USA > New Hampshire > The history of New-Hampshire > Part 15
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 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62
100
HISTORY OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
[1683.
and his trial was hurried on too fast, it being only six days after the commission of his crime. . Had he been indicted only for a riot there would have been no difficulty in the proof, nor hardship in inflicting the legal penalty. Waldron, it is said, shed tears when pronouncing the sentence of death upon him.
On the fourteenth of February, the governor, by advertisement, called upon the inhabitants to take out leases from Mason within one month, otherwise he must, pursuant to his instructions, certify the refusal to the king, that Mason might be discharged of his obligation to grant them. Upon this summons, and within the time set, Major Waldron, John Winget* and Thomas Roberts,
mistake, but according to what I know and believe I am falsly indited and I am abused notwithstanding by another Inditement, by being in Iorns by Cap. Barefoot's order which Iorns are called billbose, exceeding large. Pray con- sider we are men like yourselves made of the same earth and I know who made the difference.
And I verily believe that the holy righteous just God will have an account of you for your Justis in this matter. Pray consider. When this last change was I writ to one man in this Province, I tould him wee were a hapy people if all was right in the Bottom. Time was that I said all was right in the bot- tom, I believed it, but now I see otherwise. Who knows what shall be on the morrow. Though it bee appointed a solemn day of fasting, I know that when it was appointed there was not the election of cries and teares that will ap- pear when the day comes. If ever New-England had need of a Solomon, or David, or Moses, Caleb or Joshua it is now. My tears are in my eyes I can hardly see.
Yet will I say I do believe how it will com. You and they with siths and grones must out do the ministry ; The Ministry must endeavor to out do you, but if you and they do any thing in hipocrisy, God will find you out and deliv- erance will com som other way.
We have a hard prison, a good keeper, a hard Captain, iorns an inch over, five foot and several inches long, two men locked together ; yet I had I thank God for it a very good nights lodging, beter than I had fourteene or fiveteene nights before. I pray God direct you and let me here from you by a messen- ger that your honors shall imploy and consider. I am your honors humbel Servant in all duty to be commanded. EDWARD GOVE.
I know those that will have a blessing from God must endeavor to stand in the way of a blessing. This Doctrin I heard about 32 yeares ago.
EDWARD GOVE.
Excuse any thing writ amiss for the Lord's sake. I would you all were as I am and as fitt to recieve reward for innosensy. I humbly beg your Prayers to God in our behalfe. EDWARD GOVE.
If any thing be amiss in what is written, lett the subscriber bear the blame, for the rest are surprized with feare. EDWARD GOVE.
I humbly and hartily desire some of your honors would speak to Mister Mody to pray to God in the behalfe of all his pore prisoners the world over and espesially for us before named the men of this Province who ly under hevi burdens. EDWARD GOVE.
The original of this Letter is in ye Recorder's office,"
It is now (1830) in the Secretary's office.]
* [He is the ancestor of the Wingate families in New-Hampshire and Maine. He was admitted freeman by the Massachusetts colony in 1666, and died about the year 1689. His children were Ann, born 18 February, 1667; John, born 13 July, 1670; Joshua and Caleb. Joshua married and lived in Hampton, where he died at the age of 90 years or upwards. He was at the conquest of Louisburgin 1745, was afterwards a colonel, and a representative from Hamp- ton in the General Assembly. He wrote his name as in the text, but it seems to have been altered to Wingate by his sons, two of whom were educated at Harvard College. Rev. Paine Wingate, the eldest, graduated in 1723, and
101
PROVINCE. EDWARD CRANFIELD.
1683.]
three of the principal landholders in Dover, waited on the gov- ernor to know his pleasure, who directed them to agree with Ma- son. They then retired into another room where Mason was, and proposed to refer the matter to the governor, that he might according to his commission, state the inatter to the king for his decision. This proposal, Mason rejected, saying that unless they would own his title, he would have nothing to do with them .- Whilst they were in discourse, the governor came in and desired them to depart.1
This piece of conduct is difficult to be accounted for, it being directly in the face of the commission. Had the method therein prescribed, and by these men proposed, been adopted, it was natural to expect that the king, who had all along favored Mason's pretensions, would have determined the case as much to his wish as upon an appeal from a judicial court ; besides, he had now the fairest opportunity to have it decided in the shortest way, to which his antagonists must have submitted, it being their own proposal. His refusal to accede to it was a capital mistake, as it left both him and Cranfield exposed to the charge of disobedience. But it afforded a powerful plea in behalf of the people; whose confidence in the royal justice would have induced them to com- ply with the directions in the commission. It being now impossi- ble to have the controversy thus decided they determined to hearken to none of his proposals. As he generally met with op- position and contradiction, he was induced to utter many rash sayings in all companies. He threatened to seize the principal estates, beggar their owners, and provoke them to rebellion, by bringing a frigate into the harbor, and procuring soldiers to be quartered on the inhabitants.2 These threats were so far from intimidating the people, that they served the more firmly to unite them in their determination not to submit; and each party was now warm in their opposition and resentment.
The governor on some fresh pretence suspended Waldron, Martyn and Gilman from the council. The deaths of Daniels and Clements made two other vacancies. Vaughan held his seat the longest, but was at length thrust out for his non-compliance with some arbitrary measures. So that the governor had it in his power to model the council to his mind, which he did by appoint- ing at various times Nathaniel Fryer, Robert Elliot, John Hinckes,
(1) Weare's MS. (2) Ibid.
was ordained the minister of Amesbury, in Massachusetts, 15 June, 1726, and died 19 February, 1786, aged 83. John, the youngest, was born at Hampton, 4 January, 1725, graduated in 1744, and died 4 September, 1812, aged 88. A son of the Rev. Paine Wingate, is the Hon. Paine Wingate of Stratham, who was born 14 May, 1739, graduated at Harvard college 1759, and is now the oldest living graduate of that institution. He was one of the first Senators from New-Hampshire under the Federal Constitution, and for many years was Judge of the Supreme Court of the State.]
102
HISTORY OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE. [1683.
James Sherlock, Francis Champernoon and Edward Randolph, esquires. The judicial courts were also filled with officers proper for the intended business. Barefoote, the deputy governor, was judge : Mason was chancellor ; Chamberlain was clerk and pro- thonotary ; Randolph was attorney general, and Sherlock provost marshal and sheriff.1 Some who had always been disaffected to the country, and others who had been awed by threats or flattered by promises took leases from Mason ; and these served for under sheriffs, jurors, evidences, and other necessary persons.
Things being thus prepared, Mason began his law-suits by a writ against Major Waldron, (who had always distinguished him- self in opposition to his claim) for holding lands and felling timber to the amount of four thousand pounds. The major appeared in court, and challenged every one of the jury as interested persons, some of them having taken leases of Mason, and all of them living upon the lands which he claimed. The judge then caused the oath of voire dire to be administered to each juror, purport- ing " that he was not concerned in the lands in question, and that " he should neither gain nor lose by the cause." Upon which the major said aloud to the people present, " that his was a lead- " ing case, and that if he were cast they must all become tenants " to Mason ; and that all persons in the province being interested, " none of them could legally be of the jury."2 The cause how- ever went on ; but he made no defence, asserted no title, and gave no evidence on his part. Judgment was given against him and at the next court of sessions he was fined five pounds for " mutinous and seditious words."
Suits were then instituted against all the principal landholders in the province, who, following Waldron's example, never made any defence. Some, chiefly of Hampton, gave in writing their reasons for not joining issue ; which were, 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 inter- ested persons, one of whom had said that "he would spend his " estate to make Mason's right good." These reasons were irri- tating rather than convincing to the court. The jury never hesi- tated in their verdicts. From seven to twelve causes were des- patched in a day, and the costs were multiplied from five to twenty pounds. Executions were issued, of which two or three only were levied ; but Mason could neither keep possession of the premises nor dispose of them by sale, so that the owners still enjoyed them. Several threatened to appeal to the king, but Major Vaughan alone made the experiment.3
A suit was also commenced against Martyn who had been treasurer, for the fines and forfeitures received by him, during the
(1) Council Records. (2) MS. in files. (3) MS. in files and Weare's MSS.
103
PROVINCE. EDWARD CRANFIELD.
1683.]
former administration ; and judgment was recovered for seventy one pounds, with costs. Martyn petitioned Mason as chancellor, setting forth that he had received and disposed of the money ac- cording to the orders of the late president and council, and pray- ing that the whole burden might not lie upon him. A decree was then issued for the other surviving members of the late coun- cil, and the heirs of those who were dead, to bear their propor- tion.1 This decree was afterward reversed by the king in council.
Cranfield with his council had now assumed the whole legisla- tive power. They prohibited vessels from Massachusetts to enter the port, because the acts of trade were not observed in that colony : they fixed the dimensions of merchantable lumber ; alter- ed the value of silver money, which had always passed by weight at six shillings and eight pence per ounce; and ordered that dollars should be received at six shillings each, which was then a great hardship ; as many of them were greatly deficient in weight. They also changed the bounds of townships; established fees of office; mnade regulations for the package of fish, and ordered the constables to forbear collecting any town or parish taxes till the province tax was paid, and the accounts settled with the treasurer.2
The public grievances having become insupportable, the people were driven to the necessity of making a vigorous stand for their liberties. The only regular way was by complaint to the king. Having privately communicated their sentiments to each other, and raised money by subscription, they appointed Nathaniel Weare, esq., of Hampton,* their agent ; and the four towns having drawn and subscribed distinct petitions of the same tenor, Weare privately withdrew to Boston from whence he sailed for England. Major Vaughan who accompanied him to Boston, and was ap- pointed to procure depositions to send after him, was upon his return to Portsmouth, brought to an examination, treated with great insolence and required to find sureties for his good behav- iour ; which, having broken no law, he refused ; f and was by the governor's own warrant immediately committed to prison ; where he was kept nine months to the great damage of his health, and of his own as well as the people's interest.3
Amidst these multiplied oppressions, Cranfield was still disap-
(1) MSS. in files. (2) Council Records. (3) MSS. in files.
* [Nathaniel Weare is supposed to have been son of Peter Weare. He was born about the year 1631, and lived sometime in Newbury, where several of his children were born. He was admitted freeman in 1666, at which time lie belonged to Hampton. He was appointed a counsellor of the province in 1692, and died 13 May, 1718, aged 87. His son Peter, who was born at New- bury, 15 November, 1660, was also a counsellor of New-Hampshire, being ap- pointed to that office in 1698.]
t In this refusal he is countenanced by the example of the great Selden, and other members of parliament who were imprisoned by order of Charles I. in 1629. Macaulay's Hist. Eng. Svo. vol. 2, page 72.
104
HISTORY OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE. [1684.
pointed of the gains he had expected to reap from his office ; and
1684. found to his great mortification, that there was no way of supplying his wants, but by application to the people, through an assembly. He had already abused them so much that he could hope nothing from their favor ; and was therefore obliged to have recourse to artifice. On a vague rumor of a foreign war, he pretended much concern for the preservation of the province from invasion ; and presuming that they would show
the same concern for themselves, he called an assembly Jan. 14. at Great-Island, where he resided, to whom he tendered a bill, which in a manner totally unparliamentary, had been drawn and passed by the council, for raising money to defray the ex- pense of repairing the fort, and supplying it with ammunition, and for other necessary charges of government. The house* debated a while, and adjourned for the night, and the tide serving, the members went up to the town. In the morning, they returned the bill with their negative ; at which the governor was highly en- raged, and telling them that they had been to consult with Moodey, and other declared enemies of the king and church of England, he dissolved them ; and afterward by his influence with the court of sessions, divers of the members were made constables for the following year.1 Some of them took the oath, and others paid the fine, which was ten pounds. Thus by a mean and execrable revenge, he taxed those whom he could not persuade to tax their constituents for his purpose.
But Moodey was marked as an object of peculiar vengeance. He had for some time rendered himself obnoxious by the freedom and plainness of his pulpit discourses, and his strictness in admin- istering the discipline of the church ; one instance of which merits particular notice. Randolph having seized a vessel, she was in the night carried out of the harbor. The owner, who was a membert of the church, swore that he knew nothing of it ; but upon trial, there appeared strong suspicions that he had perjured himself. He found means to make up the matter with the gov- ernor and collector ; but Moodey, being concerned for the purity
(1) Court Records. Vaughan's Journal.
The Members of this assembly were, for Portsmouth.
Richard Waldron, jun. speaker, Philip Lewis, John Pickering.
Dover. John Gerrish, John Woodman, Anthony Nutter.
Hampton. Anthony Stanyan, Joseph Smith, John Smith. Exeter. Robert Smart, Thomas Wiggin. Court Records.
t [From Adams, Annals Portsmouth, p. 78, we learn that the name of this member was George Janvrin, but from a letter from Randolph to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, it appears that it was "one Jefferys, a Scotchman," unless there were two similar cases. Jefferys was a member of the church.]
105
PROVINCE. EDWARD CRANFIELD.
1684.]
of his church, requested of the governor copies of the evidence, that the offender might be called to account in the way of ecclesi- astical discipline. Cranfield sternly refused, saying that he had forgiven him, and that neither the church nor minister should meddle with him; and even threatened Moodey in case he should. Not intimidated, Moodey consulted the church and preached a sermon against false swearing; then the offender, being called to account, was censured, and at length brought to a public confession.1 This procedure extremely disgusted the governor, who had no way then in his power to show his resent- ment. But malice, ever fruitful in expedients to attain its ends, suggested a method, which to the scandal of the English nation, has been too often practised. The penal laws against noncon- formists were at this time executing with great rigor in England ; and Cranfield, ambitious to ape his royal master, determined to play off the ecclesiastical artillery here, the direction of which he supposed to be deputed to him with his other powers. He had attempted to impose upon the people the observation of the thir- tieth of January as a fast, and to restrain them from manual labor at Christmas ; but his capital stroke was to issue an order in council " that after the first of January, the ministers should ad- " mit all persons of suitable years and not vicious, to the Lord's " supper, and their children to baptism ; and that if any person " should desire baptism or the other sacrament to be administered " according to the liturgy of the church of England, it should be " done in pursuance of the king's command to the colony of " Massachusetts ;# and any minister refusing so to do should suf- " fer the penalty of the statutes of uniformity."
The same week in which he dissolved the assembly, he signi- fied to Moodey in writing, by the hands of the sheriff, that him- self, with Mason and Hinckes, intended to partake of the Lord's supper the next Sunday ; requiring him to administer it to them according to the liturgy ; and, as they justly expected, he at once
(1) Portsmouth Church Records.
* This command was conceived in the following terms :
" And since the principle and foundation of that charter was and is freedom and liberty of conscience ; Wee do hereby charge and require you that free- dom and liberty be duely admitted and allowed, so that they that desire to use the booke of common prayer and perform their devotion in that manner that is established here be not denyed the exercise thereof, or undergoe any preju- dice or disadvantage thereby, they using their liberty peaceably without any disturbance to others ; and that all persons of good and honest lives and con- versations be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's supper according to said booke of common prayer, and their children to baptism." King Charles's Letter in Hutchinson's coll. pap. p. 378.
This command cannot consistently with the acknowledged principle, and strict limitation, be construed any other way, than that the use of the liturgy should be permitted to such ministers and people as desired it. To compel ministers to use it, and leave all others at liberty, was a construction that mal- ice alone could suggest.
16
106
HISTORY OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE. [1684.
denied them. The way was now opened for a prosecution ; and Feb. 5. the attorney general Joseph Rayn, by the governor's order, exhibited an information at the next court of sessions, before Walter Barefoote, judge, Nathaniel Fryer and Henry Greene, as- sistants, Peter Coffin, Thomas Edgerly and Henry Robie, justices, setting forth, " that Joshua Moodey, clerk, being minister of the " town of Portsmouth, within the dominions of King Charles, was " by the duty of his place and the laws of the realm, viz. the " statutes of the fifth and sixth of Edward VI, the first of Eliza- " beth, and the thirteenth and fourteenth of Charles II, required " to administer the Lord's supper in such form as was set forth " in the book of common prayer, and no other. But that the " said Moodey, in contempt of the laws, had wilfully and obstin- " ately refused to administer the same to the honorable Edward " Cranfield, Robert Mason, and John Hinckes, and did obstinate- " ly use some other form."] Moodey in his defence pleaded that he was not episcopally ordained as the statutes required ; nor did he receive his maintenance according to them ; and therefore was not obliged to the performance of what had been command- ed ; that the alleged statutes were not intended for these planta- tions, the known and avowed end of their settlement being the enjoyment of freedom from the imposition of those laws ; which freedom was allowed and confirmed by the king, in the liberty of conscience granted to all. protestants, in the governor's commis- sion.2 Four of the justices, viz. Greene, Robie, Edgerly and Fryer were at first for acquitting him ; but the matter being ad- journed till the next day, Cranfield found means before morning to gain Robie and Greene, who then joined with Barefoote and Coffin, in sentencing him to six months imprisonment, without bail or mainprize.3 The other two persisted in their former opin- ion, and were soon after removed from all their offices .* Moodey
(1) MSS. in files. (2) Portsmouth Chh. Records. (3) Vaughan's Journal.
* [In the Records of the Quarter Sessions, in the hand writing of Richard Chamberlain, clerk of the court, I have found the substance of the debate of the court, which was in private, on the case of Mr. Moodey. " It was deba- ted among the Justices ; and Henry Roby, Justice, did declare his opinion, that he was very clear that the statutes are clear against the said Mr. Moodey, if the commission that gives liberty of conscience doth not take away the force thereof.
"Just. Edgerly-that since his Majesty has been pleased to grant liberty of conscience to all Protestants here, the said Moodey is not liable to the penalty of the statutes for refusing to administer the sacraments according to the form thereof.
" Henry Green, Justice, was of opinion, that the said Moodey is guilty of the breach of the laws, if the clause in the king's commission giving liberty of conscience doth not excuse him.
"Nath. Frier, Justice, did affirm his opinion to be, that whereas his gracious Majesty hath been pleased to grant liberty of conscience to all Protestants in his royal commission, Mr. Moodey being a Protestant is not liable to the pen- alty of the acts of Parliament of the first of Queen Elizabeth, and the 13th and 14th of K. Charles the Second.
107
PROVINCE. EDWARD CRANFIELD.
1684.]
was immediately ordered into custody, without being permitted first to see his family ; and he remained under confinement, in company with Major Vaughan, at the house of Captain Stileman, with liberty of the yard, for thirteen weeks ; " his benefice" be- ing declared forfeited to the crown. The next week after Moo- dy's trial, the governor in a profane bravado sent word to Seaborn Cotton, minister of Hampton, that " when he had prepared his " soul, he would come and demand the sacrament of him as he " had done at Portsmouth."1 Upon which Cotton withdrew to Boston .* The minister of Dover, John Pike, was (as far as I can find) unmolested.+ Exeter had then no settled minister.
(1) Vaughan's Journal.
"Peter Coffin, Justice, did hold that the said Joshua Moodey is guilty of the breach of the said statutes.
"Walter Barefoot, Esquire, was of opinion that the saidJoshua Moodey had broken the said laws, and is liable to the penalty thereof."]
* [Rev. Seaborn Cotton was son of Rev. John Cotton, minister of the First Church in Boston, and was born on the Atlantic ocean, while his parents were on their voyage to New-England. He was baptized at Boston on the 6 of September, 1633, being the second day after the arrival there of his father. He graduated at Harvard college in 1651, in the catalogue of which his name is entered Marigena. He succeeded Rev. John Wheelwright as the minister of Hampton in 1660, and sustained the pastoral office until his death, 19 April, 1686, in the 53d year of his age. There is scarcely any thing found in con- temporary historians respecting his talents and character. Mather, indeed, in the biography of his father, speaks of him as being " a thorough scholar, and an able preacher," and as condemning the errors of his name-sake Pela- gius, a celebrated heresiarch of the fifth century, whose real name was Morgan.
Mr. Cotton was twice married. His first wife was a daughter of Gov. Brad- street, named Dorothy, whose mother was the lady so highly esteemed for her poetical powers. His second wife was the widow of Dr. Anthony Crosby, of Rowley. Besides a number of daughters, who married reputably, Mr. Cotton had two sons. John and Roland. John was born 8 May, 1658, and graduated at Harvard college in 1678, in the same class with his cousin, the celebrated Cotton Mather, and with him, was admitted a member of the sec- ond church in Boston, then under the care of Rev. Increase Mather, on the 31 August, 1679. He probably resided some time in Boston, as his name occurs several times after this period in early records. He was ordained at Hampton as the successor to his father in 1696, and died 27 March, 1710, aged 52, hav- ing had one son and two daughters. Roland, the second son of Rev. Seaborn Cotton, graduated at Harvard college in 1696; went to England, and was a physician in the Isle of Wright.]
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.