History of Rockingham and Strafford counties, New Hampshire : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Part 181

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton)
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Philadelphia : J. W. Lewis
Number of Pages: 1714

USA > New Hampshire > Strafford County > History of Rockingham and Strafford counties, New Hampshire : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men > Part 181
USA > New Hampshire > Rockingham County > History of Rockingham and Strafford counties, New Hampshire : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men > Part 181

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).

1. Nathaniel, born 1636; married Mary, daughter of Tristram Coffin, and was of Nantucket. Both were "Friends." He died June 6, 1719; she died Sept. 13, 1717.

2. Dorcas married William Gayer ; daughter Dema- ris married Nathaniel Coffin, and they were ancestors of Admiral Sir Isaac Coffin.

3. Sarah married (1) William Storey, of Dover; (2) Joseph Austin ; (3) Humphrey Varney. When Wil- liam Storey's inventory was entered, his widow is men- tioned as having married Joseph Austin. Austin, in his will, speaks of " my brother Peter Coffin." After Sarah's marriage to Varney, Elder Starbuck confirms to "son-in-law Humphrey Varney," "husband of Sarah," land formerly given by him to "son-in-law Joseph Austin." Yet (Register, vii. 128) Varney's marriage, March 2, 1664 [-65], mentions her as Sarah Storer, omitting the intermediate _fustin.

4. Abigail married Judge Peter Coffin, of Dover, whose garrison-house stood on the north side of Or- chard Street, Dover, about sixty feet back from the Central Street line ; this house was taken in the mas- sacre of 1689. Their son Tristram, born Jan. 18, 1665, also had a garrison-house in Dover at that date. Tristram's son Tristram (born about 1691) had daugh- ter Deborah, born Aug. 31, 1738, who died in Dover, July 29, 1837, when the property known as the " Coffin field" (nearly two hundred years in the family) came into the market. Washington Street (from Central) runs through it.

5. Jethro, killed at Nantucket by a cart running on him:

Storer, William. Protest, 1641. Back River lot 8 He was ancestor of a numerous posterity. The late Hiram R. Roberts, of Rollinsford; Col. Charles W. Roberts, of Maine; Rev. Oliver A. Roberts, of Salis- in 1642, as "Storey." Taxed 1648 to '58 as "Storey ;" " widow Storie" taxed 1659. Grants are on record. Inventory entered Nov. 8, 1660, and Joseph Austin bury, Mass .; Alonzo Roberts, of Dover Neck, are of i (who had married his widow) was appointed admin- this family.

istrator, June 27, 1661. Storer is believed (from tra- dition) to be the son of Augustine Storre, of Exeter Combination, for whom see Wentworth Genealogy. William married, perhaps his second wife, Sarah Starbuck, as ante. His children were :

1. Samuel, born Dec. 29, 1640; died early.

2. Sarah, born Jnne 16, 1642; died early.

3. Hancock, born July 15, 1644.

4. Sarah, born Dec. 13, 1645.

Joseph Storer, of Wells, and Jeremiah Storer con- veyed to Samuel Cromwell, of Dover, April 5, 1710, land on Dover Neck, "the antient Possession of our father William Storer." Descendants are in Maine, and the late Rear-Admiral George W. Storer was one.

Swaddow, Philip. Protest, 1641, as "Swaddon." No further mention here. Savage says, "Philip, Watertown, servant of Robert Seely, 1630, set free next year on condition of paying £10 to his master ; of Kittery 1640." Why " of Kittery 1640," when he signed Dover Combination, 1640 ?

Teddar, Stephen. Gibbon's letter from Newicha- wannock, July 13, 1633, speaks of Stephen Kidder as employed there, if we believe the printed copy. In 1642, May 2d, Anthony Emery had six acres of land, purchased of Stephen Godder, on Dover side of Ne- wichawannock. Between Teddar, Kidder, and God- der, we are in despair. Neither appears here after- wards.

Underhill, Capt. John. Governor of Dover, 1638 -40, which high-sounding title doubtless meant little. Sufficient is said of him above.

Upgroufe, John. Had Back River lot 10 in 1642, as " Newgrove ;" in list of marsh lots, 1648, he is called " Ugrove." No further mention, except referred to as of above date in conveyances, where he is called " Newgrove."

Walderne, Richard. Protest, 1641. Of the Mas- sachusetts House. Of him see farther on.

Walderne, William. Protest, 1641. Eldest brother of the major, as see Register, viii. 78; baptized in Alcester, Warwickshire, Oct. 18, 1601. Perhaps came to Dover in 1635 (when the major first came over), perhaps 1637. Was member of Dover first church at its organization, December, 1638. In 1641 one of the four magistrates appointed by Massachusetts, and re- · corder of court 1641 till his death, being also (late)

774

HISTORY OF STRAFFORD COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

recorder of Maine. Drowned in river at Kennebunk, September, 1646. Savage says he was "one day" in General Court in 1642, as deputy from Dover, and was deputy in 1646. His business affairs were in confu- sion long after his death. He owned shares in the Swanscot patent, bought in 1645 of William Whit- ing. Of his family there is much obscurity.

The following facts appear: William, born 1642 (as by deposition, was taxed in Dover, 1664, etc.). Barefoot's deposition, July 30, 1682, calls Maj. Ricli- ard Walderne " uncle" to this William. William was gunsmith in Boston, 1672.

Alexander, elsewhere called a "relation" of the major, was taxed with William (jointly) Cochecho, 1665, and taxed alone 1667. Alexander, by will, June 7, 1676 (inventory, June 14, 1676), then "sojourner" at Great Island (now Newcastle, N. H.), mentions brothers Isaac, William, George, Edward ("in Old England"), and Samuel (apparently in England), and sister Mary (perhaps in England ?) ; also gives legacy to Joan Barker if she be living), of Coventry, which is in the same county with Alcester, and twenty miles distant.

William being a nephew of Maj. Richard, of course all these brothers and this sister were in the same re- lationship. Whose children were they ?

All the brothers of Maj. Richard are known, by record : George, baptized 1603, married only as late ; other signers of the former paper several are known

as 1635, could not be father of these children, and, besides, his family is on record. Thomas died 1633, apparently s. p., and his death makes him out of the question. Foulke, baptized 1610, was too young for these children, as also was Robert, baptized 1612. The only possible parentage was William, the Dover recorder. Further, it is said that a bill in chancery, London, 1654, supposes that recorder William to be living "in New England, beyond the seas," "having issue Christopher and many other children."

On the other hand, a petition of Richard Scam- mon, 1666, makes his wife Prudence to be only daugh- ter of recorder William. This seems incompatible with there being a daughter Mary (will of Alexander above), and makes query why Prudence was not mentioned in that will.

There was also a John, taxed in Dover, 1672, having wife Dorothy ; perhaps the John of Marblehead, 1673.

If the inconsistencies as to Mary and Prudence were removed, the following would be a conjectural list for William Walderne's family, arranged accord- ing to probable order as by tax-lists and depositions :

1. Christopher, mentioned only in chancery paper, as above.

2. John (perhaps), born, as by deposition, in 1624 or 1625.

3. Edward, of Ipswich, 1648, who (as by Savage) early left for England.

4. Mary, apparently went to England.

5. Samuel, in England, 1676.

6. Isaac, of Portsmouth, York, Boston, 1676, a physician.

7. George, taxed in Dover, 1661.

8. William, born about 1642, as by deposition ; taxed in Dover, 1664.

9. Alexander, taxed in Dover, 1664 ; died 1676.

10. Prudence, married Richard Scammon.

Wastell, John. Back River lot 22, in 1642. Does not appear further in Dover. See Strage for John Wastell or Westall, of Connecticut.

Webb, George. Back River lot 6 in 1642. Taxed 1648, and his " house and land" 1650. George Smith administered on his estate in 1651, and conveyed to Oliver Kent premises at Back River. The only other item is this : At court, Aug. 31, 1643, " George Webb presented for living idle like a swine."

Of the forty-two signers of the Combination, de- scendants of fifteen now bear the name within the old limits of Dover, three others are represented through female lines, and descendants of seven others are known to exist in other places.

Notwithstanding Underhill's signature to the Com- bination, he continued to scheme for union with Massachusetts. His efforts caused a remonstrance to be forwarded to that government, signed by twenty- five persons, twenty-three (probably twenty-four) of whom had signed the Combination. Of the nineteen to have been opposed to the Massachusetts claim. The paper is as follows :

" NORTHAM, 4, 1 month [1641] [ Dover, N. H.].

" HONOURED SI8 :

" Wee the Inhabitants of Northam make hould to trouble yon with theise few lynes certifyinge you that whereas wee suppose Capt : Under- hill hath informed you & the rest of you brethren of the Matchesheth bay that we are all willinge voluntarely to submit onr selves to your gouernment upon fformer Articles propounded, truth it is we doe very well aprove of your Judicious wayes & shal be very wiyful yt please God to enlarge us that we may be free from other ingagements & promises wch some of us are obliged io to the owners or patentees from whom under under his Mats' Letter Pattents we enjoy our free liberty: wch cansethi us not for present to submit to any other government than that wch wee have already entered into combination to observe according to the King's Maties Jawes untill such time as the owners come over to us wch we suppose wil be about three months hence, and thence our prop- ositions considered as the Lord shall direct us wee will labor more to satisfy you. But for the proceedinges of Captayne Underlille seeking to undermyne us and contrary to his oath & fidelity as we suppose in- trusted to him hath went from house to house & for his owne ende by flattery and threatening gotten some hands to a note of their willingness to submitt themselves under your goverment & some of those are nien of other combinations, others >traugers that have noe habitation, to bring his purposes to pass, wee doubt not but you are to well acquayinted with his stratagems in plotting his owne designes wch wee refer to your grave judgements-some of those that subscribed to his note, have this day utterly protested against their own act, for he hath raysed such a Mutinee amongst us wch if we take uot course for the stopinge thereof, it maye cause the effusion of blood by reason he hath by his disignes privately rent the combinations as much as in men lyeth, contrary to his act, that is that wee should continue in the same Goverment except an agreement or canse shewed to the contrary in open court agreed on by the Maior part .- Thus much we thought good to acquaynt your wor- ships withall beseeching your favourable construction hopinge you will weigh our cause in equity & conscience & not any way to enforce us to any act whereby we should breake promises or covenant with the pat- entees or amongst ourselves wch in soe doing we should sione greatly,

775

DOVER.

we should sinne greatly. Wee heartilye desire your prayers for us & comit you to the protection of the Almighty at yor service to command.

" Thomas Larkland

Thomas X Layton

William Jones

Edward Starbuck

John Follett

William Pomfrett

Robert

William Furber

Thos Durstin

William Storer

Thos Roberts

John X Hall

Samuel Haines

Phillip Swadden

Bartholomew Smith

Richard Waldern

John Dame

Edward Colcorde

Bartholomew >' Hunt

Robert X Huckins

William Waldern

Richard Pinckam

John X Tuttle

Thomas -"

Henry Blck

Thomas Larkham, whose name is on the list of the Combination, as well as on that of the protest against the projects of Underhill for union with Massachu- setts, had speedily eclipsed Knollys in the estima- tion of the people, partly, doubtless, by his superior abilities, but partly because he was more in sympathy with the genius of the English Church, while Knol- lys had grown more rigid and more in sympathy with Massachusetts.

It does not appear that Knollys ceased to be pastor of the church, although Winthrop says that " Knol- lys gave place to him." They appear to have been in service together, Larkham as "teacher," although without any formal installation. Larkham says, "I found a people in a church-way, & a pastor, and so joyned to them to partake of & submitt unto the ordi- nances of our Lord & Kinge amonge them, accord- inge to His will to be administered; and . . . sone after received a call to office, viz. to be teacber to the church, and (though not suddainly) yet at length yielded to become so, ... conceivinge that with- out offence I might pphesie [prophesy] & dispence by the key of charitie, though not by a key mineste- riall. .. . So we went on together lovingly a while."

It appears, however, that Larkham soon obtained control, and Knollys, apparently in January, 1641, was temporarily "enjoined silence" by the magis- trates.

Larkham also wrote to the Massachusetts authori- ties a letter dated on " the Sabbath, being the 3d day of the eleventh month,"-i.e., January 3d,-which fixes the year as 1641. In this letter he gives his version of the disturbances between himself and Knollys.

If Larkham's statements are correct, it is evident that Knollys had not abandoned the jargon of the Antinomians. The difficulty between the two was, however, deeper than any quarrel between one or another section of Puritans. Historians have failed to see the inevitable inferences to be drawn from the accounts of these Dover troubles as given by Win- throp and Lechford, or from the character of the settlement.

The original patrons of the Pascataqua settlements were Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Capt. John Mason. But these men were zealous members of the Church of England. The first settler of Dover was Edward

Ililton. It is a significant fact that Edward Hilton, a gentleman, a man of ability and integrity, and pos- sessor of wealth, never, save in the act of union for an exigency, held the highest public office under the Mas- sachusetts government.

The drift of his settlement was, of course, not Puri- tan, nor was it for religious liberty in the least degree. Thomas Wiggin brought in "about thirty" in 1633, including women and children doubtless, "some of whom were of some account for religion," a mild sub- stitute for saying that a portion of them were of Puri- tanic sympathies. But others followed, such as the influential Richard Walderne and Francis Champer- nowne, both of the Established Church, and others chose this river in preference to Massachusetts Bay, out of dislike to the rigidity of the latter. Burdett's success in displacing Capt. Wiggin, the agent of the Puritan Lords Say and Brooke, from the governorship, himself a correspondent of Archbishop Laud, is thus explained. The watchful jealousy of Massachusetts is also thus understood. It was not a mere desire for more territory ; but Massachusetts saw its near northern neighbors, Dover, a mixed settlement, but with a preponderance against Puritan strictness, the north of its river openly an Episcopal settlement, and the authorities across the Pascataqua strenuous church- men.

Of this sentiment in Dover, Larkham took advan- tage.

A comparison of Winthrop and Lechford shows the truth of this view of the controversy. "He [Larkham] received into the church," says Winthrop, "all that offered themselves, though men notorionsly scandalous and ignorant, so they would promise amendment." The difference between the Puritan and the Anglican theory is here evident at a glance : the latter received to the church all who appeared to repent of their sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the former demanded the laying bare of an inward spiritual experience of the deepest character.

Lechford says, "These two fell out about baptizing children, receiving of members, and burial of the dead." The "receiving of members" is that to which Winthrop alludes. The "baptizing of children,"1 its significance, the phraseology employed in the adminis- tration, the restriction to children of church-members were subjects of the strongest antagonism between Puritan and prelatist. The "burial of the dead," whether the dead should be buried with the majestic liturgy of the church, or laid in the ground as the Puritans buried, without Scripture, psalm, or prayer. The inferences are indisputable that the ecclesiastical tronbles in Dover, which meant civil as well as religions, were the result of those two theories of the church.

The troubles soon came to an open issue. It could

1 Because of this expression, and because Knollye in England after- wards became a Baptist, a writer in Sprague's " Annals of the American Pulpit" has made all these truths turn upon the Baptist question. A more absurd theory was never imagined.

776

HISTORY OF STRAFFORD COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

scarcely be later than March when the two factions appeared in arms. Mr. Knollys, with his adherents, excommunicated Larkham "and some that held with him." Some of the magistrates sided with Larkham, assembled men with the purpose of arresting Under- hill, " another of their magistrates and their captain," and bringing him before the court on the charge of endeavoring to place Dover under Massachusetts gov- ernment. Underhill gathered some forces, and, “ex- pecting help from the Bay," marched towards Lark- ham's. Knollys, armed with a pistol, was in the front with a Bible upon a staff for an ensign, and "giving forth that their side were Scots and the other English."

The significance of this Jast expression is decisive. It will be remembered that the canons for liturgical worship in Scotland were published in the earlier part of the year 1637; that on the 23d of July the new liturgy, pressed upon Scotland by the English bishops, was read for the first time in Edinburgh, was resisted by riots on it, and utterly failed of ae- ceptance; that public affairs remained disturbed, Scot- land arming, until they eventuated in open hostilities. In the beginning of the year 1639 the English forces moved forward, and soon occupied Berwick. A tem- porary pacification was announced June 17, 1639. The conflict was renewed in 1640, and that little war, kuown as " the bishops' war," ended with the action at Newbern-on-Tyne, Aug. 28, 1640, which Clarendon calls "that infamous, irreparable rout at Newbern." With this defeat of the English the attempt to estab- Jish in Scotland the canons and liturgy of the English Church utterly failed.

The steps of this confliet were known in America. In December, 1640, "they brought us," says Win- throp, "news of the Scots entering into England, and the calling of a Parliament, and the hope of a thor- ough reformation." The disturbances in Dover were but a few weeks after, and the significance of the names Scot and English, as used by Knollys, becomes apparent. The conflict which was to convulse Eng- land had its outer wave in a little obscure settlement in a clearing on the Pascataqua.

The result was in accordance with this fact. Lark- ham, when Underhill put his men under arms, at once sent to (now) Portsmouth for aid. Francis Wil- liams, then Governor there, was a churchman. He came up with armed men. Gentlemen from the Gorges plantation, of the same character, came over. They kept a guard night and day around Knollys' house, where Underhill also was; called a court, in which Mr. Williams sat as judge; tried Underhill and his companions in arms for riot by forced indict- ment and jury trial, and on conviction sentenced nine of them to be whipped (" but that was spared"), fiued Knollys and Underhill £100 each, and ordered them to leave the plantation.

Underhill and Knollys, suffering for their zeal in behalf of Massachusetts, at once sent to that govern-

ment a petition for aid. The Governor and Council sent Mr. Bradstreet (one of the magistrates), Rev. Hugh Peter, of Salem, and Rev. Timothy Dalton, of Hampton, to go to Dover, "to endeavor to reconcile them, and if they could not effect that, then to in- quire how things stood, and to certify to us." Of this commission the indefatigable Hugh Peter, destined afterwards to lose his head for treason, was the moving spirit. Says Lechford,-

" Master Peter went from Salem on foot to New Dover, alias Pascataqna, alias Northam, to appease the difference between Master Larkham and Master K. when they had been up in Armes this last winter time. He went by the sending of the Governor, Counsell, and Assistants of the Bay, and of the Church of Salem."

The politie result of this mediation was that Lark- ham was relieved of the church censures, and the Knollys party of their fines and banishment.

The ostensible object of Peter's visit was to recon- cile differences. The real object is apparent from a Jetter of Peter which, although without date, seems clearly to belong to this period, especially as its in- ternal evidence was that it was written while Win- throp was not in office as Governor, and therefore before May. The letter is as follows :

"To my honored brother John Winthrop, se, Esq., these present, in Boston :

" HONORED Sta,-These are to accompany Mr. Knollis. What aduise I gave at my being there Mr. Wilson can iuforme you, whose letter I would desire you to reade, I being to give an account to them that sent mee. Now my earnest request is that this bearer & 3 or 4 more of his frends may have the liberty of sitting downe in our jurisdiction, hee may [be] vsefull without doubt, hee is well gifted, you may doe well to beare him at Boston.

"They there are ripe for our Gouernment as will appeare by the note I have sent you. They grone for Government and Gospell all ouer that side on the Country, I conceive that 2 or 3 fit men sent ouer may doe much good at this confluxe of things. These will relate how all stands in these parts. Alas, poure bleeding soules !

"I have desired Mr. Endecot to write to your gonernour. ] thinke this worke falls naturally vnder the care of the Counsell. If Mr. Larkam say and hold, hee hath promised mee to close with vs, but male audio. What are men ? * * 2 * "H. PETER."

The exact dates of the riots and of Peter's visit can hardly be settled. Larkham's letter of January (the probable date), 1641, implies that the riotous proceed- ings had not then taken place. while Winthrop's entries clearly show that they were earlier than May. Both Winthrop and Lechford say "last winter." Peter and Dalton started from Dover for Agamenticus, "with one of Agamenticus," and with John Ward, " who was to be entertained for their minister ;" " lost their way, and wandered two days and one night without food or fire in the snow and wet." The " snow and wet" could easily be in March or Feb- ruary.

This letter shows plainly the intrigue upon which he was at Paseataqua, of whose success he was san- guine. What motives he applied no records tell us ; but events soon showed that his arguments were powerful.

777

DOVER.

On the 14th of June, 1641, five owners of the Dover and Swamscot patent, in the name of the whole, con- veyed to Massachusetts all power of government over the tract embraced in their grant, together with its lands, reserving certain property for themselves. In fact, they had no power of government to convey ; they were but a trading and planting corporation.

The five signers of this transfer acted in behalf of all the owners of the patent. In the protest against annexation, dated 4th of March, 1641, the signers mention their expectation that "the owners" were expected to "come over" in about three months; that is, " the owners," being the owners of the patent, who granted land to settlers, not the settlers them- selves, who owned land under grant from the pat- entees. This transfer was actually made three months and a half after the date of the protest, but not one of the owners appear to have "come over." Wyllys was then Deputy Governor of Connecticut, and lived, as well as Whiting, at Hartford ; Salton- stall (brother of Sir Richard ) was a resident of Water- town; Holyoke was of Lynn ; and Makepeace was of Dorchester. Three of these five signers, therefore, were citizens of Massachusetts, and no owner came from abroad or signed any transfer. Unless the pro- ject had been formed during the preceding year, no authority from England could have been possessed by these signers. The probability is that it was a plan devised to meet an exigency in the progress of the territorial extension.

In this transfer it is noticeable that the patentees conveyed "power of jurisdiction or government of the said people." What prompted them to do this is beyond explanation. First, such a power in them- selves was not capable of being deputed, and, sec- ondly, they had no such power in themselves. The patent under which they held lands will be searched in vain to find the slightest allusion to power of gov- ernment. The consequence was a fraudulent assump- tion of power which they had never attempted to exercise. When the heirs of Mason, whose claim antedated the Dover patent and covered its whole territory, were endeavoring to secure their rights, their own counsel admitted that they had no right of government. The conveyance, as to government, was an arrogant usurpation ; but it answered its purpose possibly as one of the factors making the Massachu- setts title, perhaps in bringing some pressure to bear upon the people, whose protest had referred to their attachment to the patentees, perhaps wisely to guard against any possible complaint from the patentees. The Massachusetts act of annexation drops it out without even an allusion. Its real practical effect was to convey the title to lands not reserved, and this it accomplished.

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.

History of Rockingham and Strafford counties, New Hampshire : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Part 181

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton) Publication date: 1882 Publisher: Philadelphia : J. W. Lewis Number of Pages: 1714

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton)
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Philadelphia : J. W. Lewis
Number of Pages: 1714