- man, John Wingate, John Davis Sen., Joseph Beard, John Rob- erts, Joseph Stevenson, Samuel Hill, Philip Lewis, John Ger- rish, John Hill, Joseph Hall, Thomas Roberts, Sen. No pur- chasers could be found for the estates seized, and the original owners remained in possession. An attempt to levy an execu- tion in Dover on a sabbath caused a tumult which was ended by a young woman, who knocked down one of the officers with her Bible.3 Major William Vaughan appealed to the king, but the verdict against him was sustained. Some in Hampton pre- sented to the court a written statement of reasons for refusing to oppose the suits, "The refusal of Mason to comply with the directions in the commission; the impropriety of a jury's determining what the king had expressly reserved to himself ; and the incompetency of the jury, they being all interested per- sons."4
Cranfield and his council assumed to be the entire govern- ment and made laws and rules to suit themselves, changing the value of current money, prohibiting vessels from Massachusetts to enter the port, establishing fees of office, and forbidding con- 'stables to collect any town or parish rates till the taxes imposed by them were paid, sending to prison whosoever opposed them
3 Hist. Mem. of Ancient Dover, p. 219.
4 Dow's Hist. of Hampton, Vol. I, p. 106.
140
NEW HAMPSHIRE
on very slight pretexts and harassing the landowners by law suits and excessive court charges. As their only defence appeal was made to the king through petitions quietly circulated in the four towns, in which they recite their hardship in subduing a howling wilderness and their possession of their farms in peace for fifty years, but now they are reduced to confusion and extremities through the encroachments of Robert Mason and the effects and concommitants thereof. Wherefore they beseech his Majesty and privy council to give ear to their complaints through their messenger, Mr. Nathaniel Weare, in order that the oppressed might be relieved and wrongs righted. Such was the substance of the petition of almost undone subjects, prostrate at his Majesty's feet, for petitioners then as well as now were compelled by custom to employ the language used when mon- archs were unlimited and subjects were slaves. Thirty-four persons signed the petition from Exeter; sixty-eight from Hampton; sixty from Portsmouth; and fifty-eight from Dover, of whom fully half lived at Oyster River.
Nathaniel Weare, who carried this petition secretly to Bos- ton and thence to London lived in that part of Hampton which is now Seabrook. He was son of Nathaniel and grandson of Peter Weare and married Elizabeth, daughter of that Richard Swaine who was disfranchised for entertaining Quakers and who subsequently removed from Hampton to Nantucket. Weare's sister, Hester, married Capt. Benjamin Swett, who was killed in battle with the Indians at Black Point, Scarborough, while in command of the forces there. Weare was a councilor twenty years and later chief justice of the supreme court of New Hampshire. His son, Nathaniel, was also a justice of the supreme court and speaker of the House of Representatives, or General Assembly. It is said on good authority that Nathaniel Weare brought back from England and planted at Hampton Falls an elm that is still standing. He died Mav 13, 1718, in the 87th year of his age, a man held in highest respect for his character and abilities.
Major William Vaughan accompanied Weare to Boston and was appointed to procure depositions to support Weare's state- ments before the king's council. He found great difficulty in securing these, being refused copies of the records also, and
I4I
A HISTORY
on his return to Portsmouth was angrily questioned by gov- ernor Cranfield as to where he had been and for what purpose. His answers being unsatisfactory, the governor called Vaughan a mutinous fellow and required of him bonds for good behavior. Vaughan answered that if he had broken any of the king's laws, he was ready to give such bonds. So testified Peter Coffin on the twenty-seventh of January, and on the eighteenth of Febru- ary following Thomas Thurton made a deposition concerning an assault made on himself by Vaughan about the beginning of March 1681, or nearly two years before. He made oath that Vaughan interfered with the performance of his duty as scarcher of vessels, forced his staff from him and therewith struck him ten blows, inflicting lasting injury, and ended by giving him a blow in the king's highway and calling him a rogue. Whereupon Vaughan was arrested and cast into prison, to be kept till the next term of court. Vaughan continued in prison about nine months, when he was set at liberty because of instructions sent to the governor from the Lords of Trade. Cranfield was also directed to cease prosecutions of Mason's claims in the courts, till the appealed case of Vaughan was decided. During Vaughan's imprisonment he wrote a long letter to Nathaniel Weare, it being a journal of transactions dur- ing four months.
This letter is full of interest and sheds much light on the spirit and methods of Cranfield, as interpreted by an able oppon- ent. He narrates that executions had been served by Mason on Messrs. Cutt, Daniel, Fletcher, Moody, Hunking, Earl (or Hearle), Pickering and Booth, men of wealth and influence in Portsmouth. Doors, chests and trunks had been broken open by Daniel Matthews, the marshal's deputy. John Partridge and William Cotton were in prison because nothing but money would be taken for their execution, fish, sheep, horses, etc., having been refused. The minister, Rev. Joshua Moody, for refusing to administer the sacrament to Cranfield and others, was prosecuted and threatened with imprisonment for six months. Several, including Vaughan, who had paid their money at Mason's suit were sued again for illegally withholding pos- session, although the marshal never came to demand it. John the Greek, alias John Amazeen, had been thrust into prison, and fifteen sheep, sundry lambs and two heifers of his had been
142
NEW HAMPSHIRE
seized to satisfy costs of court amounting to six pounds and odd money. Mr. George Jaffrey, the Scotchman, had been warned to clear his house, because Mr. Mason was coming to take possession of it. Jaffrey went to the Bank (Strawberry Bank) on business, and his servants were turned out of doors and coming home wet were not allowed to enter, Matthews and Thurton, deputy sheriffs, lodging there that night. Cranfield, being unable to get money voted by the assembly, had taken a roundabout way of obtaining it, by appointing certain wealthy opponents to the office of constable. A refusal of the office meant a penalty of ten pounds. Among those so appointed and who paid their fines rather than serve were Richard Waldern, Capt. John Gerrish, Lieut. Anthony Nutter, John Woodman of Dover, John Smith of Hampton, and John Foulsom of Exeter. These were members of the refractory assembly, who would not pass a bill desired by the governor, who accused them of having consulted over night with parson Moody, "an utter enemy to church and commonwealth." Thereupon he dissolved the as- sembly. Jaffrey's house was converted into a prison, his goods having been put into the street during his absence, and he was sought up stairs and down throughout the residence of Mrs. Cutt, who was then sick in bed. The constable, Daniel Matt- hews, was beaten, at the house of Francis Mercer, by Capt. John Pickering, after some tippling perhaps, and this was talked of as part of a deep plot, deeper than that of Edward Gove. Capt. Pickering was bound over. Others were heavily fined, sent to prison or driven out of the province. Much talk was made about frigates to scare the people. Cranfield put Chamberlain out of all offices except that of secretary to the council, for which the latter was much dejected and the governor swore dreadfully that "he would put the province into the greatest confusion and distraction he could possibly, and then go away and leave them so, and then the devil take them all." The governor went to the chamber of the sheriff, Rayn, and beat him dreadfully. Perhaps he needed no army to enforce his decrees. Later the governor went to New York, by way of Boston where he had a cold treat, to discourse with Colonel Dungan about sending two hundred Mohawks to kill the eastern Indians. The wife of Capt. Elias Stileman had been cast into prison and there kept till the next morning, "a thing not to be paralleled in the
143
A HISTORY
English nation."-"No tongue can tell the horrible imperious- ness and domineering carriage of that wretch."-John Partridge was in prison and was offered his freedom, if he would pay thirty pounds. The sheriffs, Matthews and Thurton, had gone to Hampton and arrested seven including Capt. Sherburne. They executed upon William Sanborn, took away four oxen, drove seven cows from Nathaniel Bachiler, went to the house of Nathaniel Weare, cursed and swore at his son Peter and demanded his four oxen, which were refused. They took three pounds from Mrs. Weare and drove away some young cattle, which they afterwards released. Vaughan was refused counsel at court and to have witnesses sworn. The governor demanded of him a bond of two hundred pounds before he would release him from prison. Vaughan refused, offering instead to live out of the province. This racy epistle shows how Cranfield was managing matters with a high hand, his principal aim being to extort money from the people on any pretexts, for all the fines and forfeitures went to him. He favored the claims of Mason only because Mason had mortgaged the province to him, and he threatened that if Mason would not acknowledge a judgment of six hundred pounds at the next court, he would take all the business from him and sue in his own name. He was urged on by greed and maddened by oppositions.
On the nineteenth of October, 1683, Cranfield wrote to Sir Lionel Jenkins thus,-"It is my humble opinion a true Reforma- tion can never be expected, as long as ye University here (called Cambridge) sends forth such Rebellious Trumpeters, who daily sound their disloyal principles into ye eares of ye credulous vulgar, who are apt enough of themselves to take any impression tending to ye disinterest of the Crowne." He utters his sus- picions that the leaders in New England knew of the late horrid plot against the King and Duke of York, for the happy discovery of which he, Cranfield, had ordered a day of public Thanksgiving with cessation of labor and with religious services in all the churches, and he adds that "the thinness of their congregations sufficiently shows their dislike of it." The ministers daily make great clamors against the Church of England and both they and their laity have so great a prejudice against his Majesty's gov- ernment, that until the Universities of England supply these colonies with a clergy, never any true duty and obedience will
144
NEW HAMPSHIRE
be showed to the king. Governor Cranfield had a special aver- sion for the clergy of New England and the Rev. Joshua Moody in particular, an alumnus of Harvard and long minister at Ports- mouth. As a liberally educated man he, like all the Congrega- tional ministers, was a constant adviser of the people in matters political as well as spiritual. So far were the early ministers of New England from "meddling with politics," that they, like the old Hebrew prophets, made politics and the sins of rulers one of the chief objects of their concern. As discerners of the signs of the times they made their pulpits watchtowers, from which they cried aloud to warn the people of approaching dangers, and their advice was sought by men in authority, in all times of peril and disorder.
Therefore the arbitrary governor did not like Mr. Moody any more than Ahab liked Elijah. George Jaffrey, the owner of the ketch aforementioned, was a member of the church at Portsmouth, and he swore falsely that he knew nothing about the sailing of the ketch out of the harbor in the night. The matter was adjusted between the governor and Mr. Jaffrey, but the minister insisted upon proper church discipline and preached a sermon against false swearing. The offender was called to account by the church and censured, and at length he made public confession. Cranfield sought a way to chastise Mr. Moody and on the basis of an old English law, not at all appli- cable to the occasion, got the council to issue the following order :
It is hereby required and commanded That all and singular the respective ministers within this Provoince for the time being, do, from and after the first day of January next ensuing, admit all persons that are of suitable years, and not vicious and scandalous in their lives, unto the blessed sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and their children unto the baptism. And if any persons shall desire to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or their children to be baptized according to the liturgy of the Church of England, that it be done accordingly, in pursuance of the laws of the realm of England, and his Majesty's command to the Massachusetts .government. And if any minister shall refuse to do so, being thereunto "duly required, he shall incur the penalty of the statutes in that case made and provided, and the inhabitants are freed from paying any duties to the "said minister. Dated December 10, 16835
5 Coll. N. H. Hist. Society, Vol. VIII, p. 163.
I45
A HISTORY
Thus he would by force convert all Congregational min- isters into Episcopalians without any laying on of hands of bishops in the apostolical succession, regardless of their own wishes and conscientious convictions. Cranfield and the coun- cil thus made it a penal offence not to do that which Mr. Moody had neither the right nor power to do and which would not have been sanctioned by the Church of England. Very soon after the governor notified Mr. Moody in writing that he himself, together with councilors Robert Mason and John Hinckes in- tended to partake of the Lord's Supper the following Sunday and that he wanted it administered according to the form of the prayer book. Of course he expected a refusal and got what he expected. This opened the way for formal accusation of misdemeanor and arrest. Accordingly Joseph Rayn, who had been promoted from being sheriff and provost marshal to the office of Attorney-general of the province, gave information against Mr. Moody, referring to the statutes made in the fifth and sixth of King Edward the Sixth and the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, confirmed by a statute made in the thirteenth and fourteenth year of the reign of Charles the Sec- ond, whose meaning was grossly perverted. Mr. Farmer, in his notes to Mr. Belknap's History of New Hampshire cites the statute of Charles II. :
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.