Page images


V, 2




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by


in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.





(3.) 13.] THE Court of elections was at Boston, and *3 Thomas Dudley, Esq., was chosen governour. Some trouble there had been in making way for his election, and it was obtained with some difficulty; for many of the elders labored much in it, fearing lest the long continuance of one man in the place should bring it to be for life, and, in time, hereditary. Beside, this gentleman was a man of approved wisdom and godliness, and of much good service to the country, and therefore it was his due to || share || in such honor and benefit as the country had to bestow. The elders, being met at Boston about this matter, sent some of their company to acquaint the old governour with their desire, and the reasons moving them, clearing themselves of all dislike of his government, and seriously professing their sincere affections and respect towards him, which he kindly and thankfully accepted, concurring with them in their motion, and expressing his unfeigned desire of more freedom, that he might a little intend his private occasions, wherein (they well knew) how much he had lately suffered (for his bailiff, whom he trusted with managing his farm, had engaged him £2500 without his privity) in his outward estate.1 This they had heard of, and were much affected there

|| serve

1 See Appendix to this volume, I. 2. for a notice of this misfortune, which caused a change in the author's will.


with, and all the country in general, and took course, (the elders agreeing upon it at that meeting,) that supply should be sent in from the several towns, by a voluntary contribution, for freeing of those engagements; and the court (having no money to bestow, and being yet much indebted) gave his wife three thousand acres of land, and some of the towns sent in liberally, and some others promised, but could perform but little, and the most nothing at all. The whole came § not§ to £500 whereof near half came from Boston, and one gentleman of Newbury, Mr. Richard Dummer, propounded for a supply by a more private way, and for example, himself disbursed £100,1

This first court there fell some difference between the governour and some of the deputies about a vote, upon a motion to have the fine of £200 imposed upon Mr. Robert Keaine to be abated. Some would have had it at £100,- others at 100 || marks, || others at 50, and because the governour put the lowest to the vote first, whereas divers called for the highest, they charged the governour with breach of order, whereupon he grew into some heat, professing that he would not suffer such things, etc. The deputies took this as a menacing, and much offence they took at it; but the next day he cleared his intention to them, and all was quiet.2


1 This unexampled liberality to Winthrop, in his distress, is a more satisfactory proof of the high estimation, in which he stood, than could be afforded by the most elaborate eloquence of eulogy. But the generosity of Dummer is above all praise. His contribution is fifty per cent. above the whole tax of his town, and equal to half the benevolence of the whole metropolis; yet he had been a sufferer under the mistaken views of Winthrop, and the other triumphant sound religionists, as set forth in our note on Vol. I. 248.

At this court, a rate of £1200 was agreed on for the year in these proportions: Boston, £179; Ipswich, £120; Salem, £115; Cambridge, £100; Dorchester, £95; Charlestown and Watertown, each, £90; Lynn, £85; Roxbury, £75; Newbury, £65; Concord, £50; Hingham, £35; Dedham, £30; Braintree, £25; Weymouth, £21; Colchester, £15; Hampton, £10. But it was found, by the depreciation of estates, at a subsequent court, that the change rendered it impossible to collect a large portion of the tax.

2 That Dudley was brother-in-law of the delinquent, and that three fifths of


Mo. 4.] Divers of the inhabitants of Linne, finding themselves straitened, looked out for a new plantation, and going to Long Island, they agreed with the Lord Sterling's agent there, one Mr. Forrett,1 for a parcel of the isle near the west end, and

the fine was abated, appears in Vol. I. 314, in note. Six or seven years later, Benjamin Keayne, husband of Dudley's daughter, Sarah, being in London, repudiated his wife, writing to her father, and his spiritual guides, Wilson and Cotton, in terms of the strongest reprobation of her conduct. These letters are preserved in our first volume of Registry of Deeds, where one would hardly look for such scandal; but it is so disgusting, that I must leave them, with the character of the lady, in oblivion.

Wilson was a relative of K. and his son, Rev. John of Medfield, gave evidence, on 11 February, 1675, as to bestowal of 500 acres, on John Mansfield, by his aunt Anna, relict of K. Before 1652 Sarah K. obtained a new husband, one Pasy. It was, I think, only a match of convenience, procured by her friends; and her father, the Governour, calls her by that name, when he provides in his will the featherbed, rug, and two blankets of the worser sort for her. She died, very poor, 1659, at Roxbury.

1 Either Forrett, whose name is strangely printed in Hubbard, 245, had not granted leave to settle without some conditions, or the people from Lynn had, in his opinion, violated their engagements; for he came, next year, to Boston, and made a very formal protest against their proceedings in these words: —

"Know all men by these presents, that whereas Edward Tomlyns and Timothy Tomlyns, together with one Hansard Knowles and others, have lately entered and taken possession of some part of the Long Island in New England, which was formerly granted by the letters patent of our sovereign lord, king Charles, to the right honorable William, Earl of Stirling, and his heirs, — I, James Forrett, gentleman, by virtue of a commission under the hand and seal of the said earl to me made, for the disposing and ordering of the said Long Island, do hereby protest and intimate, as well to the said Edward Tomlyns and others the said intruders, as to all others, whom it may concern, that neither they, nor any of them, nor any other person or persons (not claiming by or from the said earl) have, or shall have, or enjoy any lawful right, title, or possession of, in, or to the said island, or any part thereof, but that the said earl, his heirs or assigns may, and will at all times, when they please, implead or eject either by course of law, or lawful force, if need be, all the said intruders, their servants, tenants, or assigns, and may and will recover against them, and every of them, all damages and costs in this behalf sustained, any color of title or pretence of right by grant from the governour of New England, or any other, notwithstanding. In testimony whereof, I have made and published this protest and intimation before John Winthrop, one of the magistrates and council of the Massachusetts in New England aforesaid, and have desired, that the same may be recorded there and in other jurisdiction in those parts, and have published and showed the same to the said Edward Tomlyns, in the presence of

*5 agreed with the Indians for their right.


The Dutch, hear

ing of this, and making claim to that part of the island by a former purchase of the Indians, sent men to take possession of the place, and set up the arms of the Prince of Orange upon a tree. The Linne men sent ten or twelve men with provisions, etc., who began to build, and took down the prince's arms, and, in place thereof, an Indian had drawn an unhandsome face. The Dutch took this in high displeasure, and sent


the witnesses under named. Dated at Boston, 28 day of the 7 month, An. Dom. 1641, an Regis Domini nostri Caroli Angliæ, etc., decimo septimo." "The above named James Forrett, did make this protestation the 28 of the said month in the year aforesaid, at Boston, in the Massachusetts aforesaid. Before me,


It is a little singular, that, in the volume of our Records, the signature of Winthrop is an original. But it is more strange, that no notice of this solemn instrument is found in Wood's Sketch of the settlement of Long Island, or any other book, to my knowledge.

Edward Tomlyns had been, it will be remembered, representative in the first court for Lynn, and afterwards served in September, 1635, and September, 1639. Timothy, who may be supposed his brother, was deputy in eleven courts, between March, 1634–5, and May, 1640.

1 Trumbull's account, I. 119, is not very satisfactory, though it assists our topography: "Capt. Howe and other Englishmen, in behalf of Connecticut, purchased a large tract of the Indians, the original proprietors on Long Island. This tract extended from the eastern part of Oyster Bay to the western part of Home's or Holme's Bay to the middle of the great plain. It lay on the northern part of the island, and extended southward about half its breadth. Settlements were immediately begun upon the lands, and by the year 1642 had made considerable advancement." Some mistake of the reverend historian is here observable; for, in coincidence with Winthrop, he mentions, on the third page after, the breaking up of this settlement, and imprisoning some, and driving the rest away. I doubt, also, that the purchase was not made in behalf of Connecticut. Trumbull takes no notice of the negotiation with Lord Stirling's agent. He has, besides, forgotten to mention the English afterwards setting down on the eastern point of the island, nearly a hundred miles from their former habitation. Thinking only of the wrongs of Connecticut, he carelessly took a very brief statement of the commissioners of the United Colonies from Hazard, II. 164. But the right appears to me to have been on the side of the Dutch.

2 Lechford, 44, says, "Lieut. Howe pulled down the Dutch arms." His name was Daniel, and he was deputy for Lynn, I think, in the courts, May and September, 1636; in April, May, September, and November, 1637.

« PreviousContinue »